How many blame republicans?

[MaggieMae]

jill... you have been told before to stop posting about some debunked surplus... THERE WAS NO ******* SURPLUS and you have been shown this over and over and over again

She's been "told"??? Who the **** made you God? There was indeed a B.U.D.G.E.T surplus. It is you and your ilk who constantly confuse that with deficit reduction, which did not happen.

 

[DiamondDave]

jill... you have been told before to stop posting about some debunked surplus... THERE WAS NO ******* SURPLUS and you have been shown this over and over and over again

She's been "told"??? Who the **** made you God? There was indeed a B.U.D.G.E.T surplus. It is you and your ilk who constantly confuse that with deficit reduction, which did not happen.

You're claiming a myth as truth.... Hey... I know.... you make 40K a year, and spend 80K, but figure you can borrow from mom an additional 40K to cover... and you consider that breaking even too I bet or maybe if you don't write a purchase in your checkbook, it really isn't spending, right??

There was no surplus.. we have (as shown by the motherfucking facts so many motherfucking times) not had a surplus since 1957... this is a cold hard and ABSOLUTE fact

It is your kind who refuse to look at a little thing called intergovernmental spending that was PURPOSELY left off the books while claiming this mythical surplus...

Epic fail, mags... epic fail

 

[Immanuel]

Oh sorry, I have noticed it.

I simply don't agree that it should be entirely pushed off on Republicans nor do I believe that Republicans are entirely without fault.

It is that way in most issues as far as I can tell.

Now, please don't ask me where I find fault with the Republicans in this case, because that is a big issue and quite frankly I'm not sure I can lay my fingers on a good answer to it. Although, I have little doubt that some blame can be placed with the Republicans in regards to the issue.

Immie

Are you also aware that the Republicans tried to regulate Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae in 2003,2005,2006? But they did not have enough power to stop any Democratic fillabuster.

Dear GOP: Fannie, Freddie Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis | Mother Jones
A report (pdf) by the Government Accountability Office, the non-partisan investigatory arm of Congress, supports all these arguments. According to the GAO report, Fannie and Freddie didn't go wild in the mid-2000s buying up mortgages in the secondary market because of some government mandate, like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, to increase homeownership among low-income Americans. On the contrary, "Former [Federal Housing Finance Agency] Director [James] Lockhart stated that the enterprises’ primary motivation in purchasing [Alt-A and subprime mortgage backed] assets was to restore their share of the mortgage market, which declined substantially from 2004 through 2007 as the 'nontraditional' (for example, subprime) mortgage market rapidly increased in size. FHFA further stated that the enterprises viewed such mortgage assets as offering attractive risk-adjusted returns." In other words, they wanted to be bigger players in the mortgage business again, to make money where they thought they could—not because Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) or some other politician told them what to do.

Much more at the link, all sourced material.

Don't have time to go to the link but (see the part I colored red) do the initials CYA mean anything to you?

The reasons as to why they did it are immaterial. They did it. That is all that matters.

The housing market collapsed. There are many reasons for that one of which is simply that the bubble had to burst eventually. It will, eventually, recover. One thing I wonder about is if things hadn't turned sour, would those that are throwing around blame be patting those that did this on the back and congratulating them for "a job well done"?

Prayerfully, I can hold out long enough for the market to recover.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

Here's what I love about liberals: for the past eight years, they blamed Republicans and Bush for everything, so they complained and complained until the Democrats got the majority and a Democrat got elected President. Now the main thing you hear is about how Republicans are the party of no and wont do enough to help. Uh, weren't you guys just complaining about how dumb and corrupt Republicans are? Why is it so important that they join in to help? Super-majority, liberal Democrat in the White House, and they're still complaining about the lack of bipartisanship. Every item on the Democrat's agenda could've been checked off by now if they had any follow-through; they wouldn't need a single Republican vote.

It's just proof Republicans are meant to be the scapegoats for ineffectual Democratic legislators. Shoot, you guys might as well have went on and elected McCain/Palin and let the Republicans maintain their majorities. At least then our problems would really be theirs responsibility to fix.

It wasn't lack of follow-through. I think people tend to forget that within the Democratic Party there are far more representing not just the "liberal" arm, but the middle (centrist) and conservative (blue dog) arms as well. The party will never be party-first-no-matter-what, like Republicans. Never.

I'd venture there are as many "liberals" now than conservatives who don't support Obama, although they're not exactly out to bury him.

 

[MaggieMae]

Nancy Pelosi said they are going to blame Bush until the problems go away. In other words, they are going to blame Bush until they can't any more. That is how utterly corrupt and incompetent the Democrap party has become. They are gonna get their collective asses kicked in November so Obama can see what a good ass kicking really looks like before he gets his ass kicked in Nov, 2012.

Now all of you democrat party hacks just keep on blaming Bush. Please.

Nancy Pelosi isn't the spokesperson for the entire Democratic party membership. She isn't even the spokeswoman for Barack Obama.

