erm....i would say clinton did that.ATG wrote:
This president has done nothing to inspire anybody but terrorists.
I hope these posts are a relief to you, ATG. Otherwise, you're headed straight for a heart attack.
I don't listen to Hannity.God Save the Queen wrote:
I spent the evening watching fox. Thats all hannity was talking about.ATG wrote:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html
McCain is a fucking douche spigot.
Plain as the nose on my face. Yet McCain is silent.
He could be using this against the democrats but noooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Retards.
To mindlessly pro republican.
What do I care what Obama might do when I have EIGHT YEARS OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE DONE as proof?
ATG, I think this might be a reason why the repubs wont capitalize
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr … =n00006424
bad stuff man.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr … =n00006424
bad stuff man.
Jesus.God Save the Queen wrote:
ATG, I think this might be a reason why the repubs wont capitalize
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr … =n00006424
bad stuff man.
I feel like I just viewed crime scene photos splashed with entrails and smashed baby skulls.
What many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.
The New York Times reported this five years ago:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.This should have been a no-brainer, right? With hindsight, we can see that the Bush administration had accurately diagnosed the problem in the lending market and had a plan to address it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reluctantly supported the plan. However, Democrats objected :
The Bush administration isn’t blameless in letting this get out of hand, but clearly the origins of the disaster and the efforts to keep bad policies in place fall on the Democrats in this case.
The New York Times reported this five years ago:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.This should have been a no-brainer, right? With hindsight, we can see that the Bush administration had accurately diagnosed the problem in the lending market and had a plan to address it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reluctantly supported the plan. However, Democrats objected :
Sounds a little like the Democratic denial of problems in Social Security, doesn’t it? Nothing to see here, no crisis on the horizon. Everybody just move along, now. The Democrats had forced lenders to assume more risk at lower interest rates in the 1990s, as IBD points out today, and they didn’t want to countenance an end to their populist policies:Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
It was the Bush administration that wanted to rein in the madness in the credit markets, and the Democrats who wanted to extend the Clinton policies that created the crisis we have now. These same Democrats want to shift blame back to the administration that wanted to increase oversight and curtail risk in lending practices while reducing patronage at the giant GSEs.But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
The Bush administration isn’t blameless in letting this get out of hand, but clearly the origins of the disaster and the efforts to keep bad policies in place fall on the Democrats in this case.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It's bad, but remember that those are supposedly individual donations, collected by the organization's PACs. Notice the US army on the list?ATG wrote:
Jesus.God Save the Queen wrote:
ATG, I think this might be a reason why the repubs wont capitalize
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr … =n00006424
bad stuff man.
I feel like I just viewed crime scene photos splashed with entrails and smashed baby skulls.
whats that supposed to mean?
This should have been a no-brainer, right? With hindsight, we can see that the Bush administration had accurately diagnosed the problem in the lending market and had a plan to address it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reluctantly supported the plan. However, Democrats objected :Kmarion wrote:
Sometimes its just easier to look for simple answers. Bush was in office so it must be all his fault?
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.asp … 0789279709
What many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.
The New York Times reported this five years ago:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
Sounds a little like the Democratic denial of problems in Social Security, doesn’t it? Nothing to see here, no crisis on the horizon. Everybody just move along, now. The Democrats had forced lenders to assume more risk at lower interest rates in the 1990s, as IBD points out today, and they didn’t want to countenance an end to their populist policies:Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
It was the Bush administration that wanted to rein in the madness in the credit markets, and the Democrats who wanted to extend the Clinton policies that created the crisis we have now. These same Democrats want to shift blame back to the administration that wanted to increase oversight and curtail risk in lending practices while reducing patronage at the giant GSEs.But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
The Bush administration isn’t blameless in letting this get out of hand, but clearly the origins of the disaster and the efforts to keep bad policies in place fall on the Democrats in this case.i can honestly ask why you even try dude?
good post btw.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr … tt2=SubmitGod Save the Queen wrote:
ATG, I think this might be a reason why the repubs wont capitalize
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr … =n00006424
bad stuff man.
You can't seriously think the Republicans have a monopoly on contributions from financial institutions that are about to go bankrupt.
What? the US army? just pointing out that it isn't the US army donating, but money collected by PACs within the US army from individuals.God Save the Queen wrote:
whats that supposed to mean?
This should have been a no-brainer, right? With hindsight, we can see that the Bush administration had accurately diagnosed the problem in the lending market and had a plan to address it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reluctantly supported the plan. However, Democrats objected :Kmarion wrote:
Sometimes its just easier to look for simple answers. Bush was in office so it must be all his fault?
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.asp … 0789279709
What many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.
The New York Times reported this five years ago:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
Sounds a little like the Democratic denial of problems in Social Security, doesn’t it? Nothing to see here, no crisis on the horizon. Everybody just move along, now. The Democrats had forced lenders to assume more risk at lower interest rates in the 1990s, as IBD points out today, and they didn’t want to countenance an end to their populist policies:Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
It was the Bush administration that wanted to rein in the madness in the credit markets, and the Democrats who wanted to extend the Clinton policies that created the crisis we have now. These same Democrats want to shift blame back to the administration that wanted to increase oversight and curtail risk in lending practices while reducing patronage at the giant GSEs.But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
The Bush administration isn’t blameless in letting this get out of hand, but clearly the origins of the disaster and the efforts to keep bad policies in place fall on the Democrats in this case.I know Kman.
I'm not saying any of this is George Bushes fault, with one exception;
George Bush has spent money like no other. The federal government acts like it has a limitless credit line. It displays an amazing amount of confidence in our workers, whos earning make up the feds credit line, which is curious considering that during the last 20 years ( 12 of which were under republican leadership ) we have become a nation that doesn't produce a hell of a lot.
9-11 is no excuse for the excesses in spending and power grabbing under GW.
Oh, he has a legacy alright and presidents and parasites such as senators and congressmen will forever be grateful for their increased powers in observation and war making.
My objection in this thread specifically deals with his silence about the real or imagined financial calamity.
Get on the radio, Mr. Bush. Tell the people running for office to stop saying the economy is tanked because that is tanking it. Talk about what is good, if you can manage a coherent sentence. Fuck your two party system that created two assholes running into one orifice.
Last edited by ATG (2008-09-16 20:32:22)
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus … cycle=2008san4 wrote:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr … tt2=SubmitGod Save the Queen wrote:
ATG, I think this might be a reason why the repubs wont capitalize
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr … =n00006424
bad stuff man.
You can't seriously think the Republicans have a monopoly on contributions from financial institutions that are about to go bankrupt.
He is an unpopular president and it's election season. The Republicans are trying to keep him out of site. He didn't even go to the RNC. If the Dems were smart they would have thrown Pelosi in the trunk during theirs.ATG wrote:
I know Kman.
I'm not saying any of this is George Bushes fault, with one exception;
George Bush has spent money like no other. The federal government acts like it has a limitless credit line. It displays an amazing amount of confidence in our workers, whos earning make up the feds credit line, which is curious considering that during the last 20 years ( 12 of which were under republican leadership ) we have become a nation that doesn't produce a hell of a lot.
9-11 is no excuse for the excesses in spending and power grabbing under GW.
Oh, he has a legacy alright and presidents and parasites such as senators and congressmen will forever be grateful for their increased powers in observation and war making.
My objection in this thread specifically deals with his silence about the real or imagined financial calamity.
Get on the radio, Mr. Bush. Tell the people running for office to stop saying the economy is tanked because that is tanking it. Talk about what is good, if you can manage a coherent sentence. Fuck your two party system that created two assholes running into one orifice.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
She has a serious case of needs a glass of poison.Kmarion wrote:
He is an unpopular president and it's election season. The Republicans are trying to keep him out of site. He didn't even go to the RNC. If the Dems were smart they would have thrown Pelosi in the trunk during theirs.ATG wrote:
I know Kman.
I'm not saying any of this is George Bushes fault, with one exception;
George Bush has spent money like no other. The federal government acts like it has a limitless credit line. It displays an amazing amount of confidence in our workers, whos earning make up the feds credit line, which is curious considering that during the last 20 years ( 12 of which were under republican leadership ) we have become a nation that doesn't produce a hell of a lot.
9-11 is no excuse for the excesses in spending and power grabbing under GW.
Oh, he has a legacy alright and presidents and parasites such as senators and congressmen will forever be grateful for their increased powers in observation and war making.
My objection in this thread specifically deals with his silence about the real or imagined financial calamity.
Get on the radio, Mr. Bush. Tell the people running for office to stop saying the economy is tanked because that is tanking it. Talk about what is good, if you can manage a coherent sentence. Fuck your two party system that created two assholes running into one orifice.
Ok.ATG wrote:
Ok.usmarine wrote:
ok?
Ok?
No, your vid is meh. i bet if you asked clinton the ROE of Trodpint back in the 90's, his answer would be the same.
Thank god for Norway and their deliciously large oil fund.
^^60 billion kroners worth has been shat away by Lehman.
ATG I agree wholeheartedly although I would never wish cancer on anyone. I know I don't live in the US but shouldn't the president be updating the nation about their economic sit rep?
^^60 billion kroners worth has been shat away by Lehman.
ATG I agree wholeheartedly although I would never wish cancer on anyone. I know I don't live in the US but shouldn't the president be updating the nation about their economic sit rep?
I love how the Bush government's fix for a financial problem is to "create a department" to monitor it.. As if the tax payers don't have enough burden supporting the salaries of incompetent government run agencies already. Lets start an other one to burden us..
Seriously to all the people who support the republican party because they're supposedly a "conservative" party, which in my o means less government, take a step back look at all the NEW government run programs and ask yourself if in the last 8 years we have a truly "conservative" party or if they're crossing there original ideas..
Seriously to all the people who support the republican party because they're supposedly a "conservative" party, which in my o means less government, take a step back look at all the NEW government run programs and ask yourself if in the last 8 years we have a truly "conservative" party or if they're crossing there original ideas..
Ok.
Maybe I was a little harsh with the cancer comment.
The irony. I am posting this from my blackberry from the federal building in Santa Ana, here to pay a tax bill.
I'm hearing that the IRS is auditing individuals like never before and passing out levies like wildfire.
A levi is where they can clean out your banck accounts.
Maybe I was a little harsh with the cancer comment.
The irony. I am posting this from my blackberry from the federal building in Santa Ana, here to pay a tax bill.
I'm hearing that the IRS is auditing individuals like never before and passing out levies like wildfire.
A levi is where they can clean out your banck accounts.
tbh I almost forgot George Bush existed. It's like the US public have realised he's a total cumrag and are just biding there time until he's gone, nobody bothering to mention him anymore and him not bothering to bother the people anymore....
AgreedATG wrote:
Where the hell is George Bush?
He could be the lone voice of reason, telling people during these scary times to have faith, to be strong.
But, noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
A leader could turn the psychology of the public around in a major way by a few well chosen words.
Hasn't even touched on it in his weekly radio address afaik.
I think Kmar's explanation makes the most sense, he is laying low during election season -- which is indicative of just how sad the situation is, he's considered a liability..
Still, I don't see how it would hurt to just get on tv and have a few encouraging words for us at a time when the media is in a frenzy about the investment firms going tits up. That is called leadership.
Lamest Duck ever ?
G.W.Bush doing a press conference and being grilled by journalists on economics is never going to happen. They wouldn't let Fido off the leash. Although it would make for very entertaining TV.
Socialism is awesome.
Cause he doesn't have anything to gain. Where are my Congressional Hearings on WTF is going on with these banks. Where are the votes of the public if we even wanted to own AIG. I am SICK of how this country is being run. I have no idea how any of what has happened benefits us. So I would have to agree that we could use a President right now to at least talk to us about something, but once again the right thing will not be done, because it may hurt McCain or some shit like that. What happened to doing what is right, not what makes you look good?ATG wrote:
Where the hell is George Bush?
He could be the lone voice of reason, telling people during these scary times to have faith, to be strong.
But, noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
A leader could turn the psychology of the public around in a major way by a few well chosen words.
This piece of shit sits silent while major companies get swallowed up. AIG now is owned 80% by the taxpayers. Thanks a lot, I hope the CEO gets his millions in parachute money.
This is yet one more example of a case study in abject failure of the president.
I fucking hate your guts, Mr. Bush. I'd like to hold you down and shit on your face. I hate you so much it makes me feel ill.
This is your legacy.
Burn in hellfire and damnation.
edit, I hope you die of rectal cancer.
Clinton had to do the same thing during the 2000 election...for the same reason.Vax wrote:
I think Kmar's explanation makes the most sense, he is laying low during election season -- which is indicative of just how sad the situation is, he's considered a liability..
See above.Vax wrote:
Lamest Duck ever ?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular