This is not a Democracy

[Independent Harry]

Here's the deal, everyone on here keeps saying democracy when referring to America. We are not a democracy, we elect officials to represent us when singing bills into law. So therefore we are a republic. totally different. A democracy is basically subject to mob rule. Where a republic is supposed to be learned men creating a buffer between the two. If you don't beleive me, jsut recite the pledge of allegiance.

In my mind we would solve half our problems overnight if we made it very illegal to lobby and be a special interest group. Like say if you are caught lobbying to a congress person, its 20 years in jail, and the delegate gets his ass handed to him.

But on the other side of the coin, I was speaking to someone from africa the other day. And he was telling me how much he loves this country. Beacuse where he is from all the power rests in the hand of one man. And all the wealth gets funneled up to him while the rest of the country is broke. While things aren't the best here, we sure do have it much better than a lot of other places in the world.

[bairdi]

Here's the deal, everyone on here keeps saying democracy when referring to America. We are not a democracy, we elect officials to represent us when singing bills into law. So therefore we are a republic. totally different. A democracy is basically subject to mob rule. Where a republic is supposed to be learned men creating a buffer between the two. If you don't beleive me, jsut recite the pledge of allegiance.

In my mind we would solve half our problems overnight if we made it very illegal to lobby and be a special interest group. Like say if you are caught lobbying to a congress person, its 20 years in jail, and the delegate gets his ass handed to him.

But on the other side of the coin, I was speaking to someone from africa the other day. And he was telling me how much he loves this country. Beacuse where he is from all the power rests in the hand of one man. And all the wealth gets funneled up to him while the rest of the country is broke. While things aren't the best here, we sure do have it much better than a lot of other places in the world.
Here is the way I see it Harry and it's pretty simple. A little more than 230 years ago, the colonists that lived here became disenfranchised with living under the single rule of a monarch. They rebelled against that type of government and won. Because they no longer wished to be part of a monarchy they declared the country a republic. After much thought and debate they decided upon a form of self government, one in which the power rested upon the governed and not a ruler. To implement this concept of self government, they decided to use a type of representative democracy where regional representatives, chosen by a majority vote, would act on behalf of their citizens to institute law to provide for the greater good of all.

I see government not as something separate and apart from the people, but an institution of the people. The major problem, in my opinion, is the rise in power of corporations. When the battle ensued for corporate power back in the 1800's and corporations were granted legal status and protection that was reserved for human beings, the intent of the founders of this country was subverted.

[kres24GT]

It's very scary people think our country should be majority ruled. Of course when people say that they only mean if they are in the majority.

[Mr. Blue]

Here's the deal, everyone on here keeps saying democracy when referring to America. We are not a democracy, we elect officials to represent us when singing bills into law. So therefore we are a republic. totally different. A democracy is basically subject to mob rule. Where a republic is supposed to be learned men creating a buffer between the two. If you don't beleive me, jsut recite the pledge of allegiance.

In my mind we would solve half our problems overnight if we made it very illegal to lobby and be a special interest group. Like say if you are caught lobbying to a congress person, its 20 years in jail, and the delegate gets his ass handed to him.

But on the other side of the coin, I was speaking to someone from africa the other day. And he was telling me how much he loves this country. Beacuse where he is from all the power rests in the hand of one man. And all the wealth gets funneled up to him while the rest of the country is broke. While things aren't the best here, we sure do have it much better than a lot of other places in the world.

Even though we're still a Republic, we don't really embody the spirit of what the founding fathers laid out for us. Career politicians, lobbyists, and this narrowing of power.

In my lifetime I've never been enthused to vote for either candidate...it was always this lesser of two evils type pick for me, and I'm curious as to why that is...it's not like I want some perfect person, but my god, we've been scraping bottom of the barrel for awhile now.

I agree with you that lobbyists should be the first to go. Term limits...second peg. Finally, open up the process a little more so third parties stand a chance...right now the only way we get a real third party candidate is by having a rogue billionaire run...oh, gee, isn't that great.

[Binky]

Here's the deal, everyone on here keeps saying democracy when referring to America. We are not a democracy, we elect officials to represent us when singing bills into law. So therefore we are a republic. totally different. A democracy is basically subject to mob rule. Where a republic is supposed to be learned men creating a buffer between the two. If you don't beleive me, jsut recite the pledge of allegiance.

In my mind we would solve half our problems overnight if we made it very illegal to lobby and be a special interest group. Like say if you are caught lobbying to a congress person, its 20 years in jail, and the delegate gets his ass handed to him.

But on the other side of the coin, I was speaking to someone from africa the other day. And he was telling me how much he loves this country. Beacuse where he is from all the power rests in the hand of one man. And all the wealth gets funneled up to him while the rest of the country is broke. While things aren't the best here, we sure do have it much better than a lot of other places in the world.



I seriously doubt we'd ever be able to get rid of lobbyists. There is too much money flowing out of their fists into the deep pockets of our politicians. If that well ran dry, then it would be possible.

[doctordog]

I seriously doubt we'd ever be able to get rid of lobbyists. There is too much money flowing out of their fists into the deep pockets of our politicians. If that well ran dry, then it would be possible.


On the other hand, since the Whitehouse has chose to ignore lobbyist they have shut off the pipeline for information. This is one of the main causes the highway stimulus has not made it to the states that need it.

[Binky]

On the other hand, since the Whitehouse has chose to ignore lobbyist they have shut off the pipeline for information. This is one of the main causes the highway stimulus has not made it to the states that need it.


In that case, there should then be a decline in lobbyists.

[bairdi]

It's very scary people think our country should be majority ruled. Of course when people say that they only mean if they are in the majority.
So you are saying that people should be ruled by minority or monarchy? Or are you implying no rule of law at all and every man for himself?

[mwillman]

Even though we're still a Republic, we don't really embody the spirit of what the founding fathers laid out for us. Career politicians, lobbyists, and this narrowing of power.

The founding fathers were for the most part career politicians all of them served for years in one form or another. There were lobbyists even then although they were much less organized. I think for the most part the founding fathers would be happy to know that we are still going strong 200 years later. Just like now they had many differing beliefs in the future but what they all agreed on was the chance for a future.


In my lifetime I've never been enthused to vote for either candidate...it was always this lesser of two evils type pick for me, and I'm curious as to why that is...it's not like I want some perfect person, but my god, we've been scraping bottom of the barrel for awhile now.

Our system is not perfect but no system is perfect and as such we are forced to go with the best of the worst.


I agree with you that lobbyists should be the first to go. Term limits...second peg. Finally, open up the process a little more so third parties stand a chance...right now the only way we get a real third party candidate is by having a rogue billionaire run...oh, gee, isn't that great.

I think anyone that talks to a politician with an agenda is a lobbyist. So we need to be more specific as to what getting rid of lobbyists means. I beleive people have the right to push for thier political desires, So the question is how do we fix the system without removing the peoples rights to fight for what they believe in.

I'm all for multiple parties its the masses you need to convince.

[kres24GT]

So you are saying that people should be ruled by minority or monarchy? Or are you implying no rule of law at all and every man for himself?


People should elect people who will do what is best for the country, not what is most popular, or best for big business. Are you honestly saying majority should rule?

[bairdi]

People should elect people who will do what is best for the country, not what is most popular, or best for big business. Are you honestly saying majority should rule?
I believe in minority rights. The majority is not always correct in their choices. What makes you believe that people do not elect people who they believe will do what is best for the country? Your beliefs may for what is best may differ greatly from the belief of others. What criteria determines what is best?

[kres24GT]

I believe in minority rights. The majority is not always correct in their choices. What makes you believe that people do not elect people who they believe will do what is best for the country? Your beliefs may for what is best may differ greatly from the belief of others. What criteria determines what is best?

Are you this delusional. Washington is full of insiders sold out to lobbyists and Big Business. They do not have our best interest at heart.

Basically if you agree with the majority you believe in majority rules, if you are in the minority, then it's minority rights.


I believe in freedom. Let people decide for themselves. It make life harder, but freedom is worth it. Trading in your individual freedom for safety and comfort is one thing, but forcing everyone to trade in theirs for your own safety and comfort, is both selfish and unethical.

Stop using the police power of government to force us all to live the way some think we should.

[mwillman]

Kres24GT.

You should have been born 130 years ago becuase that was the last time the world you dream of ever existed.

[kres24GT]

Kres24GT.

You should have been born 130 years ago becuase that was the last time the world you dream of ever existed.


Do you think majority should rule?

[mwillman]

I think those the majority votes in should rule.

I think the minority can fight for what they beleive in but if they lose they should buck up and deal with it rather then acting like the world is all screwed up becuase the majority doesn't agree with them.

[Mason66]

Here's the deal, everyone on here keeps saying democracy when referring to America. We are not a democracy, we elect officials to represent us when singing bills into law. So therefore we are a republic. totally different. A democracy is basically subject to mob rule. Where a republic is supposed to be learned men creating a buffer between the two. If you don't beleive me, jsut recite the pledge of allegiance.

In my mind we would solve half our problems overnight if we made it very illegal to lobby and be a special interest group. Like say if you are caught lobbying to a congress person, its 20 years in jail, and the delegate gets his ass handed to him.

But on the other side of the coin, I was speaking to someone from africa the other day. And he was telling me how much he loves this country. Beacuse where he is from all the power rests in the hand of one man. And all the wealth gets funneled up to him while the rest of the country is broke. While things aren't the best here, we sure do have it much better than a lot of other places in the world.

If there were no lobbyists politicians would have no opinions at all. They can't be bothered to read anything on their own. I am not saying this as a joke. It has been shown over and over again. I don't think the majority of these politicians have the common sense to understand the issues they vote on. They live their protected lives as career politicians and a lot of the items they vote on don't apply to them.

[Independent Harry]

If there were no lobbyists politicians would have no opinions at all. They can't be bothered to read anything on their own. I am not saying this as a joke. It has been shown over and over again. I don't think the majority of these politicians have the common sense to understand the issues they vote on. They live their protected lives as career politicians and a lot of the items they vote on don't apply to them.

If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you...lobbyists are there to give polititians sufficient motivation to vote on certain bills. Everyone has an opinion, they're like assholes...

Lobyists do nothing but promote corruption between government and corporations...

[Mason66]

If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you...lobbyists are there to give polititians sufficient motivation to vote on certain bills. Everyone has an opinion, they're like assholes...

Lobyists do nothing but promote corruption between government and corporations...

What I am saying is that when a lobbyist comes to a politician, the politician takes his word for how things are. He does not investigate things on his own. Money is a big factor there. If a politician receives money from these guys, they cater their opinions to their side.

Without the lobbyists the politicians wouldn't take the time to even think about that particular issue.

[kres24GT]

I think those the majority votes in should rule.

I think the minority can fight for what they beleive in but if they lose they should buck up and deal with it rather then acting like the world is all screwed up becuase the majority doesn't agree with them.

So if the majority want to enslave the minority, all is good? Scary stuff.

[mwillman]

Well even though I wouldn't really care if most republicans were enslaved I also think you are arguing absurdities. Since Jackson was president the nation has been run by those voted in by the majority(most of the time Bush did not have a majority) and instead of enslaving people we actually freed the slaves.

Again your fears are not based in reality they are based in your ideology.

[kres24GT]

Well even though I wouldn't really care if most republicans were enslaved I also think you are arguing absurdities. Since Jackson was president the nation has been run by those voted in by the majority(most of the time Bush did not have a majority) and instead of enslaving people we actually freed the slaves.

Again your fears are not based in reality they are based in your ideology.

Just pointing how insane your comments are. Majority rules should never be the case.

[mwillman]

What are you some kind of fucking monarchist, if the majority doesn't rule then who does, a collection of your white male friends?

You sound like the facist to me, let a small group of elitists rule becuase they support your bull shit agenda, I dont think so.

[kres24GT]

What are you some kind of fucking monarchist, if the majority doesn't rule then who does, a collection of your white male friends?

You sound like the facist to me, let a small group of elitists rule becuase they support your bull shit agenda, I dont think so.


Who rules now? Now we have a group of corrupt politicians (mostly white male) who are sold out to corporations and special interest.
In my America a group of extremely diverse elected representatives with the best interest of the populace, and term limits, rule.

[mwillman]

So you are saying you don't like the republican party?

[Independent Harry]

So you are saying you don't like the republican party?

no he's saying congressional and house seats should have term limits...

[kres24GT]

So you are saying you don't like the republican party?


Who are you asking? I have stated a million times I hate the Republicans.

[mwillman]

My problem with this kind of argument is simple.

There is no such thing as a perfect system.
Its way to easy to sit on the side lines and lambaste everyone democrat or republican but in the end it doesn't accomplish anything. If you don't pick a side and work for the changes you think are important then you are just a nay sayer with nothing to add.

[kres24GT]

My problem with this kind of argument is simple.

There is no such thing as a perfect system.
Its way to easy to sit on the side lines and lambaste everyone democrat or republican but in the end it doesn't accomplish anything. If you don't pick a side and work for the changes you think are important then you are just a nay sayer with nothing to add.

Republicans and Democrats, there is no difference, if you support one, you support the other and you support all the misery the current system of corruption and corporate governess that pollutes our system now. The Repub/Dem debates are just a distraction while the politicians (in both parties) steal our country from us and sell it off piece by piece to the highest bidder. Sitting around trying to assign blame for everything to one party or the other is a waste of time.

Very little has changed from Bush and Repub congress to Obama and Dem Congress. We are still spending recklessly, we are still building a false economy instead of educating ourselves economically, we are sill nation building across the globe, and we are still selling off our children's future to the Chinese. While you all squabble over who is more to blame, republicans or democrats, they just keep on truckin' in Washington.

[mwillman]

Thats just not true, Republicans and democrats are not the same.

Now Im not saying all democrats are great people but what they fight for is not what republicans fight for.

[kres24GT]

Thats just not true, Republicans and democrats are not the same.

Now Im not saying all democrats are great people but what they fight for is not what republicans fight for.

A politician's wet dream. A loyal sheep.

[mwillman]

A politician's wet dream. A loyal sheep.

And you are all politicians wet dream someone that has no effect on the system becuase they dont participate in a meaningful way.

I am not a sheep, I am a thinking individual who would rather participate in the political system rather then just complain.

[kres24GT]

And you are all politicians wet dream someone that has no effect on the system becuase they dont participate in a meaningful way.

I am not a sheep, I am a thinking individual who would rather participate in the political system rather then just complain.

You are a governmetn sheep who feeds the current broken system. I think for myself and vote for real change every election. I will take my way over yours every day of the week and twice on Sunday. We see what the current system has brought us.

[kres24GT]

If you vote for a Republican or Democrat in any election, you wasted your vote.

[mwillman]

So since you don't vote for any party that wins tell me what have your accomplished.

[kres24GT]

So since you don't vote for any party that wins tell me what have your accomplished.


Unless you voted fro the person who wins, you wasted your vote? I take it you voted for Bush both times he won?

[mwillman]

No I did not but I did vote against him.
Its not about winning its about trying.

[doctordog]

No I did not but I did vote against him.
Its not about winning its about trying.

That is what losers always say.:thumbsup:

[mwillman]

Yes and now its your turn loser.

[doctordog]

Yes and now its your turn loser.

I am a winner, you see, since you voted such a lame duck in, it will be long after I am dead before another stupid community organizer get's to lead the free world. :thumbsup:

[mwillman]

Nice try loser but you failed.

[doctordog]

Nice try loser but you failed.

We won, Obama is the new Tyson, or OJ, or Michael Vick, or Jesse Jackson. He is the fuck up everyone will remember.

[mwillman]

Blah blah blah, all the insipid responses in the world wont change the fact that you and yours lost and you lost fucking big. P.S. your ignorant racism is showing.

[kres24GT]

No I did not but I did vote against him.
Its not about winning its about trying.


So your vote was wasted by your own idiotic definition. I vote against the failed corrupt two party system every election.

[mwillman]

No my vote wasnt wasted it was defeated, the difference is this time my vote did win and yours will never win.

