Barack Obama

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

Forget the claims by Creative Mind, Bush did not win in 2000 he stole the election and was appointed president 5/4 by the unsupreme court and 04 there have been questions about Ohio plus Weasel Bush ran on fear after 9/11 claiming only he could protect us from the terrorist Jennifer

LMAO! Jen, I love you. You are always so nice overall on the boards.

But, yeah, just "forget the claims by Creative Mind" -- you know, my mad scientist claims -- BWA-HA-HA-HA (insert maniacal laughter here). You know, the claim that I could back up with an actual news link, which again cited an actual recount that cost over half a million dollars, that was conducted by a reputable accounting firm and which was sponsored by a consortium of nationally recognized newspapers. A recount, by the way, that was held and conducted to the very same standards that GORE wanted. And the end result? Bush still won.

But, hey, I'm sure THEY were all on the take, TOO, right?

Look, no one is saying it wasn't a close election, but you people on the Left have GOT to get over "Bush derangement syndrome" and just accept that he won the Florida race. Seriously, get on with your lives. And when it came to his 2004 re-election, he not only won the Electoral College, but he won the POPULAR vote by a wide margin of OVER 3 MILLION VOTES. Which is what cracks me up. When Bush won a tight election...he stole it. He didn't have the numbers to make you happy. But then when he turns right around and DOES win by a wide margin and with large numbers...you still can't change your tune. Somehow he stole THAT election too.

And yet you people on the Left are ALSO the same ones who refuse to acknowledge the lies and fraudulent votes that a group like Acorn got away with in the Obama election. And let the record show that's NOT just me making a baseless accusation. For fuck's sake, they're now under FEDERAL INDICTMENT in 14 states for voter fraud.

What makes this so laughable to me is that those on the Left...who apparently toss and turn in their sleep and just can't accept Democrats lost the Florida election and who continue...to this day...to still bitch about it and play their broken record...

...Are the SAME people who are now insisting that Al Franken won the Minnesota Senate race, even though the numbers in that election are SMALLER and TIGHTER than they were in the Bush/Gore race.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

When it was Bush, it was a stolen election.
Or not every vote was counted.
Or they weren't counted right.
Or the margin wasn't wide enough to declare him winner.

But when it comes to Al Franken and AFTER the election is over and the votes are tallied and Norm Coleman wins, suddenly... gasp!... something like 300 votes are "accidentally" discovered in a box in the back seat of a car that... gasp!... "someone" conveniently forgot to turn in which... gasp!... just HAPPENS (>wink, wink<) to be JUST enough to tip the election. At which point that IS good enough for those on the Left to say "Franken won! I don't care if it was only by one vote! He won! That's good enough for me! No need to count or recount any further! We're done here! Move along! PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN STANDING BEHIND THE CURTAIN OVER THERE!"

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

Shall we make the lieing weasel Bush a saint now or shall we just make him GOD?

Plus he F up the econemy big time and ran up record debts, But the weasel did give hope to the retarted by showing even a retart can be president if he has family in high enough places to steel an election Jennifer

First...no one is calling for Bush to be a Saint or god. For crying out loud, Jen, if you really read what many of us have been posting and saying here -- instead of having just a knee-jerk reaction to simply outright hating Bush -- you'd clearly see that many of us on the Right WERE MAD AT BUSH for many of his mistakes, such as spending too much. And WE'VE CRITCIZED HIM AND SAID IT HERE IN THIS THREAD REPEATEDLY.

Which brings me to addressing your second point.
Tell you what, let's have a show of hands over this one...

In the long run, as each and every American is FINALLY going to have to pay the piper for all the debt that our government has racked up, to reduce the national debt, who are you REALLY going to be MORE mad at? And who do you REALLY think your children or grandkids, your young nieces and nephews, are REALLY going to be pissed at as they grow up themselves and inherit tomorrow's financial world as all these bills come due?

George Bush, who left you with a $900 Billion dollar debt, which frankly was too large and should be held against him.

OR...

Barack Obama, who in only his first 100 days in office, has spent more money than EVERY PRESIDENT since George Washington COMBINED. And whose budget for this year could actually exceed TWO TRILLION-PLUS DOLLARS -- and still counting and going upwards since he's not even done spending yet, since NOW he wants to tack on Healthcare reform this year TOO. Which means in just ONE YEAR ALONE he's already managed to TRIPLE the Bush debt. Not to mention his economic plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office (which is a non-partisan group and simply runs the numbers to an accurate degree) has ALSO already calculated that Obama's plan is going to run a ONE TRILLION DEFICIT PER YEAR -- per year!!! -- FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS AS WELL.

So, let's have a show of hands. Who did worse?
Bush leaving you with $900 Billion in debt...
...Or Obama leaving you THIRTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS in the hole?

Come on, I know everyone took basic math.
This one isn't THAT tough to answer.

[desirouspussy]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

And lastly, your one statement is a bit deceptive when you say he was the worst president ever and even the "experts" agree with that.

What I said was 'It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever'.

It appears you are twisting things around a bit. Perhaps a habit you picked up from George Bush.

[transjen]

The 900 billon is not counting the wars KING GEORGE always left the funding for them out of the budget and every other month was running to congress for more funds for the troops, As far as Obamas buliding apon the debt is due to his idea on how to restart the econemy, His plan is to create jobs by rebuliding roads dams and other projects, Will it work? IN the short term i think it will help but the jobs created are only tempery at best as sadly KING GEORGE was on the lets outsource all the US jobs express, Oh if you and Rush are so worried about the debt level then stop crying we need more tax cuts for the rich only and by the way the 13 trillon debt figure is counting KING GEORGES WARS Jennifer

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

First...no one is calling for Bush to be a Saint or god. For crying out loud, Jen, if you really read what many of us have been posting and saying here -- instead of having just a knee-jerk reaction to simply outright hating Bush -- you'd clearly see that many of us on the Right WERE MAD AT BUSH for many of his mistakes, such as spending too much. And WE'VE CRITCIZED HIM AND SAID IT HERE IN THIS THREAD REPEATEDLY.

