President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby Ehwmatt » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:41 am

Lula wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:Oh by the way. Did you guys hear that Rush Limbaugh is going to have, fried chicken, collared greens, black eyed peas and watermelon catered to his staff in honor of Black History Month? :lol: True story!!!! :lol:


this is rush's attempt to poke fun at the fact that nbc served this exact menu celebrating black history month. of course limbaugh doesn't tell his listeners that nbc's head chef is african american. big difference. as usual rush gives half a story and you repeat it without thinking. no wonder you are already purchasing palin 2012 pins, yard signs, and bumper stickers in bulk. :roll:


Sounds like a good soul food meal to me and I'm so white in the winter I might blind you.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Saint John » Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:12 am

"African American" is a really stupid fucking term.
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:26 am

I agree, Dan.

Do you guys read the polls, though? 70% of Americans want Congress to do SOMETHING about health care. They may not (by a 53-47 margin) want "Obamacare" but pretty much everyone knows reform is needed. It's too bad the GOP's aim is to put more money in the hands of the insurance companies. Some "reform" platform. Same old same old.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby conversationpc » Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:53 am

7 Wishes wrote:Do you guys read the polls, though? 70% of Americans want Congress to do SOMETHING about health care. They may not (by a 53-47 margin) want "Obamacare" but pretty much everyone knows reform is needed. It's too bad the GOP's aim is to put more money in the hands of the insurance companies. Some "reform" platform. Same old same old.


Everyone knows reform is needed. It's how to achieve it that is the point of contention. The Republicans have offered several alternative solutions, some of which I think are good, so it's simply BS that the aim is to put more money in the hands of the insurance companies. That's no more true than to say that the Dems want to continue to enrich the trial lawyers, for instance.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Lula » Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:56 am

RedWingFan wrote:
Lula wrote:you can try to stimulate demand through spending or tax cuts. both will add to the deficit.

When you have financial troubles at home do you spend more in the hopes that it'll raise your income? I know it's stupid! Obama isn't trying to stimulate anything but dependence on government. He's a Marxist. It's what they do.


you're comparing government debt to private debt. not even close to the same thing. economists will tell you that a dollar of government spending gives you more bang for your buck than tax cuts. basic econ 101. What you’re saying makes a great soundbyte tho. :wink:
the recent fourth quarter growth was fueled by the stimulus. you can call it marxist...,or whatever meaningless word rush has programmed you to say. i'm just glad the economy is coming out of weeds.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Lula » Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:58 am

RedWingFan wrote:
Lula wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:Oh by the way. Did you guys hear that Rush Limbaugh is going to have, fried chicken, collared greens, black eyed peas and watermelon catered to his staff in honor of Black History Month? :lol: True story!!!! :lol:


this is rush's attempt to poke fun at the fact that nbc served this exact menu celebrating black history month. of course limbaugh doesn't tell his listeners that nbc's head chef is african american. big difference. as usual rush gives half a story and you repeat it without thinking. no wonder you are already purchasing palin 2012 pins, yard signs, and bumper stickers in bulk. :roll:

This is Rush calling out those who need calling out. What's it matter what color the head chef is?
Just admit your Obama is a disaster of a president. Just like I told you he'd be.

You'd better let that conservative yakker Wanda Sykes know that it doesn't need calling out! :roll:
http://gawker.com/5464714/wand-sykes-sl ... enu-on-nbc


and who exactly is rush calling out? an african american woman daring to serve up recipes from her own background and life experience? glad to see you guys have your priorities straight. :roll: wanda also doesn't mention the fact that the chef who planned the black history month menu is black. so she’s as ill informed as you and your viagra munching know nothing dj cult leader. congratulations.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Lula » Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:00 am

conversationpc wrote:
7 Wishes wrote:Do you guys read the polls, though? 70% of Americans want Congress to do SOMETHING about health care. They may not (by a 53-47 margin) want "Obamacare" but pretty much everyone knows reform is needed. It's too bad the GOP's aim is to put more money in the hands of the insurance companies. Some "reform" platform. Same old same old.


Everyone knows reform is needed. It's how to achieve it that is the point of contention. The Republicans have offered several alternative solutions, some of which I think are good, so it's simply BS that the aim is to put more money in the hands of the insurance companies. That's no more true than to say that the Dems want to continue to enrich the trial lawyers, for instance.


then why didn't they pursue any of these solutions when they held power? also didn't another poster mention that the democrat bill already includes over 150 republican amendments? that sounds pretty bipartisan to me. you can't have it both ways.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:12 am

You guys do realize Americans are paying more than twice as much a percentage of their incomes in health care costs since 2000, right?
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby Lula » Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:02 am

Fact Finder wrote:
economists will tell you that a dollar of government spending gives you more bang for your buck than tax cuts. basic econ 101.


More bang for who?

If it's Gov spending you want, then why not follow the Laffer Curve. ie..the lower the tax rate goes, the more money the Feds get in Tax receipts. This happens because more people are incentivised to earn income and thus pay taxes if they get to keep more of it. It's worked everytime it's been tried. Tax cuts are exactly what we need right now more than ever to get us out of this debt.


if that was remotely the case, the bush tax cuts would've paid for themselves, and reagan wouldn't have spent most of his term increasing taxes. there's a reason poppy bush used to mock reagan's supply-side ideas as vodoo economics. and it doesn't take a rhodes scholar economist to figure it out.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Ehwmatt » Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:03 am

Saint John wrote:"African American" is a really stupid fucking term.


The Associated Press Style Guide for Newspapers says to ALWAYS use "black" instead of "African American." You're not alone in thinking this way.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby donnaplease » Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:13 am

7 Wishes wrote:You guys do realize Americans are paying more than twice as much a percentage of their incomes in health care costs since 2000, right?


I think we all agree that we pay too much for our health care, whether it be insurance premiums, co-pays, or whatever. I know I have personally put off going to the doctor for certain things because I either couldn't afford or didn't want to pay my share. I may regret that some day. :? Why is it so hard to understand though that a large percentage of the American public, while agreeing that SOMETHING needs to be done to help, feels that THIS PLAN isn't the RIGHT PLAN for us at this time? The poll I heard referenced this morning stated that about 70% polled wanted a 'do nothing' or 'start over' answer to the issue. That left less than one third in favor of the plan put before the politicians now.

It seems to me that what we're really dealing with is a "nation of NO", not just a "party of NO".
User avatar
donnaplease
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:38 am
Location: shenandoah valley

Postby RedWingFan » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:10 am

Lula wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
Lula wrote:you can try to stimulate demand through spending or tax cuts. both will add to the deficit.

When you have financial troubles at home do you spend more in the hopes that it'll raise your income? I know it's stupid! Obama isn't trying to stimulate anything but dependence on government. He's a Marxist. It's what they do.


you're comparing government debt to private debt. not even close to the same thing. economists will tell you that a dollar of government spending gives you more bang for your buck than tax cuts. basic econ 101. What you’re saying makes a great soundbyte tho. :wink:
the recent fourth quarter growth was fueled by the stimulus. you can call it marxist...,or whatever meaningless word rush has programmed you to say. i'm just glad the economy is coming out of weeds.

I suppose your referring to the 4th quarter 5.7% growth in GDP that will be rivised downward a couple of times?
GDP is calculated with CIG.... Public Consumption, Business Investment, and Government spending. CIG.
The unemployment rate tells me that the public isn't consuming a whole lot, and the plummeting stock market's telling me that Business Investment isn't blowin' anyones doors off. Hmmm, whats that leave. Oh yeah, the trillion or so dollars the government is flushing....er, stimulusing down the toilet! Ah yes, wonderful Government Spending. :roll:
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby Lula » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:18 am

RedWingFan wrote:
Lula wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
Lula wrote:you can try to stimulate demand through spending or tax cuts. both will add to the deficit.

When you have financial troubles at home do you spend more in the hopes that it'll raise your income? I know it's stupid! Obama isn't trying to stimulate anything but dependence on government. He's a Marxist. It's what they do.


you're comparing government debt to private debt. not even close to the same thing. economists will tell you that a dollar of government spending gives you more bang for your buck than tax cuts. basic econ 101. What you’re saying makes a great soundbyte tho. :wink:
the recent fourth quarter growth was fueled by the stimulus. you can call it marxist...,or whatever meaningless word rush has programmed you to say. i'm just glad the economy is coming out of weeds.

I suppose your referring to the 4th quarter 5.7% growth in GDP that will be rivised downward a couple of times?
GDP is calculated with CIG.... Public Consumption, Business Investment, and Government spending. CIG.
The unemployment rate tells me that the public isn't consuming a whole lot, and the plummeting stock market's telling me that Business Investment isn't blowin' anyones doors off. Hmmm, whats that leave. Oh yeah, the trillion or so dollars the government is flushing....er, stimulusing down the toilet! Ah yes, wonderful Government Spending. :roll:

even when the economy shows green shoots,, you complain. i guess it is to be expected from a party that wishes their president to fail. meanwhile you support candidates and policies that got us into this mess. you obama derangement sufferers are a real scream. :roll:
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby RedWingFan » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:28 am

Lula wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
Lula wrote:you're comparing government debt to private debt. not even close to the same thing. economists will tell you that a dollar of government spending gives you more bang for your buck than tax cuts. basic econ 101. What you’re saying makes a great soundbyte tho. :wink:
the recent fourth quarter growth was fueled by the stimulus. you can call it marxist...,or whatever meaningless word rush has programmed you to say. i'm just glad the economy is coming out of weeds.