[kres24GT]

No my vote wasnt wasted it was defeated, the difference is this time my vote did win and yours will never win.


Your vote didn't win anything. Bush was elected.

[mwillman]

My vote was for president Obama and he did win.

God your dumb.

[disrupter]

It's very scary people think our country should be majority ruled. Of course when people say that they only mean if they are in the majority.

wicked acid truth,

but countered equally legitimately by [paraphrase] Churchill:

"Democracy is the worst form of government,

except for ALL the rest."

democratic votes do provide a feedback loop.
Depending on how well people inform themselves a constant polling democracy could be unimaginably good or a terminal nightmare.

in reality i suppose most liberal democracies have become a sort of rough, crude dialogue between Government power & people power.

In America where we really do have diverse opinions & perspectives democracy can be especially quixotic.

[disrupter]

If you vote & your vote is counted fairly you won. PERIOD.

Your opinion was expressed, at least through the filter of available candidates or write-in choice.

It is stupid to think you choose to vote for someone because that is the person you think will win.

you vote for the person you want to win, who you presumably think is best.

& George W. Bush was NEVER legitimately elected, EVER, EVER, EVER.

Don't stain the American people with an unearned taint.

[kres24GT]

If you vote & your vote is counted fairly you won. PERIOD.

Your opinion was expressed, at least through the filter of available candidates or write-in choice.

It is stupid to think you choose to vote for someone because that is the person you think will win.

you vote for the person you want to win, who you presumably think is best.

& George W. Bush was NEVER legitimately elected, EVER, EVER, EVER.

Don't stain the American people with an unearned taint.



No president has ever won without cheating, so that really doesn't matter. both sides cheat. So if you say no president has ever won legitly fine. I jsut go with who wins the election and is actually declared president.

[kres24GT]

My vote was for president Obama and he did win.

God your dumb.


Are you this stupid. Obama did not even run the two times Bush was elected, nor did he win. By your own idiotic definition if you vote for anyone besides who wins your vote is wasted. Unless you voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, you wasted your vote.

[mwillman]

Why are you so stuck on Bushs stolen elections.

You are too stupid to understand my logic.

[kres24GT]

Why are you so stuck on Bushs stolen elections.

You are too stupid to understand my logic.


Logic isn't working for you here. You don't even subscribe to your own logic, you have voted for people who did not win.

[mwillman]

You can stop trying to define my logic becuase you don't seem to be able to understand anything that isn't spewed on fox news.

So lets just end this with a basic Fuck you.

[Zebulon0351]

Are you this stupid. Obama did not even run the two times Bush was elected, nor did he win. By your own idiotic definition if you vote for anyone besides who wins your vote is wasted. Unless you voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, you wasted your vote.

I voted for Bush in both elections, and I will regret that until the day I die.

[radioguy]

I voted for Bush in both elections, and I will regret that until the day I die.

You can't actually believe that Al Gore or John Kerry would have made better presidents than Bush?

Al Gore was too much of a pussy and John Kerry too much of an idiot.

.

[mwillman]

I do beleive that either of them would have been a much better president.

Bush was one of the worst presidents this nation has ever had and it will take years to fix what he has broken.

[Zebulon0351]

You can't actually believe that Al Gore or John Kerry would have made better presidents than Bush?

Al Gore was too much of a pussy and John Kerry too much of an idiot.

.

I don't know how anyone could have been worse than Dubya. Failed economic policies that got us into the mess we are in now, a war that had nothing to do with 9/11 that ruined international relations that cost us over 4,000 lives, power, money, corruption, deception

Id take a Gore or a Kerry any day over Bush.

[doctordog]

I don't know how anyone could have been worse than Dubya. Failed economic policies that got us into the mess we are in now, a war that had nothing to do with 9/11 that ruined international relations that cost us over 4,000 lives, power, money, corruption, deception

Id take a Gore or a Kerry any day over Bush.

:lmao2: :lmao2: thank God that can't happen

[kres24GT]

You can stop trying to define my logic becuase you don't seem to be able to understand anything that isn't spewed on fox news.

So lets just end this with a basic Fuck you.


Fox News is anything but, it's mindless entertainment disguised (poorly) as legitimate news. I don't watch it. It's so funny you think anyone who disagrees with you politically is a mindless Republican sheep. Just goes to show the limitation of your abilities, anyone who doesn't fit in to a partisan sheep mode, you can't talk to them. You are incapable of such on an intellectual level.

[mwillman]

I guess you missed the Fuck you part.

That basically means I completely dismiss anything you have to say becuase its so fucking ignorant that it doesn't deserve attention.

[radioguy]

I don't know how anyone could have been worse than Dubya. Failed economic policies that got us into the mess we are in now

Wrong!!! His economic policies aren't what tanked the economy and you know it. Collapse of the housing market and banks are why were are in trouble, and Bush didn't cause either of them.

I responded to you on another thread about this, but it seems you ignored it.

a war that had nothing to do with 9/11 that ruined international relations that cost us over 4,000 lives

A war that had everything to do with the war on terrorism. Since both Al Gore and John Kerry supported that war, using it as an argument against the decisions President Bush made while in office, just doesn't hold any water.


Id take a Gore or a Kerry any day over Bush.

Thank god most Americans didn't see it that way.

.

[Zebulon0351]

Wrong!!! His economic policies aren't what tanked the economy and you know it. Collapse of the housing market and banks are why were are in trouble, and Bush didn't cause either of them.

Bullshit.. one of Bush's key points in his reelection was pushing for home ownership for minorities, and allowing the low interest loans to get people into their own homes:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/27/bush_pushes_home_ownership_opportunities_for_minor ities/





A war that had everything to do with the war on terrorism. Since both Al Gore and John Kerry supported that war, using it as an argument against the decisions President Bush made while in office, just doesn't hold any water.


Bush had plans to take out Saddam prior to 9/11, and he used that fateful day to take advantage of the new-found patriotic sentiment shared by most Americans to push the questionable intel reports to justify the war.
Sure Kerry and Gore supported it, the facts placed in front of them were very disturbing. Good job on Bush's part for deceiving the entire government and country to take out the one person who was responsible for keeping some sort of stability in the Middle East.

[doctordog]

Bullshit.. one of Bush's key points in his reelection was pushing for home ownership for minorities, and allowing the low interest loans to get people into their own homes:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/27/bush_pushes_home_ownership_opportunities_for_minor ities/







Bush had plans to take out Saddam prior to 9/11, and he used that fateful day to take advantage of the new-found patriotic sentiment shared by most Americans to push the questionable intel reports to justify the war.
Sure Kerry and Gore supported it, the facts placed in front of them were very disturbing. Good job on Bush's part for deceiving the entire government and country to take out the one person who was responsible for keeping some sort of stability in the Middle East.

Clinton's signature forcing banks to make loans to unqualified minorites has as much or more to do with the housing crash as anything tied to Bush. Most of the responsibility falls to the people that signed off on the loans.

[radioguy]

Bullshit.. one of Bush's key points in his reelection was pushing for home ownership for minorities, and allowing the low interest loans to get people into their own homes

Low interest loans are a far cry from issuing loans to people who couldn't afford to make the payments... which is exactly what Freddie and Fannie did, and the president tried to put a stop to by warning congress 38 times in 7 years.

ADDRESS THAT PAL!


Bush had plans to take out Saddam prior to 9/11 and he used that fateful day to take advantage of the new-found patriotic sentiment shared by most Americans to push the questionable intel reports to justify the war.

Not only is that pure speculation with no supporting evidence, but it's totally irrelevant. He could have swore on a stack of bibles to take out Saddam prior to 9/11, and it wouldn't have changed one damned thing.

The intel reports used a basis for the war with Iraq weren't altered, manipulated or manufactured by anyone in the Bush administration, as several bi-partisan investigations concluded. In fact, the US intelligence community, as well as nearly every credible intelligence agency in the world, came to the same conclusions about the threat posed by Saddam long before Bush ever took office.

ADDRESS THAT PAL!

Sure Kerry and Gore supported it, the facts placed in front of them were very disturbing. Good job on Bush's part for deceiving the entire government and country to take out the one person who was responsible for keeping some sort of stability in the Middle East.

Pure, 100% liberal bullshit!

Bush didn't deceive anyone. The intelligence reports were not manipulated in any way by Bush or anyone in his administration. If you believe otherwise, than please feel free to present some evidence to back it up with...

Otherwise, I suggest you get psychological treatment for that BDS you are suffering with, before the lies that you've embraced politically, spread into your every day life and destroy you.

.

[foxbaron]

Here is the way I see it Harry and it's pretty simple. A little more than 230 years ago, the colonists that lived here became disenfranchised with living under the single rule of a monarch. They rebelled against that type of government and won. Because they no longer wished to be part of a monarchy they declared the country a republic. After much thought and debate they decided upon a form of self government, one in which the power rested upon the governed and not a ruler. To implement this concept of self government, they decided to use a type of representative democracy where regional representatives, chosen by a majority vote, would act on behalf of their citizens to institute law to provide for the greater good of all.

I see government not as something separate and apart from the people, but an institution of the people. The major problem, in my opinion, is the rise in power of corporations. When the battle ensued for corporate power back in the 1800's and corporations were granted legal status and protection that was reserved for human beings, the intent of the founders of this country was subverted.




If you keep this up Bairdi we are going to have to ban you for making too much sense.

[Zebulon0351]

Otherwise, I suggest you get psychological treatment for that BDS you are suffering with, before the lies that you've embraced politically, spread into your every day life and destroy you.

.

I have addressed as much as I care to. If you want to have an intelligent conversation, I suggest you drop the third-grade mudslinging to show me and everyone else in here that you are capable of such conversations.

I am done trying to have conversations in here with people who insist on throwing insults or degrading comments anytime someone disagrees with them.

Its your choice radio, keep acting like an ass and you will continue to be perceived as one.

[radioguy]

I have addressed as much as I care to. If you want to have an intelligent conversation, I suggest you drop the third-grade mudslinging to show me and everyone else in here that you are capable of such conversations.

I am done trying to have conversations in here with people who insist on throwing insults or degrading comments anytime someone disagrees with them.

Its your choice radio, keep acting like an ass and you will continue to be perceived as one.

Translation: Lets see... How should I respond to RG's post... Hmmm.

RG was right about Bush not endorsing lenders issuing bad loans during the campaign... He was also right about the Bush administration trying to get congress to enact stricter regulations on Fannie and Freddie. If only the democrats would have listened to him... Damn, I don't have any evidence that proves Bush wanted to knock off Saddam before 9/11 either. Besides, he's right... it didn't matter even if I could have proven it, because he didn't manipulate or lie about the intelligence. Damn all those investigations for exonerating that bastard.

Well shit... I can't address any of those points, because it will make me look foolish for saying what I did.

Ah ha... Ive got it... I will instead cop an attitude about his BDS insult and use that as an excuse not address his post.

That's the ticket... I really dodged a bullet there.

.

[Zebulon0351]

Translation: Lets see... How should I respond to RG's post... Hmmm.

RG was right about Bush not endorsing lenders issuing bad loans during the campaign... He was also right about the Bush administration trying to get congress to enact stricter regulations on Fannie and Freddie. If only the democrats would have listened to him... Damn, I don't have any evidence that proves Bush wanted to knock off Saddam before 9/11 either. Besides, he's right... it didn't matter even if I could have proven it, because he didn't manipulate or lie about the intelligence. Damn all those investigations for exonerating that bastard.

Well shit... I can't address any of those points, because it will make me look foolish for saying what I did.

Ah ha... Ive got it... I will instead cop an attitude about his BDS insult and use that as an excuse not address his post.

That's the ticket... I really dodged a bullet there.

.

No.. I just realize that no matter what I put you will respond with a barrage of insults. Again, if you want to have a conversation that doesn't remind me of elementary school teasing I will participate.

[mwillman]

Lets not forget what caused the banks to crash, namely horrible managed derivative sales. Who allowed the legalization of derivatives, Reagen and Bush allowed the continued deregulation of the financial markets.

The housing market would not have been half as bad if they had not allowed the bankers to come up with all those pseudo smart investment schemes that ended up destroying the investment banks and trashing millions of peoples retirement funds.

[radioguy]

No.. I just realize that no matter what I put you will respond with a barrage of insults. Again, if you want to have a conversation that doesn't remind me of elementary school teasing I will participate.

What else can you expect? You posted what amounts to nothing more than liberal fiction. You attack the man you claim you voted for, and do so with lies. I posted the facts, and called you out on those unsupported statements.

I don't have a problem with you or anyone else disliking Bush. What I have a problem with are people who can't do so honestly.

The "BDS" line I used came out of frustration, because I had just a day or two earlier addressed a similar post of yours in a time consuming, well thought out, and "insult" free manner, and you didn't bother to even respond. Instead, you chose to post much of the same crap on this thread, as if my previous response didn't exist.

In case you have forgotten or overlooked what I posted, here it is again in it's unedited form.

Look, there is really nowhere else to assign the blame for the housing bubble, and for the collapse of lending institutions that's led to where we are now, but to the democrats.

It was the policies of Carter and Clinton that first allowed, then later forced, lending institutions to lower their standards and take on risky loans, all in the name of "affordable housing". They are the ones that should have put in place strong regulations and strict oversight over Fannie and Freddie in the first place, but didn't.

Bush, along with the republicans in the congress and senate called for tighter restrictions on Fanny and Freddy starting in April 2001, and continued to do so through mid 2008. They warned Congress a total of 34 times about the economic risk that Fannie and Freddie posed on our financial systems, and pushed them take action immediately.

Back in September of 2003, Treasury Secretary John Snow spoke before the House Financial Services Committee and endorsed the Bush Administration's call for a serious regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry, by creating a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of Fannie and Freddie.

That was met with unanimous opposition from the democrats, and led Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on the Committee to say "These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis". He went on to say "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger. . . I don't think we face a crisis; I don't think that we have an impending disaster. . . . Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country."

The 2003 Congressional Hearings that took place, resulted in democrats defending the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8)), and less than 2 months later we found out that Franklin Raines (Clinton's former White House budget director) had cooked the books.

So you tell me Zebulon, who tried to fix the problem 6 years ago, and who didn't?

Then in 2005, the Administration stated once again, this time in their budget plan, that they had 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." This assessment had been supported for nearly two years by Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary John Snow, John McCain and dozens of republican in the house and senate, yet the democrats still opposed an overhaul of Fannie and Freddie.

It wasn't until July of 2008, that the democrats finally realized that it was time to pass the reform bill that President Bush had been proposing for 5 years... It's unfortunate that it was far too late to save our economy.

Sorry Zeb, but no matter how you look at it, the only ones you can blame for the magnitude of this economic mess we're in, are the democrats.

.

Notice it was written with respect and contained no personal attacks, insults, or jabs what so ever.

.

[mwillman]

Radioguy your full of shit.

Republicans did more to bring about the economic collapse then anyone.

The deregulation of the market allow derivatives to sell with bullshit ratings which is what turned the housing bubble into a financial systems collapse.

The loans themselves were not the main problem, the main problem was the creation of debt derivatives that were then bought and sold so much no one knew who owed who what.

[radioguy]

No.. I just realize that no matter what I put you will respond with a barrage of insults. Again, if you want to have a conversation that doesn't remind me of elementary school teasing I will participate.


What else can you expect? You posted what amounts to nothing more than liberal fiction. You attack the man you claim you voted for, and do so with lies. I posted the facts, and called you out on those unsupported statements.

I don't have a problem with you or anyone else disliking Bush. What I have a problem with are people who can't do so honestly.

The "BDS" line I used came out of frustration, because I had just a day or two earlier addressed a similar post of yours in a time consuming, well thought out, and "insult" free manner, and you didn't bother to even respond. Instead, you chose to post much of the same crap on this thread, as if my previous response didn't exist.

In case you have forgotten or overlooked what I posted, here it is again in it's unedited form.

Look, there is really nowhere else to assign the blame for the housing bubble, and for the collapse of lending institutions that's led to where we are now, but to the democrats.

