It's the DEMOCRATS Stupid!

Cypress said:
OMFG - ROFLMAO!

Dixie, this is some of the best shit you've written since the Bush Love Letter.
Click to expand...
While McCain may have been late signing onto the idea, the fact DOES remain that republicans tried to do something about the crisis before it happened. Fact is McCain DID make speeches warning of the coming disaster over 2 years ago, as did Hagel who sponsored the bill, and the other co sponsors.

go to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/multicongress.html

Click on the 109th congress and search for "Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005" Be sure to leave exact match checked. You'll get all the info you want. Summary and full text of the bill, sponsor and co-sponsors, actions taken, and links to PDFs of congressional records, committee minutes, etc.

(Assuming you aren't afraid to challenge some of your partisan preconceptions.)
 
Socrtease said:
Wow but just a few posts above Dixie told me it was RINO's like Hagel who voted it down, Dixie ALSO told us that it was McCain's bill which appears NOT to be true. Dixie did you do ANY reading about this bill at all or just see that McCain at some point co-sponsored it after a RINO introduced it and it died without any action?
Click to expand...

The original article I read, had McCain introducing the bill, with E. Dole and Sununu co-sponsoring it. GL is correct in the fact that Hagel introduced the bill, but that doesn't negate any point I have made in my argument, it was Democrats who killed the bill, and John McCain did indeed co-sponsor it in 2006.

These are trivial details, and if you want to myopically focus on the slight error I made, instead of the profound point I made, I don't blame you, I would do the same thing, if I were a partisan koolaid drenched hack like you. The fact remains, McCain was miles ahead of Obama in dealing with the current financial crisis, which is the direct result of this bill killed in committee... BY DEMOCRATS!
 
Dixie said:
The original article I read, had McCain introducing the bill, with E. Dole and Sununu co-sponsoring it. GL is correct in the fact that Hagel introduced the bill, but that doesn't negate any point I have made in my argument, it was Democrats who killed the bill, and John McCain did indeed co-sponsor it in 2006.

These are trivial details, and if you want to myopically focus on the slight error I made, instead of the profound point I made, I don't blame you, I would do the same thing, if I were a partisan koolaid drenched hack like you. The fact remains, McCain was miles ahead of Obama in dealing with the current financial crisis, which is the direct result of this bill killed in committee... BY DEMOCRATS!
Click to expand...
And Rick Santorum a real liberal in his own right huh?
 
Dixie said:
In the midst of the worst financial crisis since the 1930's, Barack Obama is out there blaming Republicans, and the pinheads are lapping it up! The truth, as always, seems to elude pinheads completely. The current financial crisis is tied directly to the downfall of Freddy and Fanny, and who were responsible for the low-interest housing loans to people with no means to repay them? Well it was the kindhearted Liberals, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Harry Reid! They pushed through this legislation in a Congress dominated by Democrats, while John McCain was literally screaming at the top of his lungs, that it was a mistake. In fact, McCain, in 2005, proposed a reform to the Fanny/Freddy policy, and it was killed in committee... again, a Democratic-controlled committee. Barack Obama was silent on the matter...Hmmm, wonder why?

Now, Freddy and Fanny weren't 'partisan' they contributed money to numerous Senatorial campaign coffers, even that of John McCain. He received around $20k in 20 years from the organizations, but the #2 recipient of money from Freddy and Fanny contributions, was Barack Obama... pretty impressive in his 2 years as a Senator, only democrat Chris Dodd, who had been in Congress much longer, received more. Perhaps this explains BO's connection with the corrupt CEO's running these organizations?

Democrats continue to try and spin this whole financial crisis into the fault of Republicans, when it was purely Democrat policy which lead to the failure. John McCain realized the problem early on, and tried to get something done to prevent the exact crisis we are now seeing unfold. He was told to 'sit down and shut up' as Democrats killed his proposals in committee and focused on more 'pressing' issues, like impeaching Bush and giving themselves another pay raise.

While Americans are grappling with what to do about their 401k's and investments taking a nosedive, Harry Reid admits he has no answer to this problem, and just wants to close up shop, and go home. Well, I think it's a swell idea Harry... go home, and why don't you do us all a favor, and STAY!
Click to expand...

1) In 2005, I don't think the Dems were in Control of ANY committee as they were in the minority

2) This mess was a direct result of BOTH parties fucking around with the system all for the sake of getting votes.

3) None of this would have occured if either of the parties had stood up and said NO.
 
Superfreak said:
1) In 2005, I don't think the Dems were in Control of ANY committee as they were in the minority

2) This mess was a direct result of BOTH parties fucking around with the system all for the sake of getting votes.

