|
The difference is that if I catch someone robbing my house, I can shoot the basstard..... |
|
|
Wouldn't have it been great to actually DO something about the overblown budget and massive deficits and debt back when your team had the chance to do something about it instead of having Republicans sign off on systemic deficits and run up an additional 6 trillion in national debt? |
|
|
So the spending spree that has gone on since the dems took control has nothing to do with the debt problem right. Spoken like a good little Messiah fawner. |
|
|
Are y'all planning on giving me 10 good reasons to come back to the Repub Party with my vote? Don't try the ol' "the Democrats are going to send us to Hell! Vote for the guy with the 'R' by his name!" I want some proactive positive reasons this time. And don't trot out some Bob Dole/McCain candidate either. And no Northeastern Libpub nor a banjo pickin' preacher. And not the hot chick either. I want substance and convictions this time. |
|
One, stop reading into my posts.
Two, the vast majority of debt was created under Republican administrations.
Three, I didn't vote for Obama.
Four, I am not a democrat.
Five, I expect Democrats to increase spending. It's what they do.
Generally, the responsible ones like to raise taxes to pay for it, but we now have an entire generation of Washington politician who loves to give lip service to fiscal responsibility, while doing nothing to address it.
But, hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the good Congressman did everything in his power to rein in his fellow Republicans, in which case, more power to him in his chasing of windmills.
Republicans will NEVER reduce spending. Period. |
|
Obamao has spent more in one year than ALL the previous Presidents over the last 230-some years combined. We are taking in about 2-3 trillion/yr in tax revenues. Thanks to the Dear Leader, our obligations now amount to 62 trillion-and he still wants to do health control, and says he will cut 15 billion in discretionary spending. Big fat hairy deal. Just how do you propose we go about paying for all this?
This baby became his the moment he signed the first Stimulus. Even so, can you name ONE President who has ever inherited a clean plate from his predecessor? |
|
|
Wow you are so off base that no amount of proof would help you. So sorry for one that cannot see the forest for the trees like you. |
|
|
and a liberal dem maniac, so stop please, you insanity gives you away.You can twisp and spin and mangle the truth, but it will not eve fly here.Go away, sell it elsewhere.We knwo the reality you so detest, first Obama , your leader is destroying our country, and now he will fail.You free road has been blocked , by MASS of all places, does that tell you idiots ANYTHING at all????Evidently not, and as a dme said, IF MASS. DOESNT WAKE YOU UP NOTHING EVER WILL. You are whats called medically, BRAIN DEAD. and so are your heros, and we WILL JUST PULL THE PLUG IN NOVEMBER, and end all our suffering, the odds are now way in the repubs favor to retake the house at least. which means at the very least PELOSI will be doused with a bucket of water, and melt away, where all evil witches go.Obam will be right behind, going the same way as Carter has, into oblivion, obscurity , and jokedom. |
|
|
People like you are a drag on society. |
|
|
You must admit when a liberal troll like Dread tries to tell us all he is not a liberal troll it is kind of funny. Read his posts that's all the proof you need.. |
|
One of the channels posted the deficit figures this morning -- forget which one. Best I recall, Bush pushed it up somewhat in excess of 4T over eight years. Obama's figures were pretty close to 4T -- something like 3.7T in one year.
To give credit where credit is due, it was not mentioned what part of the first TARP was counted for which president. Could have been split between the two, or all to Bush.
|
|
Wow, Douglas sure told you off.
It is irrelevant that you have a point about dealing with the prior spending when the chance was there. If the Republicans had, they probably would still hold the house and the senate. |
|
It is my understanding that half of the TARP funds were spent by the Bush administration and the rest was purposely left for Obama. I do know that Obama asked that Bush leave the decision on GM for his administration. I do believe that Bush only gave GM enough to survive until Obama took over.
What we do know is that the original intent of TARP was not for it to become a slush fund if it was paid back. Now that is exactly what this administration was proposing.