It was the policies of Carter and Clinton that first allowed, then later forced, lending institutions to lower their standards and take on risky loans, all in the name of "affordable housing". They are the ones that should have put in place strong regulations and strict oversight over Fannie and Freddie in the first place, but didn't.

Bush, along with the republicans in the congress and senate called for tighter restrictions on Fanny and Freddy starting in April 2001, and continued to do so through mid 2008. They warned Congress a total of 34 times about the economic risk that Fannie and Freddie posed on our financial systems, and pushed them take action immediately.

Back in September of 2003, Treasury Secretary John Snow spoke before the House Financial Services Committee and endorsed the Bush Administration's call for a serious regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry, by creating a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of Fannie and Freddie.

That was met with unanimous opposition from the democrats, and led Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on the Committee to say "These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis". He went on to say "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger. . . I don't think we face a crisis; I don't think that we have an impending disaster. . . . Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country."

The 2003 Congressional Hearings that took place, resulted in democrats defending the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (video here), and less than 2 months later we found out that Franklin Raines (Clinton's former White House budget director) had cooked the books.

So you tell me Zebulon, who tried to fix the problem 6 years ago, and who didn't?

Then in 2005, the Administration stated once again, this time in their budget plan, that they had 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." This assessment had been supported for nearly two years by Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary John Snow, John McCain and dozens of republican in the house and senate, yet the democrats still opposed an overhaul of Fannie and Freddie.

It wasn't until July of 2008, that the democrats finally realized that it was time to pass the reform bill that President Bush had been proposing for 5 years... It's unfortunate that it was far too late to save our economy.

Sorry Zeb, but no matter how you look at it, the only ones you can blame for the magnitude of this economic mess we're in, are the democrats.

.

Notice it was written with respect and contained no personal attacks, insults, or jabs what so ever.

.

[bairdi]

What else can you expect? You posted what amounts to nothing more than liberal fiction. You attack the man you claim you voted for, and do so with lies. I posted the facts, and called you out on those unsupported statements.

I don't have a problem with you or anyone else disliking Bush. What I have a problem with are people who can't do so honestly.

The "BDS" line I used came out of frustration, because I had just a day or two earlier addressed a similar post of yours in a time consuming, well thought out, and "insult" free manner, and you didn't bother to even respond. Instead, you chose to post much of the same crap on this thread, as if my previous response didn't exist.

In case you have forgotten or overlooked what I posted, here it is again in it's unedited form.



Notice it was written with respect and contained no personal attacks, insults, or jabs what so ever.

.
I disagree with you in your assessment that affordable housing caused the housing bubble. But even if you were correct, your statement "Bush, along with the republicans in the congress and senate called for tighter restrictions on Fanny and Freddy starting in April 2001, and continued to do so through mid 2008" cannot logically put blame on the democrats since the republicans controlled both houses and the presidency from 2001 to 2006.

[doctordog]

I disagree with you in your assessment that affordable housing caused the housing bubble. But even if you were correct, your statement "Bush, along with the republicans in the congress and senate called for tighter restrictions on Fanny and Freddy starting in April 2001, and continued to do so through mid 2008" cannot logically put blame on the democrats since the republicans controlled both houses and the presidency from 2001 to 2006.

They can since Clinton signed a bill forcing banks to lend to unqualified minorities so Hillary could win her senate seat in New York.

[bairdi]

They can since Clinton signed a bill forcing banks to lend to unqualified minorities so Hillary could win her senate seat in New York.
So are you claiming that the republicans had no power to change this even though they controlled both houses during the Clinton era and both houses and the presidency after Clinton?

[doctordog]

So are you claiming that the republicans had no power to change this even though they controlled both houses during the Clinton era and both houses and the presidency after Clinton?

I am not claiming that at all, but Clinton drove this in exchange ofr other favors, but using your rebuttal above the Democrats controlled congress the last 2 years Bush was in office and did absolutely nothing.

[kres24GT]

I guess you missed the Fuck you part.

That basically means I completely dismiss anything you have to say becuase its so fucking ignorant that it doesn't deserve attention.


It is just funny. You are incapable of real discussion. You think everyone is a sheep like you, so all you can do is resort to partisan talking point attacks. When someone like me who thinks for them self comes along, you don't know how to react.

[mwillman]

Your problem kres24GT is that all you think about is your self.
It causes all of your political opinions to be based on how it effects you and only you as as such is not really worth the effort to argue.

[kres24GT]

Your problem kres24GT is that all you think about is your self.
It causes all of your political opinions to be based on how it effects you and only you as as such is not really worth the effort to argue.


Like I said, its funny.

Actually just the opposite though. I think about it how affects everyone, not just me and mine. That is why I support freedom. UHC would be great for my brother, my girlfriend, and my father, all of whom are uninsured. However I don't wish to force everyone to pay and change their lifestyle choices to make life better for those I care about. That is called being selfish and is fascist. I support people making free choices, that way we don't have to force everyone to live a certain way to make my life easier. You look at what makes things easier for you and want the government to take other people's freedom to make your life safer and more comfortable. You don't care about other people. If you did you would be working 3 jobs and paying off medical bills for people, you would be starting your own foundation to help people out. Instead you spend most of your time posting here. You should be free to do that, but you shouldn't be able to take money by force from others so you can spend all your time posting here instead of earning money to achieve your own goals. I take everyone's life into consideration, not just me and mine. You care only about yourself and will gladly do whatever it takes, fuck everyone else, to have your fascist police state.

[radioguy]

It is just funny. You are incapable of real discussion. You think everyone is a sheep like you, so all you can do is resort to partisan talking point attacks. When someone like me who thinks for them self comes along, you don't know how to react.

That's why I stopped responding to him... It's a complete waste of time.

All he does is resort to liberal talking points, and ignores any and all facts that don't fit with the party line.

.

[mwillman]

You speak a lot but you say nothing.

Your so full of shit. Saying no to everything is not the way to go.
Ignoring the poor and starving in this nation while building schools and hospitals in other nations is not doing anything for the people that pay taxes. Allowing the privatization of everything becuase it allows a small group of monied elites to live off the labor of everyone else is not thinking for everyone.

So basicaly stop lieing.

[mwillman]

Its you right wingers that are the fascists.

Bush let industry write American policy if that's not business and government playing hand to hand at the expense of the masses I don't know what is.

[kres24GT]

Its you right wingers that are the fascists.

Bush let industry write American policy if that's not business and government playing hand to hand at the expense of the masses I don't know what is.

Who is a right winger?

Bush heavily controlled the regulation market to stack the rules in favor of his corporate buddies, just like all politicians do.

Nothing you said in your last two posts makes any sense at all, who are you even talking to?

Nation building is a terrible thing and we shouldn't be doing it. Who is in favor of nation building? Educating the poor is the only way to ensure they don't stay poor. That isn't what we do though, we give them handouts that encourage them to continue the behavior that has made them poor, making sure they breed more children into poverty. Big government always ensures the poor stay poor.

[SeniorChief]

Here's the deal, everyone on here keeps saying democracy when referring to America.

The way Obama is taking us Komrade, we'll all be speaking Russian or Chinese soon.

[Zebulon0351]

Who is a right winger?

Bush heavily controlled the regulation market to stack the rules in favor of his corporate buddies, just like all politicians do.

Nothing you said in your last two posts makes any sense at all, who are you even talking to?

Nation building is a terrible thing and we shouldn't be doing it. Who is in favor of nation building? Educating the poor is the only way to ensure they don't stay poor. That isn't what we do though, we give them handouts that encourage them to continue the behavior that has made them poor, making sure they breed more children into poverty. Big government always ensures the poor stay poor.

I think both parties are to blame for the piss-poor education system some of our kids are getting. The Right wants to blame society for the inadequate education some of our kids are receiving, but does very little to try to improve the quality of education received. And the left has made it too easy for some, not all to take advantage of "they system."

We have kids who are born in the ghetto and hardly ever leave a 20 block radius of their house. They may graduate high school, but somehow are still on a 8th grade reading and math level (I used to work for the Department of Youth Services in Alabama, I have seen may of these kids first hand.)
At home kids are learning ghetto values, just to go to school to be taught by teachers who are just there for a paycheck and free health insurance.

Our kids, no matter if they grow up in upper-class suburbia or the 9th Ward in New Orleans need to know there is life and opportunity beyond that 20 block radius. The suburban kids are exposed to that life because of their personal family background, but the kids in the trailer parks or the ghettos learn nothing about life except for what it taught to them by the bad influences of neighbors and relatives. They learn how to play the system, they understand street credibility is the most powerful survival mechanism they can obtain.

We as Americans have the duty to put programs in place to no shit improve each and every school system with something beyond performance exams. Just as much as we have a duty to provide a path of opportunities that is more attractive than a government check. This should not be a partisan issue, we are talking about the future of our country. If we keep ignoring the problem and blaming the parents, society, and those damn republicans or those fucking democrats, the very people who need the help are being ignored.

[radioguy]

So Zeb, should I post my response to you from last week a third time?

You know, the one that was written with no insults or jabs in it?

Or was I right and you just used the insult defense so you could avoid what I posted?

.

[mwillman]

Who is a right winger?

Bush heavily controlled the regulation market to stack the rules in favor of his corporate buddies, just like all politicians do.

Nothing you said in your last two posts makes any sense at all, who are you even talking to?

Nation building is a terrible thing and we shouldn't be doing it. Who is in favor of nation building? Educating the poor is the only way to ensure they don't stay poor. That isn't what we do though, we give them handouts that encourage them to continue the behavior that has made them poor, making sure they breed more children into poverty. Big government always ensures the poor stay poor.


So you dont support any politicians, OK thats fine but I don't see you giving any solutions. Ignoring it all and then just sitting back and bitching is not a solution.

The solutions you have hinted at are all republican screw the less fortunate while helping the rich get richer ideas and Im sorry but that is what doesnt make sense.

[mwillman]

So Zeb, should I post my response to you from last week a third time?

You know, the one that was written with no insults or jabs in it?

Or was I right and you just used the insult defense so you could avoid what I posted?

.

You have insulted people plenty so get off your fucking high horse.

[Zebulon0351]

So Zeb, should I post my response to you from last week a third time?

You know, the one that was written with no insults or jabs in it?

Or was I right and you just used the insult defense so you could avoid what I posted?

.

No radio, I still remember you posting the first time. Unlike you, I am not going to call "bullshit" and start calling you names because you post something that may have some truth to it. I read it, I find it very interesting and I would like to take a good amount of time to form a response. I am not avoiding, I am just not choosing to respond with impulsiveness.
You presented a lot of information, and I want to find time to read more into everything you said.

Right now I have a damn geology test in a few hours I am studying for, have a 20 page paper due tomorrow at noon, another test tomorrow afternoon, and a research methods test on Wednesday. Again, you presented a lot of information and I want to spend some time looking into it. Thank you for your patience.

Oh.. just for the record.. I now understand why I never took summer classes before this semester. I do not recommend it.

[Zebulon0351]

You have insulted people plenty so get off your fucking high horse.

Mw, you are the last person here I want to take my back. Thanks for the attempt, but I will handle it.

[kres24GT]

So you dont support any politicians, OK thats fine but I don't see you giving any solutions. Ignoring it all and then just sitting back and bitching is not a solution.

The solutions you have hinted at are all republican screw the less fortunate while helping the rich get richer ideas and Im sorry but that is what doesnt make sense.


Republicans love welfare, they are all to happy to give handouts to the poor and to businesses in exchange for them becoming dependent on government. Consequences for actions that come via being free to fail are solutions. You don't like them because they are hard. So you'd rather continue with the current failed system we have now.


Under Big Government the rich always get richer and the poor always stay poor. If you support Big Government and more government, you are supporting the rich and telling the poor "fuck you".

[kres24GT]

I think both parties are to blame for the piss-poor education system some of our kids are getting. The Right wants to blame society for the inadequate education some of our kids are receiving, but does very little to try to improve the quality of education received. And the left has made it too easy for some, not all to take advantage of "they system."

We have kids who are born in the ghetto and hardly ever leave a 20 block radius of their house. They may graduate high school, but somehow are still on a 8th grade reading and math level (I used to work for the Department of Youth Services in Alabama, I have seen may of these kids first hand.)
At home kids are learning ghetto values, just to go to school to be taught by teachers who are just there for a paycheck and free health insurance.

Our kids, no matter if they grow up in upper-class suburbia or the 9th Ward in New Orleans need to know there is life and opportunity beyond that 20 block radius. The suburban kids are exposed to that life because of their personal family background, but the kids in the trailer parks or the ghettos learn nothing about life except for what it taught to them by the bad influences of neighbors and relatives. They learn how to play the system, they understand street credibility is the most powerful survival mechanism they can obtain.

We as Americans have the duty to put programs in place to no shit improve each and every school system with something beyond performance exams. Just as much as we have a duty to provide a path of opportunities that is more attractive than a government check. This should not be a partisan issue, we are talking about the future of our country. If we keep ignoring the problem and blaming the parents, society, and those damn republicans or those fucking democrats, the very people who need the help are being ignored.


Welfare has created an entire class of people who don't give a shit about their kids. Also governmetn brainwashing us to believe that we should be dependent on them hasn't helped. n the end its the parent's fault, but the culture of government dependency created by the two party system has crushed the educational system, welfare especially. As long as we are paying people who shouldn't have kids to have them, our public schools are goign to be crowded with kids whose parent just don't give a fuck.

[SeniorChief]

Welfare has created an entire class of people who don't give a shit about their kids.

Walk into any inner-city public school and you'll see incredible FAILURE. And this, after how many decades of pumping money into public education??

[mwillman]

Thats a bunch of shit.

That is just the spewing of someone who has no experience of what they talk.

You are just spewing the same old bullshit that the ruling class namely White males say becuase it makes it easier for them to ignore the pain of others.

Just call them all useless failures and you don't have to care about their suffering.

[kres24GT]

Thats a bunch of shit.

That is just the spewing of someone who has no experience of what they talk.

You are just spewing the same old bullshit that the ruling class namely White males say becuase it makes it easier for them to ignore the pain of others.

Just call them all useless failures and you don't have to care about their suffering.


Like I said, helping poor people can only be done with education, this is a fact. I want to educate them, you just want to give them handouts. Your way has failed.

[SeniorChief]

Like I said, helping poor people can only be done with education, this is a fact. I want to educate them, you just want to give them handouts. Your way has failed.

He's a product of public school education. Not only is it a miserable failure - he is as well.

[mwillman]

Like I said, helping poor people can only be done with education, this is a fact. I want to educate them, you just want to give them handouts. Your way has failed.

I want to make sure they have a good education, I want to make sure that they are not stopped from succeeding just becuase they weren't born to wealth.

Who the hell is talking about welfare anyways. That was fixed under Clinton.
If you want to argue politics at least bring up something from the 21 century rather then some 70s argument.


P.S. Senior Thief I have more education and have paid far more taxes then you ever have. you are the fucking welfare recipient around here. You think the Government owes you a life time of medical coverage and pay, yet you would deny help to everyone else. So fuck you you hypocritical loser.

[kres24GT]

I want to make sure they have a good education, I want to make sure that they are not stopped from succeeding just becuase they weren't born to wealth.

Who the hell is talking about welfare anyways. That was fixed under Clinton.
If you want to argue politics at least bring up something from the 21 century rather then some 70s argument.


P.S. Senior Thief I have more education and have paid far more taxes then you ever have. you are the fucking welfare recipient around here. You think the Government owes you a life time of medical coverage and pay, yet you would deny help to everyone else. So fuck you you hypocritical loser.


No, it wasn't fixed, really goes to show how little you know. Welfare has ruined millions of lives.


Are you also suggesting that government employees should not be paid?

[radioguy]

No radio, I still remember you posting the first time. Unlike you, I am not going to call "bullshit" and start calling you names because you post something that may have some truth to it. I read it, I find it very interesting and I would like to take a good amount of time to form a response. I am not avoiding, I am just not choosing to respond with impulsiveness.
You presented a lot of information, and I want to find time to read more into everything you said.