It's funny I read this over and over on political discussion boards, and I have for the past year and a half. You know when it was politically prudent for Cons to distance themselves from Bush. Suddenly he went from being a poor guy who wasn't given a chance by whining liberals to "spending like a drunk sailor". Funny how those behaviors were hardly invisible during the previous 7 years, but rank-n-file Cons were so willing to overlook that as long as Georgie stopped funding foreign aid that supported abortion and/or birth control, threatened a Constitutional amendment to define marriage, and gave tax money to churches to fund their programs rather than secular bodies.

Now when you all are being called out you are trying to play it off like "yeah he made some mistakes, and he wasn't a real Scotsman..urm Conservative". Better yet distancing yourselves from the social right wing that kept getting your stuff elected because middle America is starting to be wary of that agenda.

You all may have been spending the past 8 years ranting into the wind, and I have no doubt that you honestly feel what you are saying. However, I have been seeing the same stuff on different sites posted by people who couldn't stop blaming (whining, divisive, communist, petulant, etc.) liberals/Democrats for 6+ years of the trouble with Bush/Cheney/Rove.

[megawatty101]

Originally Posted by Bionca

I really don't know what to say without sounding like I'm trying to be insulting. Obama's mother was a US citizen and she gave birth in Hawaii. That makes him a US citizen.

Indonesian school records ... seriously??

As far as why doesn't he show the records? Well if I was in his position, I wouldn't. As long as the SCotUS, Congress, and the Senate were satisfied with the information presented. Also, one must look at the initial reasons that this was even brought up. I wouldn't dignify those accusation with a response either.

I think the dumbass GOP fell into a trap with the Muslim school thing. The real story is that Obama is obviously a friggin secular guy posing as a Christian, when so much of what he says contradicts claiming to be religious. The Muslim thing was a red herring. It sounded so far fetched and silly, thus making anyone who went on to make other inquiries about Obama look silly. The citizenship flap was the coup de gras.


The press played their part for Obama however, by not investigating Obama's Church. WTF was he doing in a liberation theology "church?" Anyone interested please google up liberation theology and black liberation theology, anyone with some reasoning will realize that adherants to this faith can't actually believe in the supernatural. If instructions say to put marxist principles above a supposedly omnipotent diety, you have a problem.

[transjen]

Where was the press in 2000? Why was W left untouched why was nothing said about his drinking and drug useage and why wasn't he asked about being AWOL from the AIR NATIONAL GUARD and why no questions asked about how he got in instead of going to nam? Jennifer

[randolph]

Originally Posted by transjen

Where was the press in 2000? Why was W left untouched why was nothing said about his drinking and drug useage and why wasn't he asked about being AWOL from the AIR NATIONAL GUARD and why no questions asked about how he got in instead of going to nam? Jennifer

Yes Jen, the Reflubs are adept at throwing stones at the other guy (i.e. Clinton's blow job) but looked the other way while their buddies raped the whole country. Now they are nit picking Obama instead of banding together to help Obama save our way of life.

FLUSH RUSH! CHAIN CHENEY!

[megawatty101]

Originally Posted by transjen

Where was the press in 2000? Why was W left untouched why was nothing said about his drinking and drug useage and why wasn't he asked about being AWOL from the AIR NATIONAL GUARD and why no questions asked about how he got in instead of going to nam? Jennifer

That was touched on. I got news of it and I was in Marine Corps Boot Camp!

[megawatty101]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes Jen, the Reflubs are adept at throwing stones at the other guy (i.e. Clinton's blow job) but looked the other way while their buddies raped the whole country. Now they are nit picking Obama instead of banding together to help Obama save our way of life.

FLUSH RUSH! CHAIN CHENEY!

Well are we so sure we can trust Obama? That's what a lot of people are saying. First he goes out of his way to say the U.S. is not a Christian nation, it's a secular one (which can be taken either way) than bends statistics to say that the U.S. is one of the largest Muslims nations.


The truth is this guy is a Chameleon. I would have been happier with Hillary, I knew what she stands for. There's a lot of Democrats I would have been happier with. When Obama acts like he is an outsider but he's been plucked from obscurity by some of the most powerful Democratic party insiders, that makes me wonder. When he constantly changes his tune to fit whoever he's speaking with, that makes me wonder. When he goes out of his way to Apologize to the world for America's mistakes but says little to nothing about what the Muslim world has done and is doing to the West, I really wonder.


There are times when I like this guy, but with this trip and some other statements, I really dislike him. It's too bad the GOP didn't run somebody better than McCain. But they're still punchdrunk from 2006 and the other parties aren't large enough yet.

[transjen]

Of course we all know W never lied In fact when did that lieing little weasle W ever tell the truth? Q: how did you know W was lieing? A: his lipps were moving Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Oh if you and Rush are so worried about the debt level then stop crying we need more tax cuts for the rich only and by the way the 13 trillon debt figure is counting KING GEORGES WARS Jennifer

LOL all of Bush's debt during his 8 years in office is 8% of that $13 trillion. Obama's debt during his first 2 months is 21%. What part of this don't you understand?

Originally Posted by transjen

Of course we all know W never lied In fact when did that lieing little weasle W ever tell the truth? Q: how did you know W was lieing? A: his lipps were moving Jennifer

Jen you are so full of blind hate for Bush. I don't think you've ever backed up anything you've said, and consequentially no one takes you seriously. And btw, if you claim Bush lied about WMD, then you'd have to conclude that Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Edwards also lied about the same thing. Half these people "lied" about WMD before Bush ever took office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

Originally Posted by transjen

Yes it was the Charlotte SUN TIMES or SUN HAROLD i forget which now but it was a locale paper in SW FL that did the recount Jennifer

This is the closest you've ever come to backing up any of your claims. Unfortunately it's a dead end. I can't find anything to your sources that even you don't have. What your claiming happened would have been huge news... that when all the votes were carefully counted, free of any deadlines, Gore won!? That's huge news. Give me some sources!

