Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,843,743 times
Reputation: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?!
Now listen yopu guys who are slammin' poor old Rush....have a little respect...he IS the Republican party's leader, the only one who's not embarrased to speak for Repubs!...and the more he talks the more the truth about just what a Republican is surfaces
who is the spokesman/woman for the left? garofalo?
The housing bubble goes WAYYY back to before Bushs term but I challenge you to educate yourself on the Democratic response when Bush wanted to regulate the banking and loans better..
The problem wasnt that Democrats passed bills, the problem is that they didnt..
The problem was that interest rates were artificially low in order to boost the economy (and yes, Bush holds partial blame for this also) and to encourage massive refinancing and purchasing properties that many could not afford. When the economy stopped growing, many were holding the bag with holes in it, and yes, those who blocked bills to regulate and those that created such programs like Freddie/Fannie do hold blame, and they were the Democrats.
Lets not even discuss Clinton dismanteling regulations, and that the government NEVER should be buying or insuring mortgages..
Pgh please subscribe me those one-sided glasses you view the world in....
That is just insane to just say oh yeah it was the Democrats (when they weren't even in power)
I've recently read two detailed books about this Financial Crisis, and non-biased economics say the blame should be dished around ending at the man at the helm President Bush.
The only thing I blame Clinton on the is the repeal of that act (sorry it slips me right now, not the CRA but the bill that was passed by FDR in 1933 to separate the Banks and financial institutions) *Found it! The Glass-Steagall Act*
I think that in part allowed all these greedy banks and financial institutions to create vehicles they were previously unable to.
And yes alot of the bubble grew when the interest rate fell (Greenspan, Bush, Feds trying to recover from the 9/11 and Dot Com crash)
But to assert that Conservatives like Bush actually wanted to REGULATE when his (and Conservatives historally) views has always been about DEREGULATION is just inaccurate IMO.....
And EVEN if everything you, Rushy and Hanny allege is TRUE it is STILL the JOB of the LEADER/President of a Country (GW BUSH in this case) to take the bull by the horns and straighten messes out.
Why have a President if he cannot or will not stop American to fall under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE?
Do you think FDR couldv'e blamed Senator Robert Taft or Churchill if America failed in WWII?
Hell no the job of the leader is to steer this country through prosperity AND through messes to avoid destruction and downfall.
If you cannot do that (i.e George W Bush) IMO you have failed as a Leader....
Pgh please subscribe me those one-sided glasses you view the world in....
That is just insane to just say oh yeah it was the Democrats (when they weren't even in power)
I read two detailed books about this Financial Crisis, and non-biased economics say the blame should be dished around ending at the man at the helm President Bush.
The only thing I blame Clinton on the is the repeal of that act (sorry it slips me right now, not the CRA but the bill that was passed by FDR in 1933 to separate the Banks and financial institutions) *Found it! The Glass-Steagall Act*
I think that in part allowed all these greedy banks and financial institutions to create vehicles they were previously unable to.
And yes alot of the bubble grew when the interest rate fell (Pauly, Bush, Feds trying to recover from the 9/11 and Dot Com crash)
But to assert that Conservatives like Bush actually wanted to REGULATE when his (and Conservatives historally) views has always been about DEREGULATION is just inaccurate IMO.....
And EVEN if everything you, Rushy and Hanny allege is TRUE it is STILL the JOB of the LEADER/President of a Country (GW BUSH in this case) to take the bull by the horns and straighten messes out.
Why have a President if he cannot or will not stop American to fall under ANY circumstances?
Do you think FDR couldv'e blamed Senator Robert Taft or Churchill if America failed in WWII?
Hell no the job of the leader is to steer this country through prosperity AND messes
Third parties bundled TO THE GOVERNMENT, a program created by Democrats because according to them, even poor people should have homes.
Even now that the economy has burst, Fannie and Freddie is expanding, setting us up for another bubble, especially since now the government is printing money to fund the continuing expansion..
Lets not even discuss Democrats constantly telling Bush that there was no economic problem in mortgages going back several years before the collapse.
Dude I don't want to watch a video. Dispute those excellent points I made yourself at the very least that the very last one....
Yeah, why watch a video that discusses something your disputing.
