Tea Party causes Payroll Tax Increase

It was a Democrat driven debacle. Bush and the Republicans tried to get a more responsible program centered on help to new buyers putting together down payments and become responsible homeowners. For the Democrats it was lower standards and even no standards. That moved purchasing from responsible to irresponsible buyers. And then and now they keep trying to prop them up rather than let the market work it's way out of the mess.

 

Bush on housing: Congress should do more
The president calls on lawmakers to 'act quickly' on his proposals to ease the mortgage crisis, but not all of them have an equal chance of passage.
email EMAIL | print PRINT | digg DIGG | RSS RSS
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
January 3 2008: 5:06 PM EST

As before they didn't.

 

So by power to set housing policy yiu mean askIng congress. As I said, blame house gop

 

LOL LOL LOL LOL.
Stawberry or lime kool-ade. Which do you prefer.
Did you read the article. What was the makeup of congress when Glass-stegall was repealled? It was a political driven debacle. Failure to see it is blindness.
The Rs were in charge when the debacle was put in place, the Rs were in charge when the peak was happening. The D's were leading the way but the R's were standing in line with hand out waiting for the debacle to unfold so they could walk away with millions.

 

Which bill are you referring to?

 

Of course, because the Democrats had such overwhelming power in the government while the housing bubble blew up.

Mr. Ownership Society had nothing to do with it.

 

In 2002, the Bush administration charted a more aggressive course by pushing for lower down payments and touting vouchers that would allow public-housing tenants to one day own homes. ... In 2004, President George W. Bush campaigned on lower barriers to homeownership as part of the domestic agenda for his second term. The Republican Party platform that year singled out the down payment as the "most significant barrier to homeownership."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122118681151726565.html

 

The lost Social Security/Medicare revenues caused by the reductions in the FICA/Payroll tax rates are being replaced with revenues from general taxation. As one of the 60% of American families that actually pays income taxes I object to others stealing from my pocket to support programs they want but are unwilling to fund.

If we want less money being taken out of our pockets in FICA/Payroll taxes how about we abolish Social Security and Medicare that those taxes fund and abolish the taxes completely?

For those that want Social Security and Medicare then they should be calling for an increase in the taxes (FICA/Payrool) that fund those programs as both are in serious financial problems. Neither of these programs currently have enough revenues to cover expendatures.

 

And?.....Down payments, assistance for down payments.

 

They had enough and won the fight.

 

They would have had Mr. Ownership Society not opposed them.

 

He opposed the weaker bill and supported the stronger Senate bill, the one not one Democrat voted for. The Democrats blocked the bill that would have reigned in the reckless loaning and put the necessary controls on F&F and averted the bubble from bursting as it did.

 

He opposed the bill supported by over 90% of the House Republicans.

And as a result we got NO bill.

 

The weaker bill that could have made things worse as opposed to the stronger Senate bill that was totally blocked by Democrats.

Go read and listen to the links it will inform you better.

 

Not according to the 90% of the House Republicans who voted for it as well as the WH appointed acting head of the agency responsible for overseeing F/F.

Go read and listen to the links it will inform you better.

 

Post where the House Republicans stated their bill was the stronger bill. The Republicans in the Senate passed the stronger bill, one that actually would reign in F&F that is the bill the Republican WH supported and not one Democrat supported.

 

Now you're arguing that more than 90% of the Republicans voted for a bill they thought could make thiungs worse?

I suppose looking at their record that could be an arguably valid proposition.

 

I haven't argued they didn't vote for their bill. The bill the House Republicans and Democrats came up with didn't go far enough. The Senate bill which the White House supported and not one Democrats supported did.

Too hard for you or something?