I suppose your referring to the 4th quarter 5.7% growth in GDP that will be rivised downward a couple of times?
GDP is calculated with CIG.... Public Consumption, Business Investment, and Government spending. CIG.
The unemployment rate tells me that the public isn't consuming a whole lot, and the plummeting stock market's telling me that Business Investment isn't blowin' anyones doors off. Hmmm, whats that leave. Oh yeah, the trillion or so dollars the government is flushing....er, stimulusing down the toilet! Ah yes, wonderful Government Spending. :roll:

even when the economy shows green shoots,, you complain. meanwhile you support candidates and policies that got us into this mess. you obama derangement sufferers are a real scream. :roll:
Oh yeah, all Bush's fault. The economy was humming along pretty good until 2006 or so wasn't it. I'm sure the shift of power in Congress was a pure coincidence huh? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac too, which Bush called democrats to reform a dozen or so times. All Bush's fault. Bush should have vetoed Congress' spending but he was too busy with the "new tone". That I fault him for. The major collapse was housing, which was defended by ole Frank and Dodd to no end. Do you remember that? I'm sure someone could dig up Frank spitting all over saying how sound Freddie and Fannie were.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:34 am

Spending is a trait that is proven to be the nasty closeted habit of the GOP, not the Democrats. See the aforementioned data on Page 71.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby RedWingFan » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:44 am

7 Wishes wrote:Spending is a trait that is proven to be the nasty closeted habit of the GOP, not the Democrats. See the aforementioned data on Page 71.

They both do it! That's the problem. It was Bush's promised "Compassionate" that offset any good he did. You remember him calling himself a "Compassionate Conservative" right? Gotta take the good with the bad. At least he kept Gore and Kerry out of office.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:46 am

RedWingFan wrote:Oh yeah, all Bush's fault. The economy was humming along pretty good until 2006 or so wasn't it.

Not really.
It was recently revealed that 2000-2009 was the first decade on record since the 1930s with no net job growth.
If that's your idea of a robust thriving economy, have at it.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121602
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01196.html

RedWingFan wrote:I'm sure the shift of power in Congress was a pure coincidence huh? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac too, which Bush called democrats to reform a dozen or so times. All Bush's fault. Bush should have vetoed Congress' spending but he was too busy with the "new tone". That I fault him for. The major collapse was housing, which was defended by ole Frank and Dodd to no end. Do you remember that? I'm sure someone could dig up Frank spitting all over saying how sound Freddie and Fannie were.

There's no two ways around this - you're mistaken. Plain and simple.
Michael Oxley, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has gone on record repeatedly about his attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie.
The response from the Bush White House concerning regulation was, quote: "we got a one finger salute."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91 ... ck_check=1

And by the time of the collapse, Freddie and Fannie were trailing trends set by Wall Street.
Meanwhile, Wall Street was gaining subprime market share.
Freddie and Fannie may have bought subprime-backed securities after encouraging them, but they didn’t make subprime loans or securitize them.
Bush made a few half-hearted attempts to rein in Freddie/Fannie, but his administration also prevented states from fighting predatory lending and took all sorts of other regulations off the books.
Let the market work its magic and all that other happy horseshit, right?

"Federal Reserve Board data showed that:

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
• Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law (CRA) that's being lambasted by conservative critics."


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/i ... e_and.html


“Mr. Bush’s banking regulators once brandished a chainsaw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the efforts…”


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/busin ... wanted=all
Last edited by The_Noble_Cause on Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16058
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby treetopovskaya » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:51 am

can people just admit if was pretty self-serving for obama to bring up this woman? to use her death to make his point?

no shit things need to change. people just don't like his ideas. dems want big gov... reps want small gov... i have to side with the reps on that. }:C)

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
User avatar
treetopovskaya
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:58 pm

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:57 am

treetopovskaya wrote:can people just admit if was pretty self-serving for obama to bring up this woman? to use her death to make his point?

