Obama Voted 'Present' on Mortgage Reform

[dilloduck]

in what dillo, a committee he doesn't even sit on? how would he even know it was happening if he doesn't sit on this committee? please, I'll be waiting for that explanation when you pull it out of your rear end

Was this some super secret bill that no one even knew about ? Doesn't he even know the names of he people on the committee? Is he afraid to call them on the phone ? Leaders don't just sit back and watch things happen.
Odds are that he wasn't even around DC to know what was happening.

 

[doeton]

Odds are that he wasn't even around DC to know what was happening.

yeah, him n Michelle were probably busy attending a vampire rally...

 

[dilloduck]

yeah, him n Michelle were probably busy attending a vampire rally...

they're monkeys dammit---not bats.

 

[WillowTree]

read the article, dummy . Where did Obama stand ?

where he always stands Nowhere!

 

[WillowTree]

in what dillo, a committee he doesn't even sit on? how would he even know it was happening if he doesn't sit on this committee? please, I'll be waiting for that explanation when you pull it out of your rear end

hells bells, he chair of a committee he hasn't even bothered to attend. whootofuckingdo

 

[Silence]

Was this some super secret bill that no one even knew about ? Doesn't he even know the names of he people on the committee? Is he afraid to call them on the phone ? Leaders don't just sit back and watch things happen.
Odds are that he wasn't even around DC to know what was happening.

oh I don't know...perhaps he was busy working on the committes he ACTUALLY sits on instead of pushing his nose into business that is handled by others? odd concept I'm sure.

Is he supposed to call them and say "hey guys, got any bills up there that call for stricter regulations on Fannie and Freddie?" GMAFB dillo.

this is just another bullshit opinion piece based on more non-story crap. The bill never got out of committee, in all likelyhood Obama never even knew about the Bill and even if he had, in the Summer 2005 he had been in the Senate for what 6 months at the most? yeah, they'd listen to him for sure.

 

[dilloduck]

oh I don't know...perhaps he was busy working on the committes he ACTUALLY sits on instead of pushing his nose into business that is handled by others? odd concept I'm sure.

Is he supposed to call them and say "hey guys, got any bills up there that call for stricter regulations on Fannie and Freddie?" GMAFB dillo.

this is just another bullshit opinion piece based on more non-story crap. The bill never got out of committee, in all likelyhood Obama never even knew about the Bill and even if he had, in the Summer 2005 he had been in the Senate for what 6 months at the most? yeah, they'd listen to him for sure.

Why should they--he was never there. Face it---the guy has zero leadership skills and has done nothing in the senate. NADA

 

[doeton]

they're monkeys dammit---not bats.

actually i have proof that george w bush is in fact a monkey.

 

[dilloduck]

actually i have proof that george w bush is in fact a monkey.

excellent---give it to eots

 

[Silence]

Why should they--he was never there. Face it---the guy has zero leadership skills and has done nothing in the senate. NADA

oh dillo, you disappoint me with such idiocy

Bob Geiger: To Those Who Question Obama's "Legislative Accomplishments"

This includes the Lugar-Obama legislation that has helped decrease the threat of old nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon in the former Soviet Union and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 which Obama co-authored and that led to USAspending.gov, which keeps Americans better informed on government spending.

Obama has also been very active in legislation to end the Iraq war and the much-heralded Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, which passed in July of 2007 and addressed the hideous treatment received by Veterans under the Bush administration, began its legislative life as the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, introduced by Obama earlier in the year.

List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama has sponsored 136 bills since Jan 4, 2005. Two have become law This figure does not include bills to which Obama contributed very substantially as cosponsor, such as the Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 or the Lugar-Nunn Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006. Nor does it include amendments to other bills, although in the Senate these are not required to be germane to the parent bill and can therefore effectively be bills in their own right.[3] Obama has co-sponsored 619 bills during the same time period.

and in case you don't like Wiki

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629&tab=bills

is that's doing NADA dillo then more people should do nothing I'd say

 

[del]

actually i have proof that george w bush is in fact a monkey.

ran into him at a family reunion, did you?

 

[Bern80]

that's a great analogy.

oh excepting that it isn't.

since the reasoning for the current bail out isn't to help those companies that were so stupid as to burn themselves.

but to bail them out so they don't hurt us.

It applies to everyone actually. The companies that invested in derivatives, the lenders who gave risky mortgages, and the individuals who took out loans they couldn't afford. HTey all got burned because they were either fool hardy or ignorant.

 

[WillowTree]

It applies to everyone actually. The companies that invested in derivatives, the lenders who gave risky mortgages, and the individuals who took out loans they couldn't afford. HTey all got burned because they were either fool hardy or ignorant.

no, we the people, the taxpayers got burned. that's who got burned.

 

[doeton]

It applies to everyone actually. The companies that invested in derivatives, the lenders who gave risky mortgages, and the individuals who took out loans they couldn't afford. HTey all got burned because they were either fool hardy or ignorant.

look i'm not in favor of the bailout.

i actually wrote my republican rep a thank you note for voting against it.

but your analogy still stinks.

here's a little econ lesson for you.

the much haloed idea of efficient markets requires lots of assumption.

one of the biggest is perfect information.

in simple times where folks were trading cows in market, buyer beware might made perfect sense. Hell if your neighbor buys a shitty cow that was his decision right>?

but in 2008 you got to have the government involved to aid in information.

That is unless you like feeding your children dangerous food, driving unsafe autos, or having the government blow a trillion bucks on financial bailout.

 

[Shogun]

hey man.. why are you such a commie? All it would take is a few dead babies to get the MARKET FORCES in a place where the consumer will stop buying the lead based similac.. Why must you be such a socialist and insist on government regulations about what a company wants to put in their product? Free Market, yo.

 

[doeton]

hey man.. why are you such a commie? All it would take is a few dead babies to get the MARKET FORCES in a place where the consumer will stop buying the lead based similac.. Why must you be such a socialist and insist on government regulations about what a company wants to put in their product? Free Market, yo.

yeah, silly socialist and their concern for the born.

 

[chloe]

I dont mind that he voted "present" on mortgage reform. I wish he would have voted "present" on the Bank bailout. Present simply means "no" with some kind of reason attached to the no.

Let's just take a moment to learn what voting present really means. The "present" vote, while not counted as a "no" vote, is in effect a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, it will not stand constitutionally, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That's funny. Apparently, he didn't even make it off the first paragraph, let alone read the whole article.

LOL... The presumption here is that the leftists contesting this position are doing so on the basis of a well informed, well reasoned, logically valid and intellectually sound opinion. Such is not only NOT the case, the very idea that these people are even CAPABLE of such is absurd.

The cognitive means of the ideological left on the whole is sub-par, and of those representing the left on this board... cognitive means is utterly indiscernible. The advocates of B. Hussein Obama are IMBECILES; they're advocacy rests on absolutely no basis in reasoning; it is an advocacy built on the shifting sands of populism and as is the case with all of their other sacred cows: AGW, the evil 'Corporatocracy,' BUSH LIED! and so on… they are absolutely CERTAIN of that which they have absolutely no means to support.

Clearly the mortgage meltdown is yet another example of the "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES" of leftist policy... wherein the left intentionally manipulated the mortgage market to facilitate housing ownership of people who were absolutely incapable of such. Their response to those assessing them as responsible is in essence to return the charge: 'Well you didn't do anything to stop us...' Which like all quality propaganda, this rests upon a sliver of truth and while we're stuck with the mess that their policy created; we should recognize that it is up to us to stop them and this for their and our own good.

The problem is multifaceted, in that the left instinctively, consistently refuses to accept any level of responsibility for every disaster they cause, which they do through their classic tactic of shifting responsibility from the cause, to the effect; meaning that the policy that initiated the departure from sound principle, which is the sole initiative of the ideological left is ignored and where it can't be ignored; it is held up as being sound, ON NOTHIG MORE THAN THE ASSERTION THAT IT WAS A FUNCTION OF FAIRNESS... projecting that the policy was necessary, based upon the need.

They deny that cause which is their own policy, established in the heady days of the Clinton regime and assess responsibility for the problem on GREED!; greed of mortgage brokers and bankers who were reacting to policy established by guess who... Only finding blame in the individuals who executed the EFFECT of THEIR policy...

Now the thing is that it’s a certainty that there are some amongst the left who know that they're lying... some must and certainly do recognize that their own policy caused this mess and who when questioned or are found in a debate of this issue, immediately begin to dissimilate and obfuscate and its just as certain that they do so for no other purpose than deception. But the vast majority of the left is not trying to deceive anyone... I believe that they are quite incapable of understanding because of a severe cognitive deficiency... It is he very intellectual limitation on which the whole of the ideological left rests.

They're simple morons... who should NEVER BE ALLOWED WITHIN A HUNDRED MILES OF A VOTING BOOTH, ever… for any reason. They are flat incapable of understanding the bedrock principles inherent in a sound culture, thus they are prevented from being able to make a sound decision with regard to representation because their decision is based solely on the only thing that they CAN UNDERSTAND and that is their own emotional need…

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I dont mind that he voted "present" on mortgage reform. I wish he would have voted "present" on the Bank bailout. Present simply means "no" with some kind of reason attached to the no.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious...

Voting present is as much voting yes with reservations as it is voting no with reservations...

Again friends, look at what this member is asserting... she wants to shift any assessment from the cause of the non-committal 'present' vote to the projected EFFECT that in her subjective opinion, the non-committal 'Present; is a no vote because it didn't convey assent and provide for passage.

The PRESENT vote represents a exactly what it says.. "I'm here, but I'd rather not commit."


Suggesting it is anything else is one of only two potential options... a damn lie or the delusional opinion of an imbecile.

 

[Silence]

I dont mind that he voted "present" on mortgage reform. I wish he would have voted "present" on the Bank bailout. Present simply means "no" with some kind of reason attached to the no.

Let's just take a moment to learn what voting present really means. The "present" vote, while not counted as a "no" vote, is in effect a "no" vote that sends a message. The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, it will not stand constitutionally, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

stop making sense sister...the cons don't like or understand when you do that.

The PRESENT vote represents a exactly what it says.. "I'm here, but I'd rather not commit."

it means I'm here and I'd vote differently if you bring the bill back with revisions. look up why it was used in the IL state senate dipshit