Right now I have a damn geology test in a few hours I am studying for, have a 20 page paper due tomorrow at noon, another test tomorrow afternoon, and a research methods test on Wednesday. Again, you presented a lot of information and I want to spend some time looking into it. Thank you for your patience.

Oh.. just for the record.. I now understand why I never took summer classes before this semester. I do not recommend it.

Fair enough... Good luck with your test.

.

[Zebulon0351]

Fair enough... Good luck with your test.

.

Sonofabitch! I stayed up all night studying for next weeks test.. Oh well, we can drop our 2 lowest grades.
Did I mention I hate summer school?

[mwillman]

No im suggesting that Senior Thief is a fucking asshat and the fact that he thinks he should have a life time of easy just becuase he swabbed decks for a few years means hes a fucking hypocrite. Why should military retires get a life of easy when private workers are getting screwed day after day by CEOs and politicians that support the CEO's.

I know factory workers who have risked more then Senior Thief ever did.

As for your welfare argument, its a bunch of shit. I am not for a life time of government handouts to do nothings, but I am for good schools, decent medical coverage for all, and a safety net for the less fortunate.

I am for a free market that is regulated enough to protect workers and small businesses and that doesn't reward only those at the top.

I am for American Tax dollars going to help Americans not Iraqis,and not Haliburtion.

I am for Science and Logic not faith and ignorance.

I am for a country that gives everyone a chance to succeed and protects the less well off.

[kres24GT]

No im suggesting that Senior Thief is a fucking asshat and the fact that he thinks he should have a life time of easy just becuase he swabbed decks for a few years means hes a fucking hypocrite. Why should military retires get a life of easy when private workers are getting screwed day after day by CEOs and politicians that support the CEO's.

I know factory workers who have risked more then Senior Thief ever did.

As for your welfare argument, its a bunch of shit. I am not for a life time of government handouts to do nothings, but I am for good schools, decent medical coverage for all, and a safety net for the less fortunate.

I am for a free market that is regulated enough to protect workers and small businesses and that doesn't reward only those at the top.

I am for American Tax dollars going to help Americans not Iraqis,and not Haliburtion.

I am for Science and Logic not faith and ignorance.

I am for a country that gives everyone a chance to succeed and protects the less well off.


Actually you support Big Government helping Big Business keep the little man down. You support oppressive regulation that makes it so only the biggest companies can compete and small business is destroyed. You support increasing entitlements to make people more dependent on government. You support a failed system of welfare that has destroyed millions of lives and families. You are for a system where the rich get richer, the poor stay poor, and it's all done on the backs of the middle class.

Faith is exactly what you believe in. Despite government constantly fucking everything up, you still have faith in them. Public education is a failure. Welfare is a failure. Social security and medicare are soon to be bankrupt, failures. Phony wars like the war on drugs and war on terror, failures. Yet you want to give them more power, more responsibility, and more control of our lives. If you could take a picture of that, it would be in the dictionary next to faith.

[radioguy]

Actually you support Big Government helping Big Business keep the little man down. You support oppressive regulation that makes it so only the biggest companies can compete and small business is destroyed. You support increasing entitlements to make people more dependent on government. You support a failed system of welfare that has destroyed millions of lives and families. You are for a system where the rich get richer, the poor stay poor, and it's all done on the backs of the middle class.

Faith is exactly what you believe in. Despite government constantly fucking everything up, you still have faith in them. Public education is a failure. Welfare is a failure. Social security and medicare are soon to be bankrupt, failures. Phony wars like the war on drugs and war on terror, failures. Yet you want to give them more power, more responsibility, and more control of our lives. If you could take a picture of that, it would be in the dictionary next to faith.

kres, why do you bother with this guy?

He doesn't have opinions of his own, and certainly doesn't have the ability to evaluate the governments dismal record and come to any sort of logical conclusion.

The man is nothing but a liberal talking points memo, that spews the party line no matter what facts are presented.

Do yourself a favor, and just walk away.

.

[mwillman]

Dont tell me what I stand for.

Your mind set sounds good in the movies but real life does not go well when you give people the right to do what ever they want no matter how much that screws over other people.

If you do not have regulations to protect society then Big business can do what ever they want and that as history has shown screws over the average person.

So again you are jsut full of shit.

Radioguy you are fucking programmed ignoramus that thinks screwing over the average American is the way to help society.

You are the one that wants to give Big Business a free ticket to do what ever they want. Removing regulation is what big business wants and your all for giving them it.

Hell in the last 30 years CEOs have gone from making 20 times as much as the average worker to 200 times as much as you think that is some how fair.

You people are the ignorant sheep that have been programmed by big business.

[GetAClue]

Dont tell me what I stand for.

Your mind set sounds good in the movies but real life does not go well when you give people the right to do what ever they want no matter how much that screws over other people.

If you do not have regulations to protect society then Big business can do what ever they want and that as history has shown screws over the average person.

So again you are jsut full of shit.

Radioguy you are fucking programmed ignoramus that thinks screwing over the average American is the way to help society.

You are the one that wants to give Big Business a free ticket to do what ever they want. Removing regulation is what big business wants and your all for giving them it.

Hell in the last 30 years CEOs have gone from making 20 times as much as the average worker to 200 times as much as you think that is some how fair.

You people are the ignorant sheep that have been programmed by big business.

Someone has too. You say you stand for something, but then come right out and contradict yourself. You really need a course in reading comprehension.

[ROdger Right]

Reading that previuous statement from the noble jackass mwillman who has a problem with some big buissness while biug government doesn't bother him.

Spend to create the largest buisnesses and the largest government by increasing spending and deficits.

Some people should really pay attention to what they are asking for.

[mwillman]

We need a big governement to protect us from Big Business.

Why you would trust people whose only motive is profit is beyond me unless of course you are a patsy for them. The people of this nation have been screwed over by giant immortal corporations for over 100 years and you want to give them the keys to the country.

Sorry but the masses do not want to be slaves to the wealthy no matter how much your right wing fools try to make it happen.

[Mason66]

We need a big governement to protect us from Big Business.

Why you would trust people whose only motive is profit is beyond me unless of course you are a patsy for them. The people of this nation have been screwed over by giant immortal corporations for over 100 years and you want to give them the keys to the country.

Sorry but the masses do not want to be slaves to the wealthy no matter how much your right wing fools try to make it happen.

I just have to ask.

How does big business screww over the Average American?

BY the way, corporations are not immortal. They can close at any time.

[ROdger Right]

As I said before you are very much a fool mwillman. Big buisnness buys big government or visa versa. They go well together is the point.

40 years and your big buisness is dismantled and sold back into the market. Why did we stop believeing in this law? I wouldn't mind doing what Moscow did and kill enough ceos until the people are the ones with the money.

[mwillman]

Sometimes big business buys government, specifically when republicans are running things.

Who do you think wrote Bushes energy policy, Ill tell you who Enron.
Who do you think wrote most of Bushes policies, Big Business.

By the way Mason you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Do you see GE closing, Do you see the Bank of United States closing( it is privately owned).

No you don't, you really should learn your history and not just the bullshit the right wing pundits rewrite and call history.

[ROdger Right]

Sometimes big business buys government, specifically when republicans are running things.

Who do you think wrote Bushes energy policy, Ill tell you who Enron.
Who do you think wrote most of Bushes policies, Big Business.

By the way Mason you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Do you see GE closing, Do you see the Bank of United States closing( it is privately owned).

No you don't, you really should learn your history and not just the bullshit the right wing pundits rewrite and call history.

You talk of energy policies and then mention GE. How brave of you. As they are taking the lead in so many dems policies. Green, Healthcare what ever the fuck else. Big buisness is being supported through your party. So if you are aginst it do not turn a blind eye to what the other side is doing.

[Mason66]

Sometimes big business buys government, specifically when republicans are running things.

Who do you think wrote Bushes energy policy, Ill tell you who Enron.
Who do you think wrote most of Bushes policies, Big Business.

By the way Mason you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Do you see GE closing, Do you see the Bank of United States closing( it is privately owned).

No you don't, you really should learn your history and not just the bullshit the right wing pundits rewrite and call history.

You are so quick to attack. You have no idea what youare talking about, as usual.

As far as a CEO making more than his employees, do you make more than a McDonalds employee? If so, don't you think both of you should make the same even though you went to college and the other guy didn't?

Why should the man that has all the responsibility on his shoulders not make more than his employees. How much more is not relevant.

[mwillman]

What I said was that CEOs are now making over 200 times as much as their average worker where as 40 years ago CEOs were making 20 times what there employees were making.

Do you think thier job has changed enough to justify that much difference in their value. The more that CEOs and stock holders make the less the people actually doing the work make.

Its a balancing act and our system is way out of balance the middle class is being pushed into poverty so that the few can live like kings. Thats what republican economics creates and its bullshit.

[doctordog]

What I said was that CEOs are now making over 200 times as much as their average worker where as 40 years ago CEOs were making 20 times what there employees were making.

Do you think thier job has changed enough to justify that much difference in their value. The more that CEOs and stock holders make the less the people actually doing the work make.

Its a balancing act and our system is way out of balance the middle class is being pushed into poverty so that the few can live like kings. Thats what republican economics creates and its bullshit.

High taxes with no return pushes the middle class to poverty, which is a democrat trait, try to keep up.

[mwillman]

Thats bullshit,

People paid higher taxes in the 50s and 60s and the middle class was much stronger.

[Independent Harry]

High taxes with no return pushes the middle class to poverty, which is a democrat trait, try to keep up.

That's why one of the most prosperous years of our country were under clinton. Which had a higher tax rate than we currently employ...

[radioguy]

That's why one of the most prosperous years of our country were under clinton. Which had a higher tax rate than we currently employ...

Increasing taxes during economic prosperity is fine... But increasing taxes during an economic recession is counter productive.

.

[kres24GT]

What I said was that CEOs are now making over 200 times as much as their average worker where as 40 years ago CEOs were making 20 times what there employees were making.

Do you think thier job has changed enough to justify that much difference in their value. The more that CEOs and stock holders make the less the people actually doing the work make.

Its a balancing act and our system is way out of balance the middle class is being pushed into poverty so that the few can live like kings. Thats what republican economics creates and its bullshit.


Actually it has, thanks to your regulation companies are huge now, Small companies can't compete because of the cost of complying with regulation,s to they sell out to other companies and we end up with only a handful of giant corporations that only a small number of people in the world are qualified to run.

In the end, what a person receives as compensation for their work is really no business of you or the government.

[kres24GT]

Dont tell me what I stand for.

Your mind set sounds good in the movies but real life does not go well when you give people the right to do what ever they want no matter how much that screws over other people.

If you do not have regulations to protect society then Big business can do what ever they want and that as history has shown screws over the average person.

So again you are jsut full of shit.

Radioguy you are fucking programmed ignoramus that thinks screwing over the average American is the way to help society.

You are the one that wants to give Big Business a free ticket to do what ever they want. Removing regulation is what big business wants and your all for giving them it.

Hell in the last 30 years CEOs have gone from making 20 times as much as the average worker to 200 times as much as you think that is some how fair.

You people are the ignorant sheep that have been programmed by big business.


Your way has failed. Yes, thanks to your Big Government and regulations squashing small business CEOs make more. In a free market no one is forced to give a single dollar to any corporation. In your fascist Big Government paradise options are limited and the rich get richer.

[Binky]

Increasing taxes during economic prosperity is fine... But increasing taxes during an economic recession is counter productive.

.


Yep, pretty much.....not brain surgery here. You'd think your average moron would know that. But then, there are all types of morons. Believe it or not, some are smarter than others. :lmao2:

[mwillman]

Kres

Its been republican leadership for the last 8 years and for most of the last 30 years so its your system that failed. We have had massive deregulation since Reagen was president and that created the huge economic downfall we have suffered.

[doctordog]

Thats bullshit,

People paid higher taxes in the 50s and 60s and the middle class was much stronger.

and in the late 70's and early 80's they were much weaker.

[kres24GT]

Kres

Its been republican leadership for the last 8 years and for most of the last 30 years so its your system that failed. We have had massive deregulation since Reagen was president and that created the huge economic downfall we have suffered.

Yep, and now Dems are continuing the same policies. Like you just said,t hey have failed. Heavy regulation of the free market, more entitlements, more governments, massive deficits, spend spend spend. Republicans tried all of these for 8 years and they all failed. Now Dems are trying the same thing. It will continue to fail.

[Binky]

I guess you missed the Fuck you part.

That basically means I completely dismiss anything you have to say becuase its so fucking ignorant that it doesn't deserve attention.


Awe, come on. Make nicey, nicey. :D :lmao2:

[mwillman]

Yep, and now Dems are continuing the same policies. Like you just said,t hey have failed. Heavy regulation of the free market, more entitlements, more governments, massive deficits, spend spend spend. Republicans tried all of these for 8 years and they all failed. Now Dems are trying the same thing. It will continue to fail.

Thats not the same thing, Reagen and Bush did not heavily regulate the free market they tried to deregulate it and that is what allowed the investment banks to create the toxic assets that destroyed the investment banking firms and put the nation in the economic mess we are in.

The big spending that is bankrupting the government had far more to do with 2 wars and Bushes medicare bill that didn't allow medicare to buy medication at a discount. Not to mention putting us in two wars while cutting taxes. If you want to talk about stupid you might look at that.

We need to have and we are getting better regulation of the financial markets which will protect your retirement funds from being trashed by morally bankrupt wall street hoods.

The entitlement arguments are bullshit, if you really want to talk about entitlements then lets talk about farm, oil, and pharmaceutical subsidies.

Good economics says that governement should help immatuire industries but that mature markets don't need that kind of support but Republicans are not happy unless they are giving billions to the Oil industry even though they are one of the most profitable industries in the nation.

Your free wheeling give corporations total freedom concepts are just foolish.

[kres24GT]

Thats not the same thing, Reagen and Bush did not heavily regulate the free market they tried to deregulate it and that is what allowed the investment banks to create the toxic assets that destroyed the investment banking firms and put the nation in the economic mess we are in.

The big spending that is bankrupting the government had far more to do with 2 wars and Bushes medicare bill that didn't allow medicare to buy medication at a discount. Not to mention putting us in two wars while cutting taxes. If you want to talk about stupid you might look at that.

We need to have and we are getting better regulation of the financial markets which will protect your retirement funds from being trashed by morally bankrupt wall street hoods.

The entitlement arguments are bullshit, if you really want to talk about entitlements then lets talk about farm, oil, and pharmaceutical subsidies.

Good economics says that governement should help immatuire industries but that mature markets don't need that kind of support but Republicans are not happy unless they are giving billions to the Oil industry even though they are one of the most profitable industries in the nation.

Your free wheeling give corporations total freedom concepts are just foolish.


Regulation/deregulation, it all Big Government controlling the market to make the rich richer. They keep changing the rules so their corporate buddies in the drivers seat and squash small business. Big Government never does anything unless it's to help Big Business.

[mwillman]

Kres

The world you dream of doesnt exist.
Its a big world and there is no such thing as small government nor will there be.
Big Business and Big government run the world and you will not change it.
This is not the 18th century and no matter how much you wish for it, it will never be the 18th century.

[kres24GT]

Kres

The world you dream of doesnt exist.
Its a big world and there is no such thing as small government nor will there be.
Big Business and Big government run the world and you will not change it.
This is not the 18th century and no matter how much you wish for it, it will never be the 18th century.

As long as you drop the act and admit you support Big Business and Big Government running all of our lives through police power, I agree. People like you loathe freedom and you are the vast majority. You want Big Business and Big Government running our lives, and you have won. To claim you are trying to do things like help the poor and stick it to the wealthy though is laughable. Your way makes sure the poor stay poor so your corporate buddies can stay loaded.

[mwillman]

Dont tell me what I loathe, you are so stuck in your little ideological world that you can't even see reality let alone what I think or feel.