[transjen]

OH excuss me, HE only ran up a small debt which was fine becacuse it was for tax cuts for the super rich , and the little guys will get humped paying it back now you're pissing your pants over the super debt caused by the no good rotten Dems and worst of all they expect the super rich to pay there share God forbid horrors of horrors And of course you will never believe anything i say or any souce i could mention unless it from a rightwing news sourse like Rush or foxnews, To you W is GOD and you will never see him for the peice of crap he was and of course you believe he never did anything wrong and you are quick to blame the Dems for everything, And here's a source for you it's called a history book in which you will find Clinton didn't take half info and cherry pick it to twist into a form he could use to start a war with Iraq W lied Clinton wanted more postive proof. Clinton's only error was not hunting down Binladin [ i know i probly spelled his name wrong] W didn't hurt him either oh he gave speechs and sound bits but he never put any real effert in hunting him my souce is he's still out there Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

OH excuss me, HE only ran up a small debt which was fine becacuse it was for tax cuts for the super rich , and the little guys will get humped paying it back now you're pissing your pants over the super debt caused by the no good rotten Dems and worst of all they expect the super rich to pay there share God forbid horrors of horrors

Whatever humping the little guys will do will be multiplied by orders of magnitude to pay back BO's debt. And yes the little guys will pay too. It may not be through their income tax statement (or then again it might be), it will also be in fees and expenses for things like bringing their cars up to new environmental standards, or via inflation as companies operating expenses go up courtesy of BO. Prepare to bend over... we're all going to get it up the ass.

Originally Posted by transjen

And of course you will never believe anything i say or any souce i could mention unless it from a rightwing news sourse like Rush or foxnews,

Wrong. You provide NO source and when I point that out you make the leap in logic that I will only accept right wing sources. Explain.

Originally Posted by transjen

To you W is GOD and you will never see him for the peice of crap he was and of course you believe he never did anything wrong

Wrong. He is not god. He is not king. And if you ever pay attention on here I have pointed out several things he's done wrong.

Originally Posted by transjen

and you are quick to blame the Dems for everything,

Wrong. Not everything - like you do with Bush. Only for what they've done. Point out one unsubstantiated complaint I've had about the dems.

Originally Posted by transjen

And here's a source for you it's called a history book in which you will find Clinton didn't take half info and cherry pick it to twist into a form he could use to start a war with Iraq

If you're going to use a history book as a source, at least look at a history book. This is how we use sources. Put a friken link to the source so anyone can look at it: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html And that wasn't even a right wing source now was it?

Originally Posted by Bill Clinton - 1998

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

:OWNED:

Originally Posted by transjen

W lied Clinton wanted more postive proof. Clinton's only error was not hunting down Binladin [ i know i probly spelled his name wrong]

Oh... that caught me off guard. From reading your posts I didn't think you were worried about spelling. I usually don't nitpick, but since you brought it up... (excuss, becacuse, souce, sourse, peice, postive, probly, effert, souce, hugh, craper, stampping) You didn't look at that youtube video I posted did you? I'll try again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8
Clinton and many other democrats already had all the proof they needed that Iraq had WMD.

Originally Posted by transjen

W didn't hurt him either oh he gave speechs and sound bits but he never put any real effert in hunting him my souce is he's still out there Jennifer

If I were completely ignorant about a subject I would usually avoid it and not advertise my complete ignorance about it. It would be embarrassing. Anyone with any motivation can at least find dozens of things that Bush did to try and find Bin Laden. And that's only if you casually glance over headlines throughout the years. Then there's another layer of information - if you take the time to look - that will show many other things he's done. And then there's the top secret stuff we won't know about for 50 years.

While Bush did have people on the hunt for Bin Laden, he didn't focus all his efforts there. Because while Bin Laden is hiding in some piece of shit cave in a mountain in Afghanistan or Pakistan, cut off from his organization to keep from raising red flags and getting himself caught, we're destroying Al Qaeda. All Bin Laden can do is grumble at us via video tapes.

[randolph]

Tracy,
You are obviously smart, well informed and articulate. However, that does not give you the right to try to humiliate Jen by ridiculing her spelling. Jen has a right to her opinion of Bush and you can defend him all you want. Just keep it civil.
The fact remains that Bush was the worst President in the history of the US.

[tslust]

First of all, let me say that although I have strong opinions on the topic of obama, I've mostly kept them to myself on this forum. I've just been having too much fun watching Jen and Tracy battle it out.

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes Jen, the Reflubs are adept at throwing stones at the other guy (i.e. Clinton's blow job) but looked the other way while their buddies raped the whole country. Now they are nit picking obama instead of banding together to help obama save our way of life.

Well I think the Republicians should give obama as much support and respect as the Democrats and pMSNBC gave Bush. But, that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by transjen

Q: how did you know W was lieing? A: his lipps were moving Jennifer

Actually, that's true about all politicians.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Whatever humping the little guys will do will be multiplied by orders of magnitude to pay back BO's debt. And yes the little guys will pay too. It may not be through their income tax statement (or then again it might be), it will also be in fees and expenses for things like bringing their cars up to new environmental standards, or via inflation as companies operating expenses go up courtesy of BO. Prepare to bend over... we're all going to get it up the ass.

