Obama's change?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="bltserv" date=1227774868]Winex

Not sure what propoganda you have been listening to.



But A. Q. Khan is a hero in Pakistan.

I forgot. Is Pakistan our friend or enemy ?

Guess I am not so sure since thats where Osama bin Laden lives in safety.



Your living in a bubble if you think that Keeping Nuclear materials from

spreading around the world is possible. With the fall of the Soviet Union

and the availability of Enriched Uranium. The production of a simple

device is inevitable. The best way to keep this from becoming a threat

is MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction. When and if we are attacked. The offending

nation will cease to exist. This is what should have happened when all those Saudi

nationals destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11. But we lacked the sack to make it happen.

If your going to hurt someone. Do it hard and do it right. Ask the Japanese about this lesson.</blockquote>


Blow up the holy land? I'm sure that would have sent those wacky terrorists running. Why stop there though? I suppose we should have attacked Egypt, Yemen and UAE according to your stellar logic.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1227773783][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1227769549][quote author="optimusprime" date=1227760685]The M.O. of the Democrats and the liberal left....we piss on you and slander you but you better not fight back.



I wasn't joking about Bush-43 getting a fair shake from history. Abe Lincoln was deemed a complete f-up and so was Harry Truman...now both are endured by the history books.</blockquote>


I am curious as to what you think historians will look back on Bush 43 and list as positive accomplishments? Quite honestly, I don't know what enamors historians with Harry Truman either...</blockquote>


Let's start with peacefully disabling Libya's WMD program and the A. Q. Khan "Nuclear Supermarket" that was supplying Libya, Iran and North Korea with the knowledge to build nuclear weapons. That is a direct result of the Iraq war.



Are you on record as saying we would be better off if Khadaffi had nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW?</blockquote>


Let's put these events in correct historical context because historians will. The Right seems to believe that Khadaffi was being his old renegade self when suddenly GWB scared the crap out of him and he decided to give up his nuclear weapons. That is perhaps 20% true. Khadaffi had been in negotiations with Great Britain for almost 10 years prior to his giving up his weapons (remember <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103">Lockerbie</a>?) He badly wanted to get back in to the international community and stop the embargo. The negotiations were nearing their conclusion when GWB probably did scare him into signing agreements to give up his weapons. He probably would have done this anyway, but perhaps not. It is entirely possible GWB's actions were the deciding factor, but 80% of the credit should go to the British negotiators who dialogued with Khadaffi all those years.



Let's say GWB's foreign policy of naked aggression toward perceived enemies was successful in scaring Khadaffi. What were the results in North Korea and Iran? Both of them quickly accelerated their nuclear programs, and Iran is likely on the verge of having the bomb. Would either of these countries been quite so motivated if Bush had not called them part of the axis of evil and invaded Iraq?



"Are you on record as saying we would be better off if Khadaffi had nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW?" I know you tend to be rather inflammatory in the political threads, and that is OK, but this statement is just silly. This is "straw man" argumentation at its most ridiculous. First, nothing I said could possibly be construed as meaning this. Second, I don't want any nutcase government to have nuclear weapons. It worries me that we have pushed Iran into further developing their nuclear program. It worries me the North Koreans are still trying. I wish Pakistan did not have the bomb. Obviously, I would not want Khadaffi to have nuclear weapons. And third, the connection between Khadaffi having nuclear weapons and GWB's policies are weak at best.



If this is the best historians can say of Bush, then his legacy will be pretty grim.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1227787151][quote author="WINEX" date=1227773783][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1227769549][quote author="optimusprime" date=1227760685]The M.O. of the Democrats and the liberal left....we piss on you and slander you but you better not fight back.



I wasn't joking about Bush-43 getting a fair shake from history. Abe Lincoln was deemed a complete f-up and so was Harry Truman...now both are endured by the history books.</blockquote>


I am curious as to what you think historians will look back on Bush 43 and list as positive accomplishments? Quite honestly, I don't know what enamors historians with Harry Truman either...</blockquote>


Let's start with peacefully disabling Libya's WMD program and the A. Q. Khan "Nuclear Supermarket" that was supplying Libya, Iran and North Korea with the knowledge to build nuclear weapons. That is a direct result of the Iraq war.



