The Republican 'solution' of DRILL DRILL DRILL wasn't the solution which is good the Democrats rejected doing it. Speculation was the problem, like the Housing problem too.
No one forced banks to loan money to people who could not afford a loan. The finance companies choose NOT to do proper due dilligence about income to debt coverage. Feel free to post anything confirming this point, facts, not opinion. On Feb 21, 6:43 pm, Ohio mark <[email protected]> wrote: > we are experiencing this meltdown due to various reason, none of which > have anything to do with people getting their money back from the > government. > let's start with the spike in gas prices that the dems refused to do > anything about. this started it all off. > and then there were those rules the dems forced on the lending > companies making them give loans to people who couldn't afford a 6 > pack, let alone a house. and the dems did what about all this? they > ignored it as well. no this whole economic meltdown was caused by, > ignored by, and exasperated by the dems. > in ever case of an economic slowdown the only thing that has worked to > correct it is tax cuts. > > On Feb 21, 6:29 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ok first Republicans say $3 a week was a good tax cut > > to working Americans, but $13 a week isn't enough? > > > Second the tax cuts to the rich didn't work because > > if they had we would not be experiencing the economic meltdown > > we are now in! > > > On Feb 21, 6:09 pm, Ohio mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > so let's see. if you make more money, you pay more in taxes. so if > > > you pay more in taxes then it would only make sense you get more back > > > in a tax cut. or is this simple concept lost on the libs? oh wait, > > > that's right, libs are the ones who want to give tax cuts to people > > > who don't pay taxes. can you say welfare? > > > > On Feb 21, 5:45 pm, VT Sean Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Maybe the Bush Republicans should think before they > > > > complain! This is about Cognitive Dissonance AGAIN! > > > > > If you made under $100,000 a year your tax cut from > > > > Bush equaled $3.0425 a week. > > > > > So which is a better tax cut for working class Americans? > > > > > $13 a week or $3,0425 a week? > > > > > If you earned less than $100,000 your tax cut was $158.61. > > > > by VirtualTruth Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 10:52:22 AM EDT > > > > > If you earned less than $100,000 your share of the tax cut was $158.61 > > > > on Average. > > > > > If you earned more than $100,000, your share of the tax cut was > > > > $4,754.57 on Average. > > > > > So if you earn over $100,000 a year, you should vote republican. > > > > > If you are earning less than $100,000 a year and vote Republican, you > > > > should ask yourself WHY? > > > > > For $158.61? The increase in gas wiped that out in a week. > > > > > If you do not believe me, do the math yourself. Here are my > > > > calculations... > > > > > I am going to break this down for everyone based on the > > > > ADMINISTRATIONS numbers.... > > > > > In 2003 the Administration said there were 92 million tax payers who > > > > on 'average' would receive $1083 each. This does not mean each of the > > > > 92 million GOT $1083, it just meant that if you took the entire tax > > > > cut and divided it by the number of tax payers it comes to $1083. > > > > > The reality is this. > > > > > The total tax cut in 2003 was $99,636,000,000. > > > > > $87,978,588,000 goes to people making over $100,000 a year. > > > > > If you make over $100,000 a year, the 'average' tax cut you received > > > > was $4,754.57 > > > > > 18,504,000 received this on average. > > > > > The rest of America, the lower middle class and the working poor > > > > received what was left. That is $11,657,412,000 to be divided between > > > > the remaining 73,496,000 Tax payers. > > > > > So if you made less than $100,000 you received on Average a tax cut of > > > > $158.61. > > > > > So you tell me, who HONESTLY benefited from the Bush Tax cuts? > > > > >http://www.whitehouse.gov/... > > > > > According to theTax Policy Institute: > > > > 45.8% of the benefits from a reduction in capital gains and dividends > > > > went to people with incomes over $1 million. There were 284,000 > > > > taxpayers in this income group. This is .19% of all taxpayers. > > > > > An additional 10.8% of the benefits went to people with incomes > > > > between $500,000 and $1 million. There were 593,000 taxpayers in this > > > > income group. This is .40% of all taxpayers. > > > > > 17.4% of the benefits went to people with incomes between $200,000 and > > > > $500,000. There were 3,588,000 taxpayers in this income group. This is > > > > 2.46% of all taxpayers. > > > > > 14.3% of the benefits went to people with incomes of $100,000 to > > > > $200,000. There were 14,039,000 taxpayers in this income group. > > > > This is 9.66% of all taxpayers. > > > > In other words -- > > > > 88.3% of the total benefits from Bush tax cuts went to people with > > > > incomes over $100,000. In addition, the total number of taxpayers who > > > > got a vast majority of the benefits represent only 12.71% of all > > > > taxpayers.http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/... > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum/web/if-you-earned-less...quoted > > > > text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