So let me get this straight if the GOP was still in power no one would get humped or have to pay this debt? Oh yeah i forgot all aboutl Reganenomics just cut taxes for the top and don't worry about the debt. Those on the right are fine with the debt amount only as long as the REP'S are in power but the minute a Dem get in power they start with they standard BS about the debt level being way to high, It happend with Clinton when good old Newt who could careless about it when Regan and Bush [the father of W] where in power but when Clinton took over all of a sudden it became his top concern. And with W it appears the GOP is fine with deffecit spending but only when they are in charge. You are defending W by claiming his spending was not as bad because it was a smaller amount. Sorry but it's the same thing no matter the amount it is still spending over what you have and you are just trying to muddie up the water and protecting W. And it appears you are also fuzzy on the level W ran up as it looks like you are not putting the WALL STREET bailout amounts to his account, And yes i know Obama voted yes but it was W and his lap dog who made the case for it and it was W who demanded not rules be attached for what the money can and can't be used for there fore Obama made a stupid error but voting yes and giving W's pals a blank check , But it was still W screwing the US people like he has done for his whole 8 years Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

So let me get this straight if the GOP was still in power no one would get humped or have to pay this debt?

That's not what I said is it? The debt generated over the last 40 years, 8% of which you could say is Bush's (and the congress') would have to be paid if government continued like it has under Bush. With Obama, now 21% more debt will have to be paid. Hopefully his next 3 years won't be so traumatic, but I'm not holding my breath. Criticize what I'm saying, not the words you're sticking in my mouth.

Originally Posted by transjen

You are defending W by claiming his spending was not as bad because it was a smaller amount. Sorry but it's the same thing no matter the amount it is still spending over what you have and you are just trying to muddie up the water and protecting W. And it appears you are also fuzzy on the level W ran up as it looks like you are not putting the WALL STREET bailout amounts to his account,

No, I am including the Wall Street Bailout. I still don't think you are clear on how unprecedented this is.

Look at this chart on our monetary base over the last 100 years:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...ax_630_378.png

You can see how much money BO artificially put into the economy. That is all debt. We are in deep shit territory.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

That's not what I said is it? The debt generated over the last 40 years, 8% of which you could say is Bush's (and the congress') would have to be paid if government continued like it has under Bush. With Obama, now 21% more debt will have to be paid. Hopefully his next 3 years won't be so traumatic, but I'm not holding my breath. Criticize what I'm saying, not the words you're sticking in my mouth.

No, I am including the Wall Street Bailout. I still don't think you are clear on how unprecedented this is.

Look at this chart on our monetary base over the last 100 years:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...ax_630_378.png

You can see how much money BO artificially put into the economy. That is all debt. We are in deep shit territory.

Tracy,
Is it all really debt? It seems a lot of it is investment in company stock and the TARP money apparently is temporary loans to banks. If the economy recovers, I would like to think that this massive "debt" will diminish before we are eaten up by inflation.
Lots of ifs ands, buts, maybes and hopefuls

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy,
Is it all really debt? It seems a lot of it is investment in company stock and the TARP money apparently is temporary loans to banks. If the economy recovers, I would like to think that this massive "debt" will diminish before we are eaten up by inflation.
Lots of ifs ands, buts, maybes and hopefuls

It's like if you graduated high school. You don't have many prospects for work so you get a college loan and go to college. Yes, it's debt. You hope that once you finish college you can get a job and pay back your college loan. It will be difficult and take many years, but many people do it successfully.

Only the US is not like a newbie right out of highschool. We have an advanced industrial base and an ok educational system, but because of some bad decisions that let companies go abroad and other bad policies that allowed our lending infrastructure to fail we are in a precarious position. Obama's US is more like a 30-something yuppie who is already in debt that got laid off and wants to put himself further into debt for an education loan to go get a graduate degree. Yes, it's also debt in this case too. Whatever job he gets as a result of the graduate degree will probably be too little, too late.

Where has he invested this money he printed or borrowed from the Chinese? In short term jobs (when their job is done they will be right back out on the street), in government jobs (which only adds to the size of the government as well as the budget which is already too high), and in more very expensive entitlements like nationalized health care (which will either provide everyone with substandard health care or will be spending more money we don't have forever). And also on a buttload of pork.

What else does BO do while we are financially strapped? Implement environmental policies that will further stress everyone.

BO: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them."

These costs don't stop at producers of energy. They will be passed on down to everyone who uses energy. Do you know of anyone who doesn't? Do you know of anyone who doesn't buy products that take energy to produce? So forget the financial mess he's already put us in by creating all this debt. The environmental and healthcare policies alone will be enough to put us into bigtime inflation.

I'm not for raising taxes on the rich, or lowering taxes on the rich. It's fine the way it is. What needs to be done is to slash government down so it stops devouring our tax dollars.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

BO: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them."

These costs don't stop at producers of energy. They will be passed on down to everyone who uses energy. Do you know of anyone who doesn't? Do you know of anyone who doesn't buy products that take energy to produce? So forget the financial mess he's already put us in by creating all this debt. The environmental and healthcare policies alone will be enough to put us into big time inflation.

The other week Obama made news (and certainly raised eyebrows in the Pentagon as well as foreign policy circles) when he made the statement "Iran has a right to nuclear power." Now, only an utter idiot wouldn't realize at this point that Iran is racing the clock to construct its first nuclear warheads -- in fact, they just upped the number of centrifuges they've got online to enrich their uranium yet again, raising the number now to a whopping 5,000. I mean, come on, at this point everyone knows what their up to.

That said, tonight on TV someone had a great comment that made me laugh out loud when they basically noted: "So, let me get this straight. Now Obama thinks Iran has a right to nuclear power, and he thinks Americans have a right to crappy glass solar power panels. Good thinking there, Mr. President!!!"

[CreativeMind]

Just another funny thought that occurred to me, as I was posting a moment ago...

