PDA

View Full Version : Bush's Ownership Society? Or Foreclosure Society?



Gayle in MD
02-16-2008, 12:49 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

<font color="blue"> Interesting? It seems that Greenspan predicts the economy will continue to erode until the Real Estate Market recovers from what many are calling one (of many) of George Bush's tactics to mask the true results of his failed economic policies, the sub prime mortgage crises, by this obscure law, addressedd in the article.

It may take years to uncover the debt and overall costs America has absorbed, compliments of the <font color="blue"> </font color> Fiscal Conservative Compassionates of the Republican Party. Then, after we get to the true numbers involved in the monatary losses, maybe we can figure up the true number of deaths resulting from his foreign policies, aka Cowboy Diplomacy

Bush is now in Africa, trying to get some mileage for himself out of Bill Clinton's legacy of fighting poverty, through his Global Initiative to save lives overthere, and everywhere, and end poverty in the world. Among other things, Clinton's organization is providing African people with prophylactics, which are denied them by the Bush Administration's Faith Based Christian concerns. Clinton's organization also provides generic drugs, which Bush denies them, (as a perk for his Pharmaceutical contributors?) no doubt as a Christian compassionate. Yes, the profilactics, which could have saved an estimated additional five million people, have been denied them by our Compassionate Convervative President's Faith Based Policies. While he's overthere, Warner Brothers will be filming an Orwellian Propaganda short, to be distributed to the movie theaters after he returns, in order to cover up his true African policy, which was actually too little, too late. This film will no doubt upgrade his true legacy, along with the foreign reporters who have been paid to organize themselves on a website, to report the success of this grand tour of Bush's compassionate global policies. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

When he returns to our country, which he leaves in great risk to terrorist attacks, /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif he will also have had the added benefit of an escape, a vacation, if you will, away from the economic crisis we face, at an undetermined cost to the recession ridden populace.
The Protect America Act,is a rather interesting name for what amounts unconstitutional, broad based illegal spying. His great concern, obviously, law suits, which might reveal the massive data mining, and bundling of wire taps, and worse, orchestrated by his administration. Thankfully the political stunt the Republicans displayed in their dramatic walk out, a bluff, really, was not taken seriously by the Democarats, and Clarke explains why: <font color="blue">

"Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate temporary extention with his veto pen."

Mike Mcconnell also acknowledged the only difference in what was offered the president, and what he wanted, was the retroactive and complete pardon of the telecommunications companies, and efforts to block legal suits, and the includive sworn testimony by those companies which aided and abetted the illegal operation. One company, Quest, refused, and has since suffered economic problems, which are being investigated.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
02-16-2008, 02:52 PM
Bush will go down in history....down lower then he is now.
He might spend the next 20 years of his life trying to repair his image and his "legacy"....but it's going to be a Sisyphean
task.....

pooltchr
02-16-2008, 07:31 PM
Wolf,
I know it's politically correct to blame Bush for everything, but really!!!
The sub-prime crisis is the result of two things...greed and stupidity. Greed on the part of shady lenders who doctored the figures in order to get consumers qualified for loans they had little hope of being able to re-pay. And stupidity on the part of people who took out loans with adjustable rates, only looking at the short term, and not thinking about how they might not be able to make payments if the rate increased. It has nothing to do with economic policy...it's simple economics. If you sign a contract to borrow money, you need to be prepared to pay it back. If you can't, the lender has the right to take posession of the property. Now most banks really don't want to own your house, and if you have a problem, most of them would rather work out terms that will get them their money rather than a house.
If you buy a car and don't make the payments, they come and take your car. That's the way it works. If people are too stupid to understand that, they deserve what they get.
The prices of homes is dropping because there are too many homes on the market. Why are there too many homes on the market? Because when lenders and builders started to run out of qualified buyers, they increased their customer base by going to people who weren't qualified, and sold to them. Greedy lenders...stupid buyers. Now all those houses are back on the market at reduced prices, driving down the cost of homes.
How is that the fault of the administration?
Steve

wolfdancer
02-16-2008, 09:04 PM
I don't blame Bush for the mortgage crisis....it was speculators, taking advantage of the "greater fool" theory.
House prices were artificially driven up, and now those that got in over their heads are paying the price.
I blame Bush for everything else though...including the high costs of tomatoes ...I can't afford them on SS, and think it's a crisis that is overshadowed by the foreclosures...

