Unemployment rate under republicans, and then Pelosi took over in 2007.
- Thread starter Theowl32
- Start date
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Who is this far left you keep jabbering about?
Kosh
Quick Look Over There!
The people in control of the DNC, the ones you loyally follow without question or hesitation.
velvtacheeze
Gold Member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 1,959
- 299
- 130
A wingnut Myth & Legend: The Super-Awesome Bush Presidency was going well till the Democrats took Congress in 2007.
This claim is laughable, of course.
If the GOP was doing such a great job, then why did Pelosi take over as Speaker?
If the liberal media are so influential, then how did the GOP ever take unified power? Wouldn't the liberal media have used it's magical powers to sway elections before the 2006 election?
Your post is embarrassing.
This claim is laughable, of course.
If the GOP was doing such a great job, then why did Pelosi take over as Speaker?
If the liberal media are so influential, then how did the GOP ever take unified power? Wouldn't the liberal media have used it's magical powers to sway elections before the 2006 election?
Your post is embarrassing.
Theowl32
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2013
- 23,643
- 18,809
- 2,415
- Thread starter
- #45
I am not your friend guy......
In 1997 former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, lead a campaign to prevent the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from regulating derivative markets. Ironically, in 2007 Rubin was Chairman of the Board of Citigroup which lost $50 billion because of bad subprime derivative trades. Listening to the Democrat lies emanate from the Obama 2012 re-election campaign which is denigrating capitalism, while falsely blaming deregulation has been nauseating to listen to. The lies about BushÂ’s deregulatory record is startling, when there is a willful continuous failure to point out that financial deregulation was completed under the democrat led Clinton Administration with the repeal of the 1930s era Glass-Steagall Act.
The Glass-Steagall Act was passed in the 1933 Banking Act, which erected a firewall between commercial banking activities and investment banking business activities. Key to understanding the importance of this regulatory act, is that it was implemented under Franklin Delano Roosevelt to prevent a future banking crisis and the ensuing depression caused by the collapse experienced in the 1930s Great Depression.
The impetus for eliminating Glass-Steagall began in 1998 predicated on the business relationship between Citi Bank and Salomon Smith Barney. This relationship was approved by the Federal Reserve Board, in conjunction with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). With the support and approval of the SEC, President Bill Clinton declared the Glass-Steagall Act to be “no longer relevant”.
None of which, my friend, excuses that the Congress, the Republican congress, had a yea or nay on it.
I do agree eliminating Glass-Steagall was a terrible experiment, one continued on by both parties.
The point is Starkey is the deregulations that caused massive problems was very much a bipartisan problem, and NOT all on Bush.
My point in regards to the unemployment numbers is one of the major factors that contributed to the unemployment rate sky rocketing upon the democratic take over of the government (beginning with the mid term elections and aided by the PRAETORIAN media in 2006) which became a SUPER MAJORITY in 2009, was the fact that companies knew there was going to be a big tax onslaught. One of the best way for companies to protect cash assets is to lay off workers. Cut costs everywhere, not to mention the massive regulations that were on the way. Hence, you see the graph and what the mindset was and it turned out that they were very much justified in their thinking.
Anyone blaming ONLY Bush policies for the collapse of 2008 are blind partisan hacks, period. Especially when the housing bubble was also a bipartisan problem along with the deregulated derivatives.
Barney Frank 'no crisis.' The New York Times reported on Sept. 11, 2003:
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Theowl32
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2013
- 23,643
- 18,809
- 2,415
- Thread starter
- #46
Another little contributor to the housing collapse.
State Sen. Barack Obama and crackpot priest Michael Pfleger led a protest in Chicago in January 2000. (NBC 5 Week of January 3, 2000)
In 1994, Barack Obama was one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, alleging that Citibank had engaged in practices that discriminated against minorities. The lawsuit forced the bank to ease its lending practices.
The Daily Caller reported:
President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices…
…Obama has pursued the same top-down mortgage lending policies in the White House.
Obama’s lawsuit was one element of a national “anti-redlining” campaign led by Chicago’s progressive groups, who argued that banks unfairly refused to lend money to people living within so-called “redlines” around African-American communities. The campaign was powered by progressives’ moral claim that their expertise could boost home ownership among the United States’ most disadvantaged minority, African-Americans.
Fact Check: Obama Had More to Do With 2008 Economic Meltdown Than Bush Ever Did
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, September 5, 2012, 2:02 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...th-2008-economic-meltdown-than-bush-ever-did/
State Sen. Barack Obama and crackpot priest Michael Pfleger led a protest in Chicago in January 2000. (NBC 5 Week of January 3, 2000)
In 1994, Barack Obama was one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, alleging that Citibank had engaged in practices that discriminated against minorities. The lawsuit forced the bank to ease its lending practices.
The Daily Caller reported:
President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices…
…Obama has pursued the same top-down mortgage lending policies in the White House.
Obama’s lawsuit was one element of a national “anti-redlining” campaign led by Chicago’s progressive groups, who argued that banks unfairly refused to lend money to people living within so-called “redlines” around African-American communities. The campaign was powered by progressives’ moral claim that their expertise could boost home ownership among the United States’ most disadvantaged minority, African-Americans.
Fact Check: Obama Had More to Do With 2008 Economic Meltdown Than Bush Ever Did
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, September 5, 2012, 2:02 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...th-2008-economic-meltdown-than-bush-ever-did/
Theowl32
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2013
- 23,643
- 18,809
- 2,415
- Thread starter
- #47
Did you even attempt to read ANYTHING I typed in regards to why they won in the 2006 midterms?
Lets see if you can follow along with that brainwashed, left wing hack mind of yours.
In 2006 the MSM (that is MAIN STREAM MEDIA) harped on the high gas prices at the pump. They sure as shit did not make a big deal about the unemployment rate that was 4.6 percent.
That SAME MSM cheered loud cheers in 2012 about the FAKE FRAUDULENT numbers about the unemployment rate that supposedly DROPPED TO 7.8 percent.
DO YOU GET THAT OR NOT?
Also, that same MSM that harped about the high gas prices in 2006 did not say shit about the high gas prices in 2012. Considering the price at the pump was the highest it had ever been, you would think (just logically) that the media would report that. I mean they did not say shit about the 4.6 percent in 2006, cheered about the fake numbers in 2012 that was 7.8 percent.
Wow, are you liberals ignorant as hell.
Last edited:
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #48
"The point is Starkey is the deregulations that caused massive problems was very much a bipartisan problem, and NOT all on Bush."
Of course not, just most of the corporatism that led to the Great Recession is obviously the GOP Congress's responsibility from 1994 to 2006 as well as Clinton and Bush who could have refused and vetoed.
So, mostly, the GOP takes the blame, recognizing that compliant presidents and some prominent Dems are responsible as well.
Of course not, just most of the corporatism that led to the Great Recession is obviously the GOP Congress's responsibility from 1994 to 2006 as well as Clinton and Bush who could have refused and vetoed.
So, mostly, the GOP takes the blame, recognizing that compliant presidents and some prominent Dems are responsible as well.
Theowl32
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2013
- 23,643
- 18,809
- 2,415
- Thread starter
- #49
No Starkey, you are wrong about that. The notion of "corporatism" is such bullshit. Is it is a problem? Yes, but to suggest that it is mainly republicans that are guilty of this is you buying into the propaganda.
In contrast to the vague declaration that “someone should have done something!” offered by the critics of the Invisible Hand, proponents of the free market can point to specific government interventions that fostered the excesses of the housing boom. Most obvious is Greenspan’s handling of the Fed funds target rate and the growth of the monetary base following the dot-com crash. Greenspan’s easy-money policy coincided with the upswing in the housing boom. When the Fed began raising rates, housing prices tapered off and then began plunging. The connection between Fed policy and the housing bubble is so obvious that even mainstream analysts endorse the theory.
Other possible culprits include the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a Carter-era measure that was strengthened in 1995 and used to pressure banks and thrifts that enjoyed deposit insurance into lending in all neighborhoods where they accepted deposits, including low-income, weak-credit areas. Many analysts have also placed at least some blame on the Federal Housing Administration as well as the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Through explicit or implicit federal backing, these agencies were able to bolster the secondary market for mortgages and allow applicants who otherwise would not have qualified to obtain mortgages.
Theowl32
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2013
- 23,643
- 18,809
- 2,415
- Thread starter
- #50
Read this Starkey from last year.
EDITORIAL: Obama's crony capitalism - Washington Times
President Obama said in his State of the Union address that one of the American values that must be reclaimed is “an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” For three years, he and his political allies have been undermining this vision. They see government as a means of rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies. For the Obama circle, rules apply only to other people.
Obamacare is a growing burden to American businesses, but not if you have friends in high places. Mr. ObamaÂ’s signature and highly unpopular legislative achievement was sold as a measure that would require shared sacrifice but bring lasting benefits to all Americans. Yet as soon as the law was implemented, hundreds of waivers were issued that allowed the recipients to duck under Obamacare requirements. The vast majority of recipients were labor-union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments with strong Democratic connections. One in 5 waivers issued in April 2011 went to upscale nightclubs, bars and hotels in Rep. Nancy PelosiÂ’s San Francisco district. Mr. Obama is not even covered by his own law.
In his speech, Mr. Obama made the case for bigger government energy programs, claiming “government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.” It certainly helps if you have given money to the Obama campaign. A CBS News investigation found that 80 percent of the $20.5 billion in Energy Department loans for
“green” energy went to Mr. Obama’s top donors. The half-billion-dollar government loan guarantee to the bankrupt solar-panel company Solyndra is a model of Obama-style crony capitalism.
At the center of this sweetheart deal was oil billionaire and major Obama backer George Kaiser, whose family-foundation investment fund was a major stakeholder in Solyndra. The loan was rushed through despite warning flags that it was a risky investment. When failing Solyndra sought to restructure the loan, investors such as Mr. Kaiser were put ahead of taxpayers for recouping their investments. But unlike this insider, most taxpayers don’t enjoy “intoxicating” two-hour dinners in Las Vegas with Mr. Obama to discuss energy policy.
During the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama promised to “end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all.” Don’t tell that to his friends. In May 2011, the pharmaceutical firm Siga Technologies, headed by Obama intimate Ronald Perelman, received a $443 million sole-source, no-bid, no-questions-asked government contract for an unnecessary anti-smallpox pill. Siga previously had been awarded a $3 billion contract after placing former Service Employees International Union boss and frequent White House visitor Andy Stern on its board.
Never in modern history has the U.S. government been used so extensively as a vehicle for benefiting political cronies at the expense of the rest of us. In his speech, Mr. Obama said America shouldn’t “settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by.” Given this administration’s rampant favoritism, special treatment and backroom deals, restoring fairness is a major argument against Mr. Obama’s re-election.
EDITORIAL: Obama's crony capitalism - Washington Times
President Obama said in his State of the Union address that one of the American values that must be reclaimed is “an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” For three years, he and his political allies have been undermining this vision. They see government as a means of rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies. For the Obama circle, rules apply only to other people.
Obamacare is a growing burden to American businesses, but not if you have friends in high places. Mr. ObamaÂ’s signature and highly unpopular legislative achievement was sold as a measure that would require shared sacrifice but bring lasting benefits to all Americans. Yet as soon as the law was implemented, hundreds of waivers were issued that allowed the recipients to duck under Obamacare requirements. The vast majority of recipients were labor-union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments with strong Democratic connections. One in 5 waivers issued in April 2011 went to upscale nightclubs, bars and hotels in Rep. Nancy PelosiÂ’s San Francisco district. Mr. Obama is not even covered by his own law.
