Just so people don't forget ...

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who, combined, didn't have enough power to prevent the Republicans from taking an unregistered bathroom break somehow prevented Republicans from passing legislation?

Do you people ever listen to how to stupid you sound?
um, you mean like the way republicans are blocking everything NOW

:lol:
btw, the GOP never had the numbers the dems do now
So you don't have an example of a piece of legislation Democrats blocked?

of course Republicans are blocking everything now. if it's good for America right now, it's bad for Republicans. They know this.
uh
the dems had larger mumbers back then when you were saying the GOP was stopping everything
and now the GOP with even LESS numbers than the dems had then is somehow stopping everything

come on man
LOL
be honest and admit the claims the GOP is blocking ANYTHING right now is BOGUS at best and a down right LIE at worst
 
uh
the dems had larger mumbers back then when you were saying the GOP was stopping everything

The Dems had larger numbers when the GOP was stopping everything? When was the GOP stopping everything before recently?

and now the GOP with even LESS numbers than the dems had then is somehow stopping everything

Indeed, the GOP is stopping a lot of stuff right now. The Dems can also stop stuff when they act together. Dodd and Frank alone can't stop the postman from delivering the mail without help from others.

be honest and admit the claims the GOP is blocking ANYTHING right now is BOGUS at best and a down right LIE at worst

Lol, no. That would be stupid and wrong. There are only 57 Democrats and you need 60 to move a piece of legislation.
 
uh
the dems had larger mumbers back then when you were saying the GOP was stopping everything

The Dems had larger numbers when the GOP was stopping everything? When was the GOP stopping everything before recently?

and now the GOP with even LESS numbers than the dems had then is somehow stopping everything

Indeed, the GOP is stopping a lot of stuff right now. The Dems can also stop stuff when they act together. Dodd and Frank alone can't stop the postman from delivering the mail without help from others.

be honest and admit the claims the GOP is blocking ANYTHING right now is BOGUS at best and a down right LIE at worst

Lol, no. That would be stupid and wrong. There are only 57 Democrats and you need 60 to move a piece of legislation.
there are 57 NAMED democrats, 2 indy that vote democrat 90%+ of the time and 3 GOP that vote with the dems over 50% of the time
sorry, you dont get it AGAIN
 
uh
the dems had larger mumbers back then when you were saying the GOP was stopping everything

The Dems had larger numbers when the GOP was stopping everything? When was the GOP stopping everything before recently?



Indeed, the GOP is stopping a lot of stuff right now. The Dems can also stop stuff when they act together. Dodd and Frank alone can't stop the postman from delivering the mail without help from others.

be honest and admit the claims the GOP is blocking ANYTHING right now is BOGUS at best and a down right LIE at worst

Lol, no. That would be stupid and wrong. There are only 57 Democrats and you need 60 to move a piece of legislation.
there are 57 NAMED democrats, 2 indy that vote democrat 90%+ of the time and 3 GOP that vote with the dems over 50% of the time
sorry, you dont get it AGAIN

Thanks for clarifying that the Democrats do not have 60 seats and therefore can not pass legislation without support.

Did the Dems block any legislation between 2002 and 2007?
 
The Dems had larger numbers when the GOP was stopping everything? When was the GOP stopping everything before recently?



Indeed, the GOP is stopping a lot of stuff right now. The Dems can also stop stuff when they act together. Dodd and Frank alone can't stop the postman from delivering the mail without help from others.



Lol, no. That would be stupid and wrong. There are only 57 Democrats and you need 60 to move a piece of legislation.
there are 57 NAMED democrats, 2 indy that vote democrat 90%+ of the time and 3 GOP that vote with the dems over 50% of the time
sorry, you dont get it AGAIN

Thanks for clarifying that the Democrats do not have 60 seats and therefore can not pass legislation without support.

Did the Dems block any legislation between 2002 and 2007?
they did
and they had far more members to do it that the GOP has right now
 
there are 57 NAMED democrats, 2 indy that vote democrat 90%+ of the time and 3 GOP that vote with the dems over 50% of the time
sorry, you dont get it AGAIN

Thanks for clarifying that the Democrats do not have 60 seats and therefore can not pass legislation without support.

Did the Dems block any legislation between 2002 and 2007?
they did
and they had far more members to do it that the GOP has right now

1. Which legislation did they block?

2. Did the R's have more than 50?

But at least you agree that the Dems don't have enough to prevent a block.
 
Thanks for clarifying that the Democrats do not have 60 seats and therefore can not pass legislation without support.

Did the Dems block any legislation between 2002 and 2007?
they did
and they had far more members to do it that the GOP has right now

1. Which legislation did they block?

2. Did the R's have more than 50?

But at least you agree that the Dems don't have enough to prevent a block.
sure they have enough
they have 57 plus the 2 "indies" and the 3 GOP that side with them more than they side with the GOP
 
they did
and they had far more members to do it that the GOP has right now

1. Which legislation did they block?

2. Did the R's have more than 50?

But at least you agree that the Dems don't have enough to prevent a block.
sure they have enough
they have 57 plus the 2 "indies" and the 3 GOP that side with them more than they side with the GOP
So, the Dems don't have 60 votes?

Your claim is like me saying the Republicans had enough from 2004 to 2006 because they had 55 seats and some weak-kneed conservative Dems...which is to say, it's absurd.

Do you deny that Republicans are currently blocking legislation?
 
1. Which legislation did they block?

2. Did the R's have more than 50?

But at least you agree that the Dems don't have enough to prevent a block.
sure they have enough
they have 57 plus the 2 "indies" and the 3 GOP that side with them more than they side with the GOP
So, the Dems don't have 60 votes?

Your claim is like me saying the Republicans had enough from 2004 to 2006 because they had 55 seats and some weak-kneed conservative Dems...which is to say, it's absurd.

Do you deny that Republicans are currently blocking legislation?
only with help from the dems
 
the Bush Administration tried to stop the economy from spiraling into the shit storm its become.

Check it out. From 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com

"Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. "

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

"Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed"



well how bout that?

And a year later, this. Go figure.

Encouraging Minority Entrepreneurship
Minority Home Ownership Initiative: Minority homeownership is at an all-time high. In June 2002, the President announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. The Census estimates an increase of 1.54 million minority homeowners since the President launched his initiative. The President signed the American Dream Downpayment Act into law, which will help an additional 40,000 low-income families each year own homes. In his FY 2005 budget, President Bush proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative for Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.
 
Chirs Dodd and Barney Frank did more damage to our economy that Al Qaeda ever could. Bin Laden tried to shut down the US Capital markets by destroying the Twin Towers, the Democrats cratered the entire US housing market

Yeah, that's it...:cuckoo:

For a reality check, try this:

Greenspan Concedes to `Flaw' in His Market Ideology (Update2)
By Scott Lanman and Steve Matthews - Oct 23, 2008 Oct. 23 (Bloomberg)

-- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said a ``once-in-a-century credit tsunami'' has engulfed financial markets and conceded that his free-market ideology shunning regulation was flawed.

``Yes, I found a flaw,'' Greenspan said in response to grilling from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. ``That is precisely the reason I was shocked because I'd been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.''

Greenspan said he was ``partially'' wrong in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected.

``We cannot expect perfection in any area where forecasting is required,'' he said. ``We have to do our best but not expect infallibility or omniscience.''

Part of the problem was that the Fed's ability to forecast the economy's trajectory is an inexact science, he said.

``If we are right 60 percent of the time in forecasting, we are doing exceptionally well; that means we are wrong 40 percent of the time,'' Greenspan said. ``Forecasting never gets to the point where it is 100 percent accurate.''

Self-Policing

The admission that free markets have their faults was a shift for the former Fed chairman who declared in a May 2005 speech that ``private regulation generally has proved far better at constraining excessive risk-taking than has government regulation.''

Today Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, said Greenspan had ``the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis.''

``You were advised to do so by many others,'' he told Greenspan. ``And now our whole economy is paying the price.''

Waxman and other lawmakers repeatedly interrupted Greenspan as he answered their questions, in contrast to deference to his testimony while he was Fed chairman.

