As a member of the Republicans for Obama community, and a former Californian, nothing that Queen Pelosi does comes as a surprise. When it looked like Obama might actually make to the whitehouse, I made a bet that President Obama's biggest problem on the hill would not be the Republicans; it would be the Queen.
Perhaps the RNC should launch a web site in response to the DCCC "ImSorryRush" called: www.MadamMayI.com so that duly elected Democratic members of congress and this poor fellow who thinks he is in charge can communicate more quickly and receive blessings from her highness - or not.
WASHINGTON
Obama’s Pelosi Problem
The president has laid out a paradigm-shifting agenda. There will be pushback from the GOP—but less, perhaps, were it not for the House Speaker.
Published Feb 28, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Mar 9, 2009
-
Posted By: DarwinRockantansky @ 03/21/2009 10:07:37 PM
-
Posted By: carmont510 @ 03/13/2009 12:22:19 AM
Nancy Pelosi & Star Kist
> >
Verified by Snopes
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district includes San
Francisco, Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco , Pelosi's home district.
Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi.
Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa
employing 75% of theSamoan work force.
Paul Pelosi, Nancy 's husband, owns $17 million dollars
of Star-Kist stock.In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased
from$5.15 to $7.25,
Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase
so Del Monte would not
have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products
less expensive than their competition's.
Last week when the huge bailout bill was
passed,Pelosi
added an earmark to
the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an 'economic
development credit in American Samoa '.
Pelosi has called the Bush
administration"CORRUPT" ? ?
How do you spell "HYPOCRISY" ?
EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD GET A COPY OF THIS E-MAIL.
Why do we not get media coverage of stories like
this?
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/11/2009 8:39:28 AM
Pallisor-have you seen my reply to your last post to me? Please do that if you haven't, thank you.
-
Posted By: Morgan2008 @ 03/02/2009 7:49:18 PM
Obama will probably get a MANDATE to resign soon if he doesn't stop wrecking the American economy. Congress had better put their politics aside and pass a bill that will save the American economy soon and do it quick even if they have to override a veto by Barack Obama. Obamanomics is destroying the stock market where most of America's hardworking middleclass have their 401K retirement nest eggs invested which is being destroyed by Obama. Inquiring minds would like to know where Barack and Michelle Obama have their money invested since it doesn't seem to be invested in the stock market. We would also like to know how much money congress members have invested in the crashing stock market or did they all take their money out of the stock market before they carelessly rolled the dice with our money? The true power of America (the American voters) will strip all of them of their power in the next election if they don't get it right soon. We must all remember that we (collectively) are the real POWER of this country and demand that congress and Obama represent us and do what is in our best interest and not what is on their wish list agenda.
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/02/2009 11:44:07 PM
Oh yeah Morgan, Obama will def. get a Mandate to resign as President soon, very soon. Sleep on that and sweet dreams...thanks for the laughs btw!
-
Posted By: Morgan2008 @ 03/04/2009 5:19:03 PM
I will laugh when Obama's approval numbers start tanking worse than the stock market has done since he was elected president. He has already received an "F" for his performance in the first 90 days. Words and rhetoric only lasts for a short time...then it will be RESULTS that count. With no results, Barack Obama will leave office like a whipped puppy. Who knows, his ego is so huge he might not be able to take such low approval ratings and criticism which could surpass what George Bush received. How would Barack Obama deal with such humiliation?
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/04/2009 10:07:02 PM
Morgan- I respect your opinion but can you show me a copy of Obama's report card with the F?
-
Posted By: Morgan2008 @ 03/05/2009 11:52:44 PM
Pia- if you would stop picking your nose you might be able to see and find it for yourself. Hint...look in the direction of Wall Street, investors, and entrepreneurs who make the world go around. Barack Obama is a government parasite who hangs around the government trough which will soon run out of money if the movers and shakers aren't happy with his policies. Wake up to reality and stop daydreaming over a pawn.
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/06/2009 1:03:23 PM
Aww Morgan, here I was hoping you would be 'eloquent' and you go and post this nose picking thing esp. since I respect your opinion. Not nice. Nope. I think you care only about the money YOU lost in the stock market! You want to blame Obama and Obama only. You lost money only within the last few weeks, did ya? You didn't lose any during the last 8 years? Of course you did! Tell the truth and do show me the Obama report card with that F!
Like Harley says "distract, deny, cry, whine." Only because you lost the election.-
Posted By: Morgan2008 @ 03/08/2009 8:28:53 PM
Pia--No, I didn't lose money during the last eight years. Of course, I care about the money, but not just for myself. I care about the money for all of the other millions of people who lost their retirement savings in their 401K's. Pia, make your posts and stop trying to cancel the posts made by other people who might say something intelligent. I post my comments because it is my viewpoint of what is going on. I simply don't care one iota for your opinion of my comments. People can decide if they agree or disagree with my comments. I rarely see you post anything of value. It seems you mostly try to pick at what someone else posts. Please don't bother commenting on my comments again.
-
Posted By: HJ1989 @ 03/10/2009 4:25:06 PM
You need some new material Pia...
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/10/2009 8:27:09 PM
Awwe, how sweet, you're defending Morgan who is not only rude, is also so very well informed and who's opinion is worth it's weight in gold. Tell me, how many intelligent people actually believe that Pres. Obama is going to get a MANDATE to resign soon because he caused the stock market losses? Do you?
Btw- I have been reading this poster for months...I know what the poster's agenda is...very anti-Obama. I hope you have more to say about this article than your comment to me in your defense of a poster who made a ridiculous comment.
-
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/08/2009 9:19:52 PM
Morgan-Wow. You come here and blame Obama for the stock market downfall. I defend him, and you are the victim. The man has been in office all of 6 weeks and you blame him for the stock market losses. I would hardly call that an intelligent assessment. Morgan, I lost money too, but I am not blaming Obama. This stock market/economic/mortgage fallout crisis has been in the making for years and years. It finally hit us with full force. It's terrible and I am sorry for the people affected including you.
According to you, you post opinions of value and I don't, all I do is pick on yours and other poster's comments. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Here is what is interesting about your accusation that I am picking on your comments, I actually included in my comment to you that I RESPECT your opinion and I was sincere... , you never acknowledged that, you told me to stop picking my nose. I have read other comments from you during the election and you proved that you are anti-Obama. You post about Pres. Obama and I defended him. I never made any offensive remarks to you in my comments since my intention was not to offend you. As everyone can see, I can't say the same for you. In any case, this is a public discussion forum, unless someone posts anything offensive in nature, the floor is open. If you can't handle the replies to your posts, then don't post any comments.-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/08/2009 10:04:40 PM
Kept wanting to respond to each of Morgan's posts, till I saw yours. This one of yours sums it all up perfectly.
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/08/2009 10:19:02 PM
Hello 40- How are you? Thanks for your comment!
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/08/2009 10:29:27 PM
Hi Pia! I've had a terrific weekend. Hope you have too!
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/08/2009 10:26:36 PM
Hi Pia! I've had a terrific weekend. Hope you have too.
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/08/2009 10:05:08 PM
Kept wanting to respond to each of Morgan's posts, till I saw yours. This one of yours sums it all up perfectly.
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/08/2009 9:54:42 PM
Morgan-PS I laughed at your comment of "Obama will probably get a Mandate to resign soon if he doesn't stop wrecking the American economy"... because it is funny. It was not to ridicule you even though it is ridiculous. How many Americans actually believe Obama would resign because the stock market is falling? Please don't repeat it again.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: H3509billSC @ 03/09/2009 1:12:38 PM
If you do not live in SC,you are a free American. South Carolina is under the dictatorship of the Republican Ideology
-
Posted By: H3509billSC @ 03/09/2009 1:11:07 PM
Obama and Pelosi need to stop their arguing and do something about Sanford,Jingle and the rest of those neoConservatives.They are NOT speaking for the people but speak only for themselves.
-
Posted By: sharenews @ 03/07/2009 1:07:10 AM
TO: Pia
From: Sharenews
I don't know if you saw my responses awhile back, but I did accept your apology. Just popped online tonight as it has been awhile since I have blogged on a regular basis.. I responded to your last comment to Pallistor below at 03/07/09 at 12:44:09 AM if you want to respond.-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/07/2009 11:45:24 AM
Sharenews-I did see your posts to me then, thanks and I replied. I don't recall the article though.
-
-
Posted By: Bad Dog @ 03/06/2009 10:15:45 PM
They should just trade places, Obama is just not liberal enough, he is starting to sound just like Bush....
-
Posted By: ionrobins @ 03/06/2009 9:02:29 PM
When the Presi. passes the Embryonic Stem cell reaserch program...by definition this is murder for hundreds of embryos...who are infants, hell will have to be paid on jugment day...I'm glad he diodn't get me vote.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 03/06/2009 7:34:35 PM
I have a serious question to Obama supporters (now already knows who they are), directly related to this article. Suppose this Pelosi budget will be approved by Senate, do you want Obam veto it, or accept with all 1000+ porks in it?
Please, don;t try your regular BS blaming your opponent's personality, just answer the question.-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/06/2009 8:21:17 PM
Are you referring to the one that has over 400 republican earmarks, like by Lindsey Graham (one of my favorites, by the way. I actually wanted McC to pick him for vp)?
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/06/2009 8:36:25 PM
Answering you seriously, bighappy, I do think Obama should sign that bill. I'm totally with McCain on earmarks. But this one was in the works before he arrived.
Obama has his plate full. Congress is dysfunctional on both sides of the aisle. It is and will be like herding cats. I'd rather get this one behind us, and start chipping away from here.
Don't you think that's the practical way to go about it?-
Posted By: bighappy @ 03/06/2009 8:54:44 PM
First intelligent answer from you here. OK, it was again inherited from Bush, oh no, It was prepared by the same Democrats leaders which are there now, the same Pelosi, when it was well known that he is the next President and promised several times that he would not allow more pork, If he was honest, it means that Pelosi challenged him and will keep doing in the future, if not - he is not better than Pelosi.
If he veto this bill - ha may prove that something he promised will be done, if not - whatever he is a lier or weak, he betrayed his voters, period.
I agree that Republicans also added pork there, and it must ve removed as well.-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/06/2009 9:00:22 PM
Pelosi is a partisan hack, but she didn't add the 400 R earmarks. It's both parties.