Judging by her activism and dedication to O's message, I don't think she'd have it any other way.

treetopovskaya wrote:no shit things need to change. people just don't like his ideas. dems want big gov... reps want small gov... i have to side with the reps on that. }:C)


No. Republicans just like to talk about shrinking government. There's a difference!
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16058
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby RedWingFan » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:00 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:I'm sure the shift of power in Congress was a pure coincidence huh? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac too, which Bush called democrats to reform a dozen or so times. All Bush's fault. Bush should have vetoed Congress' spending but he was too busy with the "new tone". That I fault him for. The major collapse was housing, which was defended by ole Frank and Dodd to no end. Do you remember that? I'm sure someone could dig up Frank spitting all over saying how sound Freddie and Fannie were.

There's no two ways around this - you're mistaken. Plain and simple.
Michael Oxley, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has gone on record repeatedly about his attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie.
The response from the Bush White House concerning regulation was, quote: "we got a one finger salute."

Oh, Okay. I'm sure all this is as falsified and fraudulant as Obama's "saved or created" jobs. My bad. :roll:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/20 ... -warnings/
The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.
Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president’s warnings:

** 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 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.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby Ehwmatt » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:02 pm

"Jobs Saved" is the one thing that has cracked me up since they started spouting that crackpot line. It's simply hysterical. Even if it were as true as the Holocaust, there's no way you could measure such a thing.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:20 pm

Well, I mentioned that Bush made attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie.
Of course you chop that off because you are a dishonest bastard.
The fact of the matter is, in the same breath Bush called for reform of Freddie and Fannie, he was also relentlessly pushing his "home ownership society" and gutting lending standards and regulatory bodies that could've prevented the crisis.
The proof is in the pudding, once bi-partisan legislation was drafted to rein them in, it got tabled in congress, and had NO support from Bush.
Talk is cheap.
Besides, as Freddie and Fannie didn't drive the crash nearly as much as the too-big-to-fail investment banks, your entire premise is flawed.

RedWingFan wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:I'm sure the shift of power in Congress was a pure coincidence huh? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac too, which Bush called democrats to reform a dozen or so times. All Bush's fault. Bush should have vetoed Congress' spending but he was too busy with the "new tone". That I fault him for. The major collapse was housing, which was defended by ole Frank and Dodd to no end. Do you remember that? I'm sure someone could dig up Frank spitting all over saying how sound Freddie and Fannie were.

There's no two ways around this - you're mistaken. Plain and simple.
Michael Oxley, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has gone on record repeatedly about his attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie.
The response from the Bush White House concerning regulation was, quote: "we got a one finger salute."

Oh, Okay. I'm sure all this is as falsified and fraudulant as Obama's "saved or created" jobs. My bad. :roll:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/20 ... -warnings/
The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.
Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president’s warnings:

** 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 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.
Last edited by The_Noble_Cause on Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16058
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby conversationpc » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:21 pm

Lula wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
7 Wishes wrote:Do you guys read the polls, though? 70% of Americans want Congress to do SOMETHING about health care. They may not (by a 53-47 margin) want "Obamacare" but pretty much everyone knows reform is needed. It's too bad the GOP's aim is to put more money in the hands of the insurance companies. Some "reform" platform. Same old same old.


Everyone knows reform is needed. It's how to achieve it that is the point of contention. The Republicans have offered several alternative solutions, some of which I think are good, so it's simply BS that the aim is to put more money in the hands of the insurance companies. That's no more true than to say that the Dems want to continue to enrich the trial lawyers, for instance.


then why didn't they pursue any of these solutions when they held power? also didn't another poster mention that the democrat bill already includes over 150 republican amendments? that sounds pretty bipartisan to me. you can't have it both ways.


They did pursue them.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby RedWingFan » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:32 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:The proof is in the putting, once bi-partisan legislation was drafted to rein them in, it got tabled in congress, and had NO support from Bush.

All Bush can do is sign or veto a bill. If Congress especially after the Dems took control, could send a bill to Bush and have him veto it and thus pin the crash that they all knew was coming on him. Don't you think they'd do it in a heartbeat? But no they didn't. Why? Because he would have signed it. Meanwhile you have Frank and Dodd defending them right up to the crash. You expect everybody to believe that Pelosi and Reid grabbed the ankles for Bush?

Did the Republicans Welfare Reform Bill have support from Clinton? No, He vetoed it twice and only signed it the third time during his re-election campaign.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:09 pm

RedWingFan wrote:All Bush can do is sign or veto a bill.

The president sets the agenda.
I never heard him publicly push for reform or regulation in any of his press conferences or state of the unions.

RedWingFan wrote:If Congress especially after the Dems took control, could send a bill to Bush and have him veto it and thus pin the crash that they all knew was coming on him.