Keep your dream alive Kres becuase in the end all it is, is a dream. You have no connection with reality and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Its your dream world that screws over the poor and middle class. Its republicans that have been trying to increase the poor by not helping the less fortunate get on their feet.

When you wake up and see the real world then we can have a conversation but as long as you live in never never land you will always be nothing more then puppet to Big Government and Big Business.

[kres24GT]

Dont tell me what I loathe, you are so stuck in your little ideological world that you can't even see reality let alone what I think or feel.

Keep your dream alive Kres becuase in the end all it is, is a dream. You have no connection with reality and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Its your dream world that screws over the poor and middle class. Its republicans that have been trying to increase the poor by not helping the less fortunate get on their feet.

When you wake up and see the real world then we can have a conversation but as long as you live in never never land you will always be nothing more then puppet to Big Government and Big Business.

Actually just the opposite for me. I support neither as they are both one and the same. I support a free market where we can move up and down the classes. You support Big Government which means the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, and the middle class pay for it all.

[mwillman]

Tell me Kres you have big dreams how do plan to implement them.

How do you create a free market that allows for up and down movement of the classes when you allow the corporations to do what ever they want.

How do you stop the rich from getting richer without any rules?

No, you have a dream but it has about as much reality as the Lord Of the Rings.

[kres24GT]

Tell me Kres you have big dreams how do plan to implement them.

How do you create a free market that allows for up and down movement of the classes when you allow the corporations to do what ever they want.

How do you stop the rich from getting richer without any rules?

No, you have a dream but it has about as much reality as the Lord Of the Rings.


In a free market, the responsibility lies with the people, not the rich who own the politicians and legislate themselves to wealth. If the rich get richer in a free market, it is because we give them our money of our own free will.

In your big government world we are forced to make the rich richer. In a free market only we can do that. No one can force you to give money to anybody in a free market absent of huge government.

[mwillman]

So you trust the people. hahahaha

Again you live in a dream land. There is no such thing as a free market.

The market only exists becuase we have a government. It makes the money, It defines the laws that protect people in the market, It regulates the market to keep monopolies and oligopolies from forming. At least when the government is doing the peoples job and not republican business interests.

It enforces contracts and sets basic interest rates. You dont have an economy if you dont have all of that, what you have is anarchy where those with the most dominate everyone else.

The government protects the people from the greedy, the liars, and the thieves. At least when they are doing their job. Madoff was able to steal billions Under Bushes watch.

Sure there are some thieves, liars, and greedy government workers but no system is perfect and ours is better and less corrupt them most.

[kres24GT]

So you trust the people. hahahaha

Again you live in a dream land. There is no such thing as a free market.

The market only exists becuase we have a government. It makes the money, It defines the laws that protect people in the market, It regulates the market to keep monopolies and oligopolies from forming. At least when the government is doing the peoples job and not republican business interests.

It enforces contracts and sets basic interest rates. You dont have an economy if you dont have all of that, what you have is anarchy where those with the most dominate everyone else.

The government protects the people from the greedy, the liars, and the thieves. At least when they are doing their job. Madoff was able to steal billions Under Bushes watch.

Sure there are some thieves, liars, and greedy government workers but no system is perfect and ours is better and less corrupt them most.

The government does not protect us form Big Business, they help Big Business screw us more. LMAO.

[mwillman]

And what do you think will happen is there is no government protection.
Do you really think the world would be better if businesses had no regulation.

[kres24GT]

And what do you think will happen is there is no government protection.
Do you really think the world would be better if businesses had no regulation.

That will be up to us. In your world their is no freedom, no choice, we are forced to get fucked by Big Business via Big Government. In my world we at least have a chance.

[mwillman]

Sorry but us includes a lot of crooks thieves and liars.

There is plenty of freedom in fact I would argue there is more freedom becuase we do not need to walk around in fear.

You keep spewing generalized ideological nonsense, The real world is not your fantasy and your desires would only create a land where the worse rise to the top becuase they are willing to screw over anyone and everyone and there are no rules to stop them.

[kres24GT]

Sorry but us includes a lot of crooks thieves and liars.

There is plenty of freedom in fact I would argue there is more freedom becuase we do not need to walk around in fear.

You keep spewing generalized ideological nonsense, The real world is not your fantasy and your desires would only create a land where the worse rise to the top becuase they are willing to screw over anyone and everyone and there are no rules to stop them.

Funny to see a fear monger like you say this.

[GetAClue]

Sorry but us includes a lot of crooks thieves and liars.

There is plenty of freedom in fact I would argue there is more freedom becuase we do not need to walk around in fear.

You keep spewing generalized ideological nonsense, The real world is not your fantasy and your desires would only create a land where the worse rise to the top becuase they are willing to screw over anyone and everyone and there are no rules to stop them.
And half of them are elected to serve in our government which you seem to blindly trust.

[mwillman]

I dont blindly trust government that's just stupid but I don't act like its the evil either. Sorry But I dont trust you so why should I want to live in a world where you can do what ever you want.

No There are laws and regulations for a reason, you are not trust worthy.

[ROdger Right]

I dont blindly trust government that's just stupid but I don't act like its the evil either. Sorry But I dont trust you so why should I want to live in a world where you can do what ever you want.

No There are laws and regulations for a reason, you are not trust worthy.

Alright then willman i expect you to apologise to the jewish government in Isreal and say they are not evil because they are just government.

and for a thread I was speaking in Thomas Jefferson also believed that government would corrupt itself and suggested we have a sort of revolution every 30 years or so.

So that is another founding father that believed government was evil, where as my first guy was Thomas Paine.

Think it was from that fool cosby who suggested there was only one who thought government was a necessary evil.

[kres24GT]

I dont blindly trust government that's just stupid but I don't act like its the evil either. Sorry But I dont trust you so why should I want to live in a world where you can do what ever you want.

No There are laws and regulations for a reason, you are not trust worthy.


Yep, and that reason is to help corporations squash small business. Most regulation is written by Big Business. You are a shill for Big Business, one of their loyal servants. With people like you the rich get richer.

[mwillman]

No you just don't have a clue that's all.

Your attempts to label me show more about your programming then anything else. You don't have real arguments you just keep repeating a mantra.

If you want to be part of the real world then you need to learn about details and systems not just cowboy sayings and emotional responses.

[Surfrider]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SrenEB-hwKg/R3_jLuOEmYI/AAAAAAAAAE8/pYzNyziWasY/S660/DemocraticPartyOurPartyBanner.jpg

It's a whole new way of living.

Coming at you.

Growing strong.

America is new again, and

getting better all the time.

[kres24GT]

No you just don't have a clue that's all.

Your attempts to label me show more about your programming then anything else. You don't have real arguments you just keep repeating a mantra.

If you want to be part of the real world then you need to learn about details and systems not just cowboy sayings and emotional responses.


Who has programmed? No one is programming people to believe in less government, only independent thinkers

You support Big Business running the show, that is all there is to it. You are willing to rob people of their freedom to keep yourself and your wealthy white buddies rolling in the dough and make sure no one else steps up to challenge you as they could do in a free market. It's fascism plain and simple. I can admit what I am and that my way is not perfect. You continue to lie.

[MintJulep]

It's a whole new way of living.


Coming at you.


http://www.3debtconsolidation.com/images/unemployment-line.gif



http://www.lpusd.k12.ca.us/lphs/rm1/online/hotpotatoesmt/MT9-1done/_soupline.gif

You can say that again!! LOL!

[mwillman]

Thats what the republicans built lady Liar.

Kres

You are spewing the same mantras again. Please just once stop repeating Rush and company and think for your self better yet get an education and then you might have something to back up your boring mantra.

[kres24GT]

Thats what the republicans built lady Liar.

Kres

You are spewing the same mantras again. Please just once stop repeating Rush and company and think for your self better yet get an education and then you might have something to back up your boring mantra.


LMAO, there you go again. I don't listen to right wing blowhards like Rush who support Big Government and Big Businesses just like you do.

[mwillman]

No you just sit on the side lines dreaming of a fantasy land where you are free to fuck over who ever you want with no repercussions.

You are not even relevant becuase you have no solutions to issues you just dream of Anarchy.

[kres24GT]

No you just sit on the side lines dreaming of a fantasy land where you are free to fuck over who ever you want with no repercussions.

You are not even relevant becuase you have no solutions to issues you just dream of Anarchy.

You got ruined badly on this one. You have nothing to offer. All you can do is incorrectly hurl partisan insults that don't even apply to me.

[mwillman]

I would say it the other way around.

You are the one with no solutions only complaints.
You are the one that wants a world that doesnt exist.

No, sorry Kres but you dont have an argument you only have attitude.

[bairdi]

I would say it the other way around.

You are the one with no solutions only complaints.
You are the one that wants a world that doesnt exist.

No, sorry Kres but you dont have an argument you only have attitude.
It seems to me that the type of country that kres wants did exist at one time but proved to be unsustainable as the nation and the population grew. I would venture to say that his "vision" was the norm up until the mid 1800's. I would also say the government we have today is a government that has grown in response to problems that we faced as a nation. To return to the past, as he suggests, would imho be disastrous and do nothing but create anarchy and chaos. Just like everything else, the country has evolved and you cannot address current problems with a political system suited for a much smaller and less advanced country.

[kres24GT]

It seems to me that the type of country that kres wants did exist at one time but proved to be unsustainable as the nation and the population grew. I would venture to say that his "vision" was the norm up until the mid 1800's. I would also say the government we have today is a government that has grown in response to problems that we faced as a nation. To return to the past, as he suggests, would imho be disastrous and do nothing but create anarchy and chaos. Just like everything else, the country has evolved and you cannot address current problems with a political system suited for a much smaller and less advanced country.

Another Big Business homer wanting to make sure we keep the poor poor and make the rich richer. Some people would like to be free to make their own choices, and have gains or losses because of them. With people like you voting though, it will get harder and harder. Your system ensures the rich get richer.

[bairdi]

Another Big Business homer wanting to make sure we keep the poor poor and make the rich richer. Some people would like to be free to make their own choices, and have gains or losses because of them. With people like you voting though, it will get harder and harder. Your system ensures the rich get richer.
Do you disagree with the observations I made? It's great to go around calling someone a big business homer but give us some substance to your argument. The current system is not my system, but the system which has evolved over two hundred and thirty years. mwillman is correct when he says that you want a world that doesn't exist and hasn't existed for quite some time.

[Zebulon0351]

Look, there is really nowhere else to assign the blame for the housing bubble, and for the collapse of lending institutions that's led to where we are now, but to the democrats.

It was the policies of Carter and Clinton that first allowed, then later forced, lending institutions to lower their standards and take on risky loans, all in the name of "affordable housing". They are the ones that should have put in place strong regulations and strict oversight over Fannie and Freddie in the first place, but didn't.

Bush, along with the republicans in the congress and senate called for tighter restrictions on Fanny and Freddy starting in April 2001, and continued to do so through mid 2008. They warned Congress a total of 34 times about the economic risk that Fannie and Freddie posed on our financial systems, and pushed them take action immediately.

Back in September of 2003, Treasury Secretary John Snow spoke before the House Financial Services Committee and endorsed the Bush Administration's call for a serious regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry, by creating a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of Fannie and Freddie.

That was met with unanimous opposition from the democrats, and led Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on the Committee to say "These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis". He went on to say "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger. . . I don't think we face a crisis; I don't think that we have an impending disaster. . . . Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country."

The 2003 Congressional Hearings that took place, resulted in democrats defending the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (video here), and less than 2 months later we found out that Franklin Raines (Clinton's former White House budget director) had cooked the books.

So you tell me Zebulon, who tried to fix the problem 6 years ago, and who didn't?

Then in 2005, the Administration stated once again, this time in their budget plan, that they had 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." This assessment had been supported for nearly two years by Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary John Snow, John McCain and dozens of republican in the house and senate, yet the democrats still opposed an overhaul of Fannie and Freddie.

It wasn't until July of 2008, that the democrats finally realized that it was time to pass the reform bill that President Bush had been proposing for 5 years... It's unfortunate that it was far too late to save our economy.

Sorry Zeb, but no matter how you look at it, the only ones you can blame for the magnitude of this economic mess we're in, are the democrats.

I recognize that the blame can be shifted to many positions. But how can you direct the majority of the finger pointing to Congressional panels on housing reform? A few things:
1. For the majority of Dubya's administration, the Republicans had control of Congress.
2. In 2004, the Bush administration made it harder for low-income families to receive rental assistance but made is easier for these same families to obtain mortgages on their own houses.
3. One of Bush's key reelection strategies in 2004 was his push for easier home-ownership for minorities, particularly in the Southeast.
4. This new housing boom, created by Dubya, allowed banks to go virtually unchecked in the interest rates charged to these new home owners. This created false income perspectives for the banks. But unfortunately, these loosened housing policies made it impossible for millions of families to ever repay their mortgages.

It got him reelected, but was just another example of the right neglecting and taking advantage of the poor just to get their votes.

Again, I recognize the blame is not a partisan issue, it can easily go both ways, but the previous president did very little to regulate the market to prevent the fall of the system from the inside.

[radioguy]

I recognize that the blame can be shifted to many positions. But how can you direct the majority of the finger pointing to Congressional panels on housing reform?

Because it was that committee that prevented president Bush's recommendation for stronger regulation of Fannie and Freddie, to reach the floor of the house for a full vote.


A few things:
1. For the majority of Dubya's administration, the Republicans had control of Congress.

True... Back in 2003 republicans held a slight majority in congress. But when this issue was debated in committee, most republicans (not all) supported the presidents recommendations. It needed at least some support from democrats to make it out of committee and reach the full house. Unfortunately it received none, so the measure was shelved. The democrats, even after hearing extensive testimony to the contrary, contended that there wasn't a problem with Fannie and Freddie, and believed that no further restrictions or oversight was necessary.


2. In 2004, the Bush administration made it harder for low-income families to receive rental assistance

Please post a link explaining this.

but made is easier for these same families to obtain mortgages on their own houses.

From what I understand, he planned on achieving this by lowering interest rates... Not by lowering the standards to qualify for a home mortgage. If this isn't the case, then I again ask you to please link to a reputable site that says different.


3. One of Bush's key reelection strategies in 2004 was his push for easier home-ownership for minorities, particularly in the Southeast.

He proposed to lower interest rates to make it affordable, not to lower credit standards... Just read the transcripts of his speeches.

4. This new housing boom, created by Dubya, allowed banks to go virtually unchecked in the interest rates charged to these new home owners. This created false income perspectives for the banks.

Bush did NOT create the housing boom. That started in the late 90's based on Clinton's alteration of the CRA. Because of that, Fannie and Freddie encouraged banks to issue as many sub-prime/risky mortgages as they could, because they would buy them up... Which they did.

Clinton did not imposed sufficient regulations back in 95' when he altered the CRA, which caused this whole thing to spiral out of control in the first place. Bush recognized this was a big problem that could eventually lead to a major economic crisis if it wasn't brought under control. That's why in April 2001, only 3 months after taking office, he sent a letter to congress asking them to address this issue.

Zeb, I strongly recommend you watch this video (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wxmr_burning-down-the-house-what-caused_news) in it's entirety. Keep your mouse over the pause button, because it moves very fast. Everything it presents is 100% factual, and available on the internet.

But unfortunately, these loosened housing policies made it impossible for millions of families to ever repay their mortgages.

Are you joking? First, people have to take responsibility for taking on these mortgages. They read the contracts. Second, these were loans that banks knew were very risky, and would have never issued them if Fannie and Freddie hadn't guaranteed to buy them.

Ignoring the root cause (government policy) for the problems we now have, and instead blaming adjustable mortgages as the cause for the housing bubble, is just not logical.

It got him reelected, but was just another example of the right neglecting and taking advantage of the poor just to get their votes.

That's funny, because the democrats in congress said exactly the opposite. They said Bush's call for more oversight and stronger regulation on Fannie and Freddie was nothing but an attempt to prevent the poor from ever owning a home. I believe one of them called it a "Witch hunt".

Again, I recognize the blame is not a partisan issue, it can easily go both ways, but the previous president did very little to regulate the market to prevent the fall of the system from the inside.