He needs time to turn the tanker, that's all. Gridlock at the beginning would be counterproductive in the long term, I think. That's the only reason I'm willing to swallow it.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/06/2009 8:04:54 PM
bighappy-Dont change the subject now. You need to concern yourself with reading my comments to you before you get serious over the Pork issues. If you want to continue posting here in harmony, read my comments to you. Thank you.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 03/06/2009 8:22:49 PM
Exactly what I said. You never answer a simple question, prefer insults and threats, typical KKK party representatives.
And what can you answer if you want keep all pork there and let pigs fly.
I is very old forum here, and everybody left iit except 3 little piggies, it is time for me to leave as well. Have a good party, don't burn your house.-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/06/2009 8:36:02 PM
bighappy-I didn't threaten you with anything , you keep harassing me with this identity thing of yours.Now the KKK accusation. You have nerve! I have been nice to you many times even when I have not agreed with you. As for the question, I am an Obama supporter but I don't know much about the Pork and some other issues. If I did, I would have answered your question.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: ionrobins @ 03/06/2009 8:59:09 PM
When you news people make claims of Pres. O. popularity...please keep in mind that when he signs the embryonic stem cell research program....he'll be responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands of babies...If there is a God and God is the ONE who says, "Don't commit murder" Presi. O. will have a rough Judgment day to say the least, and all those who voted him in office will be wishing they had been alert to this coming crime. Tim
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/02/2009 2:28:38 PM
The fact is that Bill Clinton pressed Fannie Mae to relax standards: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
Please read the third paragraph.-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 3:18:24 PM
The collapse of the financial institutions is due to the bogus Credit Defaul Swaps that were allowed due to the effective repeal of Glass-Steagall by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (yes that Phil Gramm).
The Credit Default Swaps, alone, increased from $20B in 2000 to $525B in '06.
Because conventional mortgages couldn't fill the need for mortgages that Credit Default Swaps 'insured', the same financial institutions effectively dropped all mortgage qualification requirements and they created all those whacky 'low payment' mortgages. They were making trillions from those Credit Default Swaps. Because of 'leveraging', the Credit Default Swaps are many multiples of all the mortgages in existence.
Those financial institutions did all that voluntarily, to get the money available from selling those bogus securities. No bank has ever been 'forced' to make a mortgage to unqualified borrowers. The financial institutions did it out of greed enabled by Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
The myth that our crisis is caused by some airey-fairy law that 'forced' banks to lend to unqualified borrowers is just a propaganda smokescreen by those people who want to hide what they did with the deregulation under Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and it is an effort to blame 'the others'.-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 3:30:37 PM
That's: "The Credit Default Swaps, alone, increased from $20TRILLION in 2000 to $525TRILLION in '06."
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/02/2009 3:35:39 PM
They won't listen. They are far too conditioned.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 3:51:46 PM
Not trying to educate them; they're beyond that.
The only effective counterbalance to the propaganda about how and why our finacial crisis occured is to say why they're wrong, when they chant their propaganda.
Without meaning to be negative, do you know a better way, think that propaganda should be propagated without refutation?
They're either stupid or propaganda mongers. Demonstrating the fallacy of their slogans is far more effective in my book than just ridiculing them or calling them names, in my book.-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/02/2009 4:15:43 PM
Well you should certainly work on your numbers, and maybe do some research yourself about CDS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap 525 TRILLION???? You liberals love to make the big bad "Corporations" look bad. The bottom line is a CDS is there to protect an entity from a default. People began using CDSs to bet on people defaulting on their loans, but would have not done so had it not been for all of the terrible lending practices of Fannie Mae, pressured by Clintons administration. Defaults wouldn't have gotten out of control and we would never be discussing CDSs. Yeah you guys are sooooooo smart.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 4:43:37 PM
"The bottom line is a CDS is there to protect an entity from a default."
Yes, stupid, that's what the investors in those bogus unregulated 'securities' were 'sold'. The problem is that the issuers of those 'securities' had nothing, absolutely nothing, to 'perform' on those 'protection' obligations. (Check out why AIG failed, for example. All of their traditional insurance subsidiaries were and are just fine. It was the CDSs that took AIG down and still imperils it, as I said.)
These bogus unregulated securities never existed, and they never could have existed, without the republican written and sponsored Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act deregulated them. It negated the protective legislation that followed the very similar excesses of the Depression.
The TARP money was originally intended to buy bad mortgages. That plan was scrapped because they realized that the main problem, the far bigger problem, was Credit Default Swaps. Buying mortgages would do nothing for that bigger, main problem. So, they had to just give the money to those zombie institutions to keep from collapsing because of those bogus Credit Default Swaps.
I represented banks for nearly thirty years. No bank has ever been 'forced' to make a loan they did not want to, let alone to an unqualified borrower. Never. It's a lie, a redherring, propaganda. Never happened.
The guys making the trillions from the CDWs couldn't get enough mortgages under traditional standards, to 'insure' with CDSs. So, they created the whacky new mortgages, effectively eliminated qualification requirements and (the ones that weren't banks) guaranteed that they would buy the mortgages they 'invented'.
It is a lie that either the mortgage crisis, or the collapse of the entire financial structure, is because someone 'forced' anyone to make bad loans.
The zombie financial institutions created, marketed and were the insatiable buyers of the bad mortgages, and they burned themselves down when enabled by the deregulation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
They did it to themselves. They did it to us. Carter didn't make them. Clinton didn't make them. They did it because they were enabled and they were greedy.-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/02/2009 6:16:53 PM
I tip my hat to you 40YearR, you have the patience of Job.
Combine your point with the over-production of housing (caused by bad monetary policy), and you add another dimension to the desperation of SELL, SELL, SELL, that compounded the problem by giving new incentive to produce undocumented loans. Throw in the price skew caused by flippers, and the problem is almost covered here.
NIce post on CDSs, btw.-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 7:03:16 PM
Thanks. You nailed it. The monetary policy was to further stimulate, keep it going... it looked pretty there for a while... But everyone just got caught up in the frenzy; forgot that bubbles always deflate. 'Good economy', job growth, don't have to tax for those wars. Home prices rising. Gotta build more. Hey, we can move up! Hey, we can spend our hearts out, the market will rise some more, we'll have more equity and then we can do it again. And.... when I got nervous is when I saw articles about 26 year olds quitting their jobs because they bought two houses and flipped them for $50k profit each...
Good to see you back around DW!-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/02/2009 8:47:52 PM
Thanks 40! Always enjoy reading your posts.
I found a bunch of old film from the old Firing Line, and watched them this morning. Really sad. This used to be a country that not only tolerated, but encouraged, intellectual debate, based on our mutual understanding that we needed sound government. It was common ground between all of us, no matter how much we differed individually.
When I read through many of the posts here (and on most other open political forums), I realize we are no longer that country. It leaves me speechless some days.
Have a good one 40!-
Posted By: bighappy @ 03/02/2009 10:31:12 PM
Sometimes I also like to talk to myself. But not in public.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 10:49:05 PM
When it goes over your competence level, you find it necessary to think that the poster is someone else...
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 03/02/2009 11:13:51 PM
May be you are different persons, but when you appear at the same time on the same site (jumping together from one discussion to another), continue "original" thoughts of each other, giving big hugs and thanks to each other - what should people think?
But anyway, continue, it looks funny.-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 11:17:36 PM
It looks funny (so what are reasonable people like you supposed to think?) just like the Dow had hit bottom before Obama took office...
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 03/04/2009 10:23:16 PM
"I tip my hat to you 40YearR", "Thanks 40! Always enjoy reading your posts", "Great post DW", "Thanks Pia! I enjoy your posts...", and so on. Wow, wow, wow, I greatful to you, you greatful to me, we share the same thoughts, we prase each other and everybody see how smart we are. In fact it looks like talk of few excited idiots.. Or one?
But, as I said, keeo talking, I have fun watching.-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/05/2009 1:51:28 AM
You don't understand it when diverse people get along do you? You thrive on divison, hatred, name calling, cheap tricks, and insults to drive people apart. What's different now is people are starting to come together before it's too late, and are finding a way forward through the abuse, disruption and dysfunction of the last 8 years.
The more you mock people, the closer together they will get. It must be hard being you now, especially given your divisive tactics no longer work. So go on and make fun of us. Mock us. Ridicule our neighbors. Make fun of our President and our country. It doesn't matter anymore.
38% democratic, 29% independent, 28% republican. You're not even the 2nd major party anymore. And the trends are moving hard against you. We are leaving BigHappy. You don't need us. The noise you make, is equal to the trust you break...-
Posted By: bighappy @ 03/05/2009 10:23:28 PM
I don't hate you, DWPitts-40-Pia, i like you. You are good entertainers (I already said why). Hate is not my area, it is KKK party prerogative. Good luck in your future "multiple personalities" shows, I mean it.
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/06/2009 12:51:20 PM
bighappy-this rant you are on shows everyone here what a ridiculous human being you are. We have tried to reason with you on this ridiculous rant of yours, but you refuse. Therefore, two can play at this game....I guess I will just have to refer to you as Sybil Junior from now on. I will tell everyone that you are a woman....no, make that 3.
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 03/06/2009 7:26:03 PM
And you will be always 40 years old Pia for me, in short.
One request - please let speak only one of you, don't speek "together" if you want to be heard, nobody pays attention to noise.-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/06/2009 7:55:32 PM
BTW BIGHAPPY-40YearR stands for a 40 year Republican. 40 has been a Rep for 40 years. Get it now?You really are a moron.
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/06/2009 7:47:53 PM
bighappy-I have been visiting NW for over a year and have encountered all kinds but you are in a class (actuallly from yoru behavior you have no class) by yourself. You are so very uncouth. But. Keep up the harassment. You will have only yourself to blame for the consequences. I promise.
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/06/2009 1:49:44 PM
Folks, I have a confession to make. But, please accept my apology first. Thank you.
My confession is that I have deceived you all along. My especial apology to Pia, because all along she has thought I was her. Sorry, Pia. Molto sorry...
I actually have been.... bighappy... all along.
You know, 5'4", 264 after a big dump, no loathsome diseases, flatulence down to a delightful prevalent redolence thanks to a strict regimen of Beeno every 4 hours, a distinguished'beauty mark' on the left tip of my nose with three wiry hairs growing out of it. All but three of my teeth, and only two missing in front. That's why I chose bighappy.
I'm sure many of you caught me out from the beginning. I mean, our styles are indistinguishable. . .Kudos! And thanks for not exposing me.
Hence forth, you shall not hear anything more from bighappy. I'll have him just watch. It amuses him.
A 40 year republican
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 11:06:11 PM
Yes! Since you never have anything to say, you should be much better at watching! You've 'found your voice,' bighappy!
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 11:03:26 PM
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 11:40:09 PM
Yes, in addition to others, I am also DWPitts, right? Lame. Everytime you say it. Lame.
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/02/2009 11:23:57 PM
bighappy-how does this sound to you? Harley, 40 and I are the few remaining die-hard Obama supporters who continue to post on NW. This is why we hang out together. All the others, and there were many, left..some blog on occasion, the rest have either lost interest or don't have the time to blog. Harley and I went through the primairies together and 40 joined right before the election, I think.
-
-
-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/02/2009 11:41:54 PM
What the hell are you rattling on about?
40YearR is a frequent poster here at Newsweek and is respected by most. I post here once in a whle, but few know me. I would hope someday I could have a similar level of patience as 40.
Your insulting and derogatory tone spewed at 40, reveals an incredible lack of taste, class and anything resembling intelligence. And you wonder why you got your ass whooped in the last 2 election cycles? If Obama is all the horrible things you say, what does that say about YOU?
Oh yes, must tack hard right. Make more babies quick. Need the base, gots to has it.
That's just real brilliant. BRILLIANT! What was it? Oh yes! Taxcuts! 2010 is going to be brutual for y'all if you don't find reality soon.-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/03/2009 12:02:54 AM
Great post DW. Thank you. See, bighappy believes that 40 and I are one and the same. I'm a female. 40 and I happen to be Obama supporters/blog pals.
-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/03/2009 12:30:22 AM
LOL. I saw that Pia. So, if we use Rush-style inductive reasoning, does that mean i wear your shoes too?
I normally wear mens, so I guess this is gonna be a tight fit. Can I at least wear your flats? Stilletos seem like they would kill my feet and ankles, LOL. And as I'm 6'4", the hoots and howls would never end...
I'd still give'em hell though, LOL.-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/03/2009 2:35:41 PM
DW-no flats for me! Your comments were funny, thanks.
Dw- I want to thank you for your help and I also want to say that your comments are very imformative and impressive.-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/03/2009 3:42:53 PM
Thanks Pia! I enjoy your posts too and admire your stamina.
My posts are just bits and pieces from the school of hard knocks. I don't have the patience or tolerance of either you or 40, but I try not to be too harsh. But I'm just so frustrated watching what has been ruined, what we have lost as a nation, that somedays I just need to fight back against the noise.
Always good to find kindred spirits though! Look forward to reading more of your posts in the future.
No Jimmy Choos though, ok?-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/03/2009 10:41:50 PM
DW-Thank you for your nice words.
You comments are always right on target, I have learned a lot from them even in a short time.
Thanks. I look forward to reading more of your comemnts as well.
If not Jimmy Choos, how about the more comfortable $2,500 Gucci pumps that Sarah Palin wore on the camp trail?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/03/2009 1:35:54 PM
Everyone on this blog except BigHappy is actually 40 Year Republican.
And I'm not sure about Bighappy.-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/03/2009 3:07:38 PM
OBL-thank you for posting this. Hopefully now bighappy will stop it with his nonsense.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/03/2009 2:08:15 PM
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/03/2009 1:46:19 PM
-
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/02/2009 11:53:50 PM
I hope that when you talk to yourself you don't say that you can see Russia from your porch like your very intellectual VP candidate. Embarassing to say the least!
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/02/2009 4:52:43 PM
Explain to me again how the bad loans were not involved? Please tell me how this could have heppened without millions of bad mortgages? Also, you neglected to address the fact that your "525Trillion" figure you kept quoting was a little inaccurate.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 5:24:51 PM
I give explanations. You post a simple declaration. You then ask for another explanation. Here goes:
-You are wrong when you repeat the propaganda that our financial collapse was caused by banks being 'forced' to make loans to unqualified borrowers. No bank has ever been forced to make a loan it did not want to. That is an outright lie. It propaganda the progandists use to try to deflect dupes from understanding the bigger, underlying problem.
-The much bigger problem, the one that has shaken even AIG, is the bogus securities like Credit Default Swaps enabled by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
-These Credit Default Swaps are why the TARP money could not be used to buy bad mortgages, or why buying those mortgages would not have solved the bigger, underlying problem.
-Because so much money was being made on these bogus, unregulated securities, the zombie financial institutions wanted more mortgages. Couldn't get enough under traditional standards. They created the whacky mortgages, and dispensed with traditional qualification requirements.
This was voluntary. It was not imposed by Carter or Clinton. They dived in voluntarily once they realized how much money they could make with Credit Default Swaps enabled by the negation of regulation by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. There is a decent summary of the history of that law at wikipedia.
On amounts of CDWs, I have a link to a Wall Street Journal article for them. I would have to look it up. wikipedia is not generally as bad as the buzz. It does a decent baseline summary of many things. As to the essentially irrelevant detail of aggregate amount of CDWs, I will trust the WSJ. In all events the specific amount of CDWs is irrelevant; the TARP money didn't go to buy mortgages, which is my point.-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/02/2009 5:36:36 PM
Smart guy. No they were not forced. But why would they not do it when Fannie Mae and FHLMC were guaranteeing every loan? Gee I guess you are saying they played no part. You are stupid. STUPID. You are dumb. DUMB.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 7:19:40 PM
billtill-
It's always obvious when guys like you get into trouble. You resort to childish name calling.
You started this entire thread with a youtube of Bill Clinton (whom I loathe), as if that proved or explained anything about our financial crisis... But you call me STUPID for not accepting that.
If you follow the money, see where it came from, see who spent millions on Rs to prevent regulation of FNMA and FHLMC in the republican Congress (oh, but the Dems blocked it! BS, the Rs had the numbers), see what was done when the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was enacted, see where are the whacky mortgages came from, who dispensed with traditional loan qualification requirements, you'll begin to see the big picture.
I do see, however, the partisan need to blame it on 'the others'.
A 40 year republican-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/02/2009 8:39:51 PM
40 year republican, spouting facts left and right. please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act could you recite for the class the way each party voted on this legislation? its irrelevant to the fact that the whole CDS market was exploited because fannie mae was guaranteeing every loan. this is the reason the market grew out of control. again, how do you not see the relationship?
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 9:23:01 PM
billtill-
You started this entire discussion with a silly youtube of Bill Clinton, as if it explained anything, let alone the collapse of the financial markets.
In contrast to your conclusory, unsupported posts, I have made several wth explanations about the big picture and the key factor, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which effectivley repealed a key post-Depression law that prevented the abuses that ensued immediately upon the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
There were other parts to the entire equation. But your conclusory assertions are misplaced, they are ignorance demonstrated. You are merely a cog in the ongoing propaganda effort (that started with those anonymous emails) to distract from the main factors and to divert attention, sole blame to 'the others'.
A 40 year republican-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/02/2009 9:36:15 PM
Actually this post was started with a reference to a New York Times article talking about Fannie Mae and FHLMC relaxing lending standards because of pressure from the Clinton Administration. When this happened demand for housing shot up, because anyone and everyone could get a loan. Everything works great during periods of economic prosperity, and the CDSs don't hurt anyone since the default rate is so low. However, when the housing market busts, because these people could not pay their mortgages and the market would not support any more price increases, the number of defaults goes through the roof, and the CDS market goes belly up. Again, without the defaulting mortgages, which were supposedly guaranteed by FNMA and FHLMC, this would not have happened. Now do you see?? Finally....
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 10:35:18 PM
billtill said: "CDSs don't hurt anyone since the default rate is so low."
AIG is not in mortgages. It was big in CDWs. That's why it asked for ANOTHER $30B today. The relative size and importance of CDWs is also why the TARP funds had to be given as emergency rescue capital for the financial institutions, rather than be used to buy mortgages.
That's what I see.-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/03/2009 11:47:28 AM
And what where AIG's CDSs based on?
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/03/2009 8:55:23 PM
billtill-
My point remains that we wouldn't have the CDS problem, which is much bigger than mortgage problem, if we didn't have the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
FNMA/FHLMC didn't make them do that.
And, if we hadn't the unregulated financial institutions pushing CDWs, the mortgage crisis would have been less, because the creators of CDSs wouldn't have created those whacky mortgages and the essential elimination of qualification requirements driving the market for those mortgages so they could foist more CDWs onto the system.
And they wouldn't have been able to suck the trillions out of the system that they made from CDWs.
AIG wouldn't have needed (what about $100B to save it), because CDWs are AIG's only problem.
I would like to know how much of our zombie financial institution problem, and the need for injection of capital into them, would have been less if there weren't CDWs on their books. We know that it would be much less because there are much more CDWs than there are mortgages.-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/04/2009 7:59:57 AM
I agree CDS's were a major problem. So regulate CDS's. Quit talking about the GBL act or whatever, because Democrats voted for it in large numbers. I don't believe you were ever a republican, let alone a 40 yr republican. How can your knee jerk reaction to DCS's be to support spending in the trillions if you are a conservative at heart? How can you say the whole party is defunct when all we hear these days are about Reaganism and true conservatism, even if its not coming from our elected reps? Do you not believe in Reagans policies? If not, then you were never a republican or a conservative.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 9:51:59 AM
billtill-
Don't tell me to forget about CDSs or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. You're the one who started the conversation because you have relentlessly, repeatedly insisted that the mortgage problem is our biggest problem (while you point the finger at Bill Clinton, FNMA. Now why have you been so relentless and repetitive?) You continued with that repetition in the post to which I responded.
So get off that wounded high horse. That's just chicken subject changing, You do that a lot.
As to your next 'point', it's going it take trillions to fix the problems. You should know that.
I'm a realist. There are real problems. I don't have to accuse the current President, shriek, lament, try to tear him down, because he inheirited such enormous problems. That's your game.