3) None of this would have occured if either of the parties had stood up and said NO.
Click to expand...

Whatever.

Are you supporting this bailout or not?
 
Darla said:
Whatever.

Are you supporting this bailout or not?
Click to expand...

what do you mean.... whatever?

As for the bailout, I want to see what they plan to do.

That said...

I agree that they should not be given a blank check...

Things I would like to see occur....

1) Glass Steagall put back in place

2) For Mortgages.... new rule... if you don't qualify for the 30 fixed, you don't get a loan. No more forcing lenders to loan to underqualified individuals. If the idiots in DC want more low income people owning homes... then get them the education needed to get the higher paying jobs.

3) Uptick rule put back in place

4) NO... as in ZERO... golden parachutes
 
Superfreak said:
what do you mean.... whatever?

As for the bailout, I want to see what they plan to do.

That said...

I agree that they should not be given a blank check...

Things I would like to see occur....

1) Glass Steagall put back in place

2) For Mortgages.... new rule... if you don't qualify for the 30 fixed, you don't get a loan. No more forcing lenders to loan to underqualified individuals. If the idiots in DC want more low income people owning homes... then get them the education needed to get the higher paying jobs.

3) Uptick rule put back in place

4) NO... as in ZERO... golden parachutes
Click to expand...

I mean, whatever as in, I’m done arguing with your strawman that liberals have ever claimed that some, if not many, dems are way too conservative – witness the base’s backlash against the DLC. The fact remains, the actual poisonous ideology is a con one. That some dems were bought and became whores for, the corporate representatives of that ideology, does not negate this basic fact. Nor does it negate that though DLC politicians, including Clinton, did some things not in our interests as a people, but in corporate interests, that once the bushies came in, they upped the ante to “FREAKOUT” levels, just like they did with everything, cause that’s what they do. This ship sunk on your boy’s watch and that’s no coincidence.

This is the bailout I want and the only one – govt guarantee that the FDIC will be kept liquid no matter what. Govt guarantees for money market accounts in existence before Friday. That’s it.
 
Oooh...SF taking a hard line on those golden parachutes.

That's like saying "no more unlimited supply of Beluga! This time, we're drawing the line!"
 
Darla said:
I mean, whatever as in, I’m done arguing with your strawman that liberals have ever claimed that some, if not many, dems are way too conservative – witness the base’s backlash against the DLC. The fact remains, the actual poisonous ideology is a con one. That some dems were bought and became whores for, the corporate representatives of that ideology, does not negate this basic fact. Nor does it negate that though DLC politicians, including Clinton, did some things not in our interests as a people, but in corporate interests, that once the bushies came in, they upped the ante to “FREAKOUT” levels, just like they did with everything, cause that’s what they do. This ship sunk on your boy’s watch and that’s no coincidence.

This is the bailout I want and the only one – govt guarantee that the FDIC will be kept liquid no matter what. Govt guarantees for money market accounts in existence before Friday. That’s it.
Click to expand...

The government should NOT guarantee money market accounts. It only encourages the managers to invest in more risky securities.... which would allow them to advertise higher yields... which would attract more money into suspect money funds.

The FDIC will be funded.

As for the rest... good to see you use that tired old excuse.... 'well THOSE dems really aren't Dems'

Side note... Fannie and Freddie and the entire concept of creating a market for loans for individuals who could not otherwise afford them was a part of FDR's NEW DEAL. It was DEM ideology that led to their creation, when they never should have existed in the first place. It was DEM ideology that led to the Community Reinvestment act in 1977 and the Fair Lending Act in 1995.

It was Reps AND those 'Dems who aren't really Dems, except for when they do something we want to take credit for' (which apparently was all but EIGHT Senators in 1999) that put the final nail in the coffin.

1) Fannie creation..... DEM

2) GLB Act of 1999... signed by Dem President... approved by ALL but eight Senators in final vote

3) Fair Lending Act 1995... signed by Dem President... sent by Rep Congress

4) Community Reinvestment act of 1977... signed by Dem President... Dem Congress

5) Greenspan... appointed by both Rep and Dem Presidents... approved by both parties... kept rates so low from 2001-2004 that we saw an explosion in financing/re-fi's... mainly within ARMs and I-onlys... which in turn created a housing bubble.
 
Superfreak said:
The government should NOT guarantee money market accounts. It only encourages the managers to invest in more risky securities.... which would allow them to advertise higher yields... which would attract more money into suspect money funds.

The FDIC will be funded.