Are you on record as saying we would be better off if Khadaffi had nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW?</blockquote>


Let's put these events in correct historical context because historians will. The Right seems to believe that Khadaffi was being his old renegade self when suddenly GWB scared the crap out of him and he decided to give up his nuclear weapons. That is perhaps 20% true. Khadaffi had been in negotiations with Great Britain for almost 10 years prior to his giving up his weapons (remember <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103">Lockerbie</a>?) He badly wanted to get back in to the international community and stop the embargo. The negotiations were nearing their conclusion when GWB probably did scare him into signing agreements to give up his weapons. He probably would have done this anyway, but perhaps not. It is entirely possible GWB's actions were the deciding factor, but 80% of the credit should go to the British negotiators who dialogued with Khadaffi all those years.



Let's say GWB's foreign policy of naked aggression toward perceived enemies was successful in scaring Khadaffi. What were the results in North Korea and Iran? Both of them quickly accelerated their nuclear programs, and Iran is likely on the verge of having the bomb. Would either of these countries been quite so motivated if Bush had not called them part of the axis of evil and invaded Iraq?



"Are you on record as saying we would be better off if Khadaffi had nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW?" I know you tend to be rather inflammatory in the political threads, and that is OK, but this statement is just silly. This is "straw man" argumentation at its most ridiculous. First, nothing I said could possibly be construed as meaning this. Second, I don't want any nutcase government to have nuclear weapons. It worries me that we have pushed Iran into further developing their nuclear program. It worries me the North Koreans are still trying. I wish Pakistan did not have the bomb. Obviously, I would not want Khadaffi to have nuclear weapons. And third, the connection between Khadaffi having nuclear weapons and GWB's policies are weak at best.



If this is the best historians can say of Bush, then his legacy will be pretty grim.</blockquote>


That's a nice bit of revisionist history that you are trying to push there.



First of all, if the British had been in negotiations with Libya for 10 years prior to their WMD program being disabled, those negotiations would have started 5 years before Lockerbie.



But more important that the timeline is the simple fact that Britian was trying to get reparations for families of the victims of the bombing. As you can see <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3149431.stm">here,</a> that issue was settled in August 2003. Libya was disarmed in December 2003. Khadaffi surrendered his WMD programs about a week after Saddam's sons were killed. The negotiations that enabled Khadaffi to avoid Saddam Hussein's fate <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031219-9.html">began in March 2003</a>. While Tony Blair acted like a true ally, the disarming of Libya is purely the result of the Iraq war.



In past posts, I have seen you state that you would like to undo everything President Bush has done. If that is true, then you must support rearming Libya and putting A. Q. Khan back in business.



If you were simply engaging in a little hyperbole, now would be a good time to say so.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1227788017][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1227787151][quote author="WINEX" date=1227773783][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1227769549][quote author="optimusprime" date=1227760685]The M.O. of the Democrats and the liberal left....we piss on you and slander you but you better not fight back.



I wasn't joking about Bush-43 getting a fair shake from history. Abe Lincoln was deemed a complete f-up and so was Harry Truman...now both are endured by the history books.</blockquote>


I am curious as to what you think historians will look back on Bush 43 and list as positive accomplishments? Quite honestly, I don't know what enamors historians with Harry Truman either...</blockquote>


Let's start with peacefully disabling Libya's WMD program and the A. Q. Khan "Nuclear Supermarket" that was supplying Libya, Iran and North Korea with the knowledge to build nuclear weapons. That is a direct result of the Iraq war.