We recently passed the 100 day mark for Obama in office. That means there's about 1,200 or so more days before the next Presidential election. And yet in only 100 days, this Obama thread has already become 12 pages long. So, extending that average out for those next 1,200 or so days that means by the time we get TO that election this thread could be 144 pages long.

It just struck me as funny that the longest thread here at the forum could ultimately NOT be about anything Trans related!

[transjen]

Over 12 pages of back and forth and pretty much accomplishing nothing, Those of you who tend to vote REP will never like anything he does and say's and pretty much no matter what anyone says or does will change that, So until 2012 you just have to grumble and curse but rember the world will not end after all the world surrived 8 yrs of W and no one could be worse then him well maybe Palin or Jeb but the sun will raise tommorow Jennifer

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by transjen

Over 12 pages of back and forth and pretty much accomplishing nothing, Those of you who tend to vote REP will never like anything he does and say's and pretty much no matter what anyone says or does will change that, So until 2012 you just have to grumble and curse but rember the world will not end after all the world surrived 8 yrs of W and no one could be worse then him well maybe Palin or Jeb but the sun will raise tommorow Jennifer

:-) good point ! The right-wing Americans will keep their glorified attitude to the world and their socalled love of "God and country", their insistance on every man's right to own an M16 (to kill the liberals), and their deeply rooted hate of every thing that isn't white, hetero and speaks English...

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

The other week Obama made news (and certainly raised eyebrows in the Pentagon as well as foreign policy circles) when he made the statement "Iran has a right to nuclear power." Now, only an utter idiot wouldn't realize at this point that Iran is racing the clock to construct its first nuclear warheads -- in fact, they just upped the number of centrifuges they've got online to enrich their uranium yet again, raising the number now to a whopping 5,000. I mean, come on, at this point everyone knows what their up to.

Israel needs to quit listening to the US and do what they need to do to protect themselves. Iran has made no secret of what their goal is.

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

That said, tonight on TV someone had a great comment that made me laugh out loud when they basically noted: "So, let me get this straight. Now Obama thinks Iran has a right to nuclear power, and he thinks Americans have a right to crappy glass solar power panels. Good thinking there, Mr. President!!!"

LOL... yup. BO has shown many times that he doesn't think things through.

[randolph]

Did any of you see Bill Mowers interview with Jeremy Cahill?
http://rebelreports.com/
It left me deeply depressed. If he is correct, Obama is following Bushes policies in the Middle East. More private mercenaries, a big embassy (fortress) in Pakistan and more killing of civilians.
Obama's rhetoric in Egypt sounds good but if we continue killing Muslims, its just hot air.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

and their deeply rooted hate of every thing that isn't white, hetero and speaks English...

Yeah lets go carpet bomb the continent of Africa with nukes!!!! Yeah baby. You and your deep rooted hate for anything that's white, hetero and speaks English... How can you stand to see that white english speaking face of yours in the mirror?

Originally Posted by transjen

Over 12 pages of back and forth and pretty much accomplishing nothing, Those of you who tend to vote REP will never like anything he does and say's and pretty much no matter what anyone says or does will change that, So until 2012 you just have to grumble and curse but rember the world will not end after all the world surrived 8 yrs of W and no one could be worse then him well maybe Palin or Jeb but the sun will raise tommorow Jennifer

Well hopefully it has dispelled some myths and some people have learned from it. There have been 577 replies on this thread and 6433 views. It's obviously not just the few of us reading it. I believe we will survive. We have survived the New Deal which lengthened the depression and diverted a large percentage of our income into inefficient social security from then till who knows how far into the future. It's not the kind of cancer that can just be turned off. We have survived Johnson's civil rights policies which went beyond merely making races equal and started programs like Affirmative Action which replaced one type of racism with another. We survived Carter's double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates, and his Community Reinvestment Act - another cancer. Each liberal democratic president adds more burdensome baggage that future generations will have to bear. But yes, socialist countries do survive. It's just not my kind of country.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Did any of you see Bill Mowers interview with Jeremy Cahill?
http://rebelreports.com/
It left me deeply depressed. If he is correct, Obama is following Bushes policies in the Middle East. More private mercenaries, a big embassy (fortress) in Pakistan and more killing of civilians.
Obama's rhetoric in Egypt sounds good but if we continue killing Muslims, its just hot air.

Well if any president understands Muslims, it's Obama. Before becoming president he was against a lot of what we were doing in the mideast. He has probably since learned that even though Muslims are mostly peace loving people, there are extremists out there and that there are very good reasons for what we're doing out there. His timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq has gone from April 2010 to the end of 2011. Bush wanted to get the troops out too, but there are realities that the commander in chief faces that Obama is learning about.

He was going to release photos of alleged torture in Iraq and other places. He changed his mind on that after realizing that would only be counterproductive.

He promised in January that his policies would limit unemployment to 8% in February. It's June now. Unemployment is at 9.4% and still rising.

He thought bailing out GM would work. That was a wasted effort and GM filed for bankruptcy anyway. He has changed his mind on a number of his policies. And check this out: I commend Obama on correcting bad policies once he realizes they will not work. It says a lot when someone can admit to mistakes rather than to insist on going down a path they should realize is wrong.

[randolph]

"I commend Obama on correcting bad policies once he realizes they will not work. It says a lot when someone can admit to mistakes rather than to insist on going down a path they should realize is wrong." Tracy

Yes Tracy this is encouraging, and a great improvement over the Bush years. Lets hope he finds the right path before its too late. Of course, he is not omnipotent, he has to deal with Congress who are a bunch of money grubbing assholes for sale to the highest bidder. Can anything positive get done in this country full of corrupt politicians, Dem. and Repub. alike? It doesn't look good.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Well hopefully it has dispelled some myths and some people have learned from it. There have been 577 replies on this thread and 6433 views. It's obviously not just the few of us reading it. I believe we will survive. We have survived the New Deal which lengthened the depression and diverted a large percentage of our income into inefficient social security from then till who knows how far into the future. It's not the kind of cancer that can just be turned off. We have survived Johnson's civil rights policies which went beyond merely making races equal and started programs like Affirmative Action which replaced one type of racism with another. We survived Carter's double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates, and his Community Reinvestment Act - another cancer. Each liberal democratic president adds more burdensome baggage that future generations will have to bear. But yes, socialist countries do survive. It's just not my kind of country.

And what myth's were dispelled? All i have seen so far is that the Bush lovers hate Obama and DEMS period and anything Bush and his party did was great and wonderful and the DEMS do every wrong and screw everything up, I knew that mindset before i ever came here and it appears you will never be happy unless the GOP control everything for life and like W everything is your way or the highway. So what has really changed? W divide this country to those on the right vs those on the left and Obama will not be able to undivide the country and i dout any one man or woman can fix it. At the rate we are going another civil war will break out and those on the left will live in the north and those on the right will live in the south. Jennifer

[transjen]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

:-) good point ! The right-wing Americans will keep their glorified attitude to the world and their socalled love of "God and country", their insistance on every man's right to own an M16 (to kill the liberals), and their deeply rooted hate of every thing that isn't white, hetero and speaks English...

Hank my friend that is not completely true W and the GOP love Latino's as they see them as cheap labor and a way to bring down the pay scale for every worker hence more profit for big bussness the rich get richer and everyone else get's the shit Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

And what myth's were dispelled? All i have seen so far is that the Bush lovers hate Obama and DEMS period and anything Bush and his party did was great and wonderful and the DEMS do every wrong and screw everything up

That is all you will ever see. I was talking about the other readers of this thread.

Originally Posted by transjen

W divide this country to those on the right vs those on the left and Obama will not be able to undivide the country and i dout any one man or woman can fix it. At the rate we are going another civil war will break out and those on the left will live in the north and those on the right will live in the south. Jennifer

That might be a good solution, except that the parties are not even self consistent. So once you divide the US up to North & South the dems will be bickering amongst themselves and gop will be bickering amongst themselves. I don't like much of the south anyway. Too many rednecks and bible thumpers.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

That might be a good solution, except that the parties are not even self consistent. So once you divide the US up to North & South the dems will be bickering amongst themselves and gop will be bickering amongst themselves. I don't like much of the south anyway. Too many rednecks and bible thumpers.

I hope it nevers happens but the way thing are going i can see it happening in the future, And i only said the left will live in the north and the right in the south because of the 04, 06,08 election maps showing how each state voted in those three years the GOP won in the south and the DEMS did very well in the north, I'm refering to the maps i saw on CNN during election night. In the end it would work for a short time but truth be told the GOP needs DEMS to blame for any miss fire and the DEMS need GOP to blame for miss fires Jennifer

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yeah lets go carpet bomb the continent of Africa with nukes!!!! Yeah baby. You and your deep rooted hate for anything that's white, hetero and speaks English... How can you stand to see that white english speaking face of yours in the mirror?



Well hopefully it has dispelled some myths and some people have learned from it. There have been 577 replies on this thread and 6433 views. It's obviously not just the few of us reading it. I believe we will survive. We have survived the New Deal which lengthened the depression and diverted a large percentage of our income into inefficient social security from then till who knows how far into the future. It's not the kind of cancer that can just be turned off. We have survived Johnson's civil rights policies which went beyond merely making races equal and started programs like Affirmative Action which replaced one type of racism with another. We survived Carter's double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates, and his Community Reinvestment Act - another cancer. Each liberal democratic president adds more burdensome baggage that future generations will have to bear. But yes, socialist countries do survive. It's just not my kind of country.

Well, given US policy in Africa we don't actually need to bomb them. Years of supporting destabilizing rebels, removing funding for HIV/AIDS education if it mentions condoms, and on and on...

The "reverse racism" crap is so played. First, a group that was systematically kept from any sort of self-determination, power, or equal access to redress their concerns cannot magically become equal with the stroke of a pen.

As much as you may like to think we live in a post-racist or post-sexist society, we absolutely do not. White guys have had generations of looking out for the other. For example:

Great great grandpa arrived a poor immigrant from Germany. He knew some Germans who gave him a job and his family did ok. Great Grandpa did better because he got a decent inheritance and was able to get through school. Grandpa got to go to college because his dad donated money to Ohio State - he even had a wing of the hospital named after him. Grandpa started a business and did very well. Dad has a degree and continues the family business and will retire early.

American Blacks my grandfather's age started where great great grandfather did as far as social and economic power. That's 80+ years to play catch-up. More so since, you know, none of my family had to fear lynching.

[Bionca]

The bank and business bailouts are purely Capitalist policies NOT Socialist - not even close.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Bionca

The bank and business bailouts are purely Capitalist policies NOT Socialist - not even close.

Yes, true enough, but what bugs me is that we are bailing out the bastards that created this mess through blatant irresponsible greed. These guys are no better than Madoff yet we are letting them continue to run the economy. Why is Obama going along with this?

[transjen]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes, true enough, but what bugs me is that we are bailing out the bastards that created this mess through blatant irresponsible greed. These guys are no better than Madoff yet we are letting them continue to run the economy. Why is Obama going along with this?

This was W paying back his cohorets, It was passed and signed before Obama was in office so there is little he can do, The question is why the senate believe W when he was caliming the sky was falling and if wallstreet wasn't bailed out the econemy would be ruined and everything would be lost and sadly the senate believed him and passed the bailout the way Wwanted it and W did what he has done to the american people what he has done his entire 8 yrs in office in other words the american people got big time Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Bionca

The bank and business bailouts are purely Capitalist policies NOT Socialist - not even close.