Another 'game' of lightweights like you play, when you're stumped, is to then say I must not be a republican. I'm a republican. I'm just not the close-minded lock-step ideologue type like you.-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/04/2009 11:20:50 AM
Why are you guys incapable of answering questions. I aksed what you thought of Reaganism, and you want to go on and on about me telling you to forget about CDS's (which I did not). I do concede that in fact CDS's probalby did play a larger part than I realized, thanks. Your response to their abuse, however, and rejection of conservative principals as a result, is not logical for a true conservative, which you claim to be. Those types of products should be regulated, no question, does that mean the GLB act was to blame? Can you address why the democrats who voted for this (a large majority of them) did not realize this was going to happen?
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 11:48:23 AM
You ask lots of questions to change the subject. I've answered most anyway. I answer. You ankle bite, call names, or ask more trite questions, or do all of those things in the same post.
I'm done with you now. You have nothing to offer.-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/04/2009 12:05:31 PM
My entire post was civil, honest, and deserves a real response, not an attempt to make yourself into a victim. I'm sorry that this is the way you discuss.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 12:11:13 PM
You don't discuss, billtill. That's why I'm done with you.
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/04/2009 1:39:26 PM
Your such a hypocrite. You will fit right in with the rest of the liberals. Anybody who was ever a true conservative wouldn't support Obama. So you can say whatever you want about being a 40 yr Republican, we all know it is a lie and that you are nothing more than a sham, phony, democrat. You are so transparent.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 1:54:25 PM
biitill- Yeah, yeah. One of those refuges of those who have nothing to say: You couldn't vote for Obama and be a republican!
Oh, but I did. And I am. My first vote for a Dem for national office in 40 years. He was such a good candidate. The alternative was so bad. No brainer. Lots of moderate Rs voted for Obama like I did. Big part of why Obama won. The republican party is shrinking... look in a mirror...-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/04/2009 2:40:00 PM
Man you guys are messed up. You fail to realize that Obamas plans don't fit neatly with a conservative ideal. You are a living contradiction. You support a man who is doing the exact opposite of what conservatism dictates. So again tell me how im stupid, miss the boat, anything you can to dance around the question. Why do you support a liberal if you claim to be conservative?
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 2:47:20 PM
I've explained in detail several times why I voted for Obama. Look at all the threads here. I've answered lots of questions. That's just one of your games. I'm done with you.
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/04/2009 2:53:32 PM
The specific question is why a person who claims to be a conservative supports Obamas programs? Not WHY you voted for Obama. Thats irrelevant, and should be plainly a regrettable move for a conservative, given his actions since he got into congress. Keep thinking I'm the stupid one and avoid the real question, AGAIN. You just keep showing your true colors.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 2:56:19 PM
Check the threads. I've answered numerous questions. You change the subject. I'm done with you. You are a waste of time.
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/04/2009 3:32:19 PM
What I am going to do is count how many times you avoid the question. And I will just start at one. Make you sound a little better. So can you tell me why you would support programs that do not work?
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 3:47:26 PM
Count away, billtill. The threads already show that I've already answered many questions, you just do that to change the subject. I'm done with you.
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/04/2009 4:17:13 PM
Thats 2. You say "many questions". Great I am asking a specific question. That you are dodging.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 4:20:26 PM
Count away, billtill. The threads already show that I've already answered many questions, you just do that to change the subject. I'm done with you.
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/04/2009 4:55:00 PM
A parrot, thats 3! Funny, you really are a parrot, and now that a real question has surfaced, all you can do is retreat and repeat the same ole sht.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 4:57:16 PM
Count away, billtill. The threads already show that I've already answered many questions, you just do that to change the subject. I'm done with you.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/04/2009 1:45:29 PM
Did you have a point? I mean, other than must more of the ad hominem crap you spew every day?
Not that I'm not enjoying your bitterness and rage, mind you.-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 1:55:26 PM
Thanks OBL. Hated to step on yours, just couldn't resist telling him one more time...
-
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/04/2009 1:46:44 PM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 8:52:31 PM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/02/2009 5:58:28 PM
1) To make this type of bet, one party bets the mortgage won't default, while the second party bets that it will. Then, you have half the financial industry motivated to have mortgages fail. This type of instrument was regulated out of the system originally following the Stock Market Crash of 1907. It is nothing but blind speculation and it has been known to be toxic for over a hundred years.
2) Mortgage default rates throughout this episode have hovered between 8-10% of the total mortgages in existence. If not for the usage of toxic instruments, the foreclosure rate would not be a problem, as NOTHING is destroyed during a foreclosure. The title merely transfers from one party to the next.
3) The speculation that minority borrowing led to the meltdown of the free world's economy is nothing but latent racism passed off as some panacea to prevent the public from understanding what occurred. Stop sometime and answer this: If a crack Ho buying up could cause this amount of damage to economy, what the hell kind of economy did you have to begin with?
4) More essential to understanding this is too accept the United States from 2002-2008 ran one of the stupidest monetary policies. Not that you???d understand, but the central equation of monetary policy is: M * V = S * P (money times velocity equals sales time production). Beginning in 2004, reality boards across the country began reporting a glut of housing inventory on the market, and insufficient buyers to absorb it. At that point, the FED should have raised interest rates to slow velocity (thereby slowing production), until sales caught up and burned off inventory. They did the OPPOSITE: accelerated velocity and production (and cut taxes sending it into overdrive), while escalating the sales prices. Your precious free market did not self correct, it accelerated toward its own demise. Now, we have backlogged inventories in almost every industry, increased job loss, even lower sales potential, and are spiraling toward ruin. AND YOU WANT EVEN MORE TAX CUTS, which will only increase production further, worsening the problem by idling more capital into unsold properties.
GOP economics = FAIL. And you want more of it because: a) you don't know anything else; b) you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand economics; c) you claim people should go get a job and pull themselves up, when jobs are disappearing because of GOP tax breaks for corporations to offshore jobs; and, d) you hate government and seek all out anarchy, given your memes of drowning government in the bathtub, etc.
SO, no sale on your two week contrition for 8 years of mismanagement, and your new found claims of fiscal responsibility. You leaders have no clue what it means, let alone just rediscovered it after a brief lapse with Spend Baby Spend. GOP presidents have always been the biggest spenders. So, Spin Baby Spin, but you goopers are still full of shyt.-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/02/2009 9:11:03 PM
One more question, how does raising taxes keep the big mean corporations (who employe everybody and without we would not be able to live the way we have) from going overseas? Wouldn't lower taxes help keep these corporations at home? Especially in this day and age of "Made in America"?
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 10:51:39 PM
billtill doesn't get it, so he has to change the subject to "raising taxes" on corporations...
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/03/2009 2:07:54 PM
What I don't get is how people who claim to be intelligent will blindly support any action of Obama purely because he is their president. Even among Democrats this man is an unprecendented spender. This deficit will kill the US. If you think inflation is a good thing, get ready to have a great time.
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/03/2009 5:22:27 PM
"What I don't get is how people who claim to be intelligent will blindly support any action of Obama purely because he is their president. "
What?
Whatever happened to "it is treason to disagree with the president in wartime"? Remember that? It was only a few years ago that you guys were screeching that at any hint of dissent. Did the rules suddenly change?-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/04/2009 8:01:26 AM
Man its never treason to disagree with anybody. I can't believe that someone who believes in democracy would try to scare people by saying they are committing treason. Do you really believe you have moral character?
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/04/2009 10:40:43 AM
The comment I was paraphrasing was made by Ari Fleischer, Bush's first press secretary. LOL.
Thanks for stating that neither he nor Bush has any moral character, though.-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/04/2009 11:14:10 AM
Yet you just adopted it for yourself. Again I dont like George Bush, nor do I agree with the war in Iraq. Your attempt to put me into some category to make yourself feel better again shows how pathetic you are, and incapable of having a real discussion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/02/2009 11:14:49 PM
1) Your "good ole boy" corporations employ less than 20% of the people in the US. So you're wrong on that point.
2) Tax cuts, as a corporate incentive, are designed to increase production through capacity expansion. When you already have over-production, further stimulating production makes the problem worse. So, you're wrong on that (and apparently don't know when or why to use taxcuts as monetary policy tools).
3) Reagan, Bush I, Bush II are the biggest spending presidents in US history. Clinton's up there, too. Yup, you're wrong again.
4) It's clear you have zero understanding of monetary policy, which is ok because your heroes know even less. I wish you did, then we could talk intelligently about what's happening. And if you didn't just spew, you would find I have many criticisms for what is happening now. BUT, you have to up your tempo and intelligence, and stop chanting tired slogans, if you want me to take you to the heart of the matter. Having a sub-optimal solution, however, is infintely better than your offer of no solution.
5) Further, why are you scared? All a corporation has to say is: "if you make me help the country, I'll hurt your people." And you chickenhawks shake in your cowardly boots. BOO! Under US Law a corporation has no more standing than one single citizen. ONE. Why are you so scared? One threat, and you chicken out of representing your constituents, and standing up for your country. But I notice, you do hold out your hand out for payola on the way out.
Thanks for admitting you're afraid. That's a positive first step. However, we don't need more chickenhawks, we need people who are prepared to act. NOW.
And I'll say this: You and your ilk, have done more to damage the heritage of your party than any liberal, democrat, socialist, communist, or independent could ever have. The GOP, though I have disagreed with them most of my life, used to stand behind, and support America, and believed in the need for American government (even if I disputed their policies). Our differences used to be about how best to adminster this country. Now, given your abuse and low intelligence, we are fighting you for the life or death of America. For that, I spit disdain at you feet. -
Posted By: bighappy @ 03/02/2009 9:44:41 PM
Exactly. These fools do not understand, or play stupid.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 10:52:38 PM
bighappy doesn't get any of it, so he just calls them "stupid"...
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 03/02/2009 9:17:31 PM
You started good, and then reduced yourself to the same pitiful Liberal propaganda. First, real estate insanity started well after 2001, time whrn Bush reduced taxes. Second, when your formula uncovered real danger, White House tried several times to slow it down and provide some restrictions on banks to no avail in Congress, remember, even GOP majority could not do much without 60 votes in Senate. Third, real estate push was against any free market principles, typical case when goverment interference (remeber, all those huge goverment-supported mortgage institutions were created in Clinton era, end Republicans are equally respoinsinle) gives unfair advantage to some.
Fourth, it is very suspicious how and when this crisis started. Several lending institutions had huge losses, so what? Several "normal' big investment banks, including Bank of America, were in very good shape, all speculative real estate money stayed in american banks because were paied to american first hand or second hand sellers, several companies had the best 3rd quater, and then those well-organized bancruptcies, whinings, foolish White House response and so on overnight turned everybody in new Great Depression mood.
You loveli OMama is still trying to bring more fear to bring Socialism to us, but his absolute power will expire very soon, definitely in 2 year, may be even in 1 year, not enough to destriy such great country.-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 9:38:19 PM
I was going to respond to this. But it's just too lame. You know, like:
"then those well-organized bancruptcies, whinings, foolish White House response and so on overnight turned everybody in new Great Depression mood.
You loveli OMama is still trying to bring mor fear to bring Socialism to us, but his absolute power..."
'Nuff said.-
Posted By: bighappy @ 03/02/2009 10:14:34 PM
Thanks for repeating my points, 40 (or Pia or who knows who else). By the way, I agree with your point that greed and irresponsibility form both sides, no tideology, caused this crisis.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 10:29:13 PM
Yes, I repeated it because it was so stupid. I can see why you're so proud... Your implication about my identity is just lame.
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/02/2009 11:49:39 PM
40, lol! However do you fit in my petite size clothing? And your poor feet in three inch heels all day!
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 11:53:05 PM
It kills me every time I have to get those on to post in your name!
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/02/2009 11:56:39 PM
Size six. What are yours? Btw, what was your fragrance for the day?
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/03/2009 12:06:48 AM
Size nine shows. Ummm, fragrance.... was that Un Lys?
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/03/2009 12:10:53 AM
Size nine is on the big side. You remembered me saying here that Un Lys is my fave! No Un Lys today...too cold, today was an amber/vanilla spicyfragrance from Italy by I profumi di Firenze. Ambra Del Nepal.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/03/2009 12:15:47 AM
That's not from where I remembered it. Ambra Del Nepal sounds much more apropos to the winter.
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/03/2009 12:22:03 AM
Buona notte,40.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/03/2009 12:28:48 AM
Same, same, SP,
-
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/03/2009 12:20:00 AM
Ambra is perfect for the cold..would never wear in summer.... sweet and yummy smelling... almost edible.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/03/2009 12:27:17 AM
-
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/03/2009 12:18:54 AM
-
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/03/2009 12:01:55 AM
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/03/2009 12:00:16 AM
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/02/2009 11:46:30 PM
Gee, so many screen names, so little time...Dope, bighappy! You are a dope if you believe what ToTheRight said. A bigdope.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 10:23:07 PM
-
-
-
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/02/2009 9:09:10 PM
Did you finish this fantastic speech with "GOP Presidents have always been the biggest spenders?" Have you not been paying attention??? Obama wants to spend how much money? You call that fiscal responsibility? Where does this money come from again? Nothing is destroyed during a foreclosure??? Except that the mortgage company stops receiving the payment??? You equate blaming the meltdown of the housing market as RACISM??? Whos being racist??? Glut of housing inventory in 2004?? http://www.censusbureau.biz/hhes/www/housing/hvs/prevqtrs.html please review the vacancy rates for 2002-2004: A nearly uniform rate of 14-15.5 million vacant houses during each quarter of that time frame. Where do you get your information? GOP economics fail? I hope you are still drinking that kool aid in the next 2-3 years when we all start feeling the effects of the trillions of dollars the Dems are spending to build bridges. Here is a hint, we do not have this money. It will have to be printed. You afraid of deflation, because the media wants you to believe having affordable things is BAD, get ready for inflation like you have never seen. Your little piggy bank will not help you through.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 7:21:37 PM
Excellent post, DWPitts. Truly excellent.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 03/05/2009 8:19:18 AM
Can we stop the BS on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act please, yes Sen Gramm was the sponsor of the bill but in the final House was 362 for and 57 against while in the Senate 90 voted for and 8 against, it the went to the Whitehouse where
-
Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 03/05/2009 8:48:05 AM
Can we stop the BS on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act please, yes Sen Gramm was the sponsor of the bill but the final House vote was 362 for and 57 against while in the Senate 90 voted for and 8 against, it then went to the Whitehouse where President Clinton signed it, a truly bi-partisan bill. The Clinton Treasury under Robert Rubin played a big roll in brokering the bill along with Gramm. Frontline has a very nice chronology of the Glass-Stegeall act at their web page here. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html
Like most bills in Congress there is something for everyone, well everyone in Congress, Banks got to expand their business making Republicans happy in return for a Dodd/Shumer compromise on the CRA that made Democrats happy. Therefore you have very little opposition in the final passage of the bill and no veto from the Clinton Whitehouse a truly bi-partisan bill so as a wise man in Verona once said A pox on both their houses.-
Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 03/05/2009 11:16:17 AM
Plenty of blame to pass around for both parties. The assertion often made here that only the Republicans are at fault is absurd.
-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/05/2009 12:19:49 PM
No serious person believes the Big Dawg didn't do damage too. We all know, and exactly what he did to get re-elected. So your denial meme is bunk. The Big Dawg triangulated between Reagonomics, the Republican Congress, and the voting public, to the determient of sound governance. In a very real sense, he jumped on your gravy train. None of us deny that.
BUT, whose gravy train was it FF?
SO, we have arrived at today, and until the GOP begin to accept a large share of the responsibility for the mess we're in (and start working toward fixing it instead of chanting more taxcuts), your deflections (and projections) at the democratic party (in an effort to regain power) are extremely hollow and non-contrite. Your argument boils down to: everybody was doing it, so it's ok. it's NOT ok.
Besides, the public isn't buying into the blame game you're playing. It makes you look sad and pathetic, especially after Abramoff. I didn't get Jack from Abramoff, cause I'm not a republican, lol. Golf anyone?-
Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 03/05/2009 3:38:16 PM
There are thousands of Jack Abramoffs giving to both Democrats and Republicans; you can???t possibly think both sides aren???t taking millions? You can???t possibly think one side is taking them in charity and kindness and the other in malfeasance? Why are people acting like this is something new, our political history is full of problems brought on by corruption, incompetence and political skulduggery. That you should think my side is honest and saintly and the other is corrupt and sinning is sophistry. Maybe the problem is Congress is filled with professionals who have lost touch with the average citizen that they accept gifts as their due are just a symptom of how out of touch they have become.
The fact that both sides are bankrupt of ideas and committing trans-generational tyranny
by pushing an enormous burden of debt on future generations. We simply do not want to hear that the gravy train is over and it???s time to pay the bill, no matter who got us here the bill belongs to us and we need to pay it. The fact is the government needs to raise taxes, cut spending, and balance the budget. I don???t care about placing blame I want someone with a solution.-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/05/2009 6:13:56 PM
Never said there wasn't. But how I choose to address what is being passed around in the MSM now is fair game. And if you examine closely, I never said one side had all the fault. It's simple counterbalance. For reference: Notice the recent Hardball interview with Tom Delay, where he states repeatedly: "Bush did nothing wrong. Republican Congress did nothing wrong. Republican Party did nothing wrong. It was democrats." Rush goes without saying. Then we see here, nihilist statements being used as some semi-confession of everybody's wrong, so anybody who points at the GOP is absurd (and henceforth anniliated from discussion). It isn't honest debate. Further, the "self confessional" is being used to say "everybody was wrong on Glass-Steigel so can't we just forget it (and do nothing about re-legislating it)." Sorry, but that's how I read the bones. Glass-Steigel must be met head on, fixed and modernized, and put back into law. Using a nihilistic semi-confession to sink it, does NOT hold water.
Notice one other thing: in the reconstruction done for "can't we all just get along" sakes, notice how it's only democrats that are named as the ones in the wrong (it's almost always like this). Then the screed: Gramm was just the sponsor. It's a loaded proposition and it isn't honest. Hence, it warrants counterbalance. Further, both the argument and nihilistic follow-through deserve scrunity, where the false logic is blown up and diffused. Sorry, but the only honest debate in this vein is: "how are we going to repair the damage, and re-regulate in an efficient manner, so once again we can insulate the public from moral hazard (bailouts are the realization of moral hazard projected on the public)." Anything short of this is gamey. And until gamesmanship is blown out, it will be impossible to fix the massive problems we have.
Finally, I have no party affiliation and am a trained observer (not that it matters, but I've used it in government, business, finance, and in many different countries, in some dangerous settings). Using this, I notice some cannot take criticism. It's a mark, really, and as a observer, I have certain devices at my disposal to expose what's below the mark. Guess I shouldn't do it anymore (it's a bad habit in today's climate, as people tend to accuse me of all kinds of gooky crap, which is sometimes entertaining, but usually just plain boring).
Anyway, decided to park my car on this matter. I saw what I needed to see already.-
Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 03/05/2009 7:15:01 PM
DW, first I said was the sponsor not just sponsored, there is a world of difference in those statements. If you noticed my other comment below Glass-Stegeall was not the real issue it was Gramms stuffing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into an 11,000 page budget bill in 2000 that is were all the CDS issues arise. I have to cut Clinton a little slack here as Gramm used a tried and true method to stuff it through, tie it to a budget bill and a last minute one at that. I'm willing to bet most people in Congress, the Treasury or the Whitehouse didn't even know of or saw that slight of hand. If you need to find blame this is where to start, this bill let Enron run wild and deregulated CDS trading. This nifty little regulatory change is where we need to look to start regulating again. I agree with your point that we need regulation we wouldn't of had it to start with if people had not needed to be restrained for the overall good of society in the first place. My point on blame is that it will waste to much time, there is enough to go around and we need to start fixing the problem now. Lets fix things first then you can start the mindless, endless round of Congressional hearings that will accomplish nothing but raise Hannity and Limbaugh's ratings.
-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/06/2009 1:26:29 AM
In an enterprise such as banking, which at its finest, is a primary vehicle for the execution of a country's monetary policy, it is MANDATORY to constrain business within regulation, if the country has any chance at all of maintaining a stable, efficient economy. Allowing this outside of government's hands is dangerous, and vulnerable to the individual profit motives of any given business.
To say let's leave monetary policy in the hands of free enterprise is insane. How we turned our backs of hundreds of years of experience, to jump in bad with laisse-faire capitalism is a national disgrace, and further evidence on the dumbing down of America (as we threw out or devalued the best knowledge and experience, in return for the future promise of untold wealth). This aspect is addressed in the heart of many religons and general folk wisdom. Like: "Don't count your fracking chickens, before they hatch" comes readily to mind when anywhere near CDSs or selling the future value of mortgages on par with currency.