By the way, Dread is so far off base when it comes to the deficit. I for one was very unhappy with the spending that went on during the Bush era. As a true conservative Bush was not even close to what I believe a fiscal conservative should be. That being said Obama is like a kid in a candy store with a great big cart and no money. He is looking at ways to sneak the candy out of the store while no one is looking. |
|
Most left wingers love to point to the increase in spending under Bush and chant...'it started under Bush! He inherited a surplus and handed WhO? a deficit!!'..conveniently forgetting the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and all the associated costs in response to 9/11.
Apparently, the democrats feel that was the opening to spend and spend. Listening to the lying Gibbs telling us ..' people are coming home with less and less in their paychecks'..like its their desire.
Its because the government is taxing people more and more! Like the rest of the out of touch elitists, he just doesn't get it!
whoisinthewhitehouse.blogtownhall.com |
|
Just for the record, there was a guy on here a couple years ago who kept calling me a liberal troll. He was almost like a stalker....following me from post to post.
I guess he read on post and made up his mind.
You are correct about dread.....a certain pattern does present itself in his writing. |
|
Is not" stop reading into my posts."
He doesn't care if you read them - in fact he'd never know -- long as you shut up.
So, he is really telling you to shut up, because BHO told him we don't need the mess makers to pester the moppers with facts and the moppers sure as heck don't tolerate dissent. |
|
I have yet to see one of Dread's posts that was not coming from a far left position. I have started to pass them by on many occasions
same as I pass by Vlad's posts as there can never be a real debate with one that cling to their liberalism like one would cling to a life jacket in the middle of the ocean after the ship has sunk. |
|
"It is irrelevant that you have a point about dealing with the prior spending when the chance was there. If the Republicans had, they probably would still hold the house and the senate."
Yes.
But it's readily apparent that the entire GOP base has Battered Spouse syndrome and really wants to take him back again because he's put on some nice clothes and he sounds sooooooooo sincere about not beating them again.
Enjoy the next round of disappointment, people.
|
|
As I said to Paddy I skip Dread's posts most of the time as they come from such a far left position that it is impossible to have a debate.
You are right Dread and a few others here are nothing more than liberal trolls who would not face reality no matter how many facts you throw at them. In fact Dread's was obviously annoyed that he was questioned on his ridiculous statements. He has his talking points and no one is to disagree. |
|
"Wow you are so off base that no amount of proof would help you."
Well, looking through the replies on this thread, I see hyperbole, dismissal, numbers pulled from thin air, outright and demonstrable falsehoods, and ad hominems.
So when you bother throwing some actual proof out there, I'll be happy to review/evaluate it. |
|
By all means, read my earlier posts.
You'll see I was labeled a Paultard back in the election days. As I was disgusted by the Republican party and its fiscal irresponsibility, the general ineptitude of the Bush administration, civil liberties incursions, and increasing militarism.
I confess I've become far more populist (and far less trusting in the magic of free markets to regulate themselves) since the Housing market debacle, TARP, AIG, and the like.
But then, you burn your hand on a stove, and you're shy about touching the stove a second time. Lesson learned.
If that makes me a liberal, then so be it. |
|
I see dread believes that gov't is just like a spouse, and I always thought it was more like a parent for liberals. But I'll take it...
So according to the dread analogy -- we now have a spouse who has spent all the money, ran up the credit cards, cheated and lied to us, apologized to everyone for our faults, wants to keep their thumb on our freedoms, and can't hear a word we are saying?
Talk about an abusive relationship!
|
|
I can't think of any conservative who was not happy with Bush signing off on every spending bill put in front of him.
I heard Herman Cain on truck radio this morning. He said something I'd been thinking . . . sorta.
He said Obama was making the same mistakes as did Bush by allowing his party (house and senate) to rule him. Now, understand those were not his exact words. Mr. Cain, who is a black conservative, spoke in some depth about the lack of leadership on the part of Obama. He slammed Bush too, but did list his accomplishments. He also said The Big R., was not a perfect president, but the best in his lifetime.
I read Dread's posts and really have only one main problem with them. He jumps too quickly when he reads something that conflicts with what he believes without considering what what was posted might be correct. Other than that, OK.
He's head and shoulders above those who call individuals names, liars, teabaggers, and those so partisan they are thicker than a yard of lard. Those I do not read, even if they directly address me. |
|
"So according to the dread analogy -- we now have a spouse who has spent all the money, ran up the credit cards, cheated and lied to us, apologized to everyone for our faults, wants to keep their thumb on our freedoms, and can't hear a word we are saying?"
And read your history books. You've had that for at least the last 40 years. Probably longer on some of those items. |
|
|
You don't belong here. Go back with the rest of the liberal trash. This site is for intelligent people. I have never met a liberal who fits that category. I have met plenty just like you who are arrogant, conceited know it all idiots. The last one I met I could not take it anymore and I punch him right in the face. |
|
I have a very simple question for you.
If the democrats didn't push housing "fairness and equality" for all, would we have ever had the housing bubble?
(In other words, if they didn't create publicly traded GSE's as a form of guaranteed collateral for banks, so the banks could offer no income verification/0% loans on homes, how would the bubble have happened?)
The answer is simple -- Banks only lend with collateral the gov't created GSE's were that collateral -- no risk for banks, no risk for buyers, the market went wild.
If you support the democrats in any way, you are unwittingly voting in those who have learned how to create a mess, then swoop in and act like a innocent hero to clean it up. |
|
Yeah, I already know you're not a garden variety lefty......and let's face it: Ron Paul ain't lookin't that bad these days...compared with what we wound up with....
....but you are antagonist more often than protagonist, so most of us are used to opposing you..... |
|
I am hard pressed to find one conservative that was pleased with Bush allowing spending to get so out of control. Part of me believes that he was so worried in his last two years in office about getting money to continue funding the war that he would have signed anything sent to him regardless of how bizarre it was. I say that full well knowing that repubs were equally as bad as the dems when it came to pork.
What I cannot stand is when I hear libs bash Bush and bash the repubs for something that they are currently far more guilty of. One cannot say that because Bush spent too much money it is all his fault we have a deficit so we just might as well spend more and get us into debt that may bankrupt us because Bush started it.
I also am tired of no fault with the mortgage crisis falling on Barney, Dodd or the other various dems who played a significant role in the down fall. |
|
"Well, looking through the replies on this thread, I see hyperbole, dismissal, numbers pulled from thin air, outright and demonstrable falsehoods, and ad hominems."
Point well made, particularly by 729.
|
|
[If the democrats didn't push housing "fairness and equality" for all, would we have ever had the housing bubble?]
I have pasted so many links debunking the CRA nonsense, I tire of doing so yet again. Go on google (ignore the blogosphere results) and look up the FDIC and Federal Reserve comments on this, please.
Suffice to say, nobody forced banks and mortgage companies to make liar loans, neg am loans, or interest only loans.
No one forced the investment banks to package up loans into packages and sell them off to investors.
No one forced anyone to bet on derivatives of these inflating the risk substantially.
And no one forced AIG to insure all of this nonsense.
It's quite a long chain of epic fail and whatever role the government played in it was mostly played by the Fed.
"Ron Paul ain't lookin't that bad these days"
Word. He's got a lot of good ideas (like auditing the Fed), even if I no longer wholeheartedly agree with him regarding market theory. |
|
You can add this to items that got lost in the shuffle to avoid taking responsibility for the housing mess. The Bush administration pushed this crap too, along with the Democrats.
"The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it."
http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/presremarks.cfm
And by gar he did, along with Dodd and Frank. This is what "bi-partisanship" is really about, putting the screws to everyone else.
This brings to mind what Napoleon said about victory having a thousand fathers while defeat is an orphan. |
|
|
wouldnt waste my time listening to him lie,im gonna watch dog the bounty hunter |
|
what a great analogy about the toaster.
