Bush: "I had to become a Socialist to save the country"

[sealybobo]

Give me valid examples of you guys telling us, in an assertive and consistent way, that you guys have known what has been happening all along, and give me examples of my side not listening and exacerbating the problem.

If you really want some insight, start listening to Air America. Unfortunately I don't have the capabilities, nor the time to go and dig up all the old shows.

Here's a good example though. Back in 2004, the House Ways and Means committee met to discuss the problem of companies leaving America to set up shop overseas. I thought they'd impose tariffs or something. When the meeting was over, it turned out that the GOP House Ways and Means committee ended up giving those companies TAX BREAKS to make it easier for them to leave. Now years later we are finding out about these bullshit tax breaks/loopholes.

I've been telling people like you to listen to Air America Radio and/or Nova M Radio now for years. Typically they are a day or a week ahead of the issues. So I know what's going on before the main stream media tells you about it.

But you guys just blow it off as left wing liberal lies. Because you think we lie like Rush Limbaugh does to you. We don't. I know when someone isn't being intellectually honest with me.

Now you want me to go find all the old tapes of all the old shows and send them to you so you can listen? Sorry. And honestly, the election is over. I don't need to prove anything to you anymore. Enough Americans woke up and through the bums out of office. You voted for Bush twice and McCain this time?

Now it is up to the Democrats to prove themselves. What's done is done. Now it is their job to undo the wrongs.

PS. Anytime I ever posted the kind of "proof" you are asking for, you guys just brushed it off by saying, "oh like I'm going to beleive that liberal radio/tv/newspaper.

So unless it agrees with you, it's liberal. I get that. So no, I won't waste my time doing all that work for you.

But shit, i wish I could go into my co-workers computer. He has a file saved on me. 2000 plus emails dating all the way back to 2004. Before I found USMB, I would chat politics with co-workers.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

If you really want some insight, start listening to Air America. Unfortunately I don't have the capabilities, nor the time to go and dig up all the old shows.

Here's a good example though. Back in 2004, the House Ways and Means committee met to discuss the problem of companies leaving America to set up shop overseas. I thought they'd impose tariffs or something. When the meeting was over, it turned out that the GOP House Ways and Means committee ended up giving those companies TAX BREAKS to make it easier for them to leave. Now years later we are finding out about these bullshit tax breaks/loopholes.

I've been telling people like you to listen to Air America Radio and/or Nova M Radio now for years. Typically they are a day or a week ahead of the issues. So I know what's going on before the main stream media tells you about it.

But you guys just blow it off as left wing liberal lies. Because you think we lie like Rush Limbaugh does to you. We don't. I know when someone isn't being intellectually honest with me.

Now you want me to go find all the old tapes of all the old shows and send them to you so you can listen? Sorry. And honestly, the election is over. I don't need to prove anything to you anymore. Enough Americans woke up and through the bums out of office. You voted for Bush twice and McCain this time?

Now it is up to the Democrats to prove themselves. What's done is done. Now it is their job to undo the wrongs.

PS. Anytime I ever posted the kind of "proof" you are asking for, you guys just brushed it off by saying, "oh like I'm going to beleive that liberal radio/tv/newspaper.

So unless it agrees with you, it's liberal. I get that. So no, I won't waste my time doing all that work for you.

But shit, i wish I could go into my co-workers computer. He has a file saved on me. 2000 plus emails dating all the way back to 2004. Before I found USMB, I would chat politics with co-workers.

I've given Air America a good shot. They suck.

 

[sealybobo]

My objection is ALWAYS to those who DEMAND that we pin the entire problem on one party, one group, one set of villians.

Sorry Editec, you must not have been paying as close attention as I was from 2000-2006, because it was ALL GOP.

Did the GOP need to convince a few Democrats to vote with them? Sure. Did they give them pork to go along? Probably.

For example, in 1993, I saw how many Democrats went along with NAFTA. So clearly enough Dems were bought off by lobbyists/special interest to go along. And do I think the Dems are angels? No. But the GOP is who got us where we are today.

If you don't think so, then stop voting. Stop caring about politics. If it doesn't matter and they are all equally rotten, stop voting.

Remember the Democrats from 2000-2006 that tried really hard to stop the GOP's radical agenda? If you forgot, just google the Nuclear Option. The GOP wanted to do away with filabusters because that was the only weapon the Dems had. So then the Dems took power and what do you think happened? The GOP have filabustered more in 2 years than the Dems did in 6.

The reason I have a major problem with Republicans saying, "everyone has to share the blame", is for one that's a lie, but also this montra will help them out big time in 2010 and 2012. Fuck that! They fucked up this economy and they took us into that war for $. And not money for us but money for them. Money for the oil companies and defense companies. The losses they put on the US taxpayers.

 

[sealybobo]

I've given Air America a good shot. They suck.

Why, do you hate the truth?

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Why, do you hate the truth?

What a convenient allegation.

 

[Chris]

Why, do you hate the truth?

Rachel Maddow was talking last night about how Goldman Sachs paid only 1% tax this year on $2.3 billion dollars profit. Last year they paid 34%.

The difference?

They moved their business off shore.

 

[Paulie]

We all suffer from the same disease, Paul.

We read so much sheer blather from the nitwits on this board, (and it elevates our ire) that we can't keep what people with more subtle minds think straight.





Then you and I are of the same mind, Paul. It took a cavalcade of players both in government and in private industry to cause the problems we are facing now.

My objection is ALWAYS to those who DEMAND that we pin the entire problem on one party, one group, one set of villians.



But the people who are buying homes (usually for the first time, I might add) NOT smarter about this stuff than full time professionals, Paul.

Those professionals knew they would get more money shunting people into mortgages they would eventually not be able to pay so shunted into those they were.

And when the shit hit the fan the people who should have helped those consumers were off the hook for the outcomes of their shinanigans.




The people you are so angry at are losing their homes right now, man.

How much more abuse do you think they should enjoy.

But the bankers, who actually make great heaping piles of money selling people into bizarre mortgages are doing just fine, aren't they?

They got paid, and for them that's the end of the story.



Planning on a career as an art historian, no doubt, right? (just kidding, I know you'll be tracking into something that you presume will make you a fine living...good luck with that, too)



Everyone deserves to accept the responsibility for what they did, on that we agree.

It's not working out that way, though, is it?

I simply think that even though consumers are not as educated as the bankers are, they still ought to make sure they can fit a mortgage into their budget, even during the worst possible time they can imagine going through. They should have at least been able to make the payment comfortably in the low interest range, and been able to at least MAKE a payment if it jumped a couple points higher. Believing the bank when they say it won't go higher is ridiculous. That is an offer that is just too good to be true. You know that old saying.

Also, they should have calculated how much they could afford should they possibly lose their job, also, should house values drop. Believing they'll rise to infinity was ignorant, and unacceptable. This is BASIC knowledge that any consumer should arm themselves with. It doesn't take a college education, or even participation in a course. It simply requires a little research. Having a down payment of at least 15% is wise, and a savings of a few extra months mortgage payments as well.

I mean, signing your life away on a 30 year mortgage is not something that should be taken lightly. If you as a borrower decide you can not meet these requirements, you simply should not be asking for a loan. You continue to rent until you position yourself accordingly.

Why is that so much to ask? That's how we USED to do things in this country, before credit was made as cheap as ever and people felt ENTITLED to own a home no matter what.

And I'm going for a Bachelors Degree program in the Biomedical Engineering field. Basically, fixing and maintaining medical equipment.

 

[Old Rocks]

I simply think that even though consumers are not as educated as the bankers are, they still ought to make sure they can fit a mortgage into their budget, even during the worst possible time they can imagine going through. They should have at least been able to make the payment comfortably in the low interest range, and been able to at least MAKE a payment if it jumped a couple points higher. Believing the bank when they say it won't go higher is ridiculous. That is an offer that is just too good to be true. You know that old saying.

Also, they should have calculated how much they could afford should they possibly lose their job, also, should house values drop. Believing they'll rise to infinity was ignorant, and unacceptable. This is BASIC knowledge that any consumer should arm themselves with. It doesn't take a college education, or even participation in a course. It simply requires a little research. Having a down payment of at least 15% is wise, and a savings of a few extra months mortgage payments as well.

I mean, signing your life away on a 30 year mortgage is not something that should be taken lightly. If you as a borrower decide you can not meet these requirements, you simply should not be asking for a loan. You continue to rent until you position yourself accordingly.

Why is that so much to ask? That's how we USED to do things in this country, before credit was made as cheap as ever and people felt ENTITLED to own a home no matter what.

And I'm going for a Bachelors Degree program in the Biomedical Engineering field. Basically, fixing and maintaining medical equipment.

Very good philosophy. Now show me a house cheap enough to pay the mortgage on unemployment. For that is what is happening to all too many Americans. The man on the factory floor did not make the decisions that led to the bankruptcy of so many of these companies. The CEOs with the multi-million a year salaries did. And they are going to get a golden parachute while the man on the factory floor gets a foreclosure notice. Not only that, the CEO will get a tax break on his millions. Justly deserved, of course.

 

[Paulie]

Very good philosophy. Now show me a house cheap enough to pay the mortgage on unemployment. For that is what is happening to all too many Americans. The man on the factory floor did not make the decisions that led to the bankruptcy of so many of these companies. The CEOs with the multi-million a year salaries did. And they are going to get a golden parachute while the man on the factory floor gets a foreclosure notice. Not only that, the CEO will get a tax break on his millions. Justly deserved, of course.

Most of those jobs weren't in jeopardy until the credit crisis was created. Had all those people who irresponsibly borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars NOT done so, the credit crisis would not have happened, and most of the lost jobs this year would be secure.

Cause/effect, my man. Lost jobs is the effect, not the cause.

Nice try, though.

 

[Agnapostate]

I've given Air America a good shot. They suck.

The O'Franken Factor didn't suck.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

The O'Franken Factor didn't suck.

I'm sure it did.

 

[Agnapostate]

I'm sure it did.

You wouldn't know.

 

[Kazikli Bey]

Kazikili, you don't seem to be understanding where the problem ultimately began.

You quoted Mises, just because one little sentence said what you wanted to hear. It is true, the government is causing instability by pick and choosing, but if you read ENOUGH Mises, you'll know that his position is ultimately to not pick or choose ANYONE. You cherry-picked a sentence to prove a point that any Austrian advocate already knows anyway.

No, my point is that how the federal government is acting in giving the bailout is prolonging the problem. By picking and choosing winners and losers, it makes the market unstable. However, doing nothing is also going to cause market instability and job loss and companies go under and there remains uncertainty a to who goes under and who does not. Giving the bailout to all will have the same effect but it may also save some jobs and stop more companies from going under then doing nothing.

 

[frazzledgear]

Bush wouldn't know socialism if he fell over it. He is so lost today he looks happy he is leaving the incredible mess he made. Think of just eight years ago!

Because the one branch of government charged with regulatory authority refused to properly do their damn job in spite of repeated pleas from many different people, including Bush, that this is what would happen -all ignored by a Democrat Congress, you think this is BUSH'S FAULT in an entirely different branch of government? LOL

I should really stop being amazed at the people who clearly have no understanding of how their own government works. The President isn't a KING, where his word becomes law and whatever he wants done is just magically done. He can't MAKE law at all -Congress does that. He has NO regulatory oversight whatsoever. Congress has sole oversight authority. He does not set the budget racking up billions more in debt every few years. Congress does that. The President has no line item veto and he does not put billions of pork into a budget every single year. Congress does that. You might want to review the role Congress played in pushing financial institutions to make these bad loans in the first place.

But Bush had nothing to do with the bad management of companies when their own board members were handsomely rewarding one CEO after another for running their company into the ground. Those were the internal policies of those companies and violated no laws created by Congress. Bush had nothing to do with Congress pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make bad loans people couldn't pay back -he tried to convince Congress that was a disaster in the making. Congress, specifically the Democrat chairs of the finance committees of both houses, continued URGING and PUSHING them to do so even after being warned by Bush, the regulatory heads of their own oversight agencies and others about what would happen. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the LUNACY that can only come from being a Democrat that helping people get into debt way over their head with loans they couldn't pay back - is somehow HELPING them. Democrats like Franks used their authority in the Senate to do some big time social engineering and now we all get to pay the real price for that. I posted links to the authoritative proof of this in more than one post already including speeches made on the floor of the Senate, proposed bills addressing the problems that got nowhere and video of committee hearings. Bush had nothing to do with the mess the big three auto makers have made of their companies with the great help of the UAW union that made their own major contribution to that.

In reality, there is plenty of blame to go around here and only the ignorant would insist that somehow the bulk of it lies at Bush's feet. He happened to be President at the time but that isn't the same thing as FAULT. Members of both parties in Congress failed to do their damn job -AGAIN. But since Democrats control Congress and it was Democrats who decided to develop a mental illness of Bush Derangement Syndrome and believe that if Bush was in favor of ANYTHING, even if something they supported just a few months earlier and will as soon as he is out of office -they must just oppose it in kneejerk fashion -if I were to give the bulk of the blame to just one body here, I give the Democrat controlled Congress that blame. In fact, I would point out that it wasn't until the majority in Congress was given to Democrats that everything started to go bad. You don't have to go back 8 years on this one -just go back to the midterm elections during his second term to get a good clue about when things started to change here.

In reality the American people have done very well economically for 75% of Bush's administration. And considering the fact he was handed a recession by Clinton and then the economy got hit with 9/11 -it could easily be argued that under someone else, we would still be working our way out of it. Losing 1/3 of the economy as we did from that attack would have easily devastated another country -or our own with different policies. For most of Bush's administration, unemployment was lower than the average of the three previous decades and with historic lows on interest and inflation rates. But as just one more mindless Bush hater -I wouldn't expect you to actually try to differentiate between the jobs of Congress and a President anyway and just pretend that BUSH somehow, someway and entirely on his own -just made a mess of all this. All by his lonesome little self, right?

That must mean you can point out EXACTLY which of his economic policies he did that with, right? I have plenty of REAL criticisms of Bush without having to make up bullshit ones like this. Oh I am SOO looking forward to having both this Democrat controlled Congress that played such a major role in our current economic difficulties along with a Democrat President who has to pay back all that Democrat support to get a job even THEY knew he was unqualified to hold in the first place -and therefore even FAR more likely to pass any damn bill Congress sends his way, aren't you? Good times for all no doubt. LOL

 

[indago]

Back in 2004, the House Ways and Means committee met to discuss the problem of companies leaving America to set up shop overseas. I thought they'd impose tariffs or something. When the meeting was over, it turned out that the GOP House Ways and Means committee ended up giving those companies TAX BREAKS to make it easier for them to leave. Now years later we are finding out about these bullshit tax breaks/loopholes.

CBS 60 Minutes did a report on the USAID actively involved in the transfer of American jobs to foreign lands in 1962.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/930373-post22.html

 

[indago]

Now show me a house cheap enough to pay the mortgage on unemployment. For that is what is happening to all too many Americans. The man on the factory floor did not make the decisions that led to the bankruptcy of so many of these companies. The CEOs with the multi-million a year salaries did. And they are going to get a golden parachute while the man on the factory floor gets a foreclosure notice.

Yes, "that is what is happening to all too many Americans", but "The man on the factory floor" had the opportunity to vote out of the legislatures all those who voted for free trade agreements, and they didn't; ergo: more free trade agreements...

 

[indago]

You can not have a bubble like the housing boom, without first having credit cheap enough to entice a large enough group of potential borrowers. Had rates not dropped to 1%, the absolute poorest of the borrowers most likely would have stayed out. When rates are "as cheap as they'll ever be" in a period where money was flowing like wine, of COURSE the borrowers are going to come out of the woodwork. Add in some good old propaganda to entice the masses to chase an asset that is being sold to them as one with apparent infinite valuation, and you have yourself a classic BUBBLE starting to inflate.

Speaking of BUBBLES...

It is an excellent book, by the way. I read it around 1980, and there is a lot of fascinating history there...



-

 

[FistyTheBadger]

There is many different opinions about those topics. If you wanna know what the people thinks about it, you should visit totepolls. com Theres lots of polls or if u rather create your owns u can do it there. A lot of topics to talk about.
totepolls. com

This sounds like ever so slightly clever advertising spam.

 

[elvis]

I am surprised Bush knows what a socialist is.

 

[Agnapostate]

He doesn't. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production.