The very premise of moral hazard is defined by: insuring reward doesn't become so excessive as to blind ones eyes to the underlying risk of doing business. It's human nature to shoot for the stars. Unfortunately, this also has the bad side affect of turning acceptable risk taking into something far more sinister when the $$$ rise to insane heights.
After this last year, I still cannot understand how some think it can be fixed in the short-term, and then once again left to it's own devices. We'll only have to repeat this episode again, and again, and again as the economy swings wildly between boom and bust. Stability and controlled growth are the answers. Laisse-faire, not so much.
-
-
Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 03/05/2009 7:13:07 PM
DW, first I said was the sponsor not just sponsored, there is a world of difference in those statements. If you noticed my other comment below Glass-Stegeall was not the real issue it was Gramms stuffing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into an 11,000 page budget bill in 2000 that is were all the CDS issues arise. I have to cut Clinton a little slack here as Gramm used a tried and true method to stuff it through, tie it to a budget bill and a last minute one at that. I'm willing to bet most people in Congress, the Treasury or the Whitehouse didn't even know of or saw that slight of hand. If you need to find blame this is where to start, this bill let Enron run wild and deregulated CDS trading. This nifty little regulatory change is where we need to look to start regulating again. I agree with your point that we need regulation we wouldn't of had it to start with if people had not needed to be restrained for the overall good of society in the first place. My point on blame is that it will waste to much time, there is enough to go around and we need to start fixing the problem now. Lets fix things first then you can start the mindless, endless round of Congressional hearings that will accomplish nothing but raise Hannity and Limbaugh's ratings.
-
-
-
Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 03/05/2009 1:50:57 PM
Quote: "BUT, whose gravy train was it"
Do you think Clinton had his arm twisted to sign that legislation? Everyone was on the gravy train, no one argued with the growth we were having. However it was Bush who saw the coming mess and tried to stop it beginning in 2001. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank that fought his legislation over ten times that would have curbed unbridled, maniacal lending practices. Some of the reps fought it too, so they weren't the only ones, but Frank and Dodd spearheaded the effort to defeat that legislation, so the dems are equally responsible also for the mess were in. BTW, where in my post did I chant tax cuts or say "everybody was doing it, so it was okay?" I didn't, it's just your usual liberal rewriting of others' posts.
Your conclusion that the democratic party had little, if any to do with this mess is asinine, and of course, as absurd as your other posts.
By all means, go "stroke" someone else at the golf course. Your BS doesn't work here.
Enjoy!-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/05/2009 2:28:56 PM
Golf was a reference to what led to the dismantling of Interior, Justice and who knows what else until it gets kicked over and looked into. I don't play it personally.
Fact remains the same. 38% democratic, 29% independent, 28% republican. And trending right to left.
Still looking for some thread to absolve the GOP of any responsibility, I see. It's ok, we're used to it (ref: Tom Delay on Hardball recently). I never concluded anything about the democratic party, I even stated the Big Dawg triangluated and contributed to the problem. So who is really "rewriting and re-interpreting" over people's posts? So you can call people names, misrepresent what they say, vent venom into the public domain, but until the GOP accepts responsibility for their actions, it's a nonstarter. I noticed how you position for absolution by saying it's an equally shared divison of responsibility? That's nihilistic on its best face. Sort of clearing the slate for a fresh start...
As an advocate and defender of GOP policy, the taxcut reference is to the basis of everything the GOP is claiming now as the "solution". Sorry you cannot see that. Interesting response though.
And regards everything I post is asinine: I assume you mean the blast I wrote against the GOP operative who was pounding this board with a "liberals only breed to collect more welfare" meme. Thanks for clearing up where you stand on that issue. Good to know. As that's your frame of reference, I won't be discussing anything further with you. Dehumanizing millions of Americans is a despicable act (and a precursor to something much worse), and cannot be debated, given the basic lack of any morality within that position. See where totality gets you?
Facts are facts, though. Until people start working on the solution, instead of positioning for elections and searching for evil doers, the public isn't buying it.-
Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 03/05/2009 5:55:02 PM
DW, I also think that you have the wrong Gramm/Clinton malfeasance on CDS problem, it was not Gramm-Leach-Bliley but the Commodity Futures Modernization Act 0f 2000 that allowed CDS to go wild. This change was the stroke of genus that let Enron run wild as well; anyone have any sympathy for Gray Davis now that we know what Enron was really doing?
-
Posted By: DWPitts @ 03/06/2009 12:44:30 AM
Glass-Steigel had to be dropped first to remove the barriers between investment banks, depository institutions, insurance companies, securities brokerages et al. Sort of like a "gateway drug", if you will. If the strict functional partitions were still in place, the spread of CDSs could have at least been minimized and contained. By turning the financial industry back into the wild, wild west of the the 1920s, the same old mistakes were repeated in the inter-operation of the service sectors that were well known (from the stock market crashes 1907 and 1929) to be destablizing to the overall economy. The market crash of 1907 is an extremely important event when considering the heritage of CDSs (more so than 1929).
Without GS falling first though, what happened later, deregulation (or re-regulation) wise, wouldn't haven't been nearly as devastating. I still see the dismantling of GS as the root cause. However, the need for regulation is not limited to this one aspect, as you clearly mention.
The key point is, the forces of deregulation, even though we had ample knowledge and experience from past mistakes, knowingly created a dangerous environment, and as the rewards got ever higher, introduced ever higher moral hazard, as risk wasn't taken seriously. This aspect of banking knowledge (the need for internal risk management to prevent moral hazard) goes back as far as the old maritime banks (some of which are hundreds of years old, e.g., Dutch, English French, etc.).
To say nobody could predict this is an absolute misrepresentation. The truth is, the rewards were so high, few bothered to even assess risk in a serious manner (although we know now, there were warnings issued throughout the 2000s that this event was possible). There are ample writings available on the poor risk models used for CDSs, models known to blowup if prices dropped, And the underlying "golden" assumption was, "real estate prices would NEVER drop". Our entire economy in the 2000s was vulnerable to that one assumption.
There are no words....
-
-
Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 03/05/2009 2:49:34 PM
Quote: "Still looking for some thread to absolve the GOP of any responsibility, I see."
I did not indicate that anywhere. I said both parties are at fault, which they are. There's no reason to post with you if you're going to rewrite my posts.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: SeattleGuy @ 03/06/2009 12:35:13 AM
You are only partially right, FF. The current credit crisis would not have been possible without the removal of Glass-Steagall with the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Sure, there are many greedy Dems on Wall Street who enriched themselves, but overwhelmingly, the fault was that of those who sold out to deregulate banking. Without regulation and oversight we get the same predictable results as the Roaring 20's; we get a crisis in counterparty trust.
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/05/2009 2:19:54 PM
WOW! we agree on at least this one thing huh ;)
-
-
-
Posted By: Fortunate Fox @ 03/05/2009 11:11:37 AM
Thank you. The left seems to forget minor little details like that.
-
-
Posted By: fishinfool555 @ 03/02/2009 9:34:44 PM
Don't forget that GLBA was passed in an ammended form. The original version had considerably tighter controls but was ammended to avoid a veto threat from President Clinton who thought that the original language would be too restrictive on low income, higher risk borrowers.
The actual vote was 52(R) + 38(D) = 90 Yea, 1(R) + 7(D) = 8 Nay and 2 not voting in the Senate. In the House, the vote was 207(R) + 155(D) = 362 Yea, 5(R) + 51(D) + 1(I) = 57 Nay and 15 not voting.
As you can see, this was hardly a "Republican Only" bill and the more damaging provisions were inserted during conference by the Democrats at the Presidents urging. As passed, it enjoyed considerable bi-partisan support in both houses so please don't try to lay the blame at Phil Gramm's door since his original was much changed in it's final form.-
Posted By: SeattleGuy @ 03/06/2009 12:45:41 AM
fish- Pols vote on bills for a number of reasons. The least of which is that they actually support the piece. For example, Republicans repeatedly point to the votes on the Iraq war funding as though it signified something. As I recall that period just after the 9/11 attacks, many Americans wanted to lynch anyone wearing Islamic headgear. It wasn't one of our finer moments. Anyway, I didn't miss the fact that Bush kept war funding off of his annual budget for SIX YEARS so as to illuminate any UNPATRIOTIC DEMS who would date vote against it. Is the wool pulled over your eyes that easily?
-
-
Posted By: razedbywolveswi @ 03/03/2009 10:55:11 PM
"The collapse of the financial institutions is due to the bogus Credit Default Swaps that were allowed due to the effective repeal of Glass-Steagall by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act." Obviously not the whole story 40, heavily regulated European banks also suffered a housing bubble and managed to make the same mistakes as bankers in the US.
"The myth that our crisis is caused by some airey-fairy law that 'forced' banks to lend to unqualified borrowers is just a propaganda smokescreen." Such flowery condescension should remind everyone how the financial crisis is an example of the smartest guy in the room getting it all wrong. Nobody was "forced to lend" but underwriting standards at Fannie Mae were lowered under political pressure so more loans could be made to subprime borrowers in the name of affordable housing. The Bush administration tried to reform regulation of Fannie and Freddie in 2003 but was shut down by democrats who feared it would reduce lending for low income housing. This doesn't fit the current narrative of blaming republicans and deregulation for all economic woes so you're just supposed to pretend nobody saw it coming. -
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 03/02/2009 9:21:39 PM
And let's not forget the role the rating agencies played in this as well - which has not been reported as nearly as much as it should.
They were cozy with the banks and ended up giving many of these mortgage backed securities AAA ratings when the reality is they had no idea how to rate them.
It all comes down to greed. There are more people who knew this was going to happen that most American's realized, but many of those people figured they would have made their money and would be long gone before the bubble burst - and many of them did just that.
Everyone condemns Bernie Madoff for his ponzi scheme (and rightfully so) but it pales in comparison to the ponzi scheme Wall Street has been running on the American people for the last decade.-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 9:26:28 PM
Indeed.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 03/02/2009 9:36:47 PM
I think everyone is more or less in agreement that the financial institutions writing the mortgages took significantly greater risk when they were able to pass that risk onto someone else, although opinons differ as to how that happened and who is responsible.