Bush robbed you blind for 8 years. I guess the high cost of your health care magically just fixed your eyes. |
|
|
DON'T BE A CONVENIENT CONSERVATIVE! |
|
|
How about we introduce 729 to Munck....? |
|
|
LOL. Now, that would be interesting! |
|
. . . I didn't knew it was yourrr hoose.
|
|
This lost and totally confused soul is taking the most important opportunity of his political career to announce he's opposed to the "don't ask, don't tell policy"? Are you kidding me? And this will unite us?
This guy is from Mars (or Indonesia), a total disconnect, leading a cabal of neo marxist egg heads and freaks, who act like rabid dogs.
Amazing stuff.
He's finished politically, kaput. |
|
Dread writes: I have pasted so many links debunking the CRA nonsense...
Jo: Consider yourself liberal or not -- this sort of response is typical LIBERAL talking point BS. Which is the ultimate nonsense.
GSE's are not the Carter 1977 CRA legislation - have little to do with the CRA was a mere stepping stone.
I asked you had gov't not created GSE's would we have had the housing bubble, clearly you have no clue on the events that lead up to this bubble. Which I DO KNOW about first hand, I worked in it.
Perhaps, SJA is right about you - why bother, you can't even answer a simple *yes* or *no* question??
Oh never mind -- I'll answer it for you...
No. (See how easy that was?) ... we wouldn't have had this bubble to BEGIN with, had the gov't not meddled in banking and markets by creating publicly traded GSE's for banks to use as collateral in PLACE of traditional 10-20% down payments from the buyer.
YOU are the one who needs to look up the facts - not talking points. And here's a hint for you -- the FDIC is the GOVERNMENT it is no surprise they say "well golly-gee, it's not our fault".
As I said before, this is what they do -- they MAKE a problem then they blame others. Then they attempt to FIX the problems they created. It's a political TOOL, if there is no crisis -- then there is nothing to FIX. Never let a GOOD crisis go to waste. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah -- Rham.
|
|
|
Does anyone think that some kid in Winnemucca will suffer if the entire department of ed is axed? This dept probably makes the stimulus look efficient. |
|
His speech was a pathetic as the applauses, that died as quickly as they arose with each false outburst in an attempt to "revitalize" the fake messiah.
And the applauses died as quickly as will die his half-baked promises, and were as meaningless as his half-heartened call to renew "hope."
Obama simply mocks the American people: this is reflected in his smirking and poster-boy smiles.
|
|
Government intervention is Obama's only obsession. He is an incontrovertible socialist.
More lies (where was Joe Wilson???):
The false messiah said "we haven't raised taxes by a single dime on a single individual" (quoted verbatim).
Just check your first 2010 paycheck, and compare the federal withholding to the withholding in your last 2009 paycheck... and see for yourself if you're paying less or more taxes to the feds.
|
|
|
Joe Wilson was with Hillary? haha. |
|
BO said the debt increased because of wars, tax cuts, and prescription drugs.
He ignores Health and Human Services.
H&HS spent $5.7 Trillion in the past 10 years.
The Debt increased by $6.3 Trillion in same 10 years.
Therefore, 90% of debt increase was H&HS.
.............................
BO has said many times during his campaign and after being President .... "The Bush tax cuts were ONLY for the rich." ..
Tonight, he said he would retain the tax cuts for the middle class.
Therefore, the Bush tax cuts were for the middle class as well as the high income people.
He has been dishonest about the Bush tax cuts.
..............................
He is falsely taking credit for preventing a depression.
Actually, the Fed deserves credit for that. The Fed has kept its target interest rate at record lows while injecting tillions of $'s of liquidity to thaw the credit markets.
|
|
Okay, I confess being tired and getting the typical Randian talking points mixed up.
Would we have had a housing bubble without Freddy and Fannie?
Yes.
While Fanny and Freddy certainly made their share of bad decisions, they are only one factor in the rolling snowball that became an avalanche. Again, no one forced mortgage lenders (banks and other) to make subprime loans, to go outside of the guidelines of safe lending practices, and to make bad long term decisions.