When it comes to the crash of both the housing market and mortgage lenders, the answer to the following questions clearly shows where the blame lies:

Is government policy the reason banks lowered their lending standards?
A: Yes

Who is responsible for enacting those policies?
A: Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton

Did those policies create more home buyers, causing a higher demand for homes, which led to the housing bubble?
A: Yes

Are those policies the reason so many sub-prime/risky loans were being issued?
A: Yes

Are the number of foreclosures resulting from those risky loans, the reason lenders ended up in financial trouble?
A: Yes

When enacted, did those policies contain sufficient regulations and oversight within them, to ensure the soundness of financial institutions and prevent abuse?
A: No

Who first brought it to the attention of congress, that the country faced a looming economic danger if stronger oversight wasn't imposed on GSE's (Fannie and Freddie)?
A: George Bush, in April 2001.

Who pushed for tighter regulations of GSE's, and did so more than 30 times between 2001 and 2008?
A: The Bush administration and various republicans in congress.

Which party recognized there was a problem with mortgage lending and tried to fix it, many years before it actually became one?
A: The Bush administration and various republicans in congress.

Who opposed enacting tighter regulations on GSE's from 2001 thru 2008?
A: Every democrat in the house and senate.

Which party between 2001 and 2008, said there was no problem with the lending practices of financial institutions, and that they they posed no threat to the future of the American economy?
A: Every democrat in the house and senate.

Did accounting irregularities take place at Fannie Mae, which concealed how big the problem was to members of congress?
A: Yes

Were those accounting irregularities done for personal financial gain?
A: Yes

How much money was received by executives at Fannie Mae by cooking the books?
A: Over 100 million dollars

Who was responsible for those illegal accounting practices?
A: Former top executive Franklin Raines

Who is Franklin Raines?
A: A huge Democratic supporter/fund raiser, and president Clinton's former White House budget director.

When was it discovered that Raines had "cooked the books", there by showing the dangerous pattern of buying up sub-prime loans by Fannie Mae?
A: In 2003, less than 2 months after the democrats had declared there was no problem with Fannie Mae.

After this was discovered, how many democrats changed their mind and joined president Bush's call for stricter regulations to be imposed on Fannie and Freddie?
A: 0

***********

Sorry Zeb, but no matter how you spin it, the democrats have to take the fall for this one. It was their policies, not the republicans, that first enabled, then later forced lenders to issue loans to people who didn't have the ability to pay that money back. That in turn cause two things to happen. First, it created more home buyers, driving the demand up, resulting in the housing bubble. Second, when interest rates started to rise as they always do, many of those people who were issued those risky loans, could no longer afford to make the payments, resulting in a record number of foreclosures, which caused the lending institutions to collapse.

It was the Bush administration and house republicans that recognized this problem back in 2001, and proposed stronger regulation and oversight of GSE's. They are the ones who warned congress of the future economic consequences of inaction. For 7 years the Bush administration pushed congress to take action, and for 7 years the democrats said there was no need to fix something, that they felt wasn't broken.

The way I see it, the democrats in congress chose to play politics with this issue, instead of serving the public interest. They saw this as a republican attack on democratic social policy, and chose to defend that policy, rather than acknowledge the economic danger it posed.


.

[bairdi]

Well, here is your chance to make some extra money rg.


It’s Time to Put Up or Shut Up for People Who Blame the CRA for the Housing Crisis
By Mary Kane 6/29/09 10:55 AM

Here’s a huge pat on the back and a show of support for Barry Ritholtz, who truly has had it with those who keep clinging to the widely discredited belief that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the housing crisis. Ritholtz writes at The Big Picture that he’s offering a debate challenge, with a prize of up to $100,000 to be paid by the loser, to anyone who will step up and debate him over whether the CRA should be blamed for the mortgage meltdown. A jury will determine who wins the debate.

I’ve run out of patience with tired memes and discredited claims by fools and partisans.

The rhetoric of those pushing nonsense on the public in an attempt to confuse rather than illuminate — the phrase is “agnotology” – only serves to aid the lobbyists working on behalf of the Banks and Investment houses to maintain the status quo.

All is well, nothing to see here, move along.

Well, its time to put up or shut up: I hereby challenge any of those who believe the CRA is at prime fault in the housing boom and collapse, and economic morass we are in to a debate. The question for debate: “Is the CRA significantly to blame for the credit crisis?”

A mutually agreed upon time and place, outcome determined by a fair jury, for any dollar amount between $10,000 up to $100,000 dollars (i.e., for more than just bragging rights).

I can’t help but applaud this. No matter how many times it has been shot down, the blame-the-CRA myth keeps coming back to life. As TWI has explained, the CRA, a 1977 anti-redlining law, didn’t even cover the unregulated lenders who made most of the subprime loans during the housing boom. There’s simply no evidence for this assertion.

The movement to blame the CRA started during the fall campaign season, seized by conservatives as a convenient scapegoat for the financial crisis. It came back to life recently, when bloggers like The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle picked up on Clusterstock postings by John Carney, once again citing the CRA as regulation gone wrong.

As McArdle put it, the CRA’s role in the crisis is “understated by liberals who are unwilling to admit that regulation, too, can produce hideous unintended consequences.”

Felix Salmon at Reuters has knocked down most of this. But I’d like to add something that’s regularly missed in the CRA debate. What the anti-regulation types miss is that the CRA never was much of a regulation to begin with. As Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, which covers the subprime industry, told TWI, lenders never took the CRA all that seriously to begin with. The lending industry viewed the CRA as an extremely loose regulation. Lenders joked about how you’d have to mug an elderly, disabled, minority woman in a wheelchair to lose your positive CRA rating.

How that got turned on its head so that the CRA has become a symbol of regulation gone wrong is an example of what happens when idealogues who don’t know how an industry really works take over the debate. If Ritholtz’s bold offer gets some of this out on the table — and then off the table for good — it’s all for the better.

Salmon reports that Carney may be willing to take up Ritholtz on the challenge. So let the games begin. And let them put an end to the blame-the-CRA movement for good.

http://washingtonindependent.com/49019/its-time-to-put-up-or-shut-up-for-people-who-blame-the-cra-for-the-housing-crisis

[radioguy]

It was the combination of the revised CRA, and the legal threats made against lending institutions to comply, that led to the mortgage meltdown.

The Clinton administration made changes to the CRA in 1995, and Janet Reno threatened legal action against banks that didn't meet the administration's set goals for lending to inner city areas and low income families.

Here is a few excerpts from a speech (http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ag/speeches/1998/0320_agcom.htm) about enforcement of the CRA, given by Janet Reno back in 1998:

Down the street, two high schools had come there that day, two classes, to tear down a house. And they were tearing down, but they saw what was going up nearby. I went over to see them, to talk with them, and they had such a sense of contributing, such a sense that they can make a difference. All of us can, whether we seek economic justice, whether we want to participate as part of community service. Every one of us can make a difference.

But we learned long ago that building a home requires more than hope, it requires more than neighbors just participating, and more than the brick and mortar. It requires capital. Access to credit is the lifeblood of economic opportunity. With credit, homes can be bought, businesses started, neighborhoods rebuilt, and communities revitalized.

But capital alone won't work. You need the people to do it. The Community Reinvestment Act has played a critical part in ensuring that lending institutions put some of their capital into underserved areas, especially the inner cities and in minority neighborhoods...


... I am convinced that education can go such a long way in making a difference. And I discovered it in talking to bankers, that it is better to educate first and then litigate later only if necessary. But you got to be prepared to litigate, and I am prepared to litigate when it's going to be necessary.

This next excerpt spells it out:

You've noted that since the inception of our fair lending initiative in 1992 the Department has filed and settled 13 major fair lending lawsuits. We are going to continue these efforts under the Acting Assistant Attorney General Bill Lann Lee in every way that we possibly can. We will continue to focus on discrimination in underwriting, the process of evaluating the qualifications of credit applicants. This was the issue in our suits against Shawmut in Boston, Northern Trust Company in Chicago, and First National Bank of Donna Anna in New Mexico.

We have also focused on the problem of redlining by lenders and insurance companies. This past August we reached an agreement with Allbank of New York. We alleged that the bank had carved out and refused to make loans in urban minority enclaves within the bank's lending areas in Connecticut and Westchester County, New York. The settlement with Allbank requires it to make $55 million in loans at below-market rate in the areas previously redlined.

There's your threat in the first paragraph... She then outlines the tactics that will be used to force lenders into compliance... Then she inadvertently spells out what is expected from mortgage lenders in the punishment she imposed on Allbank. They must issue 55 million dollars in loans in an urban, inner city area, irregardless of standards or financial risk, and do so at BELOW MARKET VALUE.

Reno says many times in that speech, that she isn't forcing banks to issue loans to unqualified applicants, yet her actions require them to do exactly that.

Here is more evidence of the Clinton administration strong arming mortgage lenders into issuing bad loans. It comes from an article (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:8-UioRHYaccJ:www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html+%22new+york+times%22+expand+mortgage+ loans+among+low-+and+moderate-income&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk) in the New York Times, dated September 30, 1999:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: Thursday, September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

So there you have it... The beginning of the end. The last piece of the puzzle... Fannie Mae.

They finally agreed to lower their credit requirements on loans they purchase from banks, which gave all mortgage lenders the green light to lower their standards, and issue loans to people who couldn't afford to pay the money back. That's the standards on conventional loans, as well as sub-prime loans.

The reason they lowered their standards and took on these risky mortgages, was a direct result of the threats and strong arm tactics being applied by Janet Reno and the Clinton administration. Here's another example of the tactics used to force Fannie and Freddie to comply, from the last paragraph of the article:

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.


But wait... The article doesn't stop there:


In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Amazing... Isn't it?

The New York Times very casually described exactly what would happen as a result of taking on these risky loans, should the country suffer an economic downturn (aka, the housing bubble goes BOOM). And they said this 10 years ago, on the very same day Fannie Mae announced that had given up, and agreed to do what the Clinton administration demanded of them.

Now bairdi, do I really need to go any further here?

I can always go over again, how less than 3 months into office, president Bush had warned congress about the looming economic danger posed by Fannie and Freddie if stronger regulations weren't imposed... And I could also remind you of how for 7 years, the democrats ignored the presidents warnings and opposed taking steps to avoid the mess we are in now... But I think you know this already.

.

[mwillman]

Your problem Radioguy is you completely ignore what the private investment banks did with the debt created from the housing mortgages.

They took a problem and turned it into a international recession.

When you face that fact then I will bother to take you serious unfortunately you to often just respew right wings lies and act like its truth.

[Surfrider]

[QUOTE=LadyLiberty7]It's a whole new way of living.


Coming at you.


http://www.3debtconsolidation.com/images/unemployment-line.gif



http://www.lpusd.k12.ca.us/lphs/rm1/online/hotpotatoesmt/MT9-1done/_soupline.gif


I can not thank Lady Liberty enough for this sad post. Two ideas from the Great Depression of the 1930s. We'll forget for a moment that the Republicans caused our current economic disaster. UNEMPLOYMENT during the Great Depresssion was MORE THAN DOUBLE compared to the mess George Bush created.

And, the depressing picture of those people in the soup lines. Who would have ever believed it could happen in America?

By the way, "the who" that caused all that unemployment, and put those people in a soup lines was a REPUBLICAN. IT WAS HERBERT HOOVER. The man did nothing, and just kept saying things would be ok.

http://bullspin.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/herbert_hoover1.jpg

And now it is a whole new way of living.
Democrats are cleaning up the Republican mess.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SrenEB-hwKg/R3_jLuOEmYI/AAAAAAAAAE8/pYzNyziWasY/S660/DemocraticPartyOurPartyBanner.jpg

[doctordog]

[QUOTE=LadyLiberty7]It's a whole new way of living.


Coming at you.


http://www.3debtconsolidation.com/images/unemployment-line.gif



http://www.lpusd.k12.ca.us/lphs/rm1/online/hotpotatoesmt/MT9-1done/_soupline.gif


I can not thank Lady Liberty enough for this sad post. Two ideas from the Great Depression of the 1930s. We'll forget for a moment that the Republicans caused our current economic disaster. Unemployment during the Great Depresssion was MORE THAN DOUBLE compared to the mess George Bush created.

And, the depressing picture of those people in the soup lines. Who would have ever believed it could happen in America?

By the way the who caused all that unemployment, and put those people in a soup lines? Well it was a REPUBLICAN. IT WAS HERBERT HOOVER. The man did nothing, and just kept telling us things would be ok.

http://bullspin.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/herbert_hoover1.jpg

And now it is a whole new way of living.
Democrats are cleaning up the Republican mess.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SrenEB-hwKg/R3_jLuOEmYI/AAAAAAAAAE8/pYzNyziWasY/S660/DemocraticPartyOurPartyBanner.jpg

Can you write anything or are you capable of only looking pictures?

[MintJulep]

And now it is a whole new way of living.





Democrats are cleaning up the Republican mess.



And you're doing one hell of a shitty job. See you in the mid-terms. lol


http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/stimulus-vs-unemployment-june-dots.gif

[Surfrider]

And you're doing one hell of a shitty job. See you in the mid-terms. lol


http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/stimulus-vs-unemployment-june-dots.gif
[
And, who might one suppose caused those unemployment numbers? I'll give LadyLiberty7 credit for putting on a hell of a show! But, the American people know that she has no substance. There is heavy unemployment because of the Wall Steet Republican bail-out. This is not new news.

When is the Republican Party, (or what is left of it), going to take RESPONSIBILITY for crashing the economy, and putting people out of work? Until that day, the party of President Obama is running our American democracy. America is in safe hands.

Design posts with all the big letters you want, you do not impress anyone. Repubs got greedy on Wall Street, the economy crashed, and you lost the election. Do you really think anyone is just going to let that pass?

http://myztico.mosaicglobe.com/files/image/bush.jpg

[Smurf-Herder]

How very childish and simplistic. :thumbsup:

[MintJulep]

[
And, who might one suppose caused those unemployment numbers? I'll give LadyLiberty7 credit for putting on a hell of a show! But, the American people know that she has no substance. There is heavy unemployment because of the Wall Steet Republican bail-out. This is not new news.

When is the Republican Party, (or what is left of it), going to take RESPONSIBILITY for crashing the economy, and putting people out of work? Until that day, the party of President Obama is running our American democracy. America is in safe hands.

Design posts with all the big letters you want, you do not impress anyone. Repubs got greedy on Wall Street, the economy crashed, and you lost the election. Do you really think anyone is just going to let that pass?





Here, educate yourself. I'm even doing the legwork. You can thank me later.



http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wxmr_burning-down-the-house-what-caused_news

[bairdi]

Here, educate yourself. I'm even doing the legwork. You can thank me later.



http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wxmr_burning-down-the-house-what-caused_news

Watching a right wing video that is produced to achieve a desired conclusion is not educating yourself, it's fooling yourself. Education requires an open mind, something you certainly appear to lack LL.

[MintJulep]

Watching a right wing video that is produced to achieve a desired conclusion is not educating yourself, it's fooling yourself. Education requires an open mind, something you certainly appear to lack LL.The Community Reinvestment Act, the housing/mortgage crisis and Bush's attempt to introduce legislation are all well-documented. This is just a quick way of summing it all up. You see, I'm not a dummy who simply believes "Boooooooooossssh did it!!" That is simplistic and inaccurate.

If you see something in the video that's false, tell me what it is and I'll back it up.

[Surfrider]

Nice try loser but you failed.

mwillman,

Sorry to see this, but I am not surprised. You are the third person in the last few days to have a problem with this guy. I put him on ignore some time ago. Nobody reads him, and he has been banned from a number of sites. Speaking of banning, when wayers57 was banned from the Political Groove, LadyLiberty7 was banned with him! LadyLiberty7 told me that herself. They won't be around DCJ very long, (unstable).

http://dl3.kortenaar.com/pub/232/232503a0a6gtmg50.jpg

[Smurf-Herder]

mwillman,

Sorry to see this, but I am not surprised. You are the third person in the last few days to have a problem with this guy. I put him on ignore some time ago. Nobody reads him, and he has been banned from a number of sites. Speaking of banning, when wayers57 was banned from the Political Groove, LadyLiberty7 was banned with him. They won't be around DCJ very long.

http://dl3.kortenaar.com/pub/232/232503a0a6gtmg50.jpg

They've been pretty good compared to others.

