quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??

Isn't keeping the Neocons out of the office ample reason on its own? I'm afraid that, like you, I don't rate Hilary very highly, but she would be better than any of the current GOP hopefuls. It would be a case of Hilary first and daylight second IMHO.

Recall what a disaster the last neocon POTUS was for the US and the world. It has taken years for the US to recover from W's mistakes and even longer for the rest of the world. Indeed, it's true to point that significant portions of both the USA and the rest of the world are still recovering. It doesn't look as though the process will be completed any time soon - Iraq anybody?.

No sane person anywhere, except perhaps some of the more ideologically blinkered right-wingers in the US*, wants a repeat of W's disasters.


* Of course, many people would quite reasonably assert that the 'no sane person' qualification automatically excludes the US's far right wingers.

No need to recall the disaster of a Neocon administration:

We're STILL living it:

1) Still digging out of this economic hole
2) Still paying for Medicare Part D
3) Dealing with a far more powerful Iran
4) Dealing with a far more armed North Korea! (can't forget that from the first term)

Some of the highlights of their legacy.


As Hunter so eloquently pointed out in another thread.... Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. As for me, I have NO party loyalty. I would vote for ANYONE who:

1) Understands the issues we face
2) Has a solid plan to resolve them

My post was not really about who is the lesser of two evils (yes, I agree, Hilary would be FAR less worse (double negative intended) than anyone on the Republican side.

I was genuinely trying to gain an understanding of what people feel Hilary has the ability to accomplish. Not much, it seems (other than keeping Neocons out).


I would actually consider voting for Rand Paul. (if he won the Republican nomination, which we all know he has no chance of accomplishing.)

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??

Isn't keeping the Neocons out of the office ample reason on its own? I'm afraid that, like you, I don't rate Hilary very highly, but she would be better than any of the current GOP hopefuls. It would be a case of Hilary first and daylight second IMHO.

Recall what a disaster the last neocon POTUS was for the US and the world. It has taken years for the US to recover from W's mistakes and even longer for the rest of the world. Indeed, it's true to point that significant portions of both the USA and the rest of the world are still recovering. It doesn't look as though the process will be completed any time soon - Iraq anybody?.

No sane person anywhere, except perhaps some of the more ideologically blinkered right-wingers in the US*, wants a repeat of W's disasters.


* Of course, many people would quite reasonably assert that the 'no sane person' qualification automatically excludes the US's far right wingers.

No need to recall the disaster of a Neocon administration:

We're STILL living it:

1) Still digging out of this economic hole
2) Still paying for Medicare Part D
3) Dealing with a far more powerful Iran
4) Dealing with a far more armed North Korea! (can't forget that from the first term)

Some of the highlights of their legacy.


As Hunter so eloquently pointed out in another thread.... Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. As for me, I have NO party loyalty. I would vote for ANYONE who:

1) Understands the issues we face
2) Has a solid plan to resolve them

My post was not really about who is the lesser of two evils (yes, I agree, Hilary would be FAR less worse (double negative intended) than anyone on the Republican side.

I was genuinely trying to gain an understanding of what people feel Hilary has the ability to accomplish. Not much, it seems (other than keeping Neocons out).


I would actually consider voting for Rand Paul. (if he won the Republican nomination, which we all know he has no chance of accomplishing.)

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

1) I am not aware of any banking scheme initiated by Carter, Clinton, and Barney Frank. I am aware of Barney Frank's meddling in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the standard for mortgages they would purchase. Please enlighten me. I always want to learn.

2) I loved the economy, under Clinton. Those were the happiest times for myself and my family.

3) I also ask you to consider Phil Gramm's masterpiece: Gramm-Leach-Billey Act which repealed the important parts of Glass-Steagall and ensured we would have "too big to fail"

4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

5) Iran has been "the way they are" since we installed the Shah there. They have become a nuclear threat, largely because a famous Neocon sold them nuclear technology, and developed their Arak reactor. (As well as developing several oil refineries, to aid in their bypassing of U.S. sanctions). ALL, while sanctions at the time prohibited U.S. business from doing business with Iran). Let's also not forget the Iraq invasion, which diverted billions from Iran's expenditures into defending itself from Iraq (RIGHT into their Nuclear program). The Neocon gifts to Iran keep on giving to this day.

5) RE: North Korea. Clinton had negotiated a deal with North Korea that included the IAEA, Japanese, and South Korean inspectors. North Korea, had NO significant nuclear capability at the time. Fast forward to Bush, who trashed the agreement.
The Bush administration realized it had made a HUGE foreign policy blunder, (of course this was minor in comparison to the many blunders to follow) tried desperately to renegotiate a new agreement, offering far more concessions than Clinton did. With no inspections, and basically no way to sanction North Korea more than they currently are, and no more fuel oil coming in , North Korea had the green light to continue to where they are now. The Neocon gifts to North Korea keep on giving to this day.

Even IF, as the neocons claim, North Korea was cheating on the Plutonium deal, and secretly enriching Uranium, the IAEA inspectors would have most certainly caught it. But, of course, they were expelled from the country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I ask this question all the time, and I just cannot seem to come up with an answer.

I actually like Hilary as a person. I felt sorry for her, during the Lewinsky years.

I have no idea, what qualifies her to hold elected office.

I can't find a single thing she has accomplished as Senator. I certainly can think of a few disastrous votes she took as a Senator.

As Secretary of State (Benghazi aside), she accomplished nothing (maybe I am wrong?).


Maybe I have Hilary all wrong... Someone please enlighten me... Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??


I am genuinely curious.

you felt sorry for her? I felt sorry for Bill Clinton being married to her.. imo she is a shrew.. yeah, i guess they probably did love each other back when they first met and started dating but imo the only reason she did the "stand by your man" thing was cuz she liked the power she had as the First Lady and having his ear.. not to mention her position allowed her to rub elbows with powerful and famous and rich people..

When 9/11 happened she blamed Canada for supposedly letting the terrorists in when none of them got into the US from Canada.. so imo she has a very bad habit of flapping her gums when she should shut up until she has the true and accurate facts.. As a Canadian, I will forever think of her as an idiot & enemy of my country.. I do think she will be voted in as the next Prez and we will see what kinda disasters she will create.. its not like the US & Americans don't have enough problems already!.. I also think the Rs will be at her every chance they get, worse than how they have been with Obama..

Oh come on TJ. He doesn't feel sorry for anyone. He's a pompous old self riotous person that thinks a passive aggressive slight here and a sympathetic wink there make him appear bright. He just prefers stating things that way because fewer people question him. Notice, he never says a thing of substance. It's all down putting, but in his mind polite. He never states a belief except that others are lacking. Let him show his beliefs and let him link his proof like everyone else does here. He won't, because it will show he's not as bright as he pretends to be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??

Isn't keeping the Neocons out of the office ample reason on its own? I'm afraid that, like you, I don't rate Hilary very highly, but she would be better than any of the current GOP hopefuls. It would be a case of Hilary first and daylight second IMHO.

Recall what a disaster the last neocon POTUS was for the US and the world. It has taken years for the US to recover from W's mistakes and even longer for the rest of the world. Indeed, it's true to point that significant portions of both the USA and the rest of the world are still recovering. It doesn't look as though the process will be completed any time soon - Iraq anybody?.

No sane person anywhere, except perhaps some of the more ideologically blinkered right-wingers in the US*, wants a repeat of W's disasters.


* Of course, many people would quite reasonably assert that the 'no sane person' qualification automatically excludes the US's far right wingers.

No need to recall the disaster of a Neocon administration:

We're STILL living it:

1) Still digging out of this economic hole
2) Still paying for Medicare Part D
3) Dealing with a far more powerful Iran
4) Dealing with a far more armed North Korea! (can't forget that from the first term)

Some of the highlights of their legacy.


As Hunter so eloquently pointed out in another thread.... Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. As for me, I have NO party loyalty. I would vote for ANYONE who:

1) Understands the issues we face
2) Has a solid plan to resolve them

My post was not really about who is the lesser of two evils (yes, I agree, Hilary would be FAR less worse (double negative intended) than anyone on the Republican side.

I was genuinely trying to gain an understanding of what people feel Hilary has the ability to accomplish. Not much, it seems (other than keeping Neocons out).


I would actually consider voting for Rand Paul. (if he won the Republican nomination, which we all know he has no chance of accomplishing.)

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

1) I am not aware of any banking scheme initiated by Carter, Clinton, and Barney Frank. I am aware of Barney Frank's meddling in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the standard for mortgages they would purchase. Please enlighten me. I always want to learn.

2) I loved the economy, under Clinton. Those were the happiest times for myself and my family.

3) I also ask you to consider Phil Gramm's masterpiece: Gramm-Leach-Billey Act which repealed the important parts of Glass-Steagall and ensured we would have "too big to fail"

4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

5) Iran has been "the way they are" since we installed the Shah there. They have become a nuclear threat, largely because a famous Neocon sold them nuclear technology, and developed their Arak reactor. (As well as developing several oil refineries, to aid in their bypassing of U.S. sanctions). ALL, while sanctions at the time prohibited U.S. business from doing business with Iran). Let's also not forget the Iraq invasion, which diverted billions from Iran's expenditures into defending itself from Iraq (RIGHT into their Nuclear program). The Neocon gifts to Iran keep on giving to this day.

5) RE: North Korea. Clinton had negotiated a deal with North Korea that included the IAEA, Japanese, and South Korean inspectors. North Korea, had NO significant nuclear capability at the time. Fast forward to Bush, who trashed the agreement.
The Bush administration realized it had made a HUGE foreign policy blunder, (of course this was minor in comparison to the many blunders to follow) tried desperately to renegotiate a new agreement, offering far more concessions than Clinton did. With no inspections, and basically no way to sanction North Korea more than they currently are, and no more fuel oil coming in , North Korea had the green light to continue to where they are now. The Neocon gifts to North Korea keep on giving to this day.

Even IF, as the neocons claim, North Korea was cheating on the Plutonium deal, and secretly enriching Uranium, the IAEA inspectors would have most certainly caught it. But, of course, they were expelled from the country.

I find it hugely amusing that liberals, in the seventh year of Obama's presidency, still blame Bush for the economy but still believe the Clinton years were a result of Clinton rather than 16 years of Reagan and Bush. As you'll recall, toward the end of Clinton's years the economy began to go to shit and GW had to deal with it.


You probably don't recall, because it would require a fair and balanced opinion, that both Bush and McCain went to congress and asked the to change Clintons's/Carters terrible legislation. Rush Limbaugh still plays tapes of it. With Barney Frank saying there were no problems and they were going to change nothing.

You might even remember Clinton's op Ed in the NYT after the shit hit the fan saying, well yes these were different times and when he did what he did it was reasonable but in these different times congress should have changed his laws.

So basically, none of what you've said above is true. All of it is BS in which you proudly believe.

Barney Frank didn't go to Freedy and Fannie and change things. Clinton and Carter did. They believed the banks should stop, what is politically correct, called redlining. In other words they should lend to poor people who weren't credit worthy. Carter initialized the law and Clinton put teeth in it. They changed the standards for how a person was determined to be credit worthy. When the banks decided that they didn't want to be involved in that funny business with their money, Clinton had the Janet Reno Justice Dept. Write them and tell them if they didn't mske 40% of their loans per the new rules the Justice Dept. Would sue. Then Clinton relaxed the rules at Freddie and Fannie so the bad dept incurred could be bundled and sold. The fact that Barney Franks was living with the president of, which ever you look it up, Fannie or Freddie just greased the skids. After the big banks succumbed to Janet Reno, predators like Country Wide entered into the business.

If you don't know any of the above, you really have no business making any accusation about any part of the economy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I ask this question all the time, and I just cannot seem to come up with an answer.

I actually like Hilary as a person. I felt sorry for her, during the Lewinsky years.

I have no idea, what qualifies her to hold elected office.

I can't find a single thing she has accomplished as Senator. I certainly can think of a few disastrous votes she took as a Senator.

As Secretary of State (Benghazi aside), she accomplished nothing (maybe I am wrong?).


Maybe I have Hilary all wrong... Someone please enlighten me... Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??


I am genuinely curious.

you felt sorry for her? I felt sorry for Bill Clinton being married to her.. imo she is a shrew.. yeah, i guess they probably did love each other back when they first met and started dating but imo the only reason she did the "stand by your man" thing was cuz she liked the power she had as the First Lady and having his ear.. not to mention her position allowed her to rub elbows with powerful and famous and rich people..

When 9/11 happened she blamed Canada for supposedly letting the terrorists in when none of them got into the US from Canada.. so imo she has a very bad habit of flapping her gums when she should shut up until she has the true and accurate facts.. As a Canadian, I will forever think of her as an idiot & enemy of my country.. I do think she will be voted in as the next Prez and we will see what kinda disasters she will create.. its not like the US & Americans don't have enough problems already!.. I also think the Rs will be at her every chance they get, worse than how they have been with Obama..

Oh come on TJ. He doesn't feel sorry for anyone. He's a pompous old self riotous person that thinks a passive aggressive slight here and a sympathetic wink there make him appear bright. He just prefers stating things that way because fewer people question him. Notice, he never says a thing of substance. It's all down putting, but in his mind polite. He never states a belief except that others are lacking. Let him show his beliefs and let him link his proof like everyone else does here. He won't, because it will show he's not as bright as he pretends to be.

Geea.... I go out with my daughter to take the dogs for a walk, and this is what happens?

I did indeed feel sorry for Hilary Clinton during the Lewinsky years. She was bashed mercilessly by the Republicans, suffered through the humiliation of Bill's affairs, and then bashed mercilessly all over again.

My own belief. She is a good person, caught up in the hype of her own celebrity. She actually feels that it is "her turn" to be President. I question her leadership ability. Additionally, the fact that she conducted official government business on a personal email server, erodes any possibility of me trusting her. I don't hate her. I just wish she would retire on her and Bill's millions, and stay out of politics.


Am I really that old, pompous, and self-righteous? Honestly, I am just expressing my views, and bringing up relevant facts, as I understand them. I post links from time to time, and have done so when asked. However, I encourage everyone to do their own research. I am more than happy to be proved wrong.


Instead of bashing me, and labeling me as old, pompous, and self-righteous, state that you disagree with me, and prove me wrong. Teach me, enlighten me. Start with your assertion that Clinton, Carter, and Barney Frank initiated a banking scheme. What banking scheme was that? How was Janet Reno used to "enforce" it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

You see, that's the point. You don't come on here and say I disagree with you because of X. You come on and condescend to someone making a point. I've stated on here more than once, I treat people like they treat other people. Generally the leftists on here are shocked. They tend to be used to dishing it out but not taking it. Generally, because in public they can get away with it and make a claim to the boss if someone responds. You're first posts on here were pure condescending drivel made from DNC talking points. I responded in kind.

Now, in your post above you mentioned you encouraged everyone to do their own research. Well, if you don't know this stuff by now, I encourage you to do as much research as you need. It seems obvious to me that you limit your news to sources that feed you things you want to hear. Perhaps you should widen your experience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

1) Bush doubled down on the failed Clinton/Frank policy

quote:

Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That's a whole lot of toxic waste. For more detail, consult the items referred to in my previous blogpost on this subject (most of the comments seem to have been disputes about the plot line of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, which I should think could be settled by consulting a reference work). ..

... Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"? Isn't the fact that the ranking Democrat in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae was in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive a glaring conflict of interest? Isn't it worth noting that Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters insisted, "we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines"? Shouldn't the American people know that Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks insist that "there's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong with Fannie Mae"?

If nothing else, shouldn't we salute Democratic Rep. Artur Davis for saying, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

1) Bush doubled down on the failed Clinton/Frank policy

Wrong

quote:

Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That's a whole lot of toxic waste. For more detail, consult the items referred to in my previous blogpost on this subject (most of the comments seem to have been disputes about the plot line of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, which I should think could be settled by consulting a reference work). ..

... Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"? Isn't the fact that the ranking Democrat in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae was in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive a glaring conflict of interest? Isn't it worth noting that Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters insisted, "we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines"? Shouldn't the American people know that Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks insist that "there's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong with Fannie Mae"?

If nothing else, shouldn't we salute Democratic Rep. Artur Davis for saying, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

Iraq was a bipartisan adventure, too. Most Dems were totally on board

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

1) Bush doubled down on the failed Clinton/Frank policy

Wrong

quote:

Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That's a whole lot of toxic waste. For more detail, consult the items referred to in my previous blogpost on this subject (most of the comments seem to have been disputes about the plot line of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, which I should think could be settled by consulting a reference work). ..

... Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"? Isn't the fact that the ranking Democrat in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae was in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive a glaring conflict of interest? Isn't it worth noting that Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters insisted, "we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines"? Shouldn't the American people know that Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks insist that "there's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong with Fannie Mae"?

If nothing else, shouldn't we salute Democratic Rep. Artur Davis for saying, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

Iraq was a bipartisan adventure, too. Most Dems were totally on board

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

1) Bush doubled down on the failed Clinton/Frank policy

Wrong

quote:

Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That's a whole lot of toxic waste. For more detail, consult the items referred to in my previous blogpost on this subject (most of the comments seem to have been disputes about the plot line of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, which I should think could be settled by consulting a reference work). ..

... Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"? Isn't the fact that the ranking Democrat in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae was in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive a glaring conflict of interest? Isn't it worth noting that Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters insisted, "we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines"? Shouldn't the American people know that Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks insist that "there's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong with Fannie Mae"?

If nothing else, shouldn't we salute Democratic Rep. Artur Davis for saying, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

Iraq was a bipartisan adventure, too. Most Dems were totally on board

Well not totally wrong... Calling for tighter regulation could mean anything...

Per the article I quoted above:
At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Regardless of who voted for it, Iraq will always be Bush's legacy. And I certainly do not let any dems who voted for it off the hook. (Hilary!)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

So it was bipartisan but Bush is just short of a monster and Hillary who also voted for it should be president. Yep your not letting her off the hook at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So it was bipartisan but Bush is just short of a monster and Hillary who also voted for it should be president. Yep your not letting her off the hook at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

So it was bipartisan but Bush is just short of a monster and Hillary who also voted for it should be president. Yep your not letting her off the hook at all.

He isnt letting Hillary "off the hook", he is the one who started the thread

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So it was bipartisan but Bush is just short of a monster and Hillary who also voted for it should be president. Yep your not letting her off the hook at all.

When did I say that Hilary should be President? Remember, I created this thread, entitled "What qualifies Hilary to govern?" --- The answer from left and right, was "nothing, really." :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

You see, that's the point. You don't come on here and say I disagree with you because of X. You come on and condescend to someone making a point. I've stated on here more than once, I treat people like they treat other people. Generally the leftists on here are shocked. They tend to be used to dishing it out but not taking it. Generally, because in public they can get away with it and make a claim to the boss if someone responds. You're first posts on here were pure condescending drivel made from DNC talking points. I responded in kind.

Now, in your post above you mentioned you encouraged everyone to do their own research. Well, if you don't know this stuff by now, I encourage you to do as much research as you need. It seems obvious to me that you limit your news to sources that feed you things you want to hear. Perhaps you should widen your experience.

To recap:

1) You directly attack me
2) You disparage me in several posts
(But you treat people like they treat other people?)
3) You label my first posts as "pure condescending drivel made from DNC talking points."
4) And then there is this gem: "It seems obvious to me that you limit your news to sources that feed you things you want to hear. Perhaps you should widen your experience."
5) You have not factually refuted a single point I made. Not one.
6) I show some humility, by asking for more information from you on a SINGLE point (legislation passed under the Carter Admin)
7) Your response is: "Well, if you don't know this stuff by now..."

But *I* am the one who is condescending?


My point about the failed economy being a legacy of the Bush Admin is quite valid for the following reasons:

1) Bush doubled down on the failed Clinton/Frank policy
2) Spent billions on a Medicare Part D, and an invasion of Iraq. Neither were stimulative to the economy
3) Failed to repair Glass-Steagall, after it was torn apart by Phil Gramm


Ohh...

And yes, I will take your advice and do all the research I need.


Be well

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So it was bipartisan but Bush is just short of a monster and Hillary who also voted for it should be president. Yep your not letting her off the hook at all.

When did I say that Hilary should be President? Remember, I created this thread, entitled "What qualifies Hilary to govern?" --- The answer from left and right, was "nothing, really." :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

1) Bush doubled down on the failed Clinton/Frank policy

Wrong

quote:

Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That's a whole lot of toxic waste. For more detail, consult the items referred to in my previous blogpost on this subject (most of the comments seem to have been disputes about the plot line of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, which I should think could be settled by consulting a reference work). ..

... Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"? Isn't the fact that the ranking Democrat in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae was in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive a glaring conflict of interest? Isn't it worth noting that Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters insisted, "we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines"? Shouldn't the American people know that Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks insist that "there's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong with Fannie Mae"?

If nothing else, shouldn't we salute Democratic Rep. Artur Davis for saying, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

Iraq was a bipartisan adventure, too. Most Dems were totally on board

Well not totally wrong... Calling for tighter regulation could mean anything...

Per the article I quoted above:
At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Regardless of who voted for it, Iraq will always be Bush's legacy. And I certainly do not let any dems who voted for it off the hook. (Hilary!)