Are you on record as saying we would be better off if Khadaffi had nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW?</blockquote>


Let's put these events in correct historical context because historians will. The Right seems to believe that Khadaffi was being his old renegade self when suddenly GWB scared the crap out of him and he decided to give up his nuclear weapons. That is perhaps 20% true. Khadaffi had been in negotiations with Great Britain for almost 10 years prior to his giving up his weapons (remember <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103">Lockerbie</a>?) He badly wanted to get back in to the international community and stop the embargo. The negotiations were nearing their conclusion when GWB probably did scare him into signing agreements to give up his weapons. He probably would have done this anyway, but perhaps not. It is entirely possible GWB's actions were the deciding factor, but 80% of the credit should go to the British negotiators who dialogued with Khadaffi all those years.



Let's say GWB's foreign policy of naked aggression toward perceived enemies was successful in scaring Khadaffi. What were the results in North Korea and Iran? Both of them quickly accelerated their nuclear programs, and Iran is likely on the verge of having the bomb. Would either of these countries been quite so motivated if Bush had not called them part of the axis of evil and invaded Iraq?



"Are you on record as saying we would be better off if Khadaffi had nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW?" I know you tend to be rather inflammatory in the political threads, and that is OK, but this statement is just silly. This is "straw man" argumentation at its most ridiculous. First, nothing I said could possibly be construed as meaning this. Second, I don't want any nutcase government to have nuclear weapons. It worries me that we have pushed Iran into further developing their nuclear program. It worries me the North Koreans are still trying. I wish Pakistan did not have the bomb. Obviously, I would not want Khadaffi to have nuclear weapons. And third, the connection between Khadaffi having nuclear weapons and GWB's policies are weak at best.



If this is the best historians can say of Bush, then his legacy will be pretty grim.</blockquote>


That's a nice bit of revisionist history that you are trying to push there.



First of all, if the British had been in negotiations with Libya for 10 years prior to their WMD program being disabled, those negotiations would have started 5 years before Lockerbie.



But more important that the timeline is the simple fact that Britian was trying to get reparations for families of the victims of the bombing. As you can see <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3149431.stm">here,</a> that issue was settled in August 2003. Libya was disarmed in December 2003. Khadaffi surrendered his WMD programs about a week after Saddam's sons were killed. The negotiations that enabled Khadaffi to avoid Saddam Hussein's fate <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031219-9.html">began in March 2003</a>. While Tony Blair acted like a true ally, the disarming of Libya is purely the result of the Iraq war.



In past posts, I have seen you state that you would like to undo everything President Bush has done. If that is true, then you must support rearming Libya and putting A. Q. Khan back in business.



If you were simply engaging in a little hyperbole, now would be a good time to say so.</blockquote>


Lockerbie was 1988. The negotiations concluded in 2003. That is 15 years later. I have no idea what you are talking about with the time discrepancy or revisionist history.



Historians can debate (and so can we) whether or not GWB's actions were the catalyst. I have laid out the case that it was not.



I don't recall stating that I would like to undo everything GWB has done, but I do not think he accomplished much that I felt was positive for America, and I do believe he made very serious blunders as President. Whether any of us want to see it happen, I imagine Obama and the Democrats <em>will </em>undo almost everything GWB did. I won't lose any sleep over that.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1227789178][quote author="WINEX" date=1227788017][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1227787151][quote author="WINEX" date=1227773783][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1227769549][quote author="optimusprime" date=1227760685]The M.O. of the Democrats and the liberal left....we piss on you and slander you but you better not fight back.



I wasn't joking about Bush-43 getting a fair shake from history. Abe Lincoln was deemed a complete f-up and so was Harry Truman...now both are endured by the history books.</blockquote>


I am curious as to what you think historians will look back on Bush 43 and list as positive accomplishments? Quite honestly, I don't know what enamors historians with Harry Truman either...</blockquote>


Let's start with peacefully disabling Libya's WMD program and the A. Q. Khan "Nuclear Supermarket" that was supplying Libya, Iran and North Korea with the knowledge to build nuclear weapons. That is a direct result of the Iraq war.