Firms that bundle loans into securities for sale should be required to keep part of those securities, Greenspan said in prepared testimony. Other rules should address fraud and settlement of trades, he said.

Resistant to Regulation

Greenspan opposed increasing financial supervision as Fed chairman from August 1987 to January 2006. Policy makers are now struggling to contain a financial crisis marked by record foreclosures, falling asset prices and almost $660 billion in writedowns and losses tied to U.S. subprime mortgages.

Today, the former Fed chairman asked: ``What went wrong with global economic policies that had worked so effectively for nearly four decades?''

Greenspan reiterated his ``shocked disbelief'' that financial companies failed to execute sufficient ``surveillance'' on their trading counterparties to prevent surging losses. The ``breakdown'' was clearest in the market where securities firms packaged home mortgages into debt sold on to other investors, he said.

``As much as I would prefer it otherwise, in this financial environment I see no choice but to require that all securitizers retain a meaningful part of the securities they issue,'' Greenspan said. That would give the companies an incentive to ensure the assets are properly priced for their risk, advocates say.

Subprime Lending

Greenspan said the Fed didn't know the size of the subprime mortgage market until late 2005.


Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox and former Treasury Secretary John Snow also appeared at the House committee hearing.

Snow said the economy is headed down a ``bad, bad path'' and he endorsed consideration of more fiscal stimulus. For the longer term, Snow said the global financial system should be reorganized by focusing on increasing transparency of ``excessive'' leverage to prevent institutions from creating too much risk.

The U.S. needs ``one strong national regulator'' to oversee firms and fix what Snow called ``a fragmented approach'' to regulation. ``Steps to restore transparency and responsibility in the marketplace will go a long way towards restoring stability and confidence,'' he said.

Addressing the trio that oversaw the U.S. financial markets as the housing bubble developed, Representative John Yarmuth, a Democrat from Kentucky, characterized them as ``three Bill Buckners,'' referring to the Boston Red Sox first baseman whose fielding error some fans blame for the team's loss in the 1986 World Series.

Greenspan Concedes to `Flaw' in His Market Ideology (Update2) - Bloomberg
 
Chirs Dodd and Barney Frank did more damage to our economy that Al Qaeda ever could.

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who, combined, didn't have enough power to prevent the Republicans from taking an unregistered bathroom break somehow prevented Republicans from passing legislation?

Do you people ever listen to how to stupid you sound?

You must be mistaken ... Just today Barack Obama stated that Republicans were holding up economic legislation, yet the Democrat leads in the House and Senate are larger than they were back when Republicans where in control. Are you calling the President of the United States a straight up liar?

You need to pay MUCH better attention. Republicans have filibustered the latest attempt to help small businesses. It's their prerogative as the minority party, and they use it well. In the meantime, the Senate won't be back in session until September 13th.
 
uh
the dems had larger mumbers back then when you were saying the GOP was stopping everything

The Dems had larger numbers when the GOP was stopping everything? When was the GOP stopping everything before recently?

and now the GOP with even LESS numbers than the dems had then is somehow stopping everything

Indeed, the GOP is stopping a lot of stuff right now. The Dems can also stop stuff when they act together. Dodd and Frank alone can't stop the postman from delivering the mail without help from others.

be honest and admit the claims the GOP is blocking ANYTHING right now is BOGUS at best and a down right LIE at worst

Lol, no. That would be stupid and wrong. There are only 57 Democrats and you need 60 to move a piece of legislation.

You need a solid 60 votes for cloture (to end filibuster and take a floor vote). Even though 2 independents vote with the Dems, it's still not enough. So the Senate went on vacation and left an important bill on the table. It's as clear as the noses on their faces.
 
the Bush Administration tried to stop the economy from spiraling into the shit storm its become.

Check it out. From 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com

"Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. "

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

"Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed"



well how bout that?

And failed miserably. Bush's fault!:lol:
 
Seems like I recall some talk form the republicans of a neuclear option? which wisely they refrained form using I think.

total numbers sometimes does not mean much. Members of commitees may mean more on what is allowed to be voted on than anything else.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top