pooltchr
02-17-2008, 08:17 AM
LOL! I think you might be on to something. The great tomato crisis! I have several growing in my back yard, as do my neighbors. But the high cost of transporting them from my yard to the kitchen is making it where it's hardly worth the effort. Of course, the rabbits appreciate my efforts. Damn little critters think it's a buffet out there! I'd get rid of them, but the brown cottontail bunny is protected by the animal rights people, so I can only watch them multiply like crazy and continue to raid my garden. I thought about putting up a fence, but the number of permits required to build anything on my property that meets code is so outrageous, I just gave up. I can't afford to keep tomatos on my dinner table, but the rabbits are very happy!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve

LWW
02-17-2008, 08:55 AM
Are you claiming that the borrowers might actually in some small way have been responsible for their dilemma?

Are you coming before this august group and daring to imply that they should be held responsible for actions of their own doing?

What is this madness to which you refer?

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-17-2008, 10:06 AM
Some responders didn't read the article. Also, the lenders who ended up holding the bag, were not the original lenders. They were long gone with their stash before the **** hit the fan.

When government removes checks against predatory lending practices, the predators know about it. There is such a thing as professional behavior, regardless of what some people think. The articale explains exactly what happened. It's impossible to think that Bush was not involved, not at all responsible, in any way, for what has come about, IMO.

Herding unsophisticated buyers into loans on trumped up expectations of market trends, is far from professional. Without Bush's resurrection of an old and outdated law, this situation would never have grown to the crises it has now become.


[ QUOTE ]
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is governor of New York.




<hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
02-17-2008, 11:18 AM
This is typical liberal thinking. People are generally stupid victims, and only the government can save them from their own stupidity. If you are too frigging ignorant to understand that when you borrow money, chances are pretty good you will have to repay it, you deserve whatever happens to you.
If the government steps in to control this situation, the ones who will end up paying for it are you and me and the rest of the responsible taxpayers who actually make their mortgage payments!
Doesn't that pi$$ you off, just a little bit??????????
Steve

bamadog
02-17-2008, 12:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>



Herding unsophisticated buyers into loans on trumped up expectations of market trends, is far from professional. Without Bush's resurrection of an old and outdated law, this situation would never have grown to the crises it has now become.




<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

I'm sure Hillary will hold these lending institutions to a very high moral standard, maybe as high as hers and Bill's /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW
02-17-2008, 01:56 PM
Gayle, why haven't you held JOHN EDWARDS (http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/08/17/subprime_edwards/print.html) responsible for holding $16,000,000.00 of his personal funds in subprime giant FORTRESS funds and for earning $479,512 in 2006 for part-time work in 2006 by Fortress?

Why would that b-b-b-be?

LWW

wolfdancer
02-17-2008, 06:44 PM
Gayle, I didn't read the original article....but this one was pretty clear. It all does lead back to the WH. Most of us are unsophisticated about finances, and easily led into buying something they could ill afford.
I can only imagine the carnage if Bush's self-directed, invest in the stock market, plan had been passed....While his presidency brings comparisons to "1984", that plan would have rivaled 1929 .....

wolfdancer
02-17-2008, 06:47 PM
Steve, we may yet see the Government step in and bailout the lending institutions, in the guise of helping out the little guy

pooltchr
02-17-2008, 06:55 PM
Wolf, they have already taken the first step by telling the lenders, who entered into legal contracts with borrowers, that the government will forbid them from enforcing the terms of those contracts for at least 30 days.
Give the government an inch, and you know what happens.
Steve

Qtec
02-18-2008, 06:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> This is typical liberal thinking. People are generally stupid victims, and only the government can save them from their own stupidity. If you are too frigging ignorant to understand that when you borrow money, chances are pretty good you will have to repay it, you deserve whatever happens to you.
If the government steps in to control this situation, the ones who will end up paying for it are you and me and the rest of the responsible taxpayers who actually make their mortgage payments!
Doesn't that pi$$ you off, just a little bit??????????
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

If a lender gives a loan to someone who can't prove that he can pay the money back and loaner then defaults, isn't that the lender's risk ?

Did you read the excellent Spitzer article that G posted?

[ QUOTE ]
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
<hr /></blockquote>

The Titanic [ the housing market] hit an iceberg and was taking on water. Spitzer and many other wanted to plug the hole but the Govt stepped in and stopped them! The ship took on water until it sank.
Who is to blame , the captain or the Govt?



Q

Gayle in MD
02-18-2008, 11:46 AM
You didn't read the article?

Does Bush borrowing us into nine or ten trillions of dollars of debt, piss you off, any? Ever heard of compound interest? Hedge funds? Do you ever study anything before you spout off and blame everything on liberals?

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
If you are too frigging ignorant to understand that when you borrow money, chances are pretty good you will have to repay it, you deserve whatever happens to you.
If the government steps in to control this situation, the ones who will end up paying for it are you and me and the rest of the responsible taxpayers who actually make their mortgage payments!
Doesn't that pi$$ you off, just a little bit??????????
<hr /></blockquote>

Sheesh, I've been writing about all the debt Bush has thrown this country into for years. Pray tell, just whom do you think is going to pay for that? /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

eg8r
02-18-2008, 12:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Most of us are unsophisticated about finances, and easily led into buying something they could ill afford.
<hr /></blockquote> Where does sophistication come in to play? You know how much money you have coming in and you already should have a good idea of how much is going back out every month. Take a look at what you are going to buy and see if what is left of your money every month will cover what you are trying buy? This is very simple math.

eg8r

eg8r
02-18-2008, 12:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If a lender gives a loan to someone who can't prove that he can pay the money back and loaner then defaults, isn't that the lender's risk ?
<hr /></blockquote> Yes it is the lenders risk. It is also the buyer's risk for not correctly stating their income and debts. Both are at fault and there is no reason why the Government should be giving handouts to stupid borrowers and the Government should not be giving any handouts to the lenders either.

eg8r

DickLeonard
02-18-2008, 07:09 PM
Gayle that reads like what the govt did to prevent police departs to inform other depts where perps are getting all the guns. Four gun shops are responsible for the weapons used in 50,000 homicides and now the Police cannot pass that info around.

That is the power of the NRA. Spitzer found out the Power of Corruption in the @Bush Crime Family.com [thats for LWW]

The SubPrime lenders bundled their Loans and sold them as a Package. The home building Industry was going crazy, the Economy was Booming or was it Really. New Home Sales out topped existing home sales. Just one Giant Bubble that took down the Banking,Stock Market CEOs. It will take years before the complete losses are added up.

Banks are allowed to Fudge their Books, the Financial Industry can say they didn't want too start another Depression.

The Federal Govt cannot Borrow enuff money to pay all the Insured Accts and the House that Bush Built would totally collapse. ####

LWW
02-18-2008, 07:17 PM
So why do you give Edwards a pass sweetheart?

LWW

pooltchr
02-18-2008, 07:25 PM
The housing market was way over inflated. Anyone with a brain had to know that sooner or later, someone would figure out that a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house was not worth a half a million dollars, no mater what state you live in. People have been buying homes for $200k and turning around in 4 or 5 years and selling them for twice that much. Nothing appreciates at that rate, and it had to correct itself.
But it still comes down to INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY! Too many people borrowed money to buy something they couldn't afford. It's really that simple. There are too many stupid people in the country. If you don't believe it, just look at the 3 idiots we are choosing from to be our next president!
Steve

Qtec
02-18-2008, 08:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
If a lender gives a loan to someone who can't prove that he can pay the money back and loaner then defaults, isn't that the lender's risk ?
<hr /></blockquote> Yes it is the lenders risk.<hr /></blockquote>

Thank you. Thats all I wanted to hear.
[ QUOTE ]
It is also the buyer's risk for not correctly stating their income and debts. <hr /></blockquote>

BS. How do you know they lied ? Don't you know that most people who are affected by this SB crisis are working families who were encouraged to lend more than they could afford?
[ QUOTE ]
Both are at fault and there is no reason why the Government should be giving handouts to stupid borrowers and the Government should not be giving any handouts to the lenders either.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Will the guy who sold the policy to the defauter give back his comission?
Will his boss give back his cut?
Will the bank sacrifice the profits they made?

Isn't it a fact, THAT ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER SOLD AND SOLD JUST TO MAKE MONEY AND THE ATTITUDE WAS " WHO CARES WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PYRAMID, SO LONG AS I GET MY CUT "?

Spitzer and others saw the coming crisis and tried to do something about it but they were PREVENTED in doing so by the GOVT!