Are you on record as saying we would be better off if Khadaffi had nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW?</blockquote>


Let's put these events in correct historical context because historians will. The Right seems to believe that Khadaffi was being his old renegade self when suddenly GWB scared the crap out of him and he decided to give up his nuclear weapons. That is perhaps 20% true. Khadaffi had been in negotiations with Great Britain for almost 10 years prior to his giving up his weapons (remember <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103">Lockerbie</a>?) He badly wanted to get back in to the international community and stop the embargo. The negotiations were nearing their conclusion when GWB probably did scare him into signing agreements to give up his weapons. He probably would have done this anyway, but perhaps not. It is entirely possible GWB's actions were the deciding factor, but 80% of the credit should go to the British negotiators who dialogued with Khadaffi all those years.



Let's say GWB's foreign policy of naked aggression toward perceived enemies was successful in scaring Khadaffi. What were the results in North Korea and Iran? Both of them quickly accelerated their nuclear programs, and Iran is likely on the verge of having the bomb. Would either of these countries been quite so motivated if Bush had not called them part of the axis of evil and invaded Iraq?



"Are you on record as saying we would be better off if Khadaffi had nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW?" I know you tend to be rather inflammatory in the political threads, and that is OK, but this statement is just silly. This is "straw man" argumentation at its most ridiculous. First, nothing I said could possibly be construed as meaning this. Second, I don't want any nutcase government to have nuclear weapons. It worries me that we have pushed Iran into further developing their nuclear program. It worries me the North Koreans are still trying. I wish Pakistan did not have the bomb. Obviously, I would not want Khadaffi to have nuclear weapons. And third, the connection between Khadaffi having nuclear weapons and GWB's policies are weak at best.



If this is the best historians can say of Bush, then his legacy will be pretty grim.</blockquote>


That's a nice bit of revisionist history that you are trying to push there.



First of all, if the British had been in negotiations with Libya for 10 years prior to their WMD program being disabled, those negotiations would have started 5 years before Lockerbie.



But more important that the timeline is the simple fact that Britian was trying to get reparations for families of the victims of the bombing. As you can see <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3149431.stm">here,</a> that issue was settled in August 2003. Libya was disarmed in December 2003. Khadaffi surrendered his WMD programs about a week after Saddam's sons were killed. The negotiations that enabled Khadaffi to avoid Saddam Hussein's fate <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031219-9.html">began in March 2003</a>. While Tony Blair acted like a true ally, the disarming of Libya is purely the result of the Iraq war.



In past posts, I have seen you state that you would like to undo everything President Bush has done. If that is true, then you must support rearming Libya and putting A. Q. Khan back in business.



If you were simply engaging in a little hyperbole, now would be a good time to say so.</blockquote>


Lockerbie was 1988. The negotiations concluded in 2003. That is 15 years later. I have no idea what you are talking about with the time discrepancy or revisionist history.



Historians can debate (and so can we) whether or not GWB's actions were the catalyst. I have laid out the case that it was not.



I don't recall stating that I would like to undo everything GWB has done, but I do not think he accomplished much that I felt was positive for America, and I do believe he made very serious blunders as President. Whether any of us want to see it happen, I imagine Obama and the Democrats <em>will </em>undo almost everything GWB did. I won't lose any sleep over that.</blockquote>


Sorry, my mistake on the timeline of Lockerbie.



But the fact is that the negotiations to disarm Libya began at the same time as the Iraq war. From <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031219-9.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031219-9.html</a> :

<em>

Talks leading to this announcement began about nine months, ago when Prime Minister Tony Blair and I were contacted through personal envoys by Colonel Ghadafi. He communicated to us his willingness to make a decisive change in the policy of his government. At the direction of Colonel Ghadafi, himself, Libyan officials have provided American and British officers with documentation on that country's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programs and activities. Our experts in these fields have met directly with Libyan officials to learn additional details. </em>



Other sources you can check on your own will agree with this timeline. The catalyst for change was Iraq. It doesn't matter what case you are trying to make. The simple fact is that Iraq scared Khadaffi into changing directions.
 
I find it curious. I don't remember Dems lamenting this fondly over Jimmy Carter.



Rove really did a job brainwashing the 25%.