And I usually have to have a really serious case before I ban permanently, anyway.

Cool dragon. :thumbsup:

[Surfrider]

They've been pretty good compared to others.

And I usually have to have a really serious case before I ban permanently, anyway.

Cool dragon. :thumbsup:

Ohhh, the big guy. Sorry didn't mean to trouble you. There is not an untruth in my post.

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/b/bigguy1.jpg

[Smurf-Herder]

Ohhh, the big guy. Sorry didn't mean to trouble you. There is not an untruth in my post.

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/b/bigguy1.jpg

Just saying I handle things differently here.

I try to nip things in the bud, before they go too far. And even then, have more tolerance than some.

[MintJulep]

mwillman,

Sorry to see this, but I am not surprised. You are the third person in the last few days to have a problem with this guy. I put him on ignore some time ago. Nobody reads him, and he has been banned from a number of sites. Speaking of banning, when wayers57 was banned from the Political Groove, LadyLiberty7 was banned with him! LadyLiberty7 told me that herself. They won't be around DCJ very long, (unstable).
Yes, that is true. If you take a look at the site though, being "banned" there means little. Only the most DEVOUT of Obamabot worshippers are welcome there. Any democrat who speaks negatively of Obama is banned.

Why don't you go on over and join the echo chamber? You'd fit in well as long as you praise your Lord and Savior. You could be choir director! :lmao2:

[doctordog]

[CENTER]Ohhh, the big guy. Sorry didn't mean to trouble you. There is not an untruth in my post.

You are the untruth. So which evil monkey spanker are you?:lmao2:

[Surfrider]

http://sanderhicks.com/images/imagesjan04/reagan.jpg

"Facts are stubborn things." ~Ronald Reagan

[Independent Harry]

The Community Reinvestment Act, the housing/mortgage crisis and Bush's attempt to introduce legislation are all well-documented. This is just a quick way of summing it all up. You see, I'm not a dummy who simply believes "Boooooooooossssh did it!!" That is simplistic and inaccurate.

If you see something in the video that's false, tell me what it is and I'll back it up.

a few million homes foreclosing did not bring about the downfall of our economy. It was the deregulation of secondary market, and the Bush admin loosening controls on auditing these financial instruments within the secondary market. Then being able to insure these obligations, caused about 40-60 trillion dollars worth of collateralized debt become worthless due to the nature of how it was packaged. Until you get that through your head you are nothing but a shill...

edit: and btw, the fact that you could insure them is what led to the huge credit restrictions being loosened. If you were intelligent and did research you would know that the biggest loosening of credit restrictions came in from 2003 to 2005. Right in the middle of the Bush presidency. Not during Clinton and not because of CRA. The banks figured since they could insure the financial instruments the mortgages were being packaged into they woulnd't have to worry about taking a loss. Except that corporations like AIG decided to rate them triple A securities and didn't keep any kind of reserve to pay the obligations in the case of a loss. that's why the whole thing unraveled before your eyes. Not because of some obscure legistlation known as the CRA.

[doctordog]

a few million homes foreclosing did not bring about the downfall of our economy. It was the deregulation of secondary market, and the Bush admin loosening controls on auditing these financial instruments within the secondary market. Then being able to insure these obligations, caused about 40-60 trillion dollars worth of collateralized debt become worthless due to the nature of how it was packaged. Until you get that through your head you are nothing but a shill...

Until you hold loan applicants accountable for their actions you are nothing but irresponsible.

[radioguy]

a few million homes foreclosing did not bring about the downfall of our economy. It was the deregulation of secondary market, and the Bush admin loosening controls on auditing these financial instruments within the secondary market. Then being able to insure these obligations, caused about 40-60 trillion dollars worth of collateralized debt become worthless due to the nature of how it was packaged. Until you get that through your head you are nothing but a shill...

edit: and btw, the fact that you could insure them is what led to the huge credit restrictions being loosened. If you were intelligent and did research you would know that the biggest loosening of credit restrictions came in from 2003 to 2005. Right in the middle of the Bush presidency. Not during Clinton and not because of CRA. The banks figured since they could insure the financial instruments the mortgages were being packaged into they woulnd't have to worry about taking a loss. Except that corporations like AIG decided to rate them triple A securities and didn't keep any kind of reserve to pay the obligations in the case of a loss. that's why the whole thing unraveled before your eyes. Not because of some obscure legistlation known as the CRA.


Harry, that is one of the biggest piles of pure partisan bullshit I've seen in quite a while.

What's so amazing, is libs like you eat shit like this for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, all the while ignoring the facts that are right in front of your face.

The NY Times story from 1999, as well as their story from 2003, that I linked to on this thread, spell it all out very clearly. But don't let them stubborn facts stop you from regurgitating all the bullshit spewed by those partisan hacks who still have a woody for Bush...

Carry on Harry

.

[kres24GT]

Do you disagree with the observations I made? It's great to go around calling someone a big business homer but give us some substance to your argument. The current system is not my system, but the system which has evolved over two hundred and thirty years. mwillman is correct when he says that you want a world that doesn't exist and hasn't existed for quite some time.

Absolutely I disagree. Simply because we have to have government does not mean we should have a fascist state. The current system is corrupt, flawed, but also the natural evolution of Big Government. I don't want Big Business running my life, the only way that is possible is with very limited government.

You and mwillman want a Big Government world, meaning a world where Big business runs the show via the politicians they have bought and paid for. In a small government world it doesn't mater how many politicians have been bought off, they have no power over us.

In you dream world where government makes all of our decisions, the ones really making those decisions are Big Business. No thanks.

You guys are fine with someone else running your life, I am not. Simple difference of opinion. You support fascism, I do not no, again just a difference of opinion.

[Hog Trash]

Here's the deal, everyone on here keeps saying democracy when referring to America. We are not a democracy, we elect officials to represent us when singing bills into law. So therefore we are a republic. totally different. A democracy is basically subject to mob rule. Where a republic is supposed to be learned men creating a buffer between the two. If you don't beleive me, jsut recite the pledge of allegiance.

In my mind we would solve half our problems overnight if we made it very illegal to lobby and be a special interest group. Like say if you are caught lobbying to a congress person, its 20 years in jail, and the delegate gets his ass handed to him.

But on the other side of the coin, I was speaking to someone from africa the other day. And he was telling me how much he loves this country. Beacuse where he is from all the power rests in the hand of one man. And all the wealth gets funneled up to him while the rest of the country is broke. While things aren't the best here, we sure do have it much better than a lot of other places in the world.Harry, I am very proud of you...Recently on another thread I was having a discussion with a liberal about how I rarely if ever heard any patriotism for America from the left.

You need to focus this messege on other members of your political persuasion...It could do wonders for left/right relations in America to know we have something in common.

This is the closest I've ever seen a liberal come to a display of patriotism but you did say "we sure do have it much better than a lot of other places in the world".

I am very curious and would really like to know what you believe are the other places in the world we do not have it better than?

[Independent Harry]

Harry, that is one of the biggest piles of pure partisan bullshit I've seen in quite a while.

What's so amazing, is libs like you eat shit like this for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, all the while ignoring the facts that are right in front of your face.

The NY Times story from 1999, as well as their story from 2003, that I linked to on this thread, spell it all out very clearly. But don't let them stubborn facts stop you from regurgitating all the bullshit spewed by those partisan hacks who still have a woody for Bush...

Carry on Harry

.

You are the biggest pile of partisan bullshit I have ever seen. You never check the facts. You watch partisan videos and swallow everything they have to say hook line and sinker. You constantly spew how the NY times lies and then when they print something that agrees with your POV you jump on it as fact. So which is it, do they lie or do they print fact...

The CRA may have caused some looser lending guidelines, but the biggest reason the banks loosened credit like that is because they thought everything was insured, so the could write any old crap they wanted and if it defaulted, well they had bought insurance on it. Plain and simple...the AIG scam...is the reason we are in the mess we are in today. 6 milliion foreclosed homes didn't caues the American economy to crumble numb nuts.

[Independent Harry]

Until you hold loan applicants accountable for their actions you are nothing but irresponsible.

you keep saying that, but I dont' see you advocating holding these banks responsible for their irresponsible actions either...

[doctordog]

you keep saying that, but I dont' see you advocating holding these banks responsible for their irresponsible actions either...

The banks were forced to lend to minorities (thanks to Clinton) even when their credit report was shit. I play golf with 3 bankers and everyone of them said that they only loans that defaulted were these type of loans, so what should they be held accountable for?

[Hog Trash]

Originally Posted by Independent Harry

you keep saying that, but I dont' see you advocating holding these banks responsible for their irresponsible actions either...


The banks were forced to lend to minorities (thanks to Clinton) even when their credit report was shit. I play golf with 3 bankers and everyone of them said that they only loans that defaulted were these type of loans, so what should they be held accountable for?I believe in holding anyone responsible accountable regardless of party affiliation but I'm sorry Harry, wayers is right.

All the evidence points to democrat politicians Clinton, Franks and Dodd as the main culprits of this whole banking mess.

The reason they caused it is even worse...They gambled the economic future of America to pander votes and they lost.

Well America actually lost.

[Independent Harry]

The banks were forced to lend to minorities (thanks to Clinton) even when their credit report was shit. I play golf with 3 bankers and everyone of them said that they only loans that defaulted were these type of loans, so what should they be held accountable for?

Dude, you're an idiot, we've had this conversation before. These are not the only type of loans people defaulted on. Either you live in a statistical anomoly or these bankers don't know wtf they are talking about. Chances are they are getting their information from the same source. It's amazing how pepole won't do any research and listen to hearsay from people...

[doctordog]

Dude, you're an idiot, we've had this conversation before. These are not the only type of loans people defaulted on. Either you live in a statistical anomoly or these bankers don't know wtf they are talking about. Chances are they are getting their information from the same source. It's amazing how pepole won't do any research and listen to hearsay from people...

Since their pay is based on bottom line, it is a local employee owned bank, why would they lie. It is amazing how people like you think that the same thing goes on everywhere, it doesn't. Barney Franks should be accountable for his ignorance when people wanted to regulate Freddie and Fannie.

I can understand if you live in California, Arizona, or Nevada where real estate agents, appraisers, and banker all collaborated in driving the cost of homes out of site, only for them to fall back to reality pricing but it none of the those sales would have been possible without someone like you or me signing on the dotted line.;)

[bairdi]

Dude, you're an idiot, we've had this conversation before. These are not the only type of loans people defaulted on. Either you live in a statistical anomoly or these bankers don't know wtf they are talking about. Chances are they are getting their information from the same source. It's amazing how pepole won't do any research and listen to hearsay from people...
Thanks for the factual voice of reason you bring to this board Harry.

The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulation BB (12 CFR 228). The regulation was substantially revised in May 1995, and was most recently amended in August 2005.

Evaluation of CRA Performance
The CRA requires that each depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities.

Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution's individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.

CRA examinations are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions. Information on this page is related to depository institutions that are examined by the Federal Reserve, mainly state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve. CRA information on other depository institutions is available from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). Interagency information about the CRA is available from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC).

http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/

[doctordog]

Thanks for the factual voice of reason you bring to this board Harry.



http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/


You left out the political side that involves IRS and it's auditors for banks that don't comply with an administrations wishes, but that is ok, you two are two stupid or naive to see the whole picture.

[Surfrider]

Tweedle Dee, and Tweedle Dum

I love to hear the conservative Repubs fighting it out! They know they can't blame the Democrats, so they are blaming each other! It just doesn't get much better than this!

http://fred2blue.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/tweedledee-tweedledum.jpg

[MintJulep]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SN1isksGvkI/AAAAAAAAAkU/Rf0PHul5zCM/s320/FreeMoney.jpg

[Surfrider]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SN1isksGvkI/AAAAAAAAAkU/Rf0PHul5zCM/s320/FreeMoney.jpg

Vote Republican the Robber Barons Need the Money!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eHMlZfrJmJ0/RstEu_rfT4I/AAAAAAAAAis/WDc4ZBLS6Fc/s400/l0026902.jpg

[MintJulep]

http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/ngillespie2/barneyfrank.jpg

[Surfrider]

http://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/barney-frank.jpg
Barney Frank
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Massachusetts's 4th district
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 5, 1981
Preceded by Robert Drinan

Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 4, 2007


Member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives
In office
1973 – 1981
Governor Michael S. Dukakis (1975-1981)
Francis W. Sargent (1973-1975)


Born March 31, 1940 (1940-03-31) (age 69)
Bayonne, New Jersey
Political party Democratic
Residence Newton, Massachusetts
Alma mater Harvard College
Harvard Law School
Occupation Attorney, United States Representative
Religion Jewish[1]
Barnett "Barney" Frank (born March 31, 1940) is the United States House Representative for Massachusetts's 4th congressional district since 1981 and a member of the Democratic Party. In 1982 he won his first full term and has been re-elected ever since by wide margins.[2] In 1987, he became the second openly gay member of the House of Representatives, and has become one of the most prominent LGBT politicians in the United States.[3] In 2007 Frank became the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee when the Democratic Party won a majority in the House. The committee oversees the housing and banking industries.

Frank is widely considered to be one of the most powerful members of Congress.[4][5][6] He has been described as "one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues",[7] and "a key deal-maker, an unlikely bridge between his party’s left-wing base and [...] free-market conservatives".[8][9]

Early life
Frank was born to a Jewish family in Bayonne, New Jersey and was educated at Harvard College, where he resided in Kirkland House and then Winthrop House, graduating in 1962. He taught undergraduates at Harvard while studying for a Ph.D., but left in 1968 before completing the degree, to become Boston mayor Kevin White's Chief Assistant, a position he held for three years. He then served for a year as Administrative Assistant to Congressman Michael J. Harrington.


Career
In 1972 Frank was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives where he served for eight years. While a Representative he entered Harvard Law School and graduated in 1977. While in state and local government, Frank taught part time at the University of Massachusetts Boston, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and at Boston University. He published numerous articles on politics and public affairs, and in 1992 he published Speaking Frankly, an essay on the role the Democratic Party should play in the 1990s.

In 1979, Frank became a member of the Massachusetts Bar. A year later, he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 4th congressional district, hoping to succeed Father Robert Drinan, who had left Congress following a call by Pope John Paul II for priests to withdraw from political positions. In the Democratic primary held on September 16, 1980 Frank won 51.3 percent of the vote in a four-candidate field. His nearest opponent, Arthur J. Clark, won 45.9 percent and finished almost 4,500 votes behind.[10] As the Democratic nominee, Frank faced Republican Richard A. Jones in the general election and won narrowly, 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent.[11]


1981, Congressional Pictorial Directory - Frank's first term as CongressmanFor his first term, Frank represented a district in the western and southern suburbs of Boston, anchored by Brookline and Newton, Massachusetts. However, in 1982, redistricting forced him to run against Republican Margaret Heckler, who represented a district centered on the South Coast, including Fall River and New Bedford. Although the newly configured district retained Frank's district number — the 4th — it was geographically more Heckler's district. Frank focused on Heckler's initial support for President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, and won by 20 percentage points. He has not faced credible opposition since, and has been reelected thirteen times.[12][13]

Frank is known for his witty, self-deprecating sense of humor. He once famously quipped that he was unable to complete his review of the Starr Report detailing President Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, complaining that it was "too much reading about heterosexual sex".[14] In 2004 and again in 2006, a survey of Capitol Hill staffers published in Washingtonian gave Frank the title of the "brainiest", "funniest", and "most eloquent" member of the House.[15]

A 1990 investigation by the House Ethics Committee was prompted by Steve Gobie, a male hustler Frank befriended and housed, who attempted to profit on his allegations that Frank knew he was using the home to see clients. Frank confirmed that he had once paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that prostitution clients were visiting his apartment.[16] "Two years [after Frank fired Gobie], Gobie tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to the Washington Post. He then gave the story to the Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract for the male version of Mayflower Madam."[17] After the investigation, the Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims; they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets.[18][19] Attempts to expel or censure Frank, led by Republican member Larry Craig - who later was embroiled in his own gay sex scandal - failed.[20][21] Instead the House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank who later won re-election in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.[22]


[B]Political initiatives and positions[/B]

[B]Frank in his congressional office in 2002[/B]
[B] LGBT issues[/B]
Frank has been outspoken on many civil rights issues, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights. In 1987, he publicly came out as gay.[23] He said in a 1996 interview: "I'm used to being in the minority. I'm a left-handed gay Jew. I've never felt, automatically, a member of any majority." In 1995, then-Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey famously referred to Frank as "Barney Fag" in a press interview. Armey apologized and said it was "a slip of the tongue". Frank did not accept Armey's explanation, saying "I turned to my own expert, my mother, who reports that in 59 years of marriage, no one ever introduced her as Elsie Fag."[24]

Through the 1990 Immigration Act, Frank was a major force in removing restrictions based on "sexual preference exclusion" which had been explicitly prohibited by early immigration law.[25] In 1998, Frank founded the National Stonewall Democrats, the national LGBT Democratic organization. In February 2009, Frank was one of three openly gay members of Congress, along with Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Jared Polis of Colorado.

