• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Energy Policy and Mortgage Policy

Vision

Well-known member
These are the two issues that have caused stress for Americans and our economy today.

Where have the Republicans been on these two issues? Where have the Democrats been?

What is the only country in the world that will not expand it's own domestic energy production? What party has resisted all attempts to do so?

The OFHEO warned Congress what has been happening in the mortgage industry since 2001. The New York Times warned what was happening in 1999. What party repeatedly tried to fix it? What Party blocked all attempts to do so? Who got paid?

Democrats have been calling for higher gas prices for years and have opposed new energy production. Even Obama said he likes these higher gas prices and only complains that we should have gotten to these prices more gradually.

Obama Declaring His Support for Higher Gas Prices on CNBC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJLdHfIBnr0

The history of Democrats and gas prices:
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/if-you-ever-wanted-proof-that-democrats-want-higher-gas-prices/


Democrats have opposed reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years while Republicans tried to fix it.

Video's of who said what in the hearings on Fannie Mae:
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/the-video-that-says-it-all-democrats-on-banking-committee-lying-about-status-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-saying-they-are-fine-and-dont-need-reform/

A plain English explanation on how all this happened from start to finish:
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/in-plain-english-how-did-the-biggest-financial-scandal-in-history-happen/

Alan Greenspan Warned Congress and tried to help Republicans fix the problem. Democrats said that they knew better:
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/alan-greedspan-and-the-federal-reserve-warned-congress-greenspan-testified-for-mccains-bill-to-fix-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-in-2005-democrats-blocked-it-in-party-line-vote/

You can't blame Bush folks, he continuously worked Congress to pass new laws to fix this problem:
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/bush-administration-warned-congress-over-20-times-reforms-were-needed/
 

TSR

Well-known member
Vision said:
These are the two issues that have caused stress for Americans and our economy today.

Where have the Republicans been on these two issues? Where have the Democrats been?

What is the only country in the world that will not expand it's own domestic energy production? What party has resisted all attempts to do so?

The OFHEO warned Congress what has been happening in the mortgage industry since 2001. The New York Times warned what was happening in 1999. What party repeatedly tried to fix it? What Party blocked all attempts to do so? Who got paid?

Democrats have been calling for higher gas prices for years and have opposed new energy production. Even Obama said he likes these higher gas prices and only complains that we should have gotten to these prices more gradually.

Obama Declaring His Support for Higher Gas Prices on CNBC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJLdHfIBnr0

The history of Democrats and gas prices:
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/if-you-ever-wanted-proof-that-democrats-want-higher-gas-prices/


Democrats have opposed reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years while Republicans tried to fix it.

Video's of who said what in the hearings on Fannie Mae:
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/the-video-that-says-it-all-democrats-on-banking-committee-lying-about-status-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-saying-they-are-fine-and-dont-need-reform/

A plain English explanation on how all this happened from start to finish:
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/in-plain-english-how-did-the-biggest-financial-scandal-in-history-happen/

Alan Greenspan Warned Congress and tried to help Republicans fix the problem. Democrats said that they knew better:
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/alan-greedspan-and-the-federal-reserve-warned-congress-greenspan-testified-for-mccains-bill-to-fix-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-in-2005-democrats-blocked-it-in-party-line-vote/

You can't blame Bush folks, he continuously worked Congress to pass new laws to fix this problem:
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/bush-administration-warned-congress-over-20-times-reforms-were-needed/

Depends on which report you want to read we've been through this so many times it not funny. Maybe you need to search the archives or maybe you have, or maybe you were active in those other discussions. :wink: :)
BTW what is your stance on the Energy Task Force meeting with Cheney and the energy exec.s not being made a matter of public record with some even denying the meeting ever took place??
 

Vision

Well-known member
TSR said:
Depends on which report you want to read we've been through this so many times it not funny. Maybe you need to search the archives or maybe you have, or maybe you were active in those other discussions. :wink: :)

BTW what is your stance on the Energy Task Force meeting with Cheney and the energy exec.s not being made a matter of public record with some even denying the meeting ever took place??

I have read every OFHEO report since 2001. I have read the testimony of the congressional hearings on the matter going back to 2004.

I posted links to several of the reports in my articles on the subject. At the risk of seeming immodest I have made myself a near expert on the issue.

The energy task force meeting in private was fine. If fact is was done exactly how meetings with excecutives are done.

There is something called executive priviledge. IT means that those who give the president or VP advice on an issue are legally protected to give that advice in private.

WHY?

Because if it wasnt that way partisans in Congress would take everyone who ever gave the executive advice on anything and grill them and go through their life with a fine tooth comb and trash them in televised hearings. The president cannot get good advice under such circumstances.

Every president gets advice the same way with the same protections... ALL of them. The energy council meetings are a media created issue that means nothing. Every president has councils and task forces and such on a variety of issues that give him advice.

The bill that Bush tried to get through Congress that would have really expanded domestic energy production was blocked by Democrats in the Senate.

How about you go and READ that evