I know the answer to that one: William Jefferson Clinton.

Fortunately for him and his sterling repuation, he was long out of office by the time the resulting housing bubble burst.

Don't get me started on the huge damage these largely Democratic policies did to the nation. Back when the money was flowing like water, these policies conveniently resulted in huge bonuses to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives (mostly Dems), as well as large campaign donations to the Dem party. Absolutely scandalous abuse of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE's) for the gain of big wig Dems, IMO.

 

Hard to argue with that last paragraph, but one small note. Bachmann gets credit for hollering her head off to stop the bonus to Freddie and Fanny execs, but fully a year before Barney Rubble (I mean Frank) wanted all those bonus canceled before they could be distributed. It fell on deaf ears at all levels of government.

 

I must say, this is a very intelligent conversation. Kudos, guys. - Og

 

I must agree Og.

 

Sorry, but I don't recall Frank being against the whole thing. How many years were the big bonuses paid before Frank got upset about it? Got any links?

Not saying Barney was not opposed to what was going on at Freddie and Fannie....but if he was, he was being drowned out by his own party. Most famously by Maxine Waters and her defense of Franklin Raines, included in the article and video below.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/2...e-mac-in-2004/

 

Yes, that would be a balanced approach, but Democrats do not do this. The entitlement programs are the corner stone of Democrats, which means additional spending, so they try to get the money out of the "rich"

Clinton was at the top of the heap for redistribution of wealth.
He raised top end tax brackets ( just like carter ) so he could fund give away programs ( the one quite a few people in this thread knew the answer to was $ 1B ).
That is ( trying ) to take from the rich and give to the poor, which is a functional definition of redistribution of wealth, which is what Socialists do. Most notably Socialist Democracies still working today are Norway & Sweden ( they do the same thing - tax those who make "too much" to fund programs for the poor ).

Name 1 Democrat that does not have a tax the rich and give to the poor program. ( I use the term "rich" loosely here, it can mean those with slightly more ).

 

So what are you saying? Do you not want any entitlements? Because you know "rich" people get it too. so really entitlements give to everyone because everyone pays into it? or is that not true?

 

First when I said all Republicans are racists it was tongue and cheek. Much like calling every Democrat a Socialist is going too far.

Socialists want everyone to have the same regardless of effort or contribution.

We can have social safety nets and not give up our freedoms. There was a time in our country that we had poor houses. Old people that had no one to help them went to these places to die.

I have to laugh when people scream about entitlements until it is something they can get...then hands off.

 

What entitlement program is for the rich funded by tax payers money ?

No entitlement programs do not give to everyone. Where do you get this from ?

Welfare is an entitlement program. Those who pay taxes do not qualify for welfare, and do not get it. There is an example, as it seems you do not understand what an entitlement program is.

 

How do you equate the 2 to be the same ?
To be on an even field, you would have to say that Republicans are racists, and all democrats are sexual deviants that have no respect for the sanctity for the institution of marriage.

[QUOTE=K-Mac Attack;4581334.....<snip>.....Socialists want everyone to have the same regardless of effort or contribution.....<snip>.....[/QUOTE]

Try a bit of research on the topic, Norway & Sweden are both social democracies that have redistribution of wealth via taxation. They run a socialist country.

 

SSCULLY is obviously able to answer for himself, but you are missing the point if you conclude that when people say they want fiscal restraint and responsibility they mean they want to take away all entitlement programs. It's a misnomer that conservatives are heartless bastards. We realize that there are some people who need our helping hand. The problem is, we aren't even reaching the people who truely need our help because there is entire class of people who have learned to get something for nothing by trampeling over thoes with real need to get to the front of the line. You're a young guy so you might have the chance to see what is really happening in the real world, unlike a couple people here who don't seem to be living in the same country as the rest of us.

There exisits a segment of the population that bullies it's self to the front of the line becasue they've been exploited by liberals and progressives in our government. Once you give them something that they would otherwise have to provide for themselves, they consider it a violation of their rights if you eventually take that entitlelment away.

 

Medicare and Social Security goes to the wealthy and poor alike and it is an entitlement.

Actually you are kind of off beat on the idea that social programs don't benefit those that pay taxes. I pay more in taxes than some people make but benefited from a program funded by the Department of Human Services.

One of my twin sons had some significant delays early in life and needed physical therapy, speech therapy etc. My private insurance only paid a small amount and the services he needed were very expensive. Luckily there are programs like Early Intervention to help and he is up to speed today.

We would have been unable to locate providers needed and it would be tough to pay this out of pocket.

The flip side would be to do nothing and let him be behind and burden the schools and it would probably cost more in the long run.

I agree there needs to be changes for people that have spent generations on welfare, pop fatherless kid after kid out, etc.

 

Thank you for correcting me on not having this listed before
.
Keep in mind with SS, the monthly payment is reduced based upon income to the person, which can diminish to the point of not covering the Medicare monthly cost that is taken out.

Look at the Health Care Law, if your health insurance costs too much ( costs, not as the MSM reports it as a gold health insurance plan - meaning your coverage covers too much ) , you get to pay taxes on it, so another entitlement program can be funded. Funny part, with health care costs, this tax will be placed on quite a few union members.

It is becoming a case of do well, but not too well less you get punished for it by the government taking more from the individual.

On a side note, I am glad to hear everything worked out for your son.

 

Not everyone pays into the tax system. Granted with social security the person must pay into the system to receive anything, but the rest is there whether the person has paid or not. The majority of the giveaway programs are funded through income tax and less than half of the people in the country pay those.

 

I had social security in mind, Didn't even think of welfare