PDA

View Full Version : No really, this is true!



Qtec
08-06-2010, 07:05 AM
Flashback.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bush Administration Blames Bill Clinton for Deficit
Trish Ponder |<span style='font-size: 17pt'> Jul. 28, 2008</span></span> </div></div>

LOL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bush administration has been the borrow and spend ticket since it came to power. <u>When, in the history of the world, has a government simultaneously cut taxes (for the rich) and funded war? There’s a reason the answer to that question is: never. </u></div></div>

Good point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>So who do they blame for the current state of affairs</span>? Give yourself a gold star if you answered, “Bill Clinton.”

…the senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what is believed to be inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.

Oh please.

[Democratic North Dakota Sen. Kent] Conrad, who chairs the Senate’s budget committee, accused the president of “squandering” the surplus he inherited from President Bill Clinton and said the increased debt the government has taken on to cover the deficit has undermined the value of the dollar and hurt the overall economy.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>“If they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver and bronze,” Conrad said. <u>“With his eight years in office, he will have had the five highest deficits ever recorded. And the highest of those deficits is now projected to come in 2009, <span style="color: #990000">as he leaves office.”</span></u></span> </div></div>

...and this was all before the credit crisis, the housing market collapse, the banks bailout, the AIG bailout etc etc .

How do you think Fox News reacts when Obama states the fact that he inherited a recession?

watch (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002030047)

Q

LWW
08-06-2010, 08:03 AM
There is a key difference here. Obama voted for the policies that caused the recession, Bush didn't vote for the defanging of the military under Clinton.

That being said, it's lame to hear high ranking administration officials pass the buck when they should be trying to fix the problem.

LWW

Stretch
08-06-2010, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a key difference here. Obama voted for the policies that caused the recession, Bush didn't vote for the defanging of the military under Clinton.

That being said, it's lame to hear high ranking administration officials pass the buck when they should be trying to fix the problem.

LWW

</div></div>

Stretch
08-06-2010, 09:50 AM
What policy's did Obama vote on which caused the resesion? St.

LWW
08-06-2010, 11:10 AM
The correct wording would have been "SUPPORTED" as dearest leader had a history of "NON VOTING" that was simply breathtaking.

But he voted yes for big spending, that he later lamented, but &gt;&gt;&gt;HERE&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490) is his voting record showing that he voted against the 2006 budget which gave us a deficit of a whopping 9% of the current deficit.

He voted no tax relief in 2006.

He voted no on opening ANWR.

He voted yes on the 2008 budget which raised the deficit several hundred billion over the lat R deficit.

He voted yes on the 2009 budget that he complains about "INHERITING" from Bush.

He voted yes on TARP. Even took credit for making it happen ... until it turned out to be a disaster, then he did a 180 and blamed it all on Bush.

Must I do all of your research for you?

LWW


LWW

Stretch
08-06-2010, 11:51 AM
Excuse me? But when you acuse someone of voting for the policies that CAUSED the rescession you might want to back it up. What you gave up was his vote on a wide variety of things that you have yet to PROOVE caused the rescession. I don;t even think you understand what caused it at all!

The problem started in the States with the so called sub-prime morgage crisis where banks were giving away houses, cars and everything with little or no down payment, as well as to low income families with bad credit history. This led to forclosures all over the place. All these accumulated and led to the credit squeeze. There was no more credit to other borrowers because it was tide up in houses and cars where there were no buyers. Add to that a 700 billion a year trade deficit, 2 wars, outsourced jobs, closing plants everywhere and people out of work everywhere and you got yourself a recession. YOU NEED JOBS and they are all gone now except for Mickey Mouse part time work they have all gone overseas.

Now show me where Obama voted for that. St.

LWW
08-06-2010, 12:36 PM
Well ... if <span style='font-size: 11pt'><u>THAT</u></span> is now the leftist standard, what Bush policy(ies) <span style='font-size: 11pt'><u>CAUSED</u></span> the recession which Obama and the dems didn't go along with?

This otter be good.

As for the rest of your Stalinesque version of "TRUTH" I will counter with what you conveniently left out:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.
In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes - and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.
In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.

THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.
Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.

Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.

ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.

In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans.

IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting complaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.</span>

By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirma- tive-action lending" and <span style='font-size: 11pt'>ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.</span>

And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed - Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories."

