|
|
|||||
|
9 votes
|
|
10% | ||
|
22 votes
|
|
25% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
3% | ||
|
4 votes
|
|
5% | ||
|
12 votes
|
|
14% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
1% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
2% | ||
|
10 votes
|
|
11% | ||
|
24 votes
|
|
28% | ||
Now, back to my posting.......
In 1990 Bush unloaded most of his Harken shares for $835,000 about two months before Harken announced a big loss. That triggered an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into possible insider trading by Bush, but the SEC took no action.
Texas Rangers did not crash. Bush takes credit for conceiving The Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he bought in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors. Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth.
Bush invested just over $600,000, but Arlington taxpayers invested a lot more.
"It was $135 million worth of sales tax money," said attorney Glenn Sodd. "The city donated a good bit of land to the project. They got a sales tax exemption on all the items that were purchased for the stadium. We have a property tax in Texas and they were given as part of the deal a property tax exemption." A total of at least $200 million, according to Sodd.
And there's more: Sodd sued the Rangers on behalf of two families whose property was seized for stadium parking. A jury found they were paid about one-seventh of what the land was worth.
Then we see what happened to the surplus that our government had when he took office. 2 unfinanced wars later and the rest is history.
I agree, he is almost as bad as Obama and thus why neither of them got my votes.
2. Bush signed more dead warrants than any governor in the history of the USA, until Rick "ooops" Perry broke his record.
3, Romney has never sogned a death warrant.
4. Romney is a brilliant busniess mind.
5. Bush is an idiot.
and, so forth and so forth....
If you want to argue issues I'll go along with you but this is the last patently stupid question I'll respond to.
Bud
The low information right wing voter will parrot the talking point question, "Why do liberals want to PUNISH success." Here lies the difference between conservatives and progressives/liberals on the definition of "success." Conservatives often regurgitate Romney's definition of "success": to becoming wealthy (unsaid--at whatever the cost to others). Progressives define "success" as accomplishing your goal, whether it is to be a teacher, a first responder, a fisherman or even be the leader or owner of a corporation.
Another difference between conservatives and progressives at all levels, is that when a conservative sees a family loosing their home to foreclosure, he is most likely to see only a means to turn a profit for himself. The progressive sees only a family tragedy, and feels empathy. The conservative will blame the family, but the progressive will understand that it may well have not been their fault--loss of job, loss of health, sickness bankrupting them because the insurance companies will not cover most of the medical bills, etc.
Yet another difference is that Romney, as did Bush and the rest of the conservatives want the ...
The low information right wing voter will parrot the talking point question, "Why do liberals want to PUNISH success." Here lies the difference between conservatives and progressives/liberals on the definition of "success." Conservatives often regurgitate Romney's definition of "success": to becoming wealthy (unsaid--at whatever the cost to others). Progressives define "success" as accomplishing your goal, whether it is to be a teacher, a first responder, a fisherman or even be the leader or owner of a corporation.
Another difference between conservatives and progressives at all levels, is that when a conservative sees a family loosing their home to foreclosure, he is most likely to see only a means to turn a profit for himself. The progressive sees only a family tragedy, and feels empathy. The conservative will blame the family, but the progressive will understand that it may well have not been their fault--loss of job, loss of health, sickness bankrupting them because the insurance companies will not cover most of the medical bills, etc.
Yet another difference is that Romney, as did Bush and the rest of the conservatives want the health of you and your children to be marketable commodities on Wall Street solely for the sake of profit, which is high cost because the corporations run on roughly 30% overhead. Progressives want everyone to have basic health care through an inexpensive single payer system run by our government, which runs its health system on about 3% to 5% overhead.
The Affordable Care Act was an attempt to soften the weight of wall Street on the average person, but the conservatives are eager to increase that weight by repealing the Act, weak as it already is.
There is much more, but just these things alone makes me happy that I'm a progressive.
Okay, let the fight begin.
The big difference is Mitt is smart like a fox. George's IQ is the same as his shoe size. George liked hanging around small cafes and feed supply stores while campaigning. Romney recoiled in horror when a woman appraoached him saying she was flat broke. He dug $60 out of his pocket for her then backed off like she was a carrier of some plague.
Romney’s top two economic advisors are men who served as George W. Bush’s top economic advisors: Glenn Hubbard and Greg Mankiw. If anyone can remember what happened to the U.S. economy under George Bush, it would have to be these two economists. Yet Mitt thinks things will be different with him. Go figure.
arrogant, not so smarts. But, the big difference I can identify - Bush lives in single story "ranch style" houses and Romney lives in three story houses where an elevator is needed for his autos, to keep them available near the bedrooms and avoid the pains of having to walk downstairs to the garage. Yes, that differentiates them sufficiently to make them a bit different. Both are owned by their friends at the Reagan Banks and Wall Street.