No, a purely capitalist system would allow a failing company or financial institution to fail. That's what bankruptcy is for. A socialist system would make them part of the government.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

This was W paying back his cohorets, It was passed and signed before Obama was in office so there is little he can do, The question is why the senate believe W when he was caliming the sky was falling and if wallstreet wasn't bailed out the econemy would be ruined and everything would be lost and sadly the senate believed him and passed the bailout the way Wwanted it and W did what he has done to the american people what he has done his entire 8 yrs in office in other words the american people got big time Jennifer

Do you know what a lame duck is? A president in his last 2 years of his 2nd term is pretty much considered a lame duck. You're saying Bush in his last three months forced congress to pass a bail out his way and only his way? Oh yeah... that's right. EVERYTHING is Bush's fault.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Do you know what a lame duck is? A president in his last 2 years of his 2nd term is pretty much considered a lame duck. You're saying Bush in his last three months forced congress to pass a bail out his way and only his way? Oh yeah... that's right. EVERYTHING is Bush's fault.

And of course you think nothing was ever his fault, Who was demanding it be passed? It was W and the guy who replaced Greenspan and both said it had to be done right away rember? Yes i know you and the others royalists are still trying to rewrite everything so W is not heald accountable for anything. 9/11 was Clinton's fault the millions of lost jobs from 01 thru now was also Clinton's fault the wallstreet collaspe was also Clinton's fault as is the debt W ran up. W wasn't at fault for anything, Everyone is just bashing poor George and history will declare him the second greatest president just under Regan Jennifer

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

No, a purely capitalist system would allow a failing company or financial institution to fail. That's what bankruptcy is for. A socialist system would make them part of the government.

Conservatives are highly critical of the bailouts. Since you seem to be an expert on this issue, what do you think the consequences would if there was no bailout by the government? What would happen to the economy, jobs, medical care, education, food supply, energy supply, a place to live? What would happen to credit, loans, financing food production, construction, infrastructure?
Just wondering

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Conservatives are highly critical of the bailouts. Since you seem to be an expert on this issue, what do you think the consequences would if there was no bailout by the government? What would happen to the economy, jobs, medical care, education, food supply, energy supply, a place to live? What would happen to credit, loans, financing food production, construction, infrastructure?
Just wondering

It would be hard for sure. We would have to make some tough decisions and reform to actually fix the problem. No where have you heard anyone say how we fix this so it doesn't happen again. Go back to the gold standard. Balance the budget. If the government does anything it should make America a profitable place for companies to produce again. Then we can start to export and work down our debt. Then we could take care of the economy buy back our country and lower taxes. People will again have more money for medical care, education, food, energy and houses.

The worst thing that we can do is continue bad policies that put us in this mess in the first place. You can't solve the problem of inflation, which is the creation of money and credit out of thin air, by more money and credit out of thin air, and not changing policy. We need to get back to free-market capitalism. Americans need to save more and not buy everything on credit. If lending companies were forced to make realistic loans by the market, then Americans would save more.

The Chinese work hard and save, and they're buying up the world. But we borrow and spend and consume, and now it's caught up to us and it's undermining our whole system.

It would be painful, but it wouldn't last as long as what BO is doing. BO is propping up a failed system so the agony lasts longer. He's doing exactly what we did in the depression.

BO is trying to prop up home prices. You want the price structure to adjust and let the price of houses to go down. Price fixing does not work.

It would be a bad year, but BO's way will be a bad decade... at least.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

And of course you think nothing was ever his fault, Who was demanding it be passed? It was W and the guy who replaced Greenspan and both said it had to be done right away rember? Yes i know you and the others royalists are still trying to rewrite everything so W is not heald accountable for anything. 9/11 was Clinton's fault the millions of lost jobs from 01 thru now was also Clinton's fault the wallstreet collaspe was also Clinton's fault as is the debt W ran up. W wasn't at fault for anything, Everyone is just bashing poor George and history will declare him the second greatest president just under Regan Jennifer

Before you pin the blame on Bush, you should know a little more history...

** 2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

** 2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore...should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America... Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

** 2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August - up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month - the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs - and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

** 2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by ... helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that - and Congress is making progress on this - is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress finally heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Gee thanks congress for that timely action.

[randolph]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1416...ticle_sb_picks

The economic articles at Seeking Alpha are very scary. Stock market collapse, depression, soaring inflation all coming down the pipe in spite of the massive bailout. Well, maybe gold is not a bad idea.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Before you pin the blame on Bush, you should know a little more history...

** 2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

** 2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore...should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America... Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

** 2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August - up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month - the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs - and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

** 2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by ... helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that - and Congress is making progress on this - is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress finally heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Gee thanks congress for that timely action.

A very nice little fairy tale but hard to swallow from a president who only believe goverment should not be involved and let the lenders take care of it this is the son of a man who like Reagen believed in dereguration , And since most of the dates you list are when he had all three branchs in his pocket if he did ask it was BS for he know full well the REPs would never put regulations in place so the lieing weasel could lie and say i tried and it's not my fault Jennifer

[transjen]

before i get accused of not giving credit to what W accomplished in his 8 yrs, I'll will give him credit for what he did and he deserves credit and should not be cheated. W spent more time on vaction then any other president and yet he still manged to screw up everything way to go W. He lost more jobs then he created agian way to go W. He lied to congress about WMDS and started a BS war causing over 4000 brave troops their lives for his lies agian why to go W. He was warned about Binladin and he didn't pay attention to the warning as he was more conserned with tax cuts and making plans to invade Iraq agian way to go W. On 9/11 he was safely in FL reading my pet goat to 1st graders and when his aid told him what happend he just went back to reading the book no schook no anger nothing perhaps because he know ahead of time about the planed attack and wanted to use it as his excuss to invade Iraq after all Rove and Newt always said another Peark Harbor is what the GOP needed for support say way to go W. W fast tracks more free trade aggreements causing even more job loses by allowing more US companies to pack up and leave to find cheap labor and lies about how we should be thankful for all the job these aggrements will create but he forgets the jobs created will not be here so way to go W. Just some of the credit that W is due and if the secert stuff he did ever become public there should be more credit given him and hopefully when the war crimes trails start he will receve all the credit he deserves Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

A very nice little fairy tale but hard to swallow from a president who only believe goverment should not be involved and let the lenders take care of it this is the son of a man who like Reagen believed in dereguration , And since most of the dates you list are when he had all three branchs in his pocket if he did ask it was BS for he know full well the REPs would never put regulations in place so the lieing weasel could lie and say i tried and it's not my fault Jennifer

Nice spin. Well I guess evidence and reality don't rank too high with you.