What made this program different from others, the paper added, was <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the participation of Fannie Mae - which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans."</span>

Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history.

IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.

He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks.</span> Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive.

In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.</span>

That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report ac knowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."</span>

Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological. Sound familiar?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.</span>

And, as the leader of another charity, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.

In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."</span>

IN short, to understand the roots of the subprime-mort gage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott.

And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.

Then you'll truly know what community organizers do.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK/2#ixzz0vqt3HXK4

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK/1#ixzz0vqs7RkGV

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/ope...F#ixzz0vqr3SnFx (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK;jsessionid=3A1CD124783 B64855CC750D71E8A71BF#ixzz0vqr3SnFx)</div></div>

I'll be waiting for how you explain Bush actually did all of that.

LWW

pooltchr
08-06-2010, 01:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.


LWW </div></div>

You might want to share for those who can't remember, who the president was when the CRA was passed.

Steve

LWW
08-06-2010, 03:30 PM
Who is James Earl Carter?

CRA for $200.00 Steve.

Q = The POTUS when CRA was expanded?

A = Who is William Jefferson Clinton?

Moonbat mythology for $100.00 Steve.

A = The POTUS who signed off on Graham-Leach-Bliley which put the taxpayer n the hook for investment banking losses?

Q = Who is William Jefferson Clinton?

Moonbat mythology for $200.00 Steve.

A = The most recent POTUS had nothing to do with either GLB or CRA?

Q = Who is George Herbert Walker Bush?

LWW

Stretch
08-06-2010, 06:43 PM
You guys kill me, Obama after just a year and a half in the White House is responsible for the Recession! What a crock. Your hate is blinding you. The fact is that the states was already in recession when Obama took over. ANYone inheriting the mess that was Bush would have been in big big trouble. Republicans deserved to have lost control of the House and the Senate, as well as the Presidency. They got power and went on a huge spending binge, letting deficites get WAY out of control. It was like the perfect storm when Obama took over. The morgage and houseing crisis, an unbelievably huge trade deficit, Jobs lost overseas, The manufacturing sector obliterated., personal debt at an all time high, the stock market crash. Face it, anyone to sit in the whitehouse after Bush was going to get screwed, right or left.

HELLO! The US is broke, and the only way out is to get back to work! Why do you want to bail out all the rich a-holes that got you into this mess? Spend a bew billion on job creation. Infractruture would be a great start. You know, silly little things like roads, bridges, sewer and water, public utilities, power Plants, Affordable houseing, rapid transit etc. etc. People can get behind projects like that, make a liveable wage and it's also a great investment in the future. St.

Sev
08-06-2010, 08:28 PM
Stretch. We need manufacturing to get people back to work. That means getting the EPA, red tape and environmentalist out of the way so factories can be built and operated.

Currently companies have gotten rid of excess personal and have no reason to hire people back. Job loses are still continuing and there is no end in sight no matter how the administration tries to spin it.

Qtec
08-07-2010, 12:48 AM
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Vote 1999.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png/800px-Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png

He might have signed it but it was predominantly Republicans who voted for it. [ notice how it passed with 52 votes! I thought you needed 60?]

Q

Qtec
08-07-2010, 01:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem started in the States with the so called sub-prime morgage crisis where banks were giving away houses, cars and everything with little or no down payment, as well as to low income families with bad credit history. </div></div>

The housing collapse was no accident. It was a failure of the Govt to to call a halt to the massive fraud that was taking place.
Was there any warning that things were getting out of hand?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Several years ago,</span> 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. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>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.</span>

<span style="color: #990000">..and the Republicans shout 'scare monger'</span>

<u>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.</u>

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.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>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.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>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.
</span>
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.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, </span>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.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>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.</u>
</span>
The writer is governor of New York. </div></div>

Now you know why Spitzer had to go.

Q

Qtec
08-07-2010, 04:18 AM
Just in.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> DeMint Tries To Rewrite History: ‘This Was Not Bush’s Recession’

</div></div>

link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/06/deming-not-bushs-recession/)

Q

Sev
08-07-2010, 05:39 AM
Funny didnt the Dems do the same with Clinton?

LWW
08-07-2010, 06:01 AM
Thanks for confirming that you never had any intention of reviewing anything not spoon fed to you by the party.

The facts are overwhelming ... it is leftist policy which put us in this mess and only a rejection of leftist policy can get us out.

LWW

LWW
08-07-2010, 06:06 AM
There was plenty of R support for it ...and it shameful.

LWW

LWW
08-07-2010, 06:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He might have signed it but it was predominantly Republicans who voted for it. [ notice how it passed with 52 votes! I thought you needed 60?]

Q </div></div>

I get tired of carrying you dude.

Can you have someone read your links to you before you post them?

GLB did not pass with 52 votes in the senate. It passed with 90 votes in the senate.

If you don't believe me, read your own link.

LWW

LWW
08-07-2010, 06:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well ... if <span style='font-size: 11pt'><u>THAT</u></span> is now the leftist standard, what Bush policy(ies) <span style='font-size: 11pt'><u>CAUSED</u></span> the recession which Obama and the dems didn't go along with?

LWW </div></div>

I'm still waiting for an answer?

LWW

Stretch
08-07-2010, 10:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well ... if <span style='font-size: 11pt'><u>THAT</u></span> is now the leftist standard, what Bush policy(ies) <span style='font-size: 11pt'><u>CAUSED</u></span> the recession which Obama and the dems didn't go along with?

LWW </div></div>

I'm still waiting for an answer?

LWW </div></div>

LMAO That is like saying the Dems were in the back of the bus when the Reps drove it over the cliff, so they are both guilty! You are one pathetic poser. St.

LWW
08-07-2010, 11:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well ... if <span style='font-size: 11pt'><u>THAT</u></span> is now the leftist standard, what Bush policy(ies) <span style='font-size: 11pt'><u>CAUSED</u></span> the recession which Obama and the dems didn't go along with?

LWW </div></div>

I'm still waiting for an answer?

LWW </div></div>

LMAO That is like saying the Dems were in the back of the bus when the Reps drove it over the cliff, so they are both guilty! You are one pathetic poser. St. </div></div>

That was an excuse ... not an answer, but it's what I expected.

Now, I used the reason that <u>YOU</u> listed as the cause of the recession, and the best you can muster is B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!

How pathetic is that?

Now for more facts:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In late 2004, the leadership of the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA or Fannie Mae) was accused of having engaged in a series of questionable accounting practices that led to an overstatement of its earnings and an understatement of its risk. Although Fannie Mae's top officers denied the accusations, a careful review by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission confirmed the allegations. Within a few weeks, Fannie Mae conceded the charges and its top officers were forced to resign. <span style="color: #3333FF">Clinton appointees and Obama donors I might add.</span> ...

Since then, Congress has held a series of hearings on Fannie Mae's predicament and how to reform it. In the last week of May 2005, the House Committee on Financial Services proposed a series of regulatory changes that it claims would rectify the problem. However, critics of the FNMA, many of its private-sector competitors, and White House officials contend that these proposals are too timid and that the new regulatory environment would sustain the powerful co-monopolistic position that it shares with the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC or Freddie Mac), which suffered its own accounting and ethical lapses in 2003. ...

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have proven exceptionally adept at lobbying Congress to preserve and enhance their privileges. Any effort that relies on new regulations will likely perpetuate the risk to the financial market and preserve their dominant influence. Indeed, if Armando Falcon, director of the Office of Federal housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) <span style="color: #3366FF">An effort which Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, and other key dems struggled mightily to block O might add/</span>, had not courageously persisted in exposing Fannie Mae's suspect operations, often in the face of congressional hostility, former Fannie Mae President Franklin Raines would still have his job and Fannie Mae's shaky finances and fabricated earnings would still be hidden. ...</div></div>

So again, what Bush policies caused the recession which the democrats weren't part and parcel of?

We've already established that your number one reason for the recession was the fault of the democrats ... led by Obama. We have also established that the secondary reason, BLB, was a true bipartisan campaign of idiocy.

The left is now counting on you to come up with some minor reasons for the recession which can be blamed on Bush ... which the dems didn't back.

I'll be waiting.

LWW

Stretch
08-07-2010, 12:29 PM
I love the way you frame a question to arrive at desired response, more Alynski? Do you work for a pollster? . If that's your game then go to hell and continue your farcical debate with yourself. All you can do is cut and paste lies and half truths that would turn a fox anchor red. If you want the oppinions of someone else who happens to share your delusional view of the world then log onto thier site and be happy. Yours are not arguments, they are oppions based on cooked facts. Go and debate thier validity with someone that gives a crap. You prooved NOTHING except for your own paranoia. St.

LWW
08-07-2010, 03:29 PM
Nice deflection ... but nothing more.

The question is not a trick.

You claimed that the mortgage crisis was the cause of the recession ... and that it was Bush policy and not dem policy.

Now, an overwhelming body of evidence has shown that the mortgage crisis can be blamed equally between the dems and reps as to the GLB bill, and 100% on the dems and significantly on Obama as to CRA.

We have also shown that Bush supported reform of CRA/FANNIE/FREDDIE and it was blocked by the dem controlled banking committee.

Those facts are not debatable and, when given the opportunity, you have presented nothing to disprove the evidence presented.

Now, I'm willing to give you credit if you can show secondary ... or lower ... Bush policy which was not supported by the dems which did lead to the recession.

Remember, this all started with Obama continuing the myth that he inherited a mess he had nothing to do with creating.

It is blatantly a lie by Obama.

Now, do you have anything whatsoever to present to support Obama's mythology?

So far you and Q have made my case quite well for me, with I only having to fill in the few blanks.

I'll be waiting.

LWW

Qtec
08-07-2010, 03:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GLB did not pass with 52 votes in the senate. It passed with 90 votes in the senate.</div></div>

Yep, my mistake. [ At the time I was thinking about the Bush 2003 Tax Cuts which actually passed with 51 votes, Cheney casting the deciding vote. ]

Q

LWW
08-07-2010, 03:57 PM
Kudos for admitting an error was made.

LWW

LWW
08-08-2010, 09:16 AM
You mean with all the mammoth brain power of the left on this forum y'all can't come up with a single Bush policy that made the slightest contribution to the recession that wasn't also supported by the demokooks?

LWW

hondo
08-08-2010, 03:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mean with all the mammoth brain power of the left on this forum y'all can't come up with a single Bush policy that made the slightest contribution to the recession that wasn't also supported by the demokooks?

LWW </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sleep.gif

Stretch
08-08-2010, 05:26 PM
Oh dear, now Hier Dubinshnouzer believes there was a conspiracy by the right, with the full support of the left to undermine the worlds economy by first destroying the USA. Wake up Hondo! It's time for our mammoth intellects to save the world again and figure this whole thing out!!!!!.....Oh ya, you've heard this all before from him. I keep forgetting. St.

LWW
08-09-2010, 04:45 AM
No, I didn't say that either.

What I claimed was that beyond boiler plate spoon fed party line catch phrases you folks have absolutely nothing to back up your assertions that will stand up to even the most cursory examination of logic.

And, as you always do, y'all insist on confirming it.

Thanks.

Again.

LWW

hondo
08-09-2010, 05:20 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sleep.gif

Stretch
08-09-2010, 06:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, I didn't say that either.

What I claimed was that beyond boiler plate spoon fed party line catch phrases you folks have absolutely nothing to back up your assertions that will stand up to even the most cursory examination of logic.

And, as you always do, y'all insist on confirming it.

Thanks.

Again.

LWW </div></div>

Where can i find these spoon fed boiler plate party lines? Do you write them on your hand for quick refference? St.

hondo
08-09-2010, 07:15 AM
Just tune into Limberger and Beck and find out what they are spewing your on day after day.
It will then be repeated by Dick and company.

pooltchr
08-09-2010, 09:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Where can i find these spoon fed boiler plate party lines? Do you write them on your hand for quick refference? St. </div></div>

HuffPo can usually be counted on to give you all the kool-aid you want. MSNBC if you are more into hearing it rather than reading it.

Steve

Stretch
08-09-2010, 10:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Where can i find these spoon fed boiler plate party lines? Do you write them on your hand for quick refference? St. </div></div>

HuffPo can usually be counted on to give you all the kool-aid you want. MSNBC if you are more into hearing it rather than reading it.

Steve </div></div>

Thanks, but i was more interested in the boiler plate talking points that Karl Rove and his shills mass e-mail to bloggers at 6 am every morning. Not the ones specificly tailored to RW Polititions, pundents, radio talkshow hosts and Fox news as they are readily available via LWW right here on the ccb. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St.

LWW
08-09-2010, 03:11 PM
Just one guys ... just one?

LWW