[quote=“hi12345”][quote=“Namahottie”][quote=“hi12345”]
and how would u like it if your business will be going out of business due to tax dollars going into Obama’s welfare state? (see his record as state senator)[/quote]
“As of today Chicago has highest sales tax in the nation,” the IL GOP writes today. “Fight for increase led by Obama’s pick for Cook County Board President…”
And the IL GOP makes some great points on Barack Obama’s hometown’s latest development:
CHICAGO - The Illinois Republican Party today is asking the American people to take a glimpse into what America will be like under a Barack Obama presidency, as Chicago today claims the highest sales tax in the country.
Much like Barack Obama will do if elected president, Obama’s pick for Cook County Board President, Todd Stroger, fought vigorously to ensure Chicago became the highest taxed city in the nation.
“Barack Obama’s vision for America is playing out daily in his hometown, especially when it comes to tax policy,” said Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna. “With a struggling economy, this is not the kind of change Americans need.”[/quote]
I’m not seeing the connection. Cook County taxes are for the Chicago and surrounding areas and ILL GA has nothing to do with them being passed. Obama was loong gone before this came into play. So this is all just another GOP scare tactic.
Yeah, it’s the legacy of the Democratic Political Machine that has dominated Chicago for decades and decades. A machine that Obama has always supported wholeheartedly.
hi12345, I’ll have a look at your links later, but you’re dealing with a pretty skeptical crowd here. We’ve had 8-years of Republican-dominated legislative and executive branches, and look where we’re at. If you go back and look at the economic figures of the past half-century, you’ll see a pretty consistent pattern of declining economy and soaring deficits under Republican administrations, booming economy and lower deficits under Democratic ones.
And yes, Glass-Steagal (sp?) was repealed under Clinton. Its author, though, was McCain’s chief economic adviser and Tainan Cowboy’s favorite non-former-Democrat Phil Gramm - and the philosophy behind the act was pure Republican: de-regulation is the cure for everything. It’s a philosophy that McCain still adheres to, which is why any yah-yah that he puts up right before the election about helping out main street and home-owners is about as worthless as Bush’s ‘alternative energy research’ ones were back in '04.
In response to criticism (of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Acxt), President Clinton himself stated:
"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill ... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence." (interview with Bartiromo)
Barney Frank, a dem, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee:
In September of 2003, Frank opposed Bush administration proposals for increasing oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by creating an independent agency to supervise. The proposal would have moved oversight from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the new agency. Frank stated: “These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
There is no greater evidence of the utter disdain Republicans have for their fellow Americans than the constant peddling of blatant lies and obfuscations.
Get it in your heads, Fannie and Freddie were the symptoms, not the cause. The root was the feds printing money and the reliance on bonds (packaged debt) to exacerbate a bubble.
No, but I understand why that is being blamed, as it’s the easier economic principle to grasp. People understand housing loans, but know very little about the bond market. The real issue is the Fed propping up the housing bubble by printing money to buy bonds from the banks. The flawed premise was that the housing market bubble was sustainable.
The other day I read about how we have faired over the last 80 years under Democrat and Republican presidents. Any one presidency can go through rough economic times that mighty be no fault of those in power. However, once you’re looking at 80 years, the law of large numbers starts taking over.
On 10/14 in the New York Times.
"Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?
As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years."