A Progressive, a Liberal, and a Leftist walk into a forum

Last edited:
[MENTION=45791]Mojo2[/MENTION]
Barney Frank
Right Wing Human Events lies through omission:
Truth is: Frank was in the minority party in the US House when this stuff got crazy. Didn't get in control until 2007, after Bush and GOP along with many leading Dems pushed us over the cliff.

Chair of the House Financial Services Committee
In office
January 4, 2007
– January 3, 2011
Preceded by Mike Oxley

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Frank was criticized by conservative organizations for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. Bill Sammon, the Washington managing editor for Fox News Channel, claimed the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and said that Frank did not play a strong enough role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008.[47] In 2006, a Fannie Mae representative stated in SEC filings that they "did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005."[48] In response to criticism, Frank said, "In 2004, it was Bush who started to push Fannie and Freddie into subprime mortgages, because they were boasting about how they were expanding homeownership for low-income people. And I said at the time, 'Hey—(a) this is going to jeopardize their profitability, but (b) it's going to put people in homes they can't afford, and they're gonna lose them.'"[7]

In 2009 Frank 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.[49] 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.[49] The 2005 bill included Frank objectives, which were to impose tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing.

Frank and Mike Oxley achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the Financial Services Committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it.

"If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told Frank.


In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."[7]

Once control shifted to the Democrats, Frank was able to help guide both the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) to passage in 2007.[49] Frank also said that the Republican-led Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, contributed to the financial meltdown.[49] Frank stated further 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. Moreover, "we were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated."[50]

Frank was smart in gettin while the gettin was good.

He left Congress before he could be censured or even tried for possible wrongdoing and malfeasance.

Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING - YouTub/url]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM]Democrats in their own words Covering up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac scandal - YouTub/url]


please go spam another thread with your idiocies and imbecilic nonsense

you add nothing of substance but unfounded accusations and conspiracy lunacy unworthy of a high school grad
 
Anyone that views Bill Clinton as a progressive is definitely not in touch with reality.
[MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
Progressive does not necessarily equate left. wake up

Eight Progressive Things Bill Clinton Did


by their deeds they are known or exposed

And when you use the far left Daily kos to back up your so called "claims", all you do is prove my point.

Again anyone that thinks Bill Clinton was a progressive is not in touch with reality.
 
Anyone that views Bill Clinton as a progressive is definitely not in touch with reality.
[MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
Progressive does not necessarily equate left. wake up

Eight Progressive Things Bill Clinton Did


by their deeds they are known or exposed

And when you use the far left Daily kos to back up your so called "claims", all you do is prove my point.

Again anyone that thinks Bill Clinton was a progressive is not in touch with reality.

[MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION] Odd thing is you've outed yourself as a far off-the-charts buffoon: The article is written by lungfish NOT kos. What you've done is dismissed a source out of hand (failing to dispute one things) while being clueless about the source.

please try and keep up or suffer the penalties of being the usmb house imbecile
 
...Frank was a Committee Chairman and influenced other Representatives not to approve adding safeguards to prevent the Housing/Mortgage collapse before the crisis was unavoidable.

That is the truth.
U.S. households had become increasingly indebted, with the ratio of debt to disposable personal income rising from 77% in 1990 to 127% at the end of 2007, much of this increase mortgage-related.

Chair of the House Financial Services Committee
In office
January 4, 2007 – January 3, 2011
Preceded by Mike Oxley
Succeeded by Spencer Bachus
---------------------------------------------------------

In 2009 Frank 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.[49]

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.

The 2005 bill included Frank objectives, which were to impose tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing. Frank and Mike Oxley achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the Financial Services Committee, and it passed the House.

But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it.

"If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told Frank.

In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."

Once control shifted to the Democrats, Frank was able to help guide both the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) to passage in 2007.

Frank also said that the Republican-led Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, contributed to the financial meltdown. Frank stated further 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.


Moreover, "we were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated." Barney Frank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dope, read the facts
 
[MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
Progressive does not necessarily equate left. wake up

Eight Progressive Things Bill Clinton Did


by their deeds they are known or exposed

And when you use the far left Daily kos to back up your so called "claims", all you do is prove my point.

Again anyone that thinks Bill Clinton was a progressive is not in touch with reality.

[MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION] Odd thing is you've outed yourself as a far off-the-charts buffoon: The article is written by lungfish NOT kos. What you've done is dismissed a source out of hand (failing to dispute one things) while being clueless about the source.

please try and keep up or suffer the penalties of being the usmb house imbecile

You claimed that progressive does not equal left then use a known far left source to back up your claim. "That shows how clueless you are. Then again all the far left is this clueless as they obviously think Clinton was a progressive.

Thus defeats any far left point trying to be made by any far left poster.

The source can easily be dismissed by anyone that is capable of thinking for themselves. Next you will be telling me that you would accept Fox news a source to back up any claims made by someone that is not far left.

Lets us use your words:

please try and keep up or suffer the penalties of being the usmb house imbecile

The far left has never been able to prove that Clinton was a progressive, but they keep trying.
 

You claimed that progressive does not equal left then use a known far left source to back up your claim. "That shows how clueless you are. Then again all the far left is this clueless as they obviously think Clinton was a progressive.

Thus defeats any far left point trying to be made by any far left poster.

The source can easily be dismissed by anyone that is capable of thinking for themselves. Next you will be telling me that you would accept Fox news a source to back up any claims made by someone that is not far left.

Lets us use your words:

please try and keep up or suffer the penalties of being the usmb house imbecile

The far left has never been able to prove that Clinton was a progressive, but they keep trying.

Actually the article was fighting back against the left saying Clinton is not a progressive. Really. Seriously. Go ahead. Go back and read everything in context ans stop shooting from proverbial lip.
 
Please try and keep up. In 2006 Bush was still President and Obama was... "because then the next Republican administration would pursue them for" things that didn't happen yet. :cuckoo:

try and keep up

and after Obama was in office, there was no way of knowing about the future things you list


try and keep up

Nothing you said contradicted me

you are making absolutely no sense here. Your stated reasons

I said that both sides don't pursue prior administrations because they don't want the next administration to pursue them. You didn't contradict that. You talked about 2006. That doesn't in any way contradict my point.
 
[MENTION=45791]Mojo2[/MENTION]

please go spam another thread with your idiocies and imbecilic nonsense

you add nothing of substance but unfounded accusations and conspiracy lunacy unworthy of a high school grad

You sound like a man who thinks he is God's gift to the World of Bull Shitters.

When someone wades through all the bullshit you pasted in your post and then looks at the videos I posted the result will be that my video...

and here is where you get exposed :eusa_shhh:

Want to play competing videos? What a tool:cuckoo:

This ain't no game, asswipe.

This is where the forces of freedom, liberty, prosperity and enlightenment compete against you and yours for the borders defining America's future political ideology.
 
And the far left still has not proven that Bill Clinton was a progressive, especially since he had a conservative Congress for six of his eight years.
 
Nothing you said contradicted me

you are making absolutely no sense here. Your stated reasons

I said that both sides don't pursue prior administrations because they don't want the next administration to pursue them. You didn't contradict that. You talked about 2006. That doesn't in any way contradict my point.

no you used things from the future (after 2006) and this isn't about administrations stupid!

2006 was NOT a Presidential election and a change of administration. 2006 was a throw the bums (GOP) out election and at that time there was NO way of knowing what the future held, but...

House members do not care about administrations in the future as they cannot guarantee it will be one they are attached to, and if Nancy was a leftist going after Bush/Cheney admin would have been a crowning glory


get a grip and try to keep up
 
You sound like a man who thinks he is God's gift to the World of Bull Shitters.

When someone wades through all the bullshit you pasted in your post and then looks at the videos I posted the result will be that my video...

and here is where you get exposed :eusa_shhh:

Want to play competing videos? What a tool:cuckoo:

This ain't no game, asswipe.

This is where the forces of freedom, liberty, prosperity and enlightenment compete against you and yours for the borders defining America's future political ideology.

/\ arrow points to above quoted post


The Paranoid Style in American Politics - Richard J. Hofstadter,
 
and here is where you get exposed :eusa_shhh:

Want to play competing videos? What a tool:cuckoo:

This ain't no game, asswipe.

This is where the forces of freedom, liberty, prosperity and enlightenment compete against you and yours for the borders defining America's future political ideology.

/\ arrow points to above quoted post


The Paranoid Style in American Politics - Richard J. Hofstadter,

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mSSudmmkRI&list=PLJdYRfQuif3Jsw8cPKvZGhRhu_YWWJBvo&feature=share&index=10]royal bank of scotland - heimlich scheimlich - YouTube[/ame]
 
This ain't no game, asswipe.

This is where the forces of freedom, liberty, prosperity and enlightenment compete against you and yours for the borders defining America's future political ideology.

/\ arrow points to above quoted post


The Paranoid Style in American Politics - Richard J. Hofstadter,

rl=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mSSudmmkRI&list=PLJdYRfQuif3Jsw8cPKvZGhRhu_YWWJBvo&feature=share&index=10]royal bank of scotland - heimlich scheimlich - YouTub[/url]

The Paranoid Style in American Politics | Harper's Magazine

The Paranoid Style in American Politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Paranoid Style in Liberal Politics | The American Conservative
 
you are making absolutely no sense here. Your stated reasons

I said that both sides don't pursue prior administrations because they don't want the next administration to pursue them. You didn't contradict that. You talked about 2006. That doesn't in any way contradict my point.

no you used things from the future (after 2006) and this isn't about administrations stupid!

2006 was NOT a Presidential election and a change of administration. 2006 was a throw the bums (GOP) out election and at that time there was NO way of knowing what the future held, but...

House members do not care about administrations in the future as they cannot guarantee it will be one they are attached to, and if Nancy was a leftist going after Bush/Cheney admin would have been a crowning glory


get a grip and try to keep up

I didn't bring up 2006, you did. I said both sides don't go after the prior administration because they don't want the next administration to go after them. 2006 is irrelevant to that and your focusing on it like a piece of lint you find in your belly button doesn't make it relevant.
 

Forum List

Back
Top