Originally Posted by transjen

He was warned about Binladin and he didn't pay attention to the warning as he was more conserned with tax cuts and making plans to invade Iraq agian way to go W. On 9/11 he was safely in FL reading my pet goat to 1st graders and when his aid told him what happend he just went back to reading the book no schook no anger nothing perhaps because he know ahead of time about the planed attack and wanted to use it as his excuss to invade Iraq after all Rove and Newt always said another Peark Harbor is what the GOP needed for support say way to go W.

I knew you were brainwashed, but OMG. I'm going to avoid violating the rule about arguments in Dilbert's Rules of Order. Enjoy your fairy tale.

[randolph]

Re: Tracy's post Bush warnings
The repeated requests by Bush to do something is not surprising. If Bush could get congress, to do something and we got a recession then Bush could blame Congress. Also, Congress did not want to do anything for the same reason. The Bush sequence of warnings shows that the Bush administration was aware that things were going wrong for years and did nothing. Bush did not need Congress to do something, the Treasury and the Fed could have done something to calm down the financial system. Greenspan could have simply raised interest rates to calm things down. The extremely low rates produced and excess of liquidity that the financial markets had to deal with, which resulted in the abuses that led to the meltdown. The booming housing market and stock market were good for Bush and helped compensate for the bad news from Iraq and his low ratings.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Re: Tracy's post Bush warnings
The repeated requests by Bush to do something is not surprising. If Bush could get congress, to do something and we got a recession then Bush could blame Congress.

Congress (mostly dems) repeatedly said that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were financially sound. I have posted videos of this. You can see it from their own lips. We now know this to be completely false. Bush had been warning congress about it throughout his 2 terms. He had been asking congress to regulate the financial institutions, which we now know they needed. Leave the spin out and let's just deal with the facts. Otherwise we'll be saying "Is too" "Is not" "Is too" "Is not" for all eternity.

Originally Posted by randolph

Also, Congress did not want to do anything for the same reason.

This is why they didn't want to do anything about Freddie & Fannie:

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Name                    Office  Party/State    Total                   
1. Dodd, Christopher J    S        D-CT      $133,900                
2. Kerry, John            S        D-MA      $111,000                
3. Obama, Barack          S        D-IL      $105,849                
4. Clinton, Hillary       S        D-NY       $75,550                 
5. Kanjorski, Paul E      H        D-PA       $65,500                 
6. Bennett, Robert F      S        R-UT       $61,499                 
7. Johnson, Tim           S        D-SD       $61,000                 
8. Conrad, Kent           S        D-ND       $58,991                 
9. Davis, Tom             H        R-VA       $55,499                 
10. Bond, Christopher S   S        R-MO       $55,400                 
11. Bachus, Spencer       H        R-AL       $55,300                 
12. Shelby, Richard C     S        R-AL       $55,000                 
13. Emanuel, Rahm         H        D-IL       $51,750                 
14. Reed, Jack            S        D-RI       $50,750                 
15. Carper, Tom           S        D-DE       $44,389                 
16. Frank, Barney         H        D-MA       $40,100                 
17. Maloney, Carolyn B    H        D-NY       $38,750                 
18. Bean, Melissa         H        D-IL       $37,249                 
19. Blunt, Roy            H        R-MO       $36,500                 
20. Pryce, Deborah        H        R-OH       $34,750                 
21. Miller, Gary          H        R-CA       $33,000                 
22. Pelosi, Nancy         H        D-CA       $32,750                 
23. Reynolds, Tom         H        R-NY       $32,700                 
24. Hoyer, Steny H        H        D-MD       $30,500                 
25. Hooley, Darlene       H        D-OR       $28,750

These are total contributions made from 1989-2008. Interesting isn't it how Obama worked his way up to the number 3 spot (Hilary's up there too) on Freddie and Fannie campaign contributions after, what 2 years in congress? Near where others have been in office for 20+ years. Things that make you go hmmmmm.

Originally Posted by randolph

The Bush sequence of warnings shows that the Bush administration was aware that things were going wrong for years and did nothing.

What can Bush do? He can only ask congress to act.

Originally Posted by randolph

Bush did not need Congress to do something, the Treasury and the Fed could have done something to calm down the financial system.

With what money? Doesn't that come from congress?

Originally Posted by randolph

Greenspan could have simply raised interest rates to calm things down. The extremely low rates produced and excess of liquidity that the financial markets had to deal with, which resulted in the abuses that led to the meltdown. The booming housing market and stock market were good for Bush and helped compensate for the bad news from Iraq and his low ratings.

Yes, Greenspan could have raised interest rates. He liked to make his presidents look good and did so for both Clinton and Bush. Even with higher interest rates, the CRA required Freddie and Fannie to make loans available to minorities who couldn't afford them. But yes, it might have at least caused these people requesting loans to rethink if that was wise.

[transjen]

Why not show a list of top donors to W? showing the drug companies, investment banks insurence companies credit card companies the oil industry, W raised more funds from special intrest that anyone could have from there wildest dreams agian you are quick to point the blame over to the DEMS and over look at what THE LIEING WEASEL W did Jennifer