Discuss what excellent points? I looked, I seen you blabbering about Bush not wanting to regulate the industry when EVERYONE knows he wanted to but Democrats like Frank blocked it. Hell, there are actual videos of Democrats all blocking the regulation, I'd find them, but you wouldnt watch that either, your mind is made up just like it was with "Rush"..
The only other point that it seems your trying to make is that "Obama = a failure".. What else can I conclude from your statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
Hell no the job of the leader is to steer this country through prosperity AND through messes to avoid destruction and downfall.
Rush Limbaugh has called for a boycott of GM to spite Barack Obama!
How can any sensible person (liberal or conservative) NOT see this Lunatic for what he is....A rambling blind one-sided cry baby!
How the heck do you wish more job losses and more heartache for Americans just to stick it to the President?
I'm sorry you lose all respect and credibility when all you stand by is that everything George W Bush did was great and every single thing Obama does or has done is evil and the worst thing for America....
C'mon!
Anyone care to explain the rationale behind this insanity?
Define "too far." I haven't listened to Rush in ages, but as far as I recall, it's a free country and citizens (if that means anything these days) are free to boycott whatever they wish.
Pgh please subscribe me those one-sided glasses you view the world in....
That is just insane to just say oh yeah it was the Democrats (when they weren't even in power)
I read two detailed books about this Financial Crisis, and non-biased economics say the blame should be dished around ending at the man at the helm President Bush.
The only thing I blame Clinton on the is the repeal of that act (sorry it slips me right now, not the CRA but the bill that was passed by FDR in 1933 to separate the Banks and financial institutions) *Found it! The Glass-Steagall Act*
I think that in part allowed all these greedy banks and financial institutions to create vehicles they were previously unable to.
And yes alot of the bubble grew when the interest rate fell (Pauly, Bush, Feds trying to recover from the 9/11 and Dot Com crash)
But to assert that Conservatives like Bush actually wanted to REGULATE when his (and Conservatives historally) views has always been about DEREGULATION is just inaccurate IMO.....
If you think regulation was going to prevent this financial crisis, you haven't paid much attention to the history of financial regulation. 1913 brought us the Federal Reserve, based on a financial panic in 1907. Did the Federal Reserve prevent the current crisis (or perhaps contribute to it)? The 1930s brought us the FDIC. Did the FDIC prevent the current crisis (or did it allow too many people to lose their arse by the arbitrarily-set maximums)? The 1970s brought us wage and price controls (you really wanna discuss how successful these were?) The 1980s brought us the Office of Thrift Supervision after the Savings and Loan debacle. Did the Office of Thrift Supervision prevent the current crisis? Or did the already-heavily-regulated banks do just fine by themselves with too much speculative real estate investing and lending?
Post-Enron gave us the glorious Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002. Did SOX prevent the current financial crisis? Or does it just bury everyone's head in more paperwork that does nothing to make financial statements transparent?
If you think government regulation is going to stabilize our economy and take out the hiccups (level your financial risks), I have a centrally-planned economy scheme I would like to sell you, comrade.
If you think regulation was going to prevent this financial crisis, you haven't paid much attention to the history of financial regulation. 1913 brought us the Federal Reserve, based on a financial panic in 1907. Did the Federal Reserve prevent the current crisis (or perhaps contribute to it)? The 1930s brought us the FDIC. Did the FDIC prevent the current crisis (or did it allow too many people to lose their arse by the arbitrarily-set maximums)? The 1970s brought us wage and price controls (you really wanna discuss how successful these were?) The 1980s brought us the Office of Thrift Supervision after the Savings and Loan debacle. Did the Office of Thrift Supervision prevent the current crisis? Or did the already-heavily-regulated banks do just fine by themselves with too much speculative real estate investing and lending?
Post-Enron gave us the glorious Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002. Did SOX prevent the current financial crisis? Or does it just bury everyone's head in more paperwork that does nothing to make financial statements transparent?
If you think government regulation is going to stabilize our economy and take out the hiccups (level your financial risks), I have a centrally-planned economy scheme I would like to sell you, comrade.
Im not fond of many of the newer toyota's......they are getting way too big!!!
(but I like the Scion)
I've never thought of a Toyota as "big." I think the "biggest" one is the Avalon at 197.2" (16.4 feet). With a 111" wheelbase, it would like more like a compact car to me than a "big" one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
