To hear Liberals, you'd think the GOP did away with ALL Regulations while in Power...

[finebead]

Dimmies also conveniently forget that the deregulation directly responsible for too big to fail financial institutions was signed by none other than Bill Clinton.

I don't believe it. Show me.

he's referring to Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The great Bush 'deregulation' myth :: Jeff Jacoby

Granted, there has been significant recent legislation easing financial restrictions. Most often mentioned is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which, as The New York Times described it on Monday, "removed barriers between commercial and investment banks that had been instituted to reduce the risk of economic catastrophes." Some argue that the law, which allowed traditional banks and investment firms to be affiliated under one holding company, helped bring on the credit meltdown. Even if true, how was that George W. Bush's fault? The law was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1999

Hardly a strong case, by a conservative reporter in Boston. "SOME ARGUE", hmmm... just how compelling can you get... Actually, not very.

And "SOME ARGUE" this deregulation had little to nothing to do with the financial meltdown:

The economists Brad DeLong (of the University of California, Berkeley) and Tyler Cowen (of George Mason University in Virginia) have both argued that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis.[34] Atlantic Monthly columnist Megan McArdle has argued that if the act was "part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble" and repeal would not have helped the situation.[35] An article in National Review has made the same argument, calling liberal allegations about the Act “folk economics.”[36]

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The economists cited above are more creditable than a conservative reporter in Boston, and you have still failed to show that Gramm Leach Bliley was a major factor in anything, which was your original contention on page 1, and which has now been debunked, as you have also chosen to throw Phil Gramm and the repub majority in the senate under the bus.

I don't recall Lehman Bros., which went bankrupt, acquiring any insurance nor retail brokerage business, nor Bear Stearns which failed. AIG which failed big time had not entered commercial banking nor brokerage. I don't recall Washington Mutual being in anything other than commercial banking, nor Indymac. When Merrill Lynch was failing, Treasury put Bank of America together with Merrill Lynch, that would be commercial banking with retail brokerage and investment banking, which was a formerly prohibited combination, and that was seen as a solution rather than a problem (although BofA stock has taken a hit because of the garbage on the scoundrel Merrill Lynch's books that has had to be written down, and caused BofA to fire Ken Lewis for unwisely doing the deal). (I used to do business with Merrill, but I closed my account because the dips screwed their shareholders and the taxpayers)

So, among the biggest failures, I don't see actual evidence that formerly prohibited combinations played a significant role. Maybe you can cite 10 or so instances.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans just tend to underfund agencies representing things they do not like.
So that enforcement is very lax.
They kow they cannot dereg everything.
But they can dream?

Can we go into how Dems use money to promote their political agenda, or would that upset your partisan handcart?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is wrong to say that there is less regulation in general than 10, 20, 30+ years ago.

The problem is that what got us into this mess was largely unregulated, and the financial industry paid lobbyists and politicians handsomely to keep it that way.

Is lying wrong? If not, feel free to repeat your assertion as often as you like.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yet I never see ANY Evidence of this Claim...

What Industry is Regulation Free?...

What Industries have had Regulations Removed by the GOP?...

Anyone?...



peace...

Oh wow, I love it when you guys go after a "gotcha" moment and then get "schooled". And the careful way you worded it, "What industry is regulation free"? You could say that it's a requirement that all shoes worn on oil rigs are white and then point and say, "See, they have a regulation". That's what Right Wingers do.

Unfortunately for you, there is a pollution producing industry that is indeed, "regulation free". It was deregulated under the Bush/Cheney Energy Policy Act of 2005. That industry is "fracture drilling for natural gas".

Carcinogenic chemicals are among 500 chemicals that are used in the process.

Pollution has been reported in 32 states. I've already put up thread after thread on this subject. So instead of putting up links, "PROVE ME WRONG". But I know you won't be able to.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA[/ame]

Great.

More junk science in defense of ridiculous regulations that end up making life more dangerous. The biggest single example of this was the push to ban DDT, funded by large pesticide companies that could not compete with the safest and most effective pesticide ever discovered. The gravy train continues today with one man trying to line his pockets by banning BPA in water bottles and cans so that he can sell different, more expensive, and less effective plastics. Why do we want to ban an additive that apparently has no harmful side effects, and adds protection against botulism to everything in a can?