Hold up....
Before the Dems regained the majority, a bill to reform Freddie and Fannie was drafted by Republican chairman, Michael Oxley, and Barney Frank back in 2005.
Where'd it go?
Could it be, as Oxley said: "The problem with those guys at the White House, they had all those answers and they didn't think they had to listen to anyone...They were driving the ideological train. He was in the caboose, and they were in the engine room."
RedWingFan wrote:Don't you think they'd do it in a heartbeat? But no they didn't. Why? Because he would have signed it. Meanwhile you have Frank and Dodd defending them right up to the crash. You expect everybody to believe that Pelosi and Reid grabbed the ankles for Bush?

Just two months after Frank became chairman of the house financial services committee in 2007, legislation was introduced to regulate Freddie and Fannie and Bush did sign it.
It was called the Federal Housing Reform Act of 2007. Look it up.
But this is all a distracting shell game.
If you're looking for culprits, your attention would be better spent looking at the financial sector.
Frank and Dodd did not force the too-big-to-fail investment banks to buy up subprime mortgages, bundle them into complex derivatives, and give them false Triple A ratings, or force AIG to start insuring those toxic subprime mortgages.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16058
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:15 pm

treetopovskaya wrote:dems want big gov... reps want small gov... i have to side with the reps on that. }:C)


The OPPOSITE has been unquestionably and irrefutably proven to be true. Please refer to Page 71 if you have any questions. The size of the federal government ALWAYS increases substantially under Republican Administrations.

You just sound ignorant when you spew shit like this without regard for the facts.

But, the GOP has NEVER let facts interfere with a good sound byte.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby treetopovskaya » Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:59 pm

7 Wishes wrote:
treetopovskaya wrote:dems want big gov... reps want small gov... i have to side with the reps on that. }:C)


The OPPOSITE has been unquestionably and irrefutably proven to be true. Please refer to Page 71 if you have any questions. The size of the federal government ALWAYS increases substantially under Republican Administrations.

You just sound ignorant when you spew shit like this without regard for the facts.

But, the GOP has NEVER let facts interfere with a good sound byte.


okay... if i have a choice between a big increase & a small increase i'll take the smaller. to suggest that the reps want a larger gov than the dems is insanely stupid.

keep in mind that congress approves all budgets & the dems have been in charge since 2006.
User avatar
treetopovskaya
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:58 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:28 pm

I think you may have misunderstood, and I know you don't know the facts...yet. Here they are:

Oh, BTW. You're wrong, again. Sorry, sweetie.

P.S. An "increase in government employees" means the federal government is getting larger.

Under the 20 years of Republican administrations the number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000.

Under the 20 years of Democratic administrations, the number of non-defense government employees rose by 59,000.

Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Kennedy 1962-1965
The last Eisenhower budget had 782,000 non-defense employees. By the end of the Kennedy term that number had risen to 857,000. The Kennedy administration is assigned responsibility for the addition of 75,000 government employees.

Johnson 1966-1969
The Johnson years saw the number of government employees rise to 960,000. His administration is assigned responsibility for the addition of 103,000 employees.

Nixon (which include the Ford years) 1970-1977
The Nixon years saw non-defense government employees rise from 960,000 in Johnson's last year to 1,173,000 in 1977. Nixon (and Ford) have responsibility for an increase of 213,000 employees.

Carter 1978-1981
During the Carter years, the number of non-defense federal employees dropped by 14,000.

Reagan 1982-1989
In the Reagan years, the federal workforce increased by 3,000 employees.

Bush 1990-1993
Under George Herbert Walker Bush, the number of non-defense government employees increased from 1,162,000 to 1,256,000 for a gain of 94,000 employees.

Clinton 1993-2001
During the Clinton years the number of non-defense government employees fell from 1,256,000 to 1,151,000 for a decrease of 105,000 employees.

Bush 2001-2009
The total number of federal employees under Dubbya increased by nine percent.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:35 pm

Another Reagan supply side pioneer, David Stockman, has jumped ship, and openly proclaimed “game over” on the GOP’s tax cutting ways.
Between him, Bruce Bartlett, Paul Craig Roberts, and Alan Greenspan, I’m losing track of all the 180s pulled by former Reagan economic officials.
If the GOP was serious about confronting today's economic problems, they could do alot worse than listening to these guys.
Same goes for the Dems for that matter.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/modul ... 1s3a71qdd4
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16058
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby RedWingFan » Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:49 pm

7 Wishes wrote:I think you may have misunderstood, and I know you don't know the facts...yet. Here they are:

You forgot to reference your source again genius! :lol:
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests