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.
I like how InformedConsent always abandons the part of the argument in which hes been proven wrong, but will never admit so. I think instead of an elephant being the symbol of the GOP, it should just be a dining room table.
That's a great idea ... maybe then Bawney Fwank would have someone (something) he feels comfortable talking to ...
That's a great idea ... maybe then Bawney Fwank would have someone (something) he feels comfortable talking to ...
It'd be more useful than talking to someone like that crazy lady or someone as ignorant as you. At least dining room tables don't tell lies and spread misinformation.
It'd be more useful than talking to someone like that crazy lady or someone as ignorant as you. At least dining room tables don't tell lies and spread misinformation.
That would be perfect from the liberal point of view. A table can't ask uncomfortable questions, question the truth of statements or disagree with what they are saying.
As I said, perfect from the liberal point of view.
Raving about a 'Nazi policy' (there is/was not 'death panal', rationing of health care or euthanasia in the care bill) and waving a picture of the POTUS with a Hitler mustache is the perfect conservative point of view?
So the bills DO call for increased regulation and oversight of the GSE's financial activities, namely capitalization, as I said.
No had you read both bills you would the 92 bill covered.
Quote:
BCHAPTER II - REQUIRED CAPITAL LEVELS FOR ENTERPRISES AND SPECIAL
ENFORCEMENT POWERS
4611. Risk-based capital levels.
4612. Minimum capital levels.
4613. Critical capital levels.
4614. Capital classifications.
4615. Supervisory actions applicable to undercapitalized
enterprises
Quote:
But, the Dems wouldn't support the bills reining in Fannie and Freddie. And what do you know? Greenspan was right - Fannie and Freddie couldn't weather the big pullback in the housing market without a meltdown.
The administration squashed the House bill; Wayne Abernathy, a Treasury official, said, "We must not settle for a crippled regulator." The Senate bill was moving along--until Republican Senator Bob Bennett of Utah (who had the backing of other Senators) added an amendment giving Congress a 45-day window to veto the receivership. That, of course, completely undercut the notion that the government would no longer back the GSEs. Bennett's son is the deputy director of Fannie's Partnership Office in Utah.
Are you starting to understand, the republicans killed their own bill. The White House killed the house bill.
Barney Rubble needs to resign or be removed from his job.
Not only for being horrible at his job and screwing home owners, but for acting like a total moronic a-- at that town hall.
He has NO RIGHT to speak to any American citizen like he did.
He seems to forget those people hired him and pay him and he needs to treat them with respect.
Remove Frank from his job, he does not belong anywhere in a government job.
Barney Rubble needs to resign or be removed from his job.
Not only for being horrible at his job and screwing home owners, but for acting like a total moronic a-- at that town hall.
He has NO RIGHT to speak to any American citizen like he did.
He seems to forget those people hired him and pay him and he needs to treat them with respect.
Remove Frank from his job, he does not belong anywhere in a government job.
He is a total classless fool.
Respect goes both ways...and the idiot at the town hall meeting was as lacking in respect as many of the posters in this forum. Disrespect knows no bounds, but unfortunately I'm seeing most of it from the right wing.
'Fool'? Oh, that's rich... Since when is sticking up for yourself and the truth the definition of a fool?
Do you have me confuse with someone else? I never argued with you at all about any of that. That was jim something or other. Hell I think I may agree with you, but haven't read through your posts to figure that out because it is a completely different topic than I was talking about and 100% irrelevant to my post.
Then what did this refer to? You posted the following in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickeldude
I like how InformedConsent always abandons the part of the argument in which hes been proven wrong, but will never admit so. I think instead of an elephant being the symbol of the GOP, it should just be a dining room table.
Quote:
Seriously go back and read what I wrote.
We all just did. You have some explaining to do.
Quote:
Seems like you have an itchy trigger finger with a bibliography at your immediate disposal.
Well, your post in this thread implied that I was wrong and wouldn't admit it. The fact is that I know what I'm talking about - in great depth as a matter of fact. That's why I have sources to support what I post at my immediate disposal.
Quote:
Too bad I didn't even mention anything about GSE regulation, definition of a straw man argument.
But you did mention I was abandoning the part of the argument in which I've 'supposedly' been proven wrong, but won't admit so. Seems your attempts to deflect that statment in your post is the straw man argument.
Quote:
I don't see in the chart where it shows the gains that will be made from the stimulus bill.
Did you read the part about the deficits continuing at that level even after a recovery? I would guess not.
Quote:
If you would have comprehended what I was saying, you would know that this chart, not to mention all of the conservative arguments about Obama's spending, are irrelevant because there are expected returns out of this spending.
You should refer to those people as fiscal conservatives. Many fiscal conservatives are also social liberals.
Quote:
When Bush went to war with Iraq, there was no goal in mind, nor an amount of money we compromised to spend, nor any plan of action whatsoever. In effect, it was a giant bottomless hole that we threw all of our surplus money into, and to this day we just drop money into this pointless and meaningless hole we call Iraq. We have nothing to gain from that.
So why are we still there? The U.S. should pull out. We should pull out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, too!
Quote:
Stimulus, on the other hand, has the goal of reclaiming American jobs and eventually getting returns on the money spent so we can get out of the recession and stay out. Do you get it now? The stimulus money was spent in America, on America, and for America. The Iraq war money was spent in Iraq, on Iraq, and for Iraq.
And a great quote from Salon.com: "This gets to what is, to me, one of the more puzzling aspects of the administration's strategic thinking thus far. Given the economic situation, the stimulus has the potential to make -- or break -- Obama's presidency, and by the time it was passed, he'd already hired damn near every prominent left-of-center economist in the country. So why farm the process of putting the legislation together out to the 535 people least likely to come up with a coherent, efficient stimulus package? And then why do the same thing again on healthcare reform? That's arguably the second most important item on Obama's domestic agenda, behind the stimulus, and voters are going to judge him on it come 2012 -- they'll be judging the Democratic congress on it in 2010, too." Majority thinks stimulus isn't working - War Room - Salon.com
IMO, Obama's lack of leadership and his ineffective stimulus will break his presidency.
Quote:
And that is one of the many reasons Bush is the worst president we've ever had, and Obama is not.
Though Bush was certainly no prize, you might want to rethink that given so much evidence to the contrary.
Are you starting to understand, the republicans killed their own bill. The White House killed the house bill.
I understand 'a' republican killed the Senate bill by inserting a poison pill, so to speak. Bad move, but my link does in fact state that Fannie and Freddie had 'friends' in Congress - so why does that surprise you? About that bill-killer, Bennett - his son was the deputy director of Fannie's Partnership Office in Utah. Conflict of interest.
The WH killed the House bill because it was a "Fannie-friendly bill." As Treasury's Abernathy said at the time, "We must not settle for a crippled regulator."
When they told Barney that he would be regulating Fannie..his eyes lit up....you can write your own subtext to that 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.