In his speech, Mr. Obama made the case for bigger government energy programs, claiming “government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.” It certainly helps if you have given money to the Obama campaign. A CBS News investigation found that 80 percent of the $20.5 billion in Energy Department loans for
“green” energy went to Mr. Obama’s top donors. The half-billion-dollar government loan guarantee to the bankrupt solar-panel company Solyndra is a model of Obama-style crony capitalism.
At the center of this sweetheart deal was oil billionaire and major Obama backer George Kaiser, whose family-foundation investment fund was a major stakeholder in Solyndra. The loan was rushed through despite warning flags that it was a risky investment. When failing Solyndra sought to restructure the loan, investors such as Mr. Kaiser were put ahead of taxpayers for recouping their investments. But unlike this insider, most taxpayers don’t enjoy “intoxicating” two-hour dinners in Las Vegas with Mr. Obama to discuss energy policy.
During the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama promised to “end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all.” Don’t tell that to his friends. In May 2011, the pharmaceutical firm Siga Technologies, headed by Obama intimate Ronald Perelman, received a $443 million sole-source, no-bid, no-questions-asked government contract for an unnecessary anti-smallpox pill. Siga previously had been awarded a $3 billion contract after placing former Service Employees International Union boss and frequent White House visitor Andy Stern on its board.
Never in modern history has the U.S. government been used so extensively as a vehicle for benefiting political cronies at the expense of the rest of us. In his speech, Mr. Obama said America shouldn’t “settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by.” Given this administration’s rampant favoritism, special treatment and backroom deals, restoring fairness is a major argument against Mr. Obama’s re-election.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
I am not your friend guy......
In 1997 former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, lead a campaign to prevent the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from regulating derivative markets. Ironically, in 2007 Rubin was Chairman of the Board of Citigroup which lost $50 billion because of bad subprime derivative trades. Listening to the Democrat lies emanate from the Obama 2012 re-election campaign which is denigrating capitalism, while falsely blaming deregulation has been nauseating to listen to. The lies about BushÂ’s deregulatory record is startling, when there is a willful continuous failure to point out that financial deregulation was completed under the democrat led Clinton Administration with the repeal of the 1930s era Glass-Steagall Act.
The Glass-Steagall Act was passed in the 1933 Banking Act, which erected a firewall between commercial banking activities and investment banking business activities. Key to understanding the importance of this regulatory act, is that it was implemented under Franklin Delano Roosevelt to prevent a future banking crisis and the ensuing depression caused by the collapse experienced in the 1930s Great Depression.
The impetus for eliminating Glass-Steagall began in 1998 predicated on the business relationship between Citi Bank and Salomon Smith Barney. This relationship was approved by the Federal Reserve Board, in conjunction with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). With the support and approval of the SEC, President Bill Clinton declared the Glass-Steagall Act to be “no longer relevant”.
None of which, my friend, excuses that the Congress, the Republican congress, had a yea or nay on it.
I do agree eliminating Glass-Steagall was a terrible experiment, one continued on by both parties.
The point is Starkey is the deregulations that caused massive problems was very much a bipartisan problem, and NOT all on Bush.
My point in regards to the unemployment numbers is one of the major factors that contributed to the unemployment rate sky rocketing upon the democratic take over of the government (beginning with the mid term elections and aided by the PRAETORIAN media in 2006) which became a SUPER MAJORITY in 2009, was the fact that companies knew there was going to be a big tax onslaught. One of the best way for companies to protect cash assets is to lay off workers. Cut costs everywhere, not to mention the massive regulations that were on the way. Hence, you see the graph and what the mindset was and it turned out that they were very much justified in their thinking.
Anyone blaming ONLY Bush policies for the collapse of 2008 are blind partisan hacks, period. Especially when the housing bubble was also a bipartisan problem along with the deregulated derivatives.
Barney Frank 'no crisis.' The New York Times reported on Sept. 11, 2003:
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Cool. Now which party was it that made repeated attempts to repeal Glass Steagall since its inception? Anyone know that answer?