As for the rest... good to see you use that tired old excuse.... 'well THOSE dems really aren't Dems'

Side note... Fannie and Freddie and the entire concept of creating a market for loans for individuals who could not otherwise afford them was a part of FDR's NEW DEAL. It was DEM ideology that led to their creation, when they never should have existed in the first place. It was DEM ideology that led to the Community Reinvestment act in 1977 and the Fair Lending Act in 1995.

It was Reps AND those 'Dems who aren't really Dems, except for when they do something we want to take credit for' (which apparently was all but EIGHT Senators in 1999) that put the final nail in the coffin.

1) Fannie creation..... DEM

2) GLB Act of 1999... signed by Dem President... approved by ALL but eight Senators in final vote

3) Fair Lending Act 1995... signed by Dem President... sent by Rep Congress

4) Community Reinvestment act of 1977... signed by Dem President... Dem Congress

5) Greenspan... appointed by both Rep and Dem Presidents... approved by both parties... kept rates so low from 2001-2004 that we saw an explosion in financing/re-fi's... mainly within ARMs and I-onlys... which in turn created a housing bubble.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they weren't really Dems, I said they were CONservative dems.

You're so full of shit SF. Your entire world is crashing and you're desperately trying to hold on to your party. That's what you care about. You have no credibility on this anymore, sorry.
 
Darla said:
I didn't say they weren't really Dems, I said they were CONservative dems.

You're so full of shit SF. Your entire world is crashing and you're desperately trying to hold on to your party. That's what you care about. You have no credibility on this anymore, sorry.
Click to expand...

LMAO... I could care less if both parties go down for this debacle.

As for the rest... you are the only one trying to protect one of the two parties. Not me. Your constant need to make excuses and pretend that all but eight of the Dems in the Senate were "conservative".... is quite amusing. Do continue.
 
"Conservative Dems!" ....ZOMG! :D

Two men are running for President...

One of them co-sponsored reform legislation which would have negated a bailout, because it would have prevented Freddy and Fanny from failing in the first place. He had sense enough to know, you couldn't make mortgage loans to people without the means to pay.

The other, accepted more campaign contributions than anyone of his limited time in the Senate, from the people who are now broke. His party stood unanimously against reform, and fought for the measures to give people loans they couldn't repay.

In November, we decide which man we want to lead us for the next 4 years. I think, in light of recent events, that choice is obvious. It's not the man with Fanny Mae money bulging out of his pockets. It's not the man who stood silent and let this shit happen. It's certainly not the party that stood unanimous against reforms that would have prevented the current financial crisis.
 
Well, it ain't the guy who admits he doesn't know much about the economy, or who thought the fundamentals were "sound" a week or so ago, or who has about a quarter of the lobbyists in Washington working for him.

It definitely ain't that guy.
 
Onceler said:
Well, it ain't the guy who admits he doesn't know much about the economy, or who thought the fundamentals were "sound" a week or so ago, or who has about a quarter of the lobbyists in Washington working for him.

It definitely ain't that guy.
Click to expand...

The "fundamentals" are sound, in the context he said it. And he knows enough about the economy to have wanted to reform Freddy and Fanny two years ago, while your guy was sitting on his hands, and taking advice (and money) from the corrupt CEO of Fanny. Hmmm.... wonder if it's better to have corrupt CEO's working for you, or Lobbyists?
 
"The "fundamentals" are sound, in the context he said it. "

Please tell me that you believe he meant 'workers'.

That would really make my day. It's been a pretty stressful Monday, actually, and to hear you say that you think he meant 'workers' would be a real bright spot.
 
Onceler said:
"The "fundamentals" are sound, in the context he said it. "

Please tell me that you believe he meant 'workers'.

That would really make my day. It's been a pretty stressful Monday, actually, and to hear you say that you think he meant 'workers' would be a real bright spot.
Click to expand...


I think he meant what he said he meant, and not what the Libtards twisted it into. Yeah, I admit, when the stock market is crashing like it hasn't since the 30's, is probably not a good time to say "the fundamentals are sound" but he has explained what he meant, and you are too drenched in koolaid to accept it.
 
Dixie said:
I think he meant what he said he meant, and not what the Libtards twisted it into. Yeah, I admit, when the stock market is crashing like it hasn't since the 30's, is probably not a good time to say "the fundamentals are sound" but he has explained what he meant, and you are too drenched in koolaid to accept it.
Click to expand...

Say it.

Say that you think he meant "workers."
 
Onceler said:
"The "fundamentals" are sound, in the context he said it. "

Please tell me that you believe he meant 'workers'.

That would really make my day. It's been a pretty stressful Monday, actually, and to hear you say that you think he meant 'workers' would be a real bright spot.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top