Re-Evaluating Newt..

[Foxfyre]

When will the Rightwing voter stop trusting career politicians?

When will the Rightwing voter stop trusting Washington insiders?

God help us.

Seems to me that rightwingers trust career politicians a whole lot less than the leftwingers trust career poliicians. Right wingers want a lot of government to be defanged, downsized, and reined in. Leftwingers seem to seek to transfer more and more power and responsibility to the government at the expense of the people.

But I suspect we'll all be cleaning up our acts and behaving better when people like you stop using leftwing "I hate everybody but liberals" blogs, message boards, and websites for your information and start looking to more reliable sources for the truth.

 

[francoHFW]

Newt, the consumate insider, millionnaire made by gov't trading, bought off flip flopper and liar- destroyed our political discourse with BS talking points and propaganda- the perfect dupe candidate...PLEASE!

 

[Londoner]

Democrats admit that they are the party of government. They admit that they want to control the massive centralized corporate power which controls this country.

Republicans, on the other hand, say the opposite. They claim to be the party of small government. What surprises me is that they have a base of voters who don't see that that GOP politicians are massive spenders and growers of government. Reagan, the father of modern conservatism, was one of the most profligate deficit spenders in American history. He had big sweeping federal programs like the War on drugs which allowed Washington to intervene in the legislative and judicial autonomy of each state (-much like Bush's War on terrorism, which increased Washington's budget past anything LBJ ever dreamed). Reagan's spending on farcical weapons systems like Star Wars bankrupted future generations. He was the first Republican president who abandoned balanced budgets and pay-as-you-go.

We know the Democrats spend big. We know the Democrats give power to government.

Here is my point: nobody seems to know that the Republican Party tends to grow and spend more than the Democrats. Reagan spent twice as much as Carter, but Rightwing information sources don't admit this. Worse: the rightwing voter is conditioned not to trust any source outside the bubble, so they have no idea of Reagan's record. They don't know that he passed the largest Amnesty Bill in this country's history (mostly as a gift to big business, to break th union control of labor). The Rightwing voter doesn't receive any information on the Patriot Act of Homeland Security. The Rightwing voter doesn't understand how Reagan used the Cold War as a context for American Globalism, which expanded American markets into the 3rd world. Do you know how much this globalism - i.e., controlling and policing the global market system - has grown Washington's power? Do you know how much this has cost the taxpayer? The old Republican party would never have done any of this, but the new Right gets away with it because they have information systems which convince people that they are the party of small government. They have information systems which never speak of Reagan's spending in relation to Carter, or the fact that Bush (w/Medicare "D") expanded the entitlement system more than nay politician since LBJ.

The Republican Party is the party of Big Government, but Republican Voters don't understand this. Every time a Republican wants to expand the power of Washington - like when Bush wanted to make Washington big and powerful enough to transform the greater middle east - the Tea Party simply goes along.

When will the Rightwing voter realize that his party grows government more than the Left?

We need the Right to balance the Left's desire to grow government, but instead they grow it more. And now they are thinking of electing a career Washington insider. God help us. When will these people learn? Turn off FOX News. Turn off Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Colter, Savage, Roberts. Turn off the TV and Radio and read a book. Start with a rigorous analysis of Reagan's spending and his growth of the federal government. Learn history. Nobody spends more or grows government more than the Rightwing. Nixon was the most socialist president in history. He was a vulgar Keynesian who pumped money into the hands of Americans for the purpose of growing his party's power. Reagan and Bush were not far behind. These men grew government more than your news sources are admitting. Please turn off the TV and get yourself to a university library. Do some research. Stop getting your information from paid political sources.

 

[Synthaholic]

I didn't say it 'caused it" I said it contributed. By lowering the bar as to who could get a mortgage, it put a lot of bad paper out there. But as long as everyone was buying, it wasn't a problem, prices kept going up. You could forclose on Tyrone Foodstamp and resell his house to Mary Welfare for a bit more. The CRA elimated the notion of downpayments.

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

FTR John Carney is a 20/30-something financial journalist whose prior stint was at the gossipy Wall Street web site, Dealbreaker.

More serious and empirical analysis has concluded that the CRA did not cause the financial crisis.

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

You're referencing your own thread as a source? Seriously?

Actually, Carney makes a pretty compelling case. He also admits he changed his mind on the subject when presented with more evidence.

CRA had the effect of skewing the market by creating artificial demand. That's why prices on houses kept going up. If it had been limited to just people who could afford and pay mortgages, you wouldn't have had the kind of balooning we saw. But when you have the government essentially saying to banks, "You have to write bad loans, or we'll take you to court, but we are having Freddie and Fannie buy up 2 trillion in bad loans", you've pretty much invited disaster.

Not to say that there weren't a lot of other factors involved, too. Greedy, dishonest bankers being one of them. Lax government regulation under both Democrats and Republicans. (And still going on today. How many Banksters has Obama prosecuted?)

It's like any government program- subsidize bad behavior and then wonder why you get more of it.

Why not, if that thread already contains the facts he is alluding to in this thread?

 

[Synthaholic]

NO, it really isn't. The CRA forced the banks to make loans to people who never should have gotten loans, in neighborhoods where the property was worthless.

Show me one bank that was forced to make any loans.

Try you tube, the tags are cuomo and banks.

Youve been owned BTW

'Encouraged' is not the same as 'forced'.

 

[JoeB131]

lol More ignorance.

I didn't steal the American dream. I warned as many people as I could about the insanity of it all, and did so for years. (BTW & FTR stay away from Canadian real estate.)

You sound like a whiny liberal because you think success is something that should be scorned. "Oh," you'll say, "I mean success not profiting off other people's misery." Bullshit. If there millions more like me, the crisis would never have happened because the selling pressure would have put a lid on the housing bubble. That's how markets work, bub. Not my fault that that markets go haywire because too many bozos think that its only good if things go up and don't have the intelligence to know that things get out of hand. Sometimes there are losers in markets. Sorry, that's life. But liberals don't like that. They whine and complain about the winners, and think the winners should be punished for their success. Liberals are even whinier when only a few do good and most do not. Instead of congratulating those of us who got it right, whiny liberals want to castigate them for "profiting" off the "misery" of others. Instead, to liberals, it's best that we all lose together. Don't do your best. You'll make others feel bad.

So, yeah, you sound like a whiny liberal.

Guy, the whole mentality of "I've got Mine, **** you" is what got us Obama to start with. I am amazed so many on the right don't realize that.

the problem with the market is that it has become the tail wagging the dog.

I have no problem with a Henry Ford or Bill Gates getting rich creating something that we all find useful.

I have a REAL problem with guys who just manipulate the system, which is what the bankers and the Wall Street folks did, with a helping hand from the government.

Seriously, what great thing did Bernie Madoff create? Or Ken Lay? Or Jon Corzine? they just rode along on the hard work of the rest of us.

"It's not my fault the markets went haywire" sounds an awful lot like "I was just following orders".

So how long did you spend at Occupy Wall Street?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, spanky. If you can't see (or refuse to see) how broken the current system is, then it is willful blindness.

 

[Toro]

Guy, the whole mentality of "I've got Mine, **** you" is what got us Obama to start with. I am amazed so many on the right don't realize that.

the problem with the market is that it has become the tail wagging the dog.

I have no problem with a Henry Ford or Bill Gates getting rich creating something that we all find useful.

I have a REAL problem with guys who just manipulate the system, which is what the bankers and the Wall Street folks did, with a helping hand from the government.

Seriously, what great thing did Bernie Madoff create? Or Ken Lay? Or Jon Corzine? they just rode along on the hard work of the rest of us.

"It's not my fault the markets went haywire" sounds an awful lot like "I was just following orders".

So how long did you spend at Occupy Wall Street?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, spanky. If you can't see (or refuse to see) how broken the current system is, then it is willful blindness.

I didn't say the system wasn't broken. I said you sound like a whiny liberal.

 

[JoeB131]

So how long did you spend at Occupy Wall Street?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, spanky. If you can't see (or refuse to see) how broken the current system is, then it is willful blindness.

I didn't say the system wasn't broken. I said you sound like a whiny liberal.

Which is pretty much the same as saying, "Hey, everything fine, I'm making money playing the system."

I suspect you are like the guy who kept shooting buffalo until there weren't any left.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey, I can totally understand your confusion.

It's called "having principles". You should really try it some time.

Principles are anti-thetical to your entire character, Joe-B.

Uh, no, guy, I have opinions and I defend them to the death, whether no one agrees with me or everyone does. You might not like me, but you know where i stand. You on the other hand, support a weird Mormon Robot because he can win without standing for anything... as long as no one figures out he's a Mormon.

Hmmm . . . being phantatical is not necessarily being principled at all. You prove that on the Board on a daily basis. I don't care about you one way or another: I don't know you. That you are emotionally pathological about Mormonism demonstrates itself every time you talk about Mormonism or about Mittbot. It is what is. Whatever those LDS boys did to you at camp must have been fierce.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, spanky. If you can't see (or refuse to see) how broken the current system is, then it is willful blindness.

I didn't say the system wasn't broken. I said you sound like a whiny liberal.

Which is pretty much the same as saying, "Hey, everything fine, I'm making money playing the system."

I suspect you are like the guy who kept shooting buffalo until there weren't any left.

Now that does sound like a whiny liberal. Don't let Liberty see this.

 

[Toro]

I didn't say the system wasn't broken. I said you sound like a whiny liberal.

Which is pretty much the same as saying, "Hey, everything fine, I'm making money playing the system."

I suspect you are like the guy who kept shooting buffalo until there weren't any left.

Now that does sound like a whiny liberal. Don't let Liberty see this.

Yup. It's so whiny, Rachelle Maddow would be embarrassed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Show me one bank that was forced to make any loans.

Try you tube, the tags are cuomo and banks.

Youve been owned BTW

'Encouraged' is not the same as 'forced'.

When it is suggested that the government will withhold business or funding from the lending institution if they don't play ball, that is a bit more than 'encouraging'. The bankers had to accept the questionable loans or retaliation from the government was threatened. It's just like the federal government dictates to the schools that they don't HAVE to accept this or that government program or policy, but if they fail to do so, their government funding could be withheld. It happens a LOT. Which is one reason I want the federal government to get out of the business of dispensing charity, benevolence, or social funding of ANY type to ANYBODY.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[JoeB131]

Hmmm . . . being phantatical is not necessarily being principled at all. You prove that on the Board on a daily basis. I don't care about you one way or another: I don't know you. That you are emotionally pathological about Mormonism demonstrates itself every time you talk about Mormonism or about Mittbot. It is what is. Whatever those LDS boys did to you at camp must have been fierce.

Besides being somewhat horrified that you think "fanatical" is spelled with a "ph", I'm not emotional about LDS at all.

I just realize it's a lie, and I don't like liars.

Like you.

 

[JoeB131]

I didn't say the system wasn't broken. I said you sound like a whiny liberal.

Which is pretty much the same as saying, "Hey, everything fine, I'm making money playing the system."

I suspect you are like the guy who kept shooting buffalo until there weren't any left.

Now that does sound like a whiny liberal. Don't let Liberty see this.

Guy, if you and Toro really think that what happened in 2008 was good and decent and right, then you have serious moral problems.

It's not a left/right thing. Both parties contributed in their own way. Both were deep in bed with the bankers. (In Barney Frank's case, literally.)
It was crony capitalism at its worst, and we are all paying for it now.

and I don't see a point of replacing one tool of the Bankers (obama) with a bigger tool (romney.)

 

[JoeB131]

Try you tube, the tags are cuomo and banks.

Youve been owned BTW

'Encouraged' is not the same as 'forced'.

When it is suggested that the government will withhold business or funding from the lending institution if they don't play ball, that is a bit more than 'encouraging'. The bankers had to accept the questionable loans or retaliation from the government was threatened. It's just like the federal government dictates to the schools that they don't HAVE to accept this or that government program or policy, but if they fail to do so, their government funding could be withheld. It happens a LOT. Which is one reason I want the federal government to get out of the business of dispensing charity, benevolence, or social funding of ANY type to ANYBODY.

And it's a bit more than that. The Federal Reserve sets interest rates. So when the government says "You will loan to Johnny Foodstamp", the banks realize that is an order, not a request.

And when the government says, "Hey, no problem, we will give 2 trillion to Fannie and Freddie to buy up your bad loans when you bundle them", and the folks on Wall Street figure they can't lose.

Heck, they even got to keep their bonuses after the government bailed them out.

 

[Toro]

Which is pretty much the same as saying, "Hey, everything fine, I'm making money playing the system."

I suspect you are like the guy who kept shooting buffalo until there weren't any left.

Now that does sound like a whiny liberal. Don't let Liberty see this.

Guy, if you and Toro really think that what happened in 2008 was good and decent and right, then you have serious moral problems.

It's not a left/right thing. Both parties contributed in their own way. Both were deep in bed with the bankers. (In Barney Frank's case, literally.)
It was crony capitalism at its worst, and we are all paying for it now.

and I don't see a point of replacing one tool of the Bankers (obama) with a bigger tool (romney.)

Nice straw man. I don't think the Financial Crisis was "good and decent and right." But I understand it many, many multiple times better than you. And that's why I can say you sound like a whiny liberal.

 

[JoeB131]

Now that does sound like a whiny liberal. Don't let Liberty see this.

Guy, if you and Toro really think that what happened in 2008 was good and decent and right, then you have serious moral problems.

It's not a left/right thing. Both parties contributed in their own way. Both were deep in bed with the bankers. (In Barney Frank's case, literally.)
It was crony capitalism at its worst, and we are all paying for it now.

and I don't see a point of replacing one tool of the Bankers (obama) with a bigger tool (romney.)

Nice straw man. I don't think the Financial Crisis was "good and decent and right." But I understand it many, many multiple times better than you. And that's why I can say you sound like a whiny liberal.

Or a TEA Partier.... The thing is, both TEA and OWS are angry about the same thing, the collusion between GOvernment and assholes on Wall Street to rip off the rest of us. It's just that both have been co-opted by the political parties and the anger misdirected... which is kind of the idea, I guess.

You must think it was fine, you made "A fortune betting against Real Estate". Don't say you weren't for the hypocrisy when you were sucking off the teet, man. Man up and admit you are part of the problem.

 

[SAT2]

When it is suggested that the government will withhold business or funding from the lending institution if they don't play ball, that is a bit more than 'encouraging'. The bankers had to accept the questionable loans or retaliation from the government was threatened. It's just like the federal government dictates to the schools that they don't HAVE to accept this or that government program or policy, but if they fail to do so, their government funding could be withheld. It happens a LOT. Which is one reason I want the federal government to get out of the business of dispensing charity, benevolence, or social funding of ANY type to ANYBODY.

Again, that is not what caused the financial crisis.

The banksters sought out questionable loans and bet against them. They wanted questionable loans. Just like a person who buys fire insurance and then sets the house on fire wants the house to burn. The insurance payoff.

This worked, until they started loaning to people who really had no business borrowing on a home loan at all, who started defaulting at an extremely high rate.

Please understand the real causes.

 

[Too Tall]

You like intelligence and a President who speaks in full sentences? We agree.

But.....then you say you like the plan to abolish czars. Don't you know that this is just a piece of grandstanding nonsense?

So you support bypassing the constitution and the consent of the senate.

Damn you are gullible....................

You're confused about the "czars" issue.

Most of these posts do have to have Senate confirmation.

I can't post links yet, but the evidence is in a post from the Washington Independent dated
9/8/09 titled "When is a Czar not a Czar".

So the answer is yes, to say you're going to abolish czars is political grandstanding.

As of the spring of 2010, Obama had 10 confirmed Czar's and 22 non-confirmed Czars.

Better Know a Czar | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

Perhaps Newt meant he would obey the Constitution and get rid of those that have not been confirmed by the Senate.