 

[finebead]

Never mind the fact that Democrats voted right along with Reagan, Bush Sr. Bush Jr. except for a few token voices for the media. In eight years of Bush, they opposed him on Terry Schiavo and SCHIPs, and that is it.

Wrong. The majority of house dems voted against authorizing the president to go to war with Iraq. In the senate, 21 dem senators voted not to authorize, nearly half. That was the biggest decision of the Bush terms and he did not enjoy dem support on it, certainly not in the house.

Oct. 11, 2002
Congress Says Yes To Iraq Resolution
Senate Joins House In Giving Bush War Authorization

(CBS) Both the House and the Senate have now voted to authorize war-making powers for President Bush, who heralded the chamber's vote as a resounding message to United Nations and to the world that "the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally."

The resolution - which authorizes President Bush to launch a military attack against Iraq if he decides it is necessary - was approved by the House Thursday evening and the Senate followed suit shortly after 1 a.m. Friday.

In the House, the vote was 296-133, with a majority of Democrats voting against the resolution.

In the Senate, the vote was 77-23, with 21 Democrats voting no, joined by Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Republican Sen. Linc Chafee of Rhode Island.

Congress Says Yes To Iraq Resolution - CBS News

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Never mind the fact that Democrats voted right along with Reagan, Bush Sr. Bush Jr. except for a few token voices for the media. In eight years of Bush, they opposed him on Terry Schiavo and SCHIPs, and that is it.

Wrong. The majority of house dems voted against authorizing the president to go to war with Iraq. In the senate, 21 dem senators voted not to authorize, nearly half. That was the biggest decision of the Bush terms and he did not enjoy dem support on it, certainly not in the house.

Oct. 11, 2002
Congress Says Yes To Iraq Resolution
Senate Joins House In Giving Bush War Authorization

(CBS) Both the House and the Senate have now voted to authorize war-making powers for President Bush, who heralded the chamber's vote as a resounding message to United Nations and to the world that "the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally."

The resolution - which authorizes President Bush to launch a military attack against Iraq if he decides it is necessary - was approved by the House Thursday evening and the Senate followed suit shortly after 1 a.m. Friday.

In the House, the vote was 296-133, with a majority of Democrats voting against the resolution.

In the Senate, the vote was 77-23, with 21 Democrats voting no, joined by Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Republican Sen. Linc Chafee of Rhode Island.

Congress Says Yes To Iraq Resolution - CBS News

Read your post again, and then explain why no one should think you went to public school.

I am holding my breath. No wonder our government is a fucked up mess. Is that ewe Obama?

 

[finebead]

Never mind the fact that Democrats voted right along with Reagan, Bush Sr. Bush Jr. except for a few token voices for the media. In eight years of Bush, they opposed him on Terry Schiavo and SCHIPs, and that is it.

Wrong. The majority of house dems voted against authorizing the president to go to war with Iraq. In the senate, 21 dem senators voted not to authorize, nearly half. That was the biggest decision of the Bush terms and he did not enjoy dem support on it, certainly not in the house.

Oct. 11, 2002
Congress Says Yes To Iraq Resolution
Senate Joins House In Giving Bush War Authorization

(CBS) Both the House and the Senate have now voted to authorize war-making powers for President Bush, who heralded the chamber's vote as a resounding message to United Nations and to the world that "the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally."

The resolution - which authorizes President Bush to launch a military attack against Iraq if he decides it is necessary - was approved by the House Thursday evening and the Senate followed suit shortly after 1 a.m. Friday.

In the House, the vote was 296-133, with a majority of Democrats voting against the resolution.

In the Senate, the vote was 77-23, with 21 Democrats voting no, joined by Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Republican Sen. Linc Chafee of Rhode Island.

Congress Says Yes To Iraq Resolution - CBS News

Read your post again, and then explain why no one should think you went to public school.

I am holding my breath. No wonder our government is a fucked up mess. Is that ewe Obama?

You make an incorrect statement, I show a counter example that clearly refutes it on the biggest decision of the Bush presidency, and you now want to talk about grammer... pffft.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Did any of you dumb fucks take math in school?

In the senate, 21 dem senators voted not to authorize, nearly half.

Nearly is NOT half. so the majority of Democrats voted for the Iraq war.

Moving on:

In the House, the vote was 296-133, with a majority of Democrats voting against the resolution.

So the lowly House approved it by a two thirds approval thanks to a significant number of Democrats for the Iraq War. Thanks for your symbolic vote against the war for the media though.