Q

eg8r
02-18-2008, 10:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
But it still comes down to INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY! <hr /></blockquote> Gayle, dick, etc none of them believe an individual should be responsible for their own decisions. They believe people are basically dumb and stupid and need the Government to tell them what to do.

eg8r

eg8r
02-18-2008, 11:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> It is also the buyer's risk for not correctly stating their income and debts <blockquote><font class="small">Quote q:</font><hr>BS. How do you know they lied ? <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you really just an argumentative idiot aren't you?

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you know that most people who are affected by this SB crisis are working families who were encouraged to lend more than they could afford?
<hr /></blockquote> What the heck are you talking about. The working families were not "lending" anything. You don't have any idea what you are talking about and are one of those foolish enough to believe the government should do the thinking for you.

[ QUOTE ]
Will the guy who sold the policy to the defauter give back his comission?
<hr /></blockquote> Why should he? He was providing a desirous service to the borrower?

[ QUOTE ]
Will his boss give back his cut?
<hr /></blockquote> Again, why should he? He did nothing illegal?

[ QUOTE ]
Will the bank sacrifice the profits they made?
<hr /></blockquote> There is one bank that is sacrificing a lot more than their profits here in town. Fact is they have over 300 properties in foreclosure and they are dumping them as we speak.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it a fact, THAT ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER SOLD AND SOLD JUST TO MAKE MONEY AND THE ATTITUDE WAS " WHO CARES WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PYRAMID, SO LONG AS I GET MY CUT "?
<hr /></blockquote> NO! It is not a fact. I am sure it happened but not 100% like you imply.

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-18-2008, 11:08 PM
"this august group"
So, you are finally paying homage to our little group /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

wolfdancer
02-18-2008, 11:20 PM
it does seem simple...but many of us overspend, lose our jobs, have a medical emergency, etc. ...
In my home town there are between 5k and 10k abandoned homes, according to a recent report. My nephew was making very good money...bought a Hummer, then traded that in on a Lincoln Navigator....and is now unemployed. Now he is $10k short on a house rehab project, and may lose that to foreclosure. He's high on the lists for a couple of Civil Service jobs....but book smart and common sense don't always go hand in hand.

bamadog
02-19-2008, 12:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> He's high on the lists for a couple of Civil Service jobs....but book smart and common sense don't always go hand in hand. <hr /></blockquote>

Well hopefully he won't have any offspring. Better to let those genetic traits be purged from the gene pool.

LWW
02-19-2008, 05:02 AM
And you have no clue how the programs worked, just like the other people pontificating on it here.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-19-2008, 09:37 AM
You're a great one to be stating that acccusation. You're M.O. is to just deny reality, in order to prevent any accountability of any Republican, or any nutty right wing Christian fundamentalist.

Many of these loans were issued through no documentation standards, where the borrower was led down the rosey path and encouraged to use no documentation, and/or, low documentation loans.

Who is going to pay for George Bush's trillions in borrowed debt, Ed? WE THE PEOPLE, will pay for it. We'll be paying for his tax cuts, paid for with borrowed money, that you righties love so much, and this illegal war, also paid for with borrowed money, which you're all gung ho to prolong, for decades, our kids will pay, for George's massive debt buildup, and his expansion of the Federal Government.

Likewise, we'll all be sicker due to the increase in pollutants which he has caused with his so called market based economy, aka, no accountability for anything done by his corporate fascist CEO billionaires, including the slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Someday either you, or one of your friends, or family, will be devastated by some natural disaster, or illness, and then all your non compassionate views about every man for himself, and how only the stupid and ignorant find themselves devastated by unforseen circumstances, will all change.

This mortgage crises was a windfall, for those corporate fascists at the top of the food chain. They were sold on the idea just like the righties were sold on the idea that George Bush was a fiscal conservative. Go look in the mirror.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
02-19-2008, 09:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You're a great one to be stating that acccusation. You're M.O. is to just deny reality, in order to prevent any accountability of any Republican, or any nutty right wing Christian fundamentalist.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
If you aren't being a hypocrite sweetheart, then why haven't you faced reality and demanded accountability for John Edwards and his $16M investment in sub prime mortgages?