That's right. It was the Whigg party. Cause everybody knows that a ******* Repub asshole would never seek to undo legislation that was protecting the little guy. And not allowing the ultra wealthy to loot and steal.
Yep it was the Whigg party and Clintons blow job that was our undoing.
Damn Whiggs.
This new and exciting re write of history is really entertaining. Did you write the promo material for the Creation Museum? You do know that man walked with dinosaurs. Right? You know this is true. And it has been written. So that must make it fact.
Man walked with dinosaurs (rode em like a horse to) and Barney Frank and Jimmy Carter are responsible for every single thing that has gone wrong in this country and around the world.
Amazing isn't it? That people like you believe whatever bullshit is stuffed down your mouth.
Man walked with dinosaurs (rode em like a horse to) and Barney Frank and Jimmy Carter are responsible for every single thing that has gone wrong in this country and around the world.
Amazing isn't it? That people like you believe whatever bullshit is stuffed down your mouth.
Theowl32
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2013
- 23,643
- 18,809
- 2,415
- Thread starter
- #56
Which part exactly is rewritten?
This ought to be good.
You really want to get into a debate "zeke?"
This may get ugly for you. Now go ahead and name the precise attempt of rewriting of history. Oh, just because BSNBC or CNN never reported these FACTS, does not mean they are not FACTS.
Hilarious. If I did not know any better I would say this guy is saying the factual data, is not factual data.
Let me give you the lists of non-factual information actually is.....
Watch this embarrassing moment. He cannot even tell the truth about which baseball team is a fan of.
Watch this and have a good laugh......
Watch what happens when he is asked which Whitesox player was his favorite......
Uh.....uhhh.....uh.....uh...
Last edited by a moderator:
Redfish
Diamond Member
Uhhhh, OK, Bush caused 9/11, Bush caused Katrina, Bush lied because he loves war, Bush is responsible for obama's failures, Bush caused global warming (oops, its not happening after all, oh well).
Speaking of eating the bullshit fed to you by the dem/lib lie machine.
****. You came here for "debate". How ******* stupid are you really? Debate. LMAO.
You need to put me on "ignore" now.
I will ride you like a dinosaur.
This not some "debating" society fool. But then, you are new here. Carry on with your making shit up and re writing history. I like fiction.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redfish
Diamond Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Theowl32
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2013
- 23,643
- 18,809
- 2,415
- Thread starter
- #60
Tell us again how the factual data I provided is an attempt at rewriting history. Let me clue you in, since it is more than obvious you are utterly clueless.
FACTS cannot be refuted.
Bush was not solely responsible for the economic collapse that you are and your types blame him for.
It is more than obvious the democrats had at least an equal hand if not a bigger hand in this country turning into utter shit.
I have only provided factual information.
You have no debate skills. You are ignorant as ****. Honestly, anyone that actually believed anything Obama said and voted for him is stupid enough. However, anyone that voted for him again belongs in an entirely different classification of stupidity.
Then, there are those that voted for him twice, and are in that classification of stupidity that has not been determined as of yet, that still defend democrats.
Keep on saying things about dinosaurs. Your attempt at being funny is not funny. If you are going to attempt to be funny, then be funny. Your stupid comments come from a person that is so stupid that it is lower than a classification of stupidity that has yet to be determined.
Now, I will sit here and wait for you to show me specifically where I rewrote history. I will imagine that you will not even attempt to do that. Let me remind you, since you will probably be like G5000 and try and put graphs of Ireland and Iceland to show that the unemployment rate was not 4.6 percent the last time the republicans had majority of the power. FACTS cannot be refuted. Therefore, those FACTS are not rewriting of history. That is only me illuminating your brainwashed mind.
Carry on. You have been utterly fucked up in this thread. Go home and get your shine box.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder - California bans fishing
- Started by scruffy
- Replies: 5
-
-
Chinese Adult Anchor Babies Accused Of Planting Bomb- Started by OhPleaseJustQuit
- Replies: 0