Luckily for 43, I don't think he cares what historians or anyone else think.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1227790065]It doesn't matter what case you are trying to make. The simple fact is that Iraq scared Khadaffi into changing directions.</blockquote>


And emboldened Russia into seizing Abkhazia... point? We really spent two trillion bucks and alienated the entire planet to bluff Kadafi? And his crew of ultra-hot bodyguard women?



Just out of curiousity as to whether or not you're really representing the whole dead-ender GOP take on reality, Winex - do you think humans walked the earth over 10,000 years ago?
 
"I find it curious. I don?t remember Dems lamenting this fondly over Jimmy Carter.



Rove really did a job brainwashing the 25%.



Luckily for 43, I don?t think he cares what historians or anyone else think."



Not lamenting fondly for Bush. I have personally found that most liberals and democrats are way to eager to lay every single problem this country has encountered over the last 8 years on Bush.



On Iraq we now know what has happened but we don't know what would have happened had we not gone into Iraq. It seems the liberals and the media assume that Suddam would have been a good boy and not "continued" to try to develop WMD's and if he did then he would not used them. The world would have been much better had we not invaded Iraq. Not for one second can the liberals envision a world where we did nothing(like Clinton) and Suddam achieved his goal of developing WMD's and invaded another country. If anyone believes that Suddam was not testing the waters when he continued to deny us access to his weapons facilities to see how far we would go I have a bridge to sell you.



It is like when you walk up to your child and ask them what is in their hand and they refuse to open it and then tell you nothing. You ask to see it and they say, "no" I don't have anything. Then you ask again and then they say "no" again. The fact they will not let you see makes you suspicious of them. That is essentially what Suddam did.



Clinton spent 8 years, 8 long years playing the games by Suddam's rules. Not the rules Saddam agreed to in the cease fire yet again the liberals and democrats keep ignoring that fact. The liberals and democrats refuse to even acknowledge that fact. We discuss if there were WMD's or if Bush had bad intel, etc, etc. But they refuse to discuss why we should let a country that voluntarily agreed to the conditions of a cease fire then break those same conditions.



8 years, 100's of UN inspection attempts a threat to bomb and Suddam still would not allow us to inspect his weapons facilities. What should we have done next sent in Dr. Phil to see why Suddam felt the way he did?



No-Vas you said this about the Gramm-Leach-Bailey act:



"By 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act rolled back Depression-era restrictions, allowing banks, brokerage firms and insurers to merge into financial holding companies that would be regulated by the Fed. "

I can remember being in MBA school when this happened. I remember shaking my head and asking ?Why is this necessary?? About the same time we deregulated the power market in California.

How?d that deal work out, anyway?

And the airlines, how have they been since deregulation? I mean service is so much better to the end consumer, especially if you fly out of Fresno of one of the fringe markets.



So I suppose that is why you won't address the fact that it was the liberal democrats that opened the door to the economic crisis we are in. That it was the liberal democrats that blocked every attempt to regulate fannie and freddy.



Again the liberal medial laid this on Bush but we know Pelossi, Dodd, Frank, Clinton and every liberal that believed that housing in America was a god given right. One snippet of Bush saying that and he is castrated but somehow we ignore when the barn door was opened. WE ignore bush's atttempts and warnings that we needed to regulate Fannie and Freddie and lay this on him again.



Now do I think Bush was the greatest president of all time. HELL no. Do I think he made mistakes HELL yes. Do I think that every bad thing that has happened over the last 8 years was of Bushs doing HELL no.
 
Here is Bush regulating Fannie and Freddie...



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>



Bad credit, low income, buy a bigger house as Bush says...



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>



If Clinton opened the barn door, then Bush got out the whip and started cracking it to rush the herd out of the barn. I can't believe people are really still trying to blame Fannie and Freddie for this. Don't get me started on the CRA either, with there default rates of less than 3%.
 
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>

Clinton



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>

Republicans trying to regulate Freddie and Fannie.



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>

Acorn



Once the horses are out of the Barn it is hard to get them back in.



Do I believe the CRA ws the only issue no but again it opened up the flood gate for the abuse for these loans.



Listening to the Bush speech's he advocated home ownership. He said "affordable housing" not give people that don't qualify for a 200k loan a 700k loan.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1227837827]Not lamenting fondly for Bush. I have personally found that most liberals and democrats are way to eager to lay every single problem this country has encountered over the last 8 years on Bush. </blockquote>


You will find no user who was more in favor of the Iraq war on this board and likely anywhere. Sadam was a bad guy who would of done further bad things if we hadn't stopped him.



Tactically the Bush admin couldn't of screwed up any worse than they did over there. It was sheer ignorance to assume they could provide thier own security after we rolled them up. Same for Katrina.



<blockquote>On Iraq we now know what has happened but we don't know what would have happened had we not gone into Iraq. It seems the liberals and the media assume that Suddam would have been a good boy and not "continued" to try to develop WMD's and if he did then he would not used them. The world would have been much better had we not invaded Iraq. Not for one second can the liberals envision a world where we did nothing(like Clinton) and Suddam achieved his goal of developing WMD's and invaded another country. If anyone believes that Suddam was not testing the waters when he continued to deny us access to his weapons facilities to see how far we would go I have a bridge to sell you.</blockquote>


See above, but IMO Sadam was running one hell of a bluff on us, his people, and his neighbors.



<blockquote>It is like when you walk up to your child and ask them what is in their hand and they refuse to open it and then tell you nothing. You ask to see it and they say, "no" I don't have anything. Then you ask again and then they say "no" again. The fact they will not let you see makes you suspicious of them. That is essentially what Suddam did.



Clinton spent 8 years, 8 long years playing the games by Suddam's rules. Not the rules Saddam agreed to in the cease fire yet again the liberals and democrats keep ignoring that fact. The liberals and democrats refuse to even acknowledge that fact. We discuss if there were WMD's or if Bush had bad intel, etc, etc. But they refuse to discuss why we should let a country that voluntarily agreed to the conditions of a cease fire then break those same conditions.



8 years, 100's of UN inspection attempts a threat to bomb and Suddam still would not allow us to inspect his weapons facilities. What should we have done next sent in Dr. Phil to see why Suddam felt the way he did?



No-Vas you said this about the Gramm-Leach-Bailey act:



"By 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act rolled back Depression-era restrictions, allowing banks, brokerage firms and insurers to merge into financial holding companies that would be regulated by the Fed. "

I can remember being in MBA school when this happened. I remember shaking my head and asking ?Why is this necessary?? About the same time we deregulated the power market in California.

How?d that deal work out, anyway?

And the airlines, how have they been since deregulation? I mean service is so much better to the end consumer, especially if you fly out of Fresno of one of the fringe markets.



So I suppose that is why you won't address the fact that it was the liberal democrats that opened the door to the economic crisis we are in. That it was the liberal democrats that blocked every attempt to regulate fannie and freddy.</blockquote>


You could of got rid of Fannie and Freddie and it wouldn't of stopped the subprime deal.



Don't let the facts get in the way of your idology. Find somebody to blame.



</blockquote>Again the liberal medial laid this on Bush but we know Pelossi, Dodd, Frank, Clinton and every liberal that believed that housing in America was a god given right. One snippet of Bush saying that and he is castrated but somehow we ignore when the barn door was opened. WE ignore bush's atttempts and warnings that we needed to regulate Fannie and Freddie and lay this on him again.



Now do I think Bush was the greatest president of all time. HELL no. Do I think he made mistakes HELL yes. Do I think that every bad thing that has happened over the last 8 years was of Bushs doing HELL no.</blockquote>


If you want to blame Fannie and Freddie on the housing meltdown, you'll be alone. Deregulation has been a bad thing, and it was forwarded by a lot of folks who drank the koolaid that the best thing we can do is "get government off our backs".



Oops.



I hear this more and more from folks who should know better. I'm disapointed.



<a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/loans-subprime-banks-2228728-law-lenders">http://www.ocregister.com/articles/loans-subprime-banks-2228728-law-lenders</a>



<blockquote><em>Did a 31-year-old law giving poor people a break at the bank accidentally break the bank?



A lot of opinion leaders think so. From the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to talk shows to the op-ed page of The Register, people are charging that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced banks to make bad loans, leading to financial Armageddon.



There's just one problem: It isn't true.



A Register analysis of more than 12 million subprime mortgages worth nearly $2 trillion shows that most of the lenders who made risky subprime loans were exempt from the Community Reinvestment Act. And many of the lenders covered by the law that did make subprime loans came late to that market ? after smaller, unregulated players showed there was money to be made.



</em></blockquote>


Have a good holiday and enjoy a side of denial for me.
 
My point in all of this is not to defend Bush, conservatives, republicans or my ideology. I am far from being in denial. I understand completely that there are/were MANY factors in each of these issues.



When we look at these issues Bush was not the only person involved or making decisions. In some instances the ball was rolling well before Bush was even elected.



There are plenty of guilty parties and we could continue down this road and look at who subprime companies like Countrywide donated more money to.



What I don't think we can say is that it was all Bush's doing.



If Bush is incompetent every other person republican of democrat that had a hand in this is an incompetent idiot as well. Clinton, Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Gramm, Bush etc even including Obama. I don't believe that to be the case. I don't believe these people are all idiots or incompetent.



I also don't believe for one moment that this is all the Liberal Democrats fault either. I believe that many people from both parties going back for quite some time are at fault for these things.



I have said I don't beleive that Bush was the best president. I just don't think he is nearly as bad or as incompetent as the liberal machine has made him out to be.



I don't understand what I am denying, I don't deny that Bush had a hand in this but it was not just his hand. If we want to call him incompetent then we need to start slapping that tag on a whole lot of Democrats and liberals as well. Maybe even Obama.
 
First, before I dissect your post of vids, I want to thank you for having the ability to have a discussion about this topic, and see it for what it is. For the record, I am an Independent, and I think for myself. I am socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not libertarian enough to eliminate the military like some. I am part of the party that doesn't exist. I blame Clinton for opening the barn door to this mess, and I blame Bush for cracking the whip on letting the herd out. When McCain pandered to blaming Freddie and Fannie, and buy mortgages at full price, I wanted to choke him. I honestly don't think Obama has a clear response to this, but McCain's was so dumb I wanted to grab his head and slam it against my head, because he went soooooooo far from free market capitalism, that he deserved that, or swift kick in the nuts.



[quote author="trrenter" date=1227848790]<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>

Republicans trying to regulate Freddie and Fannie.</blockquote>


This video seems to be a mix between the <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-1461">HR 1461</a> debates, and the accounting scandal of Freddie and Fannie. Either way, both sides of the political spectrum show their incompetence. If you read <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-1461">HR 1461</a>, then you would understand why it never passed, and why it would not have changed anything. First, it was a bill that abolished OFHEO, and basically abolished Fannie and Freddie. It created a new agency, with a new czar, who would report to people who wouldn't understand a word that was said, but would bitch about something. This bill did not regulate jack squat. In fact, it approved the same encouragement of Housing and development act of 1992. Could the oversight helped prevent this? Maybe, but for gawdsakes, why the hell would you come up with such a partisan bill, that you should know would never ever pass because of your arrogance, when all you had to do was implement the laws you want without uprooting an established entity to create you own dumb a$$ entity.



Like this would have helped, since it was contained for so long...



<em>SEC. 184. STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE SECONDARY MARKET SYSTEMS.



(a) In General- The Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, shall conduct a comprehensive study of the effects on financial and housing finance markets of alternatives to the current secondary market system for housing finance, taking into consideration changes in the structure of financial and housing finance markets and institutions since the creation of the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.</em>



<blockquote><object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>

Acorn



Once the horses are out of the Barn it is hard to get them back in.



Do I believe the CRA ws the only issue no but again it opened up the flood gate for the abuse for these loans.



Listening to the Bush speech's he advocated home ownership. He said "affordable housing" not give people that don't qualify for a 200k loan a 700k loan.</blockquote>


If you really believe the CRA is part of the problem, then can you provide me with evidence this? I mean, actual and factual evidence of this. I did many of a loan in my time, subprime, stated income, and 100% financing, but I never once did a CRA loan. You do know that firefighters, police, and teachers, regardless of ethnicity are part of the CRA, but since the Kool-Aid ran too deep in OC, none of those occupations ever qualified for the loans? They either made too much money, or didn't have enough down payment, because you had to verify the income despite the spin you get from the right. Please find me a factual source that proves the CRA was part of the problem. If you come up with lenders were forced to compete with CRA, then I will show you how they competed against themselves in their greed that destroyed them, not the CRA.



Oh... and in Bush's speech he does point out affording more home with the loans he is talking about. Whether you see this as advocating affordable housing or buying too much home, the person who bought too much home saw it that way.
 
Graph the main point is that like you said, "Either way, both sides of the political spectrum show their incompetence"



I just find that like I said the liberal machine has placed this all on Bush, then they paint Bush as incompetent. If we want to claim that Bush is incompetent than I would say anyone that shared in this would be incompetent too. Just my line of thinking.



Correct me if I am wrong but the CRA up until the Clinton administration was measured more on effort. If a bank advertised in a low income neighborhood and tried to process loans then they would get a favorable rating, even if they didn't make a loan. Then during the Clinton administration the banks started to get their grades from the amount of loans they made, if a bank didn't make enough loans they got a bad grade. Banks then had to be more aggressive with the types of loans they made popularizing little used loans such as Zero down loans and ARM loans. Putting low income people into homes the banks knew they couldn't afford when the loan reset. I know these loans are not the ones that are causing the entire meltdown.



I don't think the lenders were forced to compete with CRA, I think the CRA ushered in a new way for greedy people to make loans that may not have been made before. (Downey, Countrywide etc.)



This type of lending then spread to the rest of the industry.



I mean I guess we could go back to Regan as well and say that during his term the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act opened up the door to ARM loans.



I want to be clear I am not trying to argue whose fault this is. I am just trying to say it is clearly not all Bush's doing. Which seems to be the way many would like to portray this.
 
Fiscal Conservative + Socially Liberal = Nonsense



Here is a short quote from John Derbyshire on the topic.



Social liberal, fiscal conservative. A high point of NRO this last month was Maggie Gallagher?s piece on marriage, in which she made the point ? not original with her, but not made half as often as it should be ? that ?social liberal, fiscal conservative? is an oxymoron. Socially liberal policies, when implemented, generally end up as higher government expenditures and increased government powers. Relaxation of the divorce laws was socially liberal? but ended up swelling the welfare rolls. Liberalization of drug laws gets you more drug addicts, more need for treatment centers and counseling services. More open attitudes to homosexuality were socially liberal? but led to lavishly-funded programs to look after AIDS victims and pay for research into cures, and to state patrolling of our speech and thoughts via ?hate crime? legislation. Relaxed attitudes to crime and punishment were socially liberal while they lasted? and had to be paid for with expanded police forces and vast prison-building programs? and so on.



It?s not difficult to see why this should be so. Work the logic back from ?fiscal conservative.? If the state is not managing or paying for something, then the people must be managing it and paying for it themselves ? the original American ideal of self-support. That implies the willingness and ability of citizens to organize themselves in stable, coherent small groups for mutual assistance ? families, neighborhoods, associations, and townships. And that implies the readiness to sacrifice some of one?s own liberty to group norms and common endeavors... which is the point at which social liberals jump to their feet and start yelling angrily.



The goal of social liberalism is something like the happily hedonistic society of Aldous Huxley?s Brave New World. We should remember that the society Huxley imagined was, for all the cheery hedonism, a tightly-controlled dictatorship.
 
it seems to me that one problem is that a lot of people confuse liberatarianism (gay marriage is ok, state not involved in discrimination) with liberalism (state pays for housing/food/healthcare for all).
 
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top