But do people realize that financial institutions have been doing the same thing with credit card debit? Just as with mortgages, credit card debit is packaged and sold as investment instruments, so the banks issuing the credit cards are no longer fully on the hook for the defaults. The amounts are smaller than the mortgage backed securities, but with the economy going south, I can't help but wonder if this is going to be the next shoe to drop.-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/02/2009 10:08:39 PM
Excellent comments! Hi Zig!
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 03/02/2009 10:19:29 PM
Hi Pia! It's been a while since I have had time to check out Newsweek. Looks like nothing has changed.
Except we are in power now! Yea!-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/02/2009 11:57:48 PM
Hi! yeah, we are in power but the naysayers/ sore losers are in full form around here!
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: fishinfool555 @ 03/02/2009 9:44:05 PM
Don't forget that GLBA was passed in an ammended form. The original version had considerably tighter controls but was ammended to avoid a veto threat from President Clinton who thought that the original language would be too restrictive on low income, higher risk borrowers.
The actual vote was 52(R) + 38(D) = 90 Yea, 1(R) + 7(D) = 8 Nay and 2 not voting in the Senate. In the House, the vote was 207(R) + 155(D) = 362 Yea, 5(R) + 51(D) + 1(I) = 57 Nay and 15 not voting.
As you can see, this was hardly a "Republican Only" bill and the more damaging provisions were inserted during conference by the Democrats at the Presidents urging. As passed, it enjoyed considerable bi-partisan support in both houses so please don't try to lay the blame at Phil Gramm's door since his original was much changed in it's final form. -
Posted By: fishinfool555 @ 03/02/2009 9:36:05 PM
Don't forget that GLBA was passed in an ammended form. The original version had considerably tighter controls but was ammended to avoid a veto threat from President Clinton who thought that the original language would be too restrictive on low income, higher risk borrowers.
The actual vote was 52(R) + 38(D) = 90 Yea, 1(R) + 7(D) = 8 Nay and 2 not voting in the Senate. In the House, the vote was 207(R) + 155(D) = 362 Yea, 5(R) + 51(D) + 1(I) = 57 Nay and 15 not voting.
As you can see, this was hardly a "Republican Only" bill and the more damaging provisions were inserted during conference by the Democrats at the Presidents urging. As passed, it enjoyed considerable bi-partisan support in both houses so please don't try to lay the blame at Phil Gramm's door since his original was much changed in it's final form.
-
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/02/2009 2:50:42 PM
SO...it's Bill Clinton's fault...right?
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/02/2009 3:02:45 PM
It was the Bill Clinton administration that pressured Fannie Mae to relax their lending standards. Did you read paragraph three?
-
Posted By: SeattleGuy @ 03/06/2009 12:47:38 AM
I heard this on Hannity and Rush a few weeks ago. Can you give me a source? I can't find any. Sounds like revisionist history 101 to me.
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/02/2009 3:11:56 PM
Yeah it was amazing...what's really amazing is YOU are saying BUSH had EIGHT YEARS to do SOMETHING did NOTHING, not even in the first six years when he had ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOV in his pocket.
Finally a conservative takes responsibility for his presidents actions...thank you billtill for showing us how BUSH DID NOTHING! for EIGHT YEARS...you're a great American.-
Posted By: Vypurr @ 03/02/2009 3:30:13 PM
Of course Bush did something. It's on record that he took legislation to congress over a dozen times dating back to 2001 that would have stopped insane lending practices. That could have averted the housing mess were in, which is what started all this in the first place. But.... Barney Frank and Chris Dodd fought it tooth and nail. In fact, Frank is on record saying there was nothing wrong with what they were doing! By the way, McCain took the same type of legislation to congress in 2006, but Frank and Dodd fought it the same way.
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/02/2009 8:01:25 PM
Hi there Vypurr. How is the Vyp btw?
Vypurr-Correct me if I am wrong about any of this, but in 2001, weren't the Reps the majority? If so they could have shot down what Dodd and Frank wanted to do, yet they did not. Perhaps they wanted to keep things the way they were because it was time for Pres. Bush to help out the corporations that got him elected? Who ever thought they were such crooks in the midst! Again, this is my humble/naive opinion, and if I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm not being sarcastic either.-
Posted By: chicagograd @ 03/02/2009 8:15:43 PM
Pia 1981--the rules of the Senate prevented it. People don't realize this, but in the Senate, to do any real business, you must have a 60 vote majority. In 2001 (before Jim Jeffords, formerly R-VT, became I-VT and handed Democrats the majority until 2002), the Senate was split VERY closely, 50-50, with Republicans holding the majority due to VP Cheney's tie-breaking vote. Even after the 2004 elections, which resulted in Republicans holding 55 seats, they couldn't peel off enough Democrats to reach the 60 mark to change the regulations of Fannie and Freddie.
Governing is incredibly hard in a system like ours; the rules protect the minority from being totally walked upon. Democrats appreciated the power before 2006, now they hate it. Republicans, on the other hand, used to hate it, but now it's their lifeblood.
For Rep. Frank, on the other hand, it is very simple to change things, since the House rules are VERY unfavorable to the minority. A simple majority can steamroll anything they want. That's why Republicans can't stand Nancy Pelosi: she oftentimes cuts them out of any and all negotiations, simply because she can. Hastert did the same thing to Dems. However, in the end, you need both the House and the Senate to support the bill before it can go to the President. President Bush, for all his good intentions with changing the regulations regarding the mortgage giants, was never able to fix things because of the rules of Congress.-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 8:35:55 PM
Redherring aside that FHLMC and FNMA are the main factors in the collapse of our financial sector (e.g. AIG's sole problem is Credit Default Swaps), the bill that McCain co-sponsored died in committee. The propaganda that the Ds 'blocked it' is a lie. There were enough R votes to get it out of committee without a single D vote.
-
Posted By: Vypurr @ 03/02/2009 9:17:37 PM
It isn't a lie 40. Though the vast majority of reps would have voted for the Bush and McCain legislation, a few of them would not have. That's where they couldn't get enough votes
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 9:48:10 PM
It is a lie Vypurr.
The Rs had enough votes to get that McCain co-sponsored bill out of commitee without a single D vote. I gave you the link long ago. I only stay on the subject because it is a continuation of the anonymous email propaganda that 'the Dems blocked it!'
I also gave you a link to the Wall Street Journal article that discussed that McCain's campaign manager led the charge, was paid many millions to lobby Rs only to keep that McCain co-sponsored bill from getting out of the committee that had enough R votes to advance it without a single D vote.-
Posted By: Vypurr @ 03/02/2009 10:30:20 PM
It is unfair to place the entire blame on the dems. Theoretically the reps had the numbers to pass Bush legislation... but not all of the reps would have voted for it. Frank and Dodd voted party line, and the small number of reps that would have gone with them killed the deal.
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/03/2009 5:24:24 PM
So...whose fault is it?
Oh, yeah. The GOP's. -
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/03/2009 2:22:59 AM
"Theoretically"????????
Well you're getting closer..so good for you. -
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 10:57:53 PM
Vypurr-
I'm only in this fight (and only looked into it) because of the constant refrain was to blame the Dems, and now it is to blame Obama.
I've made numerous posts about 'plenty blame to go around' but that does not amount to a hill of beans if the effort is intended or operates to blame Obama or to hamstring him from attending to the massive problems that need attention.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Vypurr @ 03/02/2009 9:00:43 PM
Hey there Pia! I'm doing fine, and you?
Chicagograd is dead on. The point here is Bush did try to stop the coming catastrophe many times, and so did McCain in 2006. The fact is in the beginning, almost everyone was on board for the growth we were having, and most thought it wouldn't end let alone crash the way it has. Hopefully we'll all learn from it and come out of this better for it. -
Posted By: chicagograd @ 03/02/2009 8:16:00 PM
Pia 1981--the rules of the Senate prevented it. People don't realize this, but in the Senate, to do any real business, you must have a 60 vote majority. In 2001 (before Jim Jeffords, formerly R-VT, became I-VT and handed Democrats the majority until 2002), the Senate was split VERY closely, 50-50, with Republicans holding the majority due to VP Cheney's tie-breaking vote. Even after the 2004 elections, which resulted in Republicans holding 55 seats, they couldn't peel off enough Democrats to reach the 60 mark to change the regulations of Fannie and Freddie.
Governing is incredibly hard in a system like ours; the rules protect the minority from being totally walked upon. Democrats appreciated the power before 2006, now they hate it. Republicans, on the other hand, used to hate it, but now it's their lifeblood.
For Rep. Frank, on the other hand, it is very simple to change things, since the House rules are VERY unfavorable to the minority. A simple majority can steamroll anything they want. That's why Republicans can't stand Nancy Pelosi: she oftentimes cuts them out of any and all negotiations, simply because she can. Hastert did the same thing to Dems. However, in the end, you need both the House and the Senate to support the bill before it can go to the President. President Bush, for all his good intentions with changing the regulations regarding the mortgage giants, was never able to fix things because of the rules of Congress.-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/02/2009 8:52:09 PM
chicagograd-Very informative, thank you. There is so much I don't know.
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 8:26:04 PM
-
-
Posted By: chicagograd @ 03/02/2009 8:11:37 PM
Pia 1981--the rules of the Senate prevented it. People don't realize this, but in the Senate, to do any real business, you must have a 60 vote majority. In 2001 (before Jim Jeffords, formerly R-VT, became I-VT and handed Democrats the majority until 2002), the Senate was split VERY closely, 50-50, with Republicans holding the majority due to VP Cheney's tie-breaking vote. Even after the 2004 elections, which resulted in Republicans holding 55 seats, they couldn't peel off enough Democrats to reach the 60 mark to change the regulations of Fannie and Freddie.
Governing is incredibly hard in a system like ours; the rules protect the minority from being totally walked upon. Democrats appreciated the power before 2006, now they hate it. Republicans, on the other hand, used to hate it, but now it's their lifeblood.
For Rep. Frank, on the other hand, it is very simple to change things, since the House rules are VERY unfavorable to the minority. A simple majority can steamroll anything they want. That's why Republicans can't stand Nancy Pelosi: she oftentimes cuts them out of any and all negotiations, simply because she can. Hastert did the same thing to Dems. However, in the end, you need both the House and the Senate to support the bill before it can go to the President. President Bush, for all his good intentions with changing the regulations regarding the mortgage giants, was never able to fix things because of the rules of Congress.
-
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/02/2009 3:36:08 PM
Who owned congress in 2001?