Is that all you had for excuses for the Democrats backing Bush for eight years?


Gee, good effort. NOT, back of the class.

 

[finebead]

Did any of you dumb fucks take math in school?

In the senate, 21 dem senators voted not to authorize, nearly half.

Nearly is NOT half. so the majority of Democrats voted for the Iraq war.

Moving on:

In the House, the vote was 296-133, with a majority of Democrats voting against the resolution.

So the lowly House approved it by a two thirds approval thanks to a significant number of Democrats for the Iraq War. Thanks for your symbolic vote against the war for the media though.

Is that all you had for excuses for the Democrats backing Bush for eight years?

Gee, good effort. NOT, back of the class.

March 31, 2005

George W. Bush's plan to remake the Social Security system is kaput. This is not a value judgment. It's a statement of political fact. In the months since the president first presented the idea as his top domestic priority, Democrats in Congress have unexpectedly unified in opposition to any reform based on private accounts. Several Republican senators whose votes would be needed for passage are resisting private accounts as well. And public opinion, which has never favored any form of privatization, is trending even more strongly against Bush's scheme. At this point, there's just no way that the president can finagle enough votes to win.

Bush's first defeat. - By Jacob Weisberg - Slate Magazine

So on the presidents biggest foreign policy item, the war in Iraq, a majority of dems in the house opposed Bush.

On his top domestic priority, privatizing social security, he was opposed successfully by the majority of dems, some of his own party, and strongly opposed by the public.

Last I checked, neither the war in Iraq, nor social security, had anything to do with Terry Schaivo or SCHIPS, so your original contention is wrong, and I have refuted it in a few minutes. Not even close. Who's calling who a dumb fuck?

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Geezus, pitiful. Ewe just stay stuck on stupid, and keep walking with your eyes closed.

The American people are taking a different route. Enjoy next week and future elections. The train is moving for government REFORM and downsizing whether ewe like it or not.

Enjoy.

 

[finebead]

Geezus, pitiful. Ewe just stay stuck on stupid, and keep walking with your eyes closed.

I will stay stuck on the facts, which you lack command of in this exchange. I showed dem opposition to the Iraq war, a majority of dems in the house voted against the resolution to authorize, and the majority of dems also stepped in to defeat Bush's attempt to privatize SS.

You should check the facts before loosely tossing out incorrect statements.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't believe it. Show me.

The great Bush 'deregulation' myth :: Jeff Jacoby

Hardly a strong case, by a conservative reporter in Boston. "SOME ARGUE", hmmm... just how compelling can you get... Actually, not very.

And "SOME ARGUE" this deregulation had little to nothing to do with the financial meltdown:

The economists Brad DeLong (of the University of California, Berkeley) and Tyler Cowen (of George Mason University in Virginia) have both argued that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis.[34] Atlantic Monthly columnist Megan McArdle has argued that if the act was "part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble" and repeal would not have helped the situation.[35] An article in National Review has made the same argument, calling liberal allegations about the Act “folk economics.”[36]

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The economists cited above are more creditable than a conservative reporter in Boston, and you have still failed to show that Gramm Leach Bliley was a major factor in anything, which was your original contention on page 1, and which has now been debunked, as you have also chosen to throw Phil Gramm and the repub majority in the senate under the bus.

I don't recall Lehman Bros., which went bankrupt, acquiring any insurance nor retail brokerage business, nor Bear Stearns which failed. AIG which failed big time had not entered commercial banking nor brokerage. I don't recall Washington Mutual being in anything other than commercial banking, nor Indymac. When Merrill Lynch was failing, Treasury put Bank of America together with Merrill Lynch, that would be commercial banking with retail brokerage and investment banking, which was a formerly prohibited combination, and that was seen as a solution rather than a problem (although BofA stock has taken a hit because of the garbage on the scoundrel Merrill Lynch's books that has had to be written down, and caused BofA to fire Ken Lewis for unwisely doing the deal). (I used to do business with Merrill, but I closed my account because the dips screwed their shareholders and the taxpayers)

So, among the biggest failures, I don't see actual evidence that formerly prohibited combinations played a significant role. Maybe you can cite 10 or so instances.

The bill removed the once very sharp lines between banks, investment companies and insurance companies which directly resulted in AIG and Citi being too big to fail and that started the bail out mania.

 

[finebead]

The great Bush 'deregulation' myth :: Jeff Jacoby

Hardly a strong case, by a conservative reporter in Boston. "SOME ARGUE", hmmm... just how compelling can you get... Actually, not very.

And "SOME ARGUE" this deregulation had little to nothing to do with the financial meltdown:

The economists Brad DeLong (of the University of California, Berkeley) and Tyler Cowen (of George Mason University in Virginia) have both argued that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis.[34] Atlantic Monthly columnist Megan McArdle has argued that if the act was "part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble" and repeal would not have helped the situation.[35] An article in National Review has made the same argument, calling liberal allegations about the Act “folk economics.”[36]

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The economists cited above are more creditable than a conservative reporter in Boston, and you have still failed to show that Gramm Leach Bliley was a major factor in anything, which was your original contention on page 1, and which has now been debunked, as you have also chosen to throw Phil Gramm and the repub majority in the senate under the bus.

I don't recall Lehman Bros., which went bankrupt, acquiring any insurance nor retail brokerage business, nor Bear Stearns which failed. AIG which failed big time had not entered commercial banking nor brokerage. I don't recall Washington Mutual being in anything other than commercial banking, nor Indymac. When Merrill Lynch was failing, Treasury put Bank of America together with Merrill Lynch, that would be commercial banking with retail brokerage and investment banking, which was a formerly prohibited combination, and that was seen as a solution rather than a problem (although BofA stock has taken a hit because of the garbage on the scoundrel Merrill Lynch's books that has had to be written down, and caused BofA to fire Ken Lewis for unwisely doing the deal). (I used to do business with Merrill, but I closed my account because the dips screwed their shareholders and the taxpayers)

So, among the biggest failures, I don't see actual evidence that formerly prohibited combinations played a significant role. Maybe you can cite 10 or so instances.

The bill removed the once very sharp lines between banks, investment companies and insurance companies which directly resulted in AIG and Citi being too big to fail and that started the bail out mania.

Citigroup is the poster child for ills associated with repeal of Glass Steagall, and it played some role in the demise of Citi, I'll agree.

On AIG, I disagree. You will have to show me any relationship between the events at AIG and the repeal of Glass Steagall (GS) in 1999. All the problem at AIG was in the Financial Products division, which was started at AIG in 1987, long before the repeal of GS. It was a successful business line within AIG for 15 years prior to getting into trouble with CDS on MBS. What did that have to do with repeal of GS? Nothing that I can see.

AIG Financial Products Corporation. (AIGFP) is a subsidiary of the American International Group, headquartered in Fairfield, CT, with major operations in London, it is currently in the process of winding down all of its operations. The collapse of AIG Financial Products is considered to have played a pivotal role in the global financial crisis of 2008–2009. In the Spring of 2008 AIGFP suffered enormous loses from credit default swaps that it issued and traded. When these credit default swaps were issued in years prior the management of AIGFP believed they would only have to pay out very few, if any of the swaps. However as the financial crisis worsened during early 2008 many companies began to default on their debt, forcing AIGFP to assume losses greater than what was ever anticipated.

The losses at AIGFP caused credit agencies to downgrade the credit rating of the entire AIG corporation in September of 2008. The resulting liquidity crisis essentially bankrupted all of AIG. Many believed that AIG was too big to fail and that an AIG bankruptcy could cause an already fragile financial system to collapse, prompting the Federal Reserve Bank to extend an $85 billion line of credit to AIG. As a result the Federal Reserve was issued a stock warrant for 79.9% of the equity in AIG, effectively nationalizing the world's largest insurer. Shortly after, then treasury secretary, Henry Paulson announced the treasury's desire to break up and liquidate most of AIG. The company has since been selling off many of its subsidiaries in order to raise the cash necessary to pay back the Federal Reserve. AIG is currently in the process of closing AIGFP.

History

Joseph Cassano and Howard Sosin helped start the group in 1987. AIGFP businesses specialize interest rate and currency swaps and, more broadly, the capital markets.

AIGFP focused principally on OTC derivatives markets and acted as principal in nearly all of its transactions involving capital markets offerings and corporate finance, investment and financial risk management products.
<snip>

AIGFP's commodity derivatives and commodity indices helped stimulate the development of this new asset class. AIGFP's sponsored a major study on the historical performance of commodity futures by professors Gary Gorton and K. Geert Rouwenhorst.[1] AIGFP created a specialized credit business. AIGFP focused its business on structured products like CDO's.
<snip>

From 1987 to 2004, AIGFP contributed over $5 billion to AIG’s pre-tax income. During that period, AIG's market capitalization increased from $11 billion to $181 billion, and its stock price increased from $4.50 per share to $62.34 per share.

AIG Financial Products - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If AIGFP WAS the reason for the AIG collapse (based on losses on its book of CDS), and AIGFP was chartered in 1987 and operated successfully for its first 15 years, and GS was repealed in 1999, THEN it is clear that the repeal of GS had no effect of the huge losses at AIG, and you are incorrect on this one.

That leaves one company where repeal of GS probably had an impact, Citigroup, where they continued to issue subprime mortgages which they held, despite other parts of the business saying the market was too risky. But that's just one company, and that does not say the repeal of GS had a major impact nationally on the financial crisis of 2008.

 

[rdean]

Dimmies also conveniently forget that the deregulation directly responsible for too big to fail financial institutions was signed by none other than Bill Clinton.

I don't believe it. Show me.

he's referring to Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The great Bush 'deregulation' myth :: Jeff Jacoby

Granted, there has been significant recent legislation easing financial restrictions. Most often mentioned is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which, as The New York Times described it on Monday, "removed barriers between commercial and investment banks that had been instituted to reduce the risk of economic catastrophes." Some argue that the law, which allowed traditional banks and investment firms to be affiliated under one holding company, helped bring on the credit meltdown. Even if true, how was that George W. Bush's fault? The law was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1999

That article is hilarious. Because Bush added people to the rolls, doesn't mean he didn't deregulate.

Check out replacing OSHA with voluntary compliance.

Check out the Energy act of 2005 that deregulated natural gas mining. For Christ sakes, we posted links showing people with flaming water lines. Is that an example of regulation?

 

[mal]

Hi my Thread!...



peace...

 

[finebead]

Hi my Thread!...



peace...

Welcome back, the thread is going well.

I have shown that relaxing the net capital rule by the repub led (William Donaldson was the SEC Chairman at the time) SEC allowed the 5 investment banks to take on dangerous amounts of debt, creating "too big to fail" by the significantly higher debt levels they carried without commensurate levels of capital to back it in case the debts turned out to be "bad debts", which ended the 5 investment banks (Merrill, Goldman, Bear, Lehman, and Morgan) after they had successfully done business since before the Civil War. (see post #6 on page 1)

I have also debunked a myth that repeal of Glass Steagall somehow played a major role in the mortage finance debacle, in what was a feeble attempt to try and smear Clinton in this mess.

Yet I never see ANY Evidence of this Claim...

What Industry is Regulation Free?...

What Industries have had Regulations Removed by the GOP?...

Anyone?...

Now, back to your original question, and I am mainly interested in the mortgage financial crisis.

You asked a good question, but it is only partial. To be complete, if we are talking about regulatory failures by the republicans, the more important question is:

What regulations were needed that the republicans failed to pass from 2001-2006?

Greenspan and the fed had broad power to regulate bank leverage levels, mortgage terms, and yet he failed to step in and issue any new regulations, when clearly the financial system was spinning farther and farther out of control. I think the republican ideology that blindly supports free markets and denounces regulation as unnecessary, directly led to the crisis.

Any ideas what "should have been done", that was not?

 

[rdean]

Hi my Thread!...



peace...

Welcome back, the thread is going well.

I have shown that relaxing the net capital rule by the repub led (William Donaldson was the SEC Chairman at the time) SEC allowed the 5 investment banks to take on dangerous amounts of debt, creating "too big to fail" by the significantly higher debt levels they carried without commensurate levels of capital to back it in case the debts turned out to be "bad debts", which ended the 5 investment banks (Merrill, Goldman, Bear, Lehman, and Morgan) after they had successfully done business since before the Civil War. (see post #6 on page 1)

I have also debunked a myth that repeal of Glass Steagall somehow played a major role in the mortage finance debacle, in a feeble attempt to try and smear Clinton in this mess.

Yet I never see ANY Evidence of this Claim...

What Industry is Regulation Free?...

What Industries have had Regulations Removed by the GOP?...

Anyone?...

Now, back to your original question, and I am mainly interested in the mortgage financial crisis.

You asked a good question, but it is only partial. To be complete, if we are talking about regulatory failures by the republicans, the more important question is:

What regulations were needed that the republicans failed to pass from 2001-2006?

Greenspan and the fed had broad power to regulate bank leverage levels, mortgage terms, and yet he failed to step in and issue any new regulations, when clearly the financial system was spinning farther and farther out of control. I think the republican ideology that blindly supports free markets and denounces regulation as unnecessary, directly led to the crisis.

Any ideas what "should have been done", that was not?

You forget about "voluntary compliance" and "natural gas mining". Oops.

At what point, did 70% of the mortgage market move to Wall Street?

Oh, and one more thing:

WASHINGTON (AP) &#8212; In an unusually blunt letter, a group of federal scientists is complaining to the Obama transition team of widespread managerial misconduct in a division of the Food and Drug Administration.

"The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the scientific review process for medical devices at the FDA has been corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk," said the letter, dated Wednesday and written on the agency's Center for Devices and Radiological Health letterhead.

FDA Scientists Complain to Obama of 'Corruption' | Crooks and Liars

WASHINGTON, DC, April 24, 2008 (ENS) - The Bush administration has frequently meddled with scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to a survey released today by a scientific advocacy group. The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that nearly two-thirds of the 1,586 staff EPA scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained of recent political interference with their work.

Survey Finds Bush Administration Interfering with EPA Scientists

------------------------------------------

Of course, the right wing has such contempt for science and education, many will see this as a "good thing".

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Geezus, pitiful. Ewe just stay stuck on stupid, and keep walking with your eyes closed.

I will stay stuck on the facts, which you lack command of in this exchange. I showed dem opposition to the Iraq war, a majority of dems in the house voted against the resolution to authorize, and the majority of dems also stepped in to defeat Bush's attempt to privatize SS.

You should check the facts before loosely tossing out incorrect statements.

Oh, so for the other 3 gazillion issues where they backed Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton's GOP led Congress, and Bush Jr., Democrats can't be held accountable for backing everyone 99% of the time.

OK, that makes sense, too someone like Gacy.

With over 5 MILLION CURRENT government workers who NEVER paid into Social Security, and the MILLIONS who retired before them, are you going to have the balls to say Social Security doesn't need reform??????????? Your Democrat LBJ, the Vietnam Conqueror, opened the floodgates to federal use of the SS fund.

How about blow me with your weak and inexcusable excuses?

Democrats are clearly the MAJOR reason we as a nation are here today. Over 78% control of the HOUSE where ALL legislation starts since WWII. Over 70% control of the Senate since WWII.

How about ewe just admit you are too fucking stupid for facts, or common sense. Ewe go vote Democrat, the nation will leave ewe where ewe belong.

Peace, out.

 

[finebead]

Geezus, pitiful. Ewe just stay stuck on stupid, and keep walking with your eyes closed.

I will stay stuck on the facts, which you lack command of in this exchange. I showed dem opposition to the Iraq war, a majority of dems in the house voted against the resolution to authorize, and the majority of dems also stepped in to defeat Bush's attempt to privatize SS.

You should check the facts before loosely tossing out incorrect statements.

Oh, so for the other 3 gazillion issues where they backed Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton's GOP led Congress, and Bush Jr., Democrats can't be held accountable for backing everyone 99% of the time.

OK, that makes sense, too someone like Gacy.

With over 5 MILLION CURRENT government workers who NEVER paid into Social Security, and the MILLIONS who retired before them, are you going to have the balls to say Social Security doesn't need reform??????????? Your Democrat LBJ, the Vietnam Conqueror, opened the floodgates to federal use of the SS fund.

How about blow me with your weak and inexcusable excuses?

Democrats are clearly the MAJOR reason we as a nation are here today. Over 78% control of the HOUSE where ALL legislation starts since WWII. Over 70% control of the Senate since WWII.

How about ewe just admit you are too fucking stupid for facts, or common sense. Ewe go vote Democrat, the nation will leave ewe where ewe belong.

Peace, out.

You made an incorrect statement, and I proved it was wrong.

Nobody is too stupid for facts, that is why you are wrong.

Now you try to change the argument to stuff that was not in your original statement. (there's already a SS thread in here, go post your stuff on that one and don't hijack this one, this one is about failure of the repubs to adequately regulate different indutries)

Except you are so fucking stupid you can't state a coherent position.

Until then, up yours

 

[Titanic Sailor]

And your claim to fame fully enforced my point. Democrats are clearly responsible for the mess this nation is in.


See you Tuesday, and in future elections.