I'm sure conservatives will win seats in November, but I'm hoping to see another 1994 redux, with at least a few SANE ones joining Capital Hill's membership. If not, the deadlock will continue, the shit from both sides will continue to fly, and nothing will ever get accomplished. Obama won't get his ass kicked in 2012 unless you people come up with a viable candidate. Thus far that ain't happened.

 

[MaggieMae]

blaming CRA is FAULTY btw....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html

We try to put the blame exactly where it belongs, not where some left leaning rag newspaper claims it should be...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related]YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis[/ame]
Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

I've got if you need it...(undeniable video)

Oh please post more, since we've seen those two a gazillion times already.

 

[MaggieMae]

blaming CRA is FAULTY btw....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html

And really..no matter how many apologist articles you dig up...common sense alone wins the debate...mortgage lending,..with little to no down payment, sometimes lending 125% or more of a homes value, DID CAUSE THIS FIASCO... billions of dollars given to people that could not possibly pay the money back.

With the Big Banks bundling those "bad" mortgages with the "good ones" and selling them off as "securities." What part of THAT don't you get, yet?! If those unqualified people had simply defaulted on their loans, the crisis would not have reached the point where every major Wall Street lending institution was about to go bankrupt. The original mortgage lender would have taken the hit, period.

 

[beowolfe]

I'm not sure that some of the far right even understand what Fannie and Freddie are supposed to do.

 

[beowolfe]

Republicans insist that none of the current mess is their fault, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not the economy, not the Katrina clean up, not deregulation.

And yet, where are their ideas for fixing all this mess.

No, they want the president to "fail". Waterloo.

If you are not part of the solution, you ARE the problem.

They don't seem to understand that time, manpower, and materials wasted in Iraq, could have already had Afghanistan in our rear view mirror.

 

[rdean]

so... when I said that a majority of congressional democrats voted against it, and you called me out on that, you were wrong. I have done the math for years now and have no desire to go back and get links again just to prove what I KNOW to be the truth. Count up the democrats in congress when those votes were cast. As I said before, a MAJORITY of them voted AGAINST the use of force.

thanks for playing.

Can you count?
435 members in the house of Representatives
297 voted for the war approval
100 members in the U.S Senate
77voted for the war approval

That is a majority

Don't mention it I was glad I could help you understand what a majority is.

Somewhere in the Iraq Resolution is the caveat [paraphrasing] "after all other options have been exhausted." And THAT is what Democrats relied upon. Unbeknownst to everyone, however, troops were already marching toward Baghdad, aircraft carriers already positioned in the Persian Gulf, while the UN awaited Saddam Hussein's compliance with Bush's last ditch 48-hour notice for him to prove he no longer had any WMD.

See UN action here, particularly the March 7, 2003 entry:
Timeline, 1990 - 2010 - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

They couldn't attack sooner because they were waiting for hundreds of UN inspectors to leave. Inspectors Bush said Saddam wouldn't let into the country.

 

[namvet]

Nancy Pelosi said they are going to blame Bush until the problems go away. In other words, they are going to blame Bush until they can't any more. That is how utterly corrupt and incompetent the Democrap party has become. They are gonna get their collective asses kicked in November so Obama can see what a good ass kicking really looks like before he gets his ass kicked in Nov, 2012.

Now all of you democrat party hacks just keep on blaming Bush. Please.

Nancy Pelosi isn't the spokesperson for the entire Democratic party membership. She isn't even the spokeswoman for Barack Obama.

I'm sure conservatives will win seats in November, but I'm hoping to see another 1994 redux, with at least a few SANE ones joining Capital Hill's membership. If not, the deadlock will continue, the shit from both sides will continue to fly, and nothing will ever get accomplished. Obama won't get his ass kicked in 2012 unless you people come up with a viable candidate. Thus far that ain't happened.

Pelosi tells Democrats to Sacrifice Their Jobs, Vote for Obamacare and Against the Will of the People | Scared Monkeys

 

[rdean]

I'm not sure that some of the far right even understand what Fannie and Freddie are supposed to do.

You would think that with every economist and politician, both on the right and the left, saying the cause of the economic collapse was a deregulated Wall Street, they would quit with the "Freddie/Fannie".

Try to explain, "Wall Street took control of most of the mortgage market, gave the mortgages away, bundled them, sold them as securities, had the securities insured, and when the "securities" tanked, collected the insurance money", and they still don't get it.

Do they even wonder why insurance giants failed?

But oh no, it's all Barney Frank, Freddie and Fannie. How do you get through? I think it's just wasted effort.

Next, they will be telling us Iraq is a "success".

I wonder what they'll say about Iraq after we are kicked out and forced to leave a rebuilt oil industry? Won't that be a shocker?

 

[rdean]

Nancy Pelosi said they are going to blame Bush until the problems go away. In other words, they are going to blame Bush until they can't any more. That is how utterly corrupt and incompetent the Democrap party has become. They are gonna get their collective asses kicked in November so Obama can see what a good ass kicking really looks like before he gets his ass kicked in Nov, 2012.

Now all of you democrat party hacks just keep on blaming Bush. Please.

Nancy Pelosi isn't the spokesperson for the entire Democratic party membership. She isn't even the spokeswoman for Barack Obama.

I'm sure conservatives will win seats in November, but I'm hoping to see another 1994 redux, with at least a few SANE ones joining Capital Hill's membership. If not, the deadlock will continue, the shit from both sides will continue to fly, and nothing will ever get accomplished. Obama won't get his ass kicked in 2012 unless you people come up with a viable candidate. Thus far that ain't happened.

Pelosi tells Democrats to Sacrifice Their Jobs, Vote for Obamacare and Against the Will of the People | Scared Monkeys

Against the will of "conservatives".

 

[MaggieMae]

Democrats voted for the war because the Bush administration said they had "proof" of:

And the most fantastic part of it all, Bush fooled those well educated and Washington experienced Democrats even before he got there...he must have been a fuckin' genius...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
~~ Colin Powell, at a 2/24/01 meeting with Egypt's Foreign Minister

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
~~Condoleezza Rice, 07/29/01, on CNN

So...two key players in the invasion of Iraq as a result of the attacks of 911, and nobody paid any attention to what they were saying months before.

 

[MaggieMae]

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


Man.....VICE PRESIDENT for the 8 years....you would think HE SHOULD KNOW THE FACTS

There was never any doubt that Iraq H.A.D weapons of mass destruction, but after years of on-site inspections, the chemical and biological weapons had either been removed or had lost their shelf life. Even the soldiers who discovered some of it attested to that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm not sure that some of the far right even understand what Fannie and Freddie are supposed to do.

You would think that with every economist and politician, both on the right and the left, saying the cause of the economic collapse was a deregulated Wall Street, they would quit with the "Freddie/Fannie".

Try to explain, "Wall Street took control of most of the mortgage market, gave the mortgages away, bundled them, sold them as securities, had the securities insured, and when the "securities" tanked, collected the insurance money", and they still don't get it.

Do they even wonder why insurance giants failed?

But oh no, it's all Barney Frank, Freddie and Fannie. How do you get through? I think it's just wasted effort.

Next, they will be telling us Iraq is a "success".

I wonder what they'll say about Iraq after we are kicked out and forced to leave a rebuilt oil industry? Won't that be a shocker?

Provide a link for your claim that "every economist and politician, both on the right and the left, saying the cause of the economic collapse was a deregulated Wall Street".

Mr. Roberts, who follows the free-market Hayek school of economics, argues in a new paper that almost any attempt to reform the nation’s financial regulatory structure will fail to prevent another crisis, as the government will continue to limit the downside risk to both Main Street and Wall Street, encouraging reckless behavior.

THE FANNIE-FREDDIE BAILOUT - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com


Is Wall Street really to blame for the economic collapse? - The Highland County Press - Hillsboro, Ohio

 

[MaggieMae]

Clinton didn't invade Iraq so just stop.

Have you ever read what Bill Clinton said about Iraq?

What did Bill Clinton say about Iraq.....?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


Want more ?

Do you? Start a new thread in the appropriate topic section, and I promise to provide you with all the links that should give you the worst headache of your life. I have hundreds stored on disks.

 

[MaggieMae]

The fact seems to be that G. Bush got fooled by the previous administration into believing Saddam was a hell of bigger threat than he really was....so...
Clinton was the genius....

Clinton was never swayed by the PNAC's attempt to scare him into believing Iraq should be invaded.

Context of 'September 11, 1998: PNAC Calls on Clinton To Take ‘Decisive Action’ Against Milosevic'

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

[beowolfe]

I'm not sure that some of the far right even understand what Fannie and Freddie are supposed to do.

You would think that with every economist and politician, both on the right and the left, saying the cause of the economic collapse was a deregulated Wall Street, they would quit with the "Freddie/Fannie".

Try to explain, "Wall Street took control of most of the mortgage market, gave the mortgages away, bundled them, sold them as securities, had the securities insured, and when the "securities" tanked, collected the insurance money", and they still don't get it.

Do they even wonder why insurance giants failed?

But oh no, it's all Barney Frank, Freddie and Fannie. How do you get through? I think it's just wasted effort.

Next, they will be telling us Iraq is a "success".

I wonder what they'll say about Iraq after we are kicked out and forced to leave a rebuilt oil industry? Won't that be a shocker?

They do seem to be sort of 'thick' when it comes to understanding complicated subjects.

For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a veritable monopoly over the secondary mortgage market. In 1968, due to fiscal pressures created by the Vietnam War, Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the national budget.

Here is that privatization bug again.

 

[MaggieMae]

The biggest problem with Republicans is their refusal to wait.

The Iraq war is still going on.

The Afgan war is still going on.

The economy still sucks.

They should wait until these things BECOME history before they try to REWRITE HISTORY.

Do they think we are so stupid we can't remember what happened yesterday and today?

What a lot of nerve.

Yes I think anyone who lays all the blame solely at the republicans is that stupid.

bigrebnc, meet rdean.

Yes, he really is that stupid.

You wish...