Oh, yeah.-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/02/2009 6:25:24 PM
LMAO! I love when the parrots forget that FACT....they forget many if not all, but that is my favorite.
-
Posted By: Vypurr @ 03/02/2009 8:52:35 PM
You're dreaming. They didn't "own" anything, though you want everyone to believe they did. Read Chicagograd's explanation and weep.
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/03/2009 1:38:47 PM
Wait. So the republicans DIDN'T have a majority from 2001-2007?
Is that what you're saying? LOL. -
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/03/2009 2:24:34 AM
LMAO! yeah I'm weaping for the past and celebrating the future son ;)
-
-
Posted By: Pia1981 @ 03/02/2009 7:24:57 PM
The Reps owned Congress for almost 6 years, yet they want us to forget that.
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/03/2009 2:26:29 AM
actually twelve years 6 of clinton and 6 of bush...
-
-
-
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/03/2009 2:21:57 AM
Bush had 6 years and a republican TOTAL majority in congress and did nothing but war. torture and wiretap.
"By the way, McCain took the same type of legislation to congress in 2006"....long after Obama had already addressed it with congress that year...typical of McCain...day late...blah, blah, blah...
-
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/02/2009 3:15:43 PM
Absolutely right, guess what I don't like Bush any more than you. This is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't change the fact that Liberal policies are wrong, that Obama is leading us in the wrong direction, and that the end result will be the end of the US.
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/02/2009 3:30:37 PM
The whole point is that it isn't just the so-called "liberals". It's the entire system that has failed.
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/02/2009 4:21:58 PM
Please check your figures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 9:55:13 PM
I already posted to you that I trust the Wall Street Journal figures on the amounts of CDWs. I've already said also that CDWs were the bigger problem as demonstrated by the fact that the TARP funds that were intended to buy bad mortgages were just given to the zombie financial institutions because buying bad mortgages wouldn't begin to solve the bigger problem of those bogus securities issued because regulation of them was effectively repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, written and sponsored by none other than Phil Gramm.
-
-
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 3:37:00 PM
Let's see. You start this thread trying to blame Clinton for the financial collapse. Now you want to stop living in the past, right?
The collapse of the financial institutions is due to the bogus Credit Defaul Swaps that were allowed due to the effective repeal of Glass-Steagall by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (yes that Phil Gramm).
The Credit Default Swaps, alone, increased from $20TRILLION in 2000 to $525TRILLION in '06.
Because conventional mortgages couldn't fill the need for mortgages that Credit Default Swaps 'insured', the same financial institutions effectively dropped all mortgage qualification requirements and they created all those whacky 'low payment' mortgages. They were making trillions from those Credit Default Swaps. Because of 'leveraging', the Credit Default Swaps are many multiples of all the mortgages in existence.
Those financial institutions did all that voluntarily, to get the money available from selling those bogus securities. No bank has ever been 'forced' to make a mortgage to unqualified borrowers. The financial institutions did it out of greed enabled by Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
The myth that our crisis is caused by some airey-fairy law that 'forced' banks to lend to unqualified borrowers is just a propaganda smokescreen by those people who want to hide what they did with the deregulation under Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and it is an effort to blame 'the others'
-
-
-
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/02/2009 3:05:14 PM
Do you know why the New York times printed that? Because they were PROUD of it, thought it would help them get more votes for LIBERALS! They were showing all the underprivelged the great thing Bill Clinton and his administration did. Look at the result.
-
-
Posted By: SeattleGuy @ 03/06/2009 12:08:51 AM
If your assertion were true, billtill, foreclosures by CRA-sponsored loans would exceed the 6% of the total foreclosures nationally. CRA was passed in 1977 to reverse the practice of "redlining", google it. If you look inside the numbers, you will see that most of the defaults and foreclosures are caucasion and middle-class. They are spread among subprime, Alt-A, and more recently prime loans. As time goes on we will see the majority them become prime. Main Street greed had little to do with class or income. The get-rich-quick mentality was widespread. The GOP's relentless efforts to deregulate business was the genesis of the shadow banking industry. This lead to non-regulated actors originating unconventional loans. Sure, FRE and FNMA joined the party late since they were losing market share. CDSs began in 1997 at JPM with an innovation called "BISTRO". Mix Wall Street greed with Main Street greed, add leverage and the net result is financial armageddon. Let' just hope the Obama's team can stop it, otherwise we're going to have a nuclear winter.
-
Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 03/05/2009 2:19:22 PM
and the fact is the BUSH with a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in congress for 6 years did NOTHING...well actually for eight years but he had complete control for 6...so thanks for your confession about that complete ERROR too ;)
-
Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/02/2009 2:54:49 PM
-
-
Posted By: sirbryan1955 @ 03/06/2009 10:30:22 AM
All the Democans and Republicrats want is our money. Their unwillingness to drop all pork barrel projects, at least for a year or two, until we come out of this recession is proof of that. As long as the American tax payer has to keep funding BIG government we will NEVER climb out of this financial quagmire. If Obama really wanted to fix this economy, he'd quit worrying about pissing off the Democans and Republicrats and veto all pork barrel projects. We don't need to spend millions on astrology awareness in Hawaii or the elimination of Pig Odor in the Iowa. Let the states fund these projects themselves if they are so important. EVERYONE in Congress needs to give up their pet projects for at least a year or two so we can ALL recover from this recession.
-
Posted By: logicteacher @ 03/05/2009 8:10:10 PM
Pelosi is the least of Obamas problems. Obama told us all he had the solutions to our economy yet the stock market is crashing. Were you one of those who helped the country with the Obama change scam ? Take out your wallets until the Republicans come back in 4 years..
-
Posted By: JunebugNJ @ 03/05/2009 6:22:52 PM
Pelosi's divisiveness is unappealing, unattractive, and wrong for the Nation right now. She better get a grip on her own reality or she won't be returning to DC.
-
Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 03/05/2009 5:35:01 PM
Pelosi is all politician and that isn't all that attractive but it is consistent with many others from both sides of the isle. The Bush-Cheney Presidency, with the full and stubborn support of the Republican Party, demonstrated how government can be controlled by their dependency and concentration on Special Interests and a select few (powerful, influential and extremely wealthy entities) who provide return overt and covert support, contributions and promised after-office (kickback) compensation, all while the government gives the average American only apathy, the costs and an abundance of subterfuge. To underestimate that relationship and the resulting control provided to the powerful few would be to ignore all that has become evident and the severe problems at hand. The irresponsible and arrogant performance that was totally unconscionable and extreme in the hands of Bush-Cheney simply was not only seen in their administration and now what Limbaugh deceptively advocates is really the continuation of that behavior and more of that philosophy. Personally I hope for Limbaugh to fail and America to succeed.
-
Posted By: atsegga @ 03/05/2009 5:21:47 PM
The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget
-
Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 03/05/2009 3:51:36 PM
You can't make this stuff up.
Pelosi and Reid struck down an amendment by Coburn [R-Ok] that would have stopped pork money from being ladled out to firms that were ''under investigation'' by the feds. Seems reasonable enough. But Murtha,in an incredible piece of arrogant hubris,whined when his crooked under-investigation-by-the-FBI PMA group would have been cut out of the doh ray me to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars.
Hows this for ''stimulus''?
Hows this for ''The Most Ethical Congress In History''? [Remarks, Nancy Pelosi [D-Ca] Oct.18,2006 ].
www.senate.gov The Coburn Amendment
-
Posted By: Davole @ 03/05/2009 11:39:26 AM
Operation Rushbo!
The four mouseketeers, democrat strategists Stanley Greenberg, James Carville, Paul Begala, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have decided to attempt to deflect public attention from the substance and cost of Barack Obama???s numerous abysmal Porkulus Packages by launching a tirade against Rush Limbaugh.
Yes, the democrats are revealing themselves to be true students of history, as they attempt to revive the manipulative propaganda policies of the repulsive and oppressive Third Reich.
Rush Limbaugh, the ever jovial competent radio conservative talk-show host, who enjoys the support of over 20 million listeners, welcomed the additional attention, and revels in the fact that most democrats regard him as the de facto leader of the Republican party.
He confidently challenged Barack Obama to debate his failing government???s economic so-called stimulus omnibus bills, and its other chaotic policies to foster and entrench radical socialism.
As usual, Barack Obama and his talking heads are unavailable for comment.
As a side note, Sean Hannity, an accomplished conservative commentator on the Fox News channel, has also previously challenged Barack Obama to get together with him over a few beers and to discuss the current empty suit president???s economic policies.
As usual, Barack Obama and his talking heads are unavailable for comment.
Revealing himself to be the true sportsman that he is, Barack Obama obviously prefers to focus on the softball questions of adoration lobbed to him by the likes of Oprah and the chatterbox talking heads who gossip on the View (or more correctly described as the Phew!).
Barack Obama can run, but he cannot hide! His pathetic legacy is visible for all to see!
-
Posted By: Phenomenally Me @ 03/03/2009 4:42:41 PM
Obviously we need changes to alot of programs and spending habits of the government. Billtill as long as there are people on this earth, there will be poor and less fortunate folks that will need help. What do you suggest? Leave them to starve while you eat high on the hog? Oh I see they should get a job, yet uneducated? How about we give them resources to education and career development- all which require some type of program and yes will includes welfare too! Democrats and Republicans alike should push for what they believe the PEOPLE want or will benefit from. I am a Democrat and I think that if they didnt push they wouldnt be doing the jobs they were elected to do. I think this article is more about Pelosi learning how to listen to opposition. I do believe majority means power but it does not mean closing your ear to what others may have to say . She has to learn to entertain opposition and be open to some change. Its about the people not her power!
-
Posted By: billtill @ 03/05/2009 10:25:33 AM
I never said I didn't want to help those that need help. I just dont want to waste money on people exploiting the system or wasted on special interest tax dollars for all the victims that the Decmocrat party creates. By creating these groups and promising handouts, you are preventing these groups the opportunity to stand on their own two feet. Its called coddling. People need to learn to take care of themselves, but they will never learn that so long as there are inappropriate programs out there holding their hands.
-
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- It is my intention to finish the job Obama, on sending additional troops to AfghanistanUSAT
- We cannot, by ourselves, win Carl Levin, on the U.S. needing help from Afghans in the warAP
- Black Friday should unleash pent-up demand. Analyst Bill DreherNYT
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
Discuss