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-19-2008, 09:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The home building Industry was going crazy, the Economy was Booming or was it Really <hr /></blockquote>

You hit the crux of this mess right there, Dick. The myth of the thriving economy, also fomented by the Bush/Cheney/Republican/Billionaire/corporate fascists, is just beginning to emerge as a crises. That widely propagated myth is about to be revealed for what it always was, BULL****. I've been asking for years, why these righties think Bush has been so great on economics while borrowing more money than all previous presidents combined. These simplistic statements about knowing how much money you have, and then only spending accordingly, and being so stupid as to think that you can borrow more than you can afford to make payments on, apparently don't apply to the Republican Economic robbery of American treasure, according to the right. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif We've all watched George Bush borrow this country into a hole for eight years, spending trillions, and wasting billions. That's A-OK with these genius economists on here. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif they still think there was no connection between buyers thinking this so called growing economy of Bush's, was a great reason to expect housing prices to continue to soar.

The Real Estate Industry hasn't gotten nearly the bashing they deserve in all this, btw.

Love,
Gayle

Deeman3
02-19-2008, 10:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> it does seem simple...but many of us overspend, lose our jobs, have a medical emergency, etc. ...
In my home town there are between 5k and 10k abandoned homes, according to a recent report. My nephew was making very good money...bought a Hummer, then traded that in on a Lincoln Navigator....and is now unemployed. Now he is $10k short on a house rehab project, and may lose that to foreclosure. He's high on the lists for a couple of Civil Service jobs....but book smart and common sense don't always go hand in hand. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">What you say is true. Smart people make bad choices. It does seem there is an effort afoot to mitigate these choices or at least apologise for the result. It may be, indeed, difficult to hold people accountable when they are, in fact, so gullible in all other areas such as politics, history and even science today.

The not so simple fact is that we, as a society, every year lose a little personal accountability and, it seems, common sense. I'm not at all sure its is the government's responsibility to protect the less informed or gullible from risk. If we did and were a responsibile society would we allow our poorest to gamble their social security checks away at the casions each month, then suppleent their existance through other programs? That would smack of limitation of free choice. At the same time, those of us/you who manage their risk, make responsible decisions will pay the bills of those who don't. I'm not sure a society can survive for long protecting the weak willed and dumb at the expense of the thoughtful, therefore propagating the former.

Do we want people to lose houses? No! I just don't think you can legislate personal responsibility any better than we have been able to make sane gun laws or elect adult politicians.

Government "help" in New Orleans has once again assisted in establishing a permanent underclass of people forever and ever completely dependent on handouts for survival. This will be continued no matter if socialists or conservatives are elected in November. We have gone down a road that we won't ever backtrack and in the end, only those who have not paid attention to the promises of government or the sales stories of the hucksters will prosper.

Face it folks, this has been coming for about 40 years. It is time to pay the piper. The real sheep we keep acsuing each other of being is not us, the people who know what is in the world, it is the generations that en masse are voting for systems, beliefs and faces they will just never have the thoughtful life education to choose with.

The problem remains that Hillary, nor Obama nor McCain are what is right for this coountry but we will never again elect a person with real solutions nor anyone with the guts to state the truth to the public.

Look at it this way, if no one has to ever lose a house again, what will happen to any semblance of personal responsibility and who can we blame after Bush is gone?
</font color>

eg8r
02-19-2008, 10:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You're a great one to be stating that acccusation. You're M.O. is to just deny reality, in order to prevent any accountability of any Republican, or any nutty right wing Christian fundamentalist. <hr /></blockquote> What a perfect example, Gayle does not believe anyone should be held responsible for their own actions just like this post of hers where it shows she does not want to take responsibility for her own actions.

eg8r

LWW
02-19-2008, 10:23 AM
It's OK sweetheart ... we all know you can talk the talk but never walk the walk.

You give Edwards a pass because he is a (D) and you you are a partisan pit poodle.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-26-2008, 11:41 AM
Ed,
Don't tell us what we believe. I'm all for people being responsible for themselves, I'm just not for presidents who join forces with corporate interests to bilk the American people out of as much money as possible, regardless of what they have to do in order to accomplish it, including launching un-necessary wars, that are militarily unwinnable.

Republican always say that Government is the problem, and then they get into power, and prove it.

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
02-28-2008, 08:40 AM
Deeman Bush will be the culprit for years to come. Just like the BJ occupying the Right Wingers for nearly a decade.####

wolfdancer
02-28-2008, 11:57 AM
"Deeman Bush will be the culprit for years to come."

"Deeman Bush".....I suspected that there were some family ties....

moblsv
03-02-2008, 09:21 AM
"The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3trillion"
...
"The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286149-2703,00.html