Frank was accused by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) of having a "radical homosexual agenda" and responded "I do have things I would like to see adopted on behalf of LGBT people: they include the right to marry the individual of our choice; the right to serve in the military to defend our country; and the right to a job based solely on our own qualifications.[26][27] I acknowledge that this is an agenda, but I do not think that any self-respecting radical in history would have considered advocating people's rights to get married, join the army, and earn a living as a terribly inspiring revolutionary platform."[27]

Frank's stance on outing gay Republicans has been called the "Frank Rule" whereby a closeted person who uses their power, position, or notoriety to hurt LGBT people can be outed.[28] The issue became relevant during the Mark Foley scandal of 2006, during which Frank clarified his position on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher: "I think there's a right to privacy. But the right to privacy should not be a right to hypocrisy. And people who want to demonize other people shouldn't then be able to go home and close the door and do it themselves."[29]

In April 2009 he was named in Out magazine's Annual Power 50 List, landing at number 1.[30]

[B]
Medical marijuana[/B]
Frank is author of the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act (H.R. 2592), an attempt to stop federal government from intervening with states' medical marijuana laws.[31] As well, he has consistently voted for the bipartisan Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, annually proposed by Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), that would prohibit the United States Department of Justice from prosecuting medical marijuana patients.[32] In March 2008, he proposed the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008 (HR 5843), which would decriminalize small amounts of the drug.[33] Frank commenting on legislation to remove federal criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use stated "In a free society a large degree of human activity is none of the government's business. We should make criminal what's going to hurt other people and other than that we should leave it to people to make their own choices."[34]


[B]Online gambling[/B]
Frank has partnered with Ron Paul in support of online gambling rights. In 2006, both strongly opposed H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, and H.R. 4411, the Goodlatte-Leach Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.[35][36] To restore online gambling rights, in 2007 Frank sponsored H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act.[37] This bill would have established licensing and regulation of online gaming sites. It provided for age verification and protections for compulsive gamblers. In 2008, he and Paul introduced H.R. 5767, the Payment Systems Protection Act, a bill that sought to place a moratorium on enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act while the United States Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve defined "unlawful Internet gambling". As a result of these efforts, Frank (who does not gamble) has been praised by poker players and online gamblers, including many Republicans.[38]


[B]Civil liberties[/B]
In 2006, Frank was one of three Representatives to oppose the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which restricted protests (notably those of Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church) at soldiers' funerals. He opposed the bill, which passed unanimously in the Senate, on civil liberties and constitutional grounds. Frank said of the vote, "I think it’s very likely to be found unconstitutional. It’s true that when you defend civil liberties you are typically defending people who do obnoxious things... You play into their hand when you let them provoke you into overdoing it. I don’t want these thugs to [make the] claim [that] America is hypocritical."[39]

In 1987, Congressman Frank was the Chair of the important House Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations in the 100th Congress. In this position, he was one of the staunchest supporters of redress and reparations for Japanese American internment during World War II. [40][41]


[B]Abortion[/B]
Frank has a 100% rating from NARAL.[42] He voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act,[43] against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act[44] and against the criminalization of the transportation of minors across state lines by non-family members to circumvent local abortion laws.[45]

[B]
Military spending[/B]
As of the 111th Congress, Frank is advocating a 25 percent reduction in the overall Military budget of the United States. "The math is compelling: if we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity...," wrote Frank. He claimed that such a significant reduction would have no effect on the United States' ability to defend itself. "If," he said, "beginning one year from now, we were to cut military spending by 25 percent from its projected levels, we would still be immeasurably stronger than any combination of nations with whom we might be engaged."[46] The U.S. military budget is almost equivalent to the rest of the world's defense spending combined, and is over eight times larger than that of China, the next biggest spender.[47]

[B]
House Financial Services Committee[/B]

[B]Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac[/B]
In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[48] The two companies, which together own or back more than half the home mortgages in the US became "hobbled" by loan defaults.[49] Frank clarified in 2009 that Fannie and Freddie were not in crisis at the time and many financial institutions, like Lehman Brothers, also fell into crisis from 2003 to 2008.[50]

Conservative groups criticized Frank for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. They claim the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and say that Frank did not play a strong enough role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008.[51][52] Frank's former partner, Herb Moses, was an executive at Fannie from 1991 to 1998, where Moses helped develop many of Fannie’s housing and home improvement lending programs. In 1991, Frank pushed for reduced restrictions on two- and three-family home mortgages. During the time that Frank was in a relationship with Moses, he blocked tougher regulations on the banking companies while voting for the Government Sponsored Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1991 and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.[53] Frank and Moses' relationship ended around the same time Moses left the company.[54]

In a response to these criticisms, Frank said that "during twelve years of Republican rule no reform was adopted regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2007, a few months after I became the Chairman, the House passed a strong reform bill; we sought to get the [Bush] administration’s approval to include it in the economic stimulus legislation in January 2008; and finally got it passed and onto President Bush’s desk in July 2008. Twelve years of Republican rule produced no reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated."[55] In 2009 Frank again responded to what he called "wholly inaccurate efforts by Republicans to blame Democrats, and [me] in particular" for the subprime mortgage crisis, which is linked to the financial crisis of 2007-2009.[50] He outlined his efforts to reform these institutions and add regulations, but met resistance from Republicans, with the main exception being a bill with Republican Mike Oxley that died because of opposition from President Bush.[50] Once control was turned over to Democrats, Frank was able to push through the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915), both in 2007.[50] Frank also said that the Republican-led Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, contributed to the financial meltdown.[50] The statute, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, has been criticized for having contributed to the proliferation of the financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis.[56]


[B]Chair of the House Financial Services Committee[/B]

Congressmen Ellison & Frank at Financial Services Field Hearing on Home Foreclosures in Minneapolis.As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, beginning in 2007, Frank "sits at the center of power".[12] Frank has been a critic of aspects of the Federal Reserve system, partnering with some Republicans in opposition to some policies.[57] Frank says that he and Republican Congressman Ron Paul "first bonded because we were both conspicuous nonworshipers at the Temple of the Fed and of the High Priest Alan Greenspan.”[57]

Frank has been involved in mortgage foreclosure bailout issues.[58] In 2008 Frank supported passage of the American Housing Rescue & Foreclosure Prevention Act, intended to protect thousands of homeowners from foreclosure.[12] This law, H.R. 3221, is considered one of the most important and complex issues on which he worked.[12][59] In an August 2007 op-ed piece in Financial Times, Frank wrote, "In the debate between those who believe in essentially unregulated markets and others who hold that reasonable regulation diminishes market excesses without inhibiting their basic function, the subprime situation unfortunately provides ammunition for the latter view."[60]

Frank was also instrumental in the passage of H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008, a measure that drew praise from editorial boards and consumer advocates.[61][62][63]

In 2007 Frank co-sponsored legislation to reform the Section 202 refinancing program, which is for affordable housing for the elderly, and Section 811 disabled programs.[64] Frank has been a chief advocate of the National Housing Trust Fund,[26] which was created as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and was the first affordable housing program to be enacted by the Congress since 1990.[65]


[B]Personal life[/B]
Frank resides in a studio apartment complex in Newton, Massachusetts. His partner, Jim Ready, is a surfing enthusiast[citation needed] whom Frank met during a gay political fundraiser in Maine, where Ready still lives.[13] Frank's current net worth is estimated to be between $711,021 and $1,840,000.[66] His sister, Ann Lewis, served as a senior adviser in Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

Frank came out as gay in 1987, "prompted in part by increased media interest in his private life…"[3][note 1] Frank's announcement had little impact on his electoral prospects.[67]

[B]
Books[/B]
Frank is the subject of an upcoming biography entitled Barney Frank: The Story of America's Only Left-handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman, written by Stuart Weisberg. The book is scheduled for release in October 2009.[68]
[CENTER]
http://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/barney-frank.jpg[/CENTER]

[doctordog]

http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/ngillespie2/barneyfrank.jpg

How is that liquid protein diet going for Barney?:lmao2:

[Smurf-Herder]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eHMlZfrJmJ0/RstEu_rfT4I/AAAAAAAAAis/WDc4ZBLS6Fc/s400/l0026902.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

This is the problem with some liberals' mentality.

You simplistically play the "hate the rich" game. As if all Republicans are rich and no Democrats are rich.

Like George Soros, Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, etc., etc., etc., are Robin Hood?

[MintJulep]

How is that liquid protein diet going for Barney?:lmao2:Looks like he's about 10 gallons over his limit. :lmao2:

[MintJulep]

Personal life
Frank resides in a studio apartment complex in Newton, Massachusetts. His partner, Jim Ready, is a surfing enthusiast[citation needed] whom Frank met during a gay political fundraiser in Maine, where Ready still lives.[13] Frank's current net worth is estimated to be between $711,021 and $1,840,000.[66] His sister, Ann Lewis, served as a senior adviser in Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

Frank came out as gay in 1987, "prompted in part by increased media interest in his private life…"[3][note 1] Frank's announcement had little impact on his electoral prospects.[67]More missing information. Bwarney Fwank's lover was an Executive at Fannie Mae...........a significant fact conveniently left out.

[Hog Trash]

More missing information. Bwarney Fwank's lover was an Executive at Fannie Mae...........a significant fact conveniently left out.Please don't get me started Lady!

I'm already on Smurfs doo-doo list.

[Smurf-Herder]

Please don't get me started Lady!

I'm already on Smurfs doo-doo list.

It's a legitimate issue, in terms of personal interests and favoritism influencing his actions as an elected official. As long as you can discuss it in a mature manner, without having to resort to slurs and gay jokes.

[Surfrider]

This is the problem with some liberals' mentality.

You simplistically play the "hate the rich" game. As if all Republicans are rich and no Democrats are rich.

Like George Soros, Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, etc., etc., etc., are Robin Hood?

Without getting into the long version. It is a matter of how you see your money. Republicans collect it. They like to look at it and brag about it. To Republicans money is an end unto itself. "Nothing like a big balance sheet."

Democrats value money, but as a tool to build something. The question is nearly always the same. "What will it take to do this?" Things like environmental and labor matters are important. It is a question of spirit beyond legal requirements. A Democrat lives in the moment, all that really matters is do you have enough for a meal tonight, and a roof over your head when you sleep.

[Smurf-Herder]

Without getting into the long version. It is a matter of how you see your money. Republicans collect it. They like to look at it and brag about it. To Republicans money is an end unto itself. "Nothing like a big balance sheet."

Democrats value money, but as a tool to build something. The question is nearly always the same. "What will it take to do this?" Things like environmental and labor matters are important. It is a question of spirit beyond legal requirements. A Democrat lives in the moment, all that really matters is do you have enough for a meal tonight, and a roof over your head when you sleep.

I think you need to take a long hard look at the money the Democratic leadership is demading of "ours"; and what they're "building".

You know very well the Democrat politicians are not squeaky clean when it comes to corruption, as well.

[Surfrider]

I think you need to take a long hard look at the money the Democratic leadership is demading of "ours"; and what they're "building".

You know very well the Democrat politicians are not squeaky clean when it comes to corruption, as well.

Nobody is perfect. I think you need to attend more Democratic Party cocktail parties and fund raisers.

http://www.toonpool.com/user/997/files/waffles_fund_raisers_senator_278625.jpg

[Smurf-Herder]

Nobody is perfect.

So that only applies to Democrats?

That's the lamest cop-out I've ever heard in my life, cartoon-man.

[Surfrider]

So that only applies to Democrats?

That's the lamest cop-out I've ever heard in my life, cartoon-man.

No, there are Republicans who don't eat waffles either.

http://sydl3t.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/waffles1.jpg

[Smurf-Herder]

No, there are Republicans who don't eat waffles either.

http://sydl3t.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/waffles1.jpg

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/obama%2Bwaffle%2Bjpeg.jpg

[Smurf-Herder]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Oolong_last_head_performance.jpg/601px-Oolong_last_head_performance.jpg

[Smurf-Herder]

http://blog.craftzine.com/bunny%20waffle.jpg

[Surfrider]

If Mikey likes it, I'll try it!

http://www.williamscoffeepub.com/data/medium_product_65.jpg

[GetAClue]

Without getting into the long version. It is a matter of how you see your money. Republicans collect it. They like to look at it and brag about it. To Republicans money is an end unto itself. "Nothing like a big balance sheet."

Democrats value money, but as a tool to build something. The question is nearly always the same. "What will it take to do this?" Things like environmental and labor matters are important. It is a question of spirit beyond legal requirements. A Democrat lives in the moment, all that really matters is do you have enough for a meal tonight, and a roof over your head when you sleep.
Yes, they value money, especially their own. But they are more than willing to spread other peoples money around in ways that they see fit.

[Surfrider]

Yes, they value money, especially their own. But they are more than willing to spread other peoples money around in ways that they see fit.

We do tend to target the greedy Wall Street types. Maybe we'll feed some people or squander it on health care for the poor. Got the clue? You lost the election, and the Republican Party is dead! Go cry somewhere else!

http://www.treehugger.com/us-money-photo.jpg

[GetAClue]

We do tend to target the greedy Wall Street types. Maybe we'll feed some people or squander it on health care for the poor. Got the clue? You lost the election, and the Republican Party is dead! Go cry somewhere else!

http://www.treehugger.com/us-money-photo.jpg
I believe I have as much of a right to post on this forum as you do. I don't ask you to go away because I disagree with you. I can take it. I don't feel so uncomfortable with my opinions that I cannot stand to read the opinions of those with which I disagree.

And while yes, liberalism carried the election, I will contend that we conservatives did not have a candidate in the game. Unfortunately, too many conservatives where willing to let the MSM decide our candidate. I hope we do not let that happen again. If conservatives decide to become engaged in the mid term elections in 2010, I believe that it is liberalism that will be taking it on the chin.

[Surfrider]

I believe I have as much of a right to post on this forum as you do. I don't ask you to go away because I disagree with you. I can take it. I don't feel so uncomfortable with my opinions that I cannot stand to read the opinions of those with which I disagree.

And while yes, liberalism carried the election, I will contend that we conservatives did not have a candidate in the game. Unfortunately, too many conservatives where willing to let the MSM decide our candidate. I hope we do not let that happen again. If conservatives decide to become engaged in the mid term elections in 2010, I believe that it is liberalism that will be taking it on the chin.

You have touched my heart, you can stay here.......for a while. Just don't go near that big table, and don't raise your hand for any reason. You can watch from behind that curtain, try not to let anyone see you.

http://www.docleaf.com/critique/Apr2308/cry.jpg