And no one forced investment banks to bundle the mortgages together in a nearly incomprehensible fashion and sell them to investors and invest in them. No one forced the ratings companies to rate them highly.
No one forced pundits, market wonks, loan agents, real estate agents, and loan recipients to believe that the market would never correct itself and refinancing would be impossible.
And to blame this all on some ethereal feeling that the government would make good on everything if it all went to hell is the height of irrationality.
Any rational lender (and many local banks and credit unions were quite rational) held onto traditional loan guidelines, even on their subprime loans.
If you’re going to go the route of ‘government is the problem’, you would do better blaming the Federal Reserve’s interest rate policies and easy credit practices to banks for helping to inflate the bubble to begin with.
But even doing this does not let us escape the fact that the markets had a breakdown. And while I’m perfectly happy enacting laws to audit the Fed, give it more oversight, and divest ourselves of Freddy and Fannie, we will not address all facets of the problem without examining the breakdown at the banks, insurance companies, ratings companies, and providing sensible regulation or solutions to address the market failure. |
|
"H&HS spent $5.7 Trillion in the past 10 years.
The Debt increased by $6.3 Trillion in same 10 years.
Therefore, 90% of debt increase was H&HS."
That's specious logic (and I hope your point was to try and illustrate that.) All government spending increased over the last decade.
To single out one budget item and blame it solely for the debt is not sound. All it does is tell us your priorities for government spending. |
|
I read this far in your post and quit reading:
=======
"Would we have had a housing bubble without Freddy and Fannie?
"Yes."
=======
Jo: You are completely wrong. Federal regulatory agencies examined banks for HUD compliance Yes CRA, Clinton, Bush legislation too), this information was considered when approving applications for new bank branches, mergers, or interstate banking.
Equivalent to black mailing banks – do as we tell you or we won’t allow you to expand.
The banks complained that they couldn’t comply because lending unsecured loans was too risky, so the gov’t chartered GSE’s like Fannie and Freddie (ultimately backed by taxpayer $) to cover the banks risk.
After *GOVERNMENT* removed risk, banks happily made the loans that gov’t required banks to make **in the name of equality** to meet gov't REQUIRED CRA and other following legislative compliance.
(end history)
Here’s the question Americans should be pondering:
If gov’t had never meddled and strong armed the banks to lend no income verification or 0% down loans, would the banks have made those loans?
I think any reasonable person would say no. Every economically educated person understands banks never make loans without collateral. (In this case the collateral assurance was the GSE’s)
|
|
All the predatory lending, bundling, and other unethical practices never would have happened if gov't hadn't meddled and imposed *BAD* regulation.
Had gov't done their constitutionally LIMITED job we wouldn't have had the housing bubble. |
|
|
|
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The CRA was the beginning of a long complex mess. The CRA legislation (and additional housing legislation — 1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2007, 2008) mandated banks to lend to poor/minorities. Andrew Coumo made a seris of bad decisions, that Clinton and Bush BOTH embraced in the race to get minorites into homes.
These are simple well documented facts.
Your own link confirms this: (CRA) "It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income "
How do you think the CRA and following legislation "encouraged" banks??? Gov't "encouraged" them by the threat of denial of gov't approval for expansion, mergers etc... Banks FORCED by gov't to comply with HUD standards, asked for collateral from gov't (just as they would from a borrower) -- gov't created GSE's as that collateral.
GOVERNMENT unleashed and gave banks the tools to destroy the economy. Did the banks use them? Yes. They had NO RISK in lending to people with no money. THANKS TO GOV'T!
You are a fool if you believe that gov't (the source of the problem) is going to admit to their mistakes. They never do -- contrarily, they make a problem, blame others (in this case the banks) then promise to fix it. It a vote generator.
THE ENTIRE HOUSING DEBACLE STEMMED FROM GOV"T.
This is an indisputable fact, to anyone that has taken the time to read the legislation. You apparently foolishly believe anything gov't says hook line sinker. Wake up dread, the only thing gov't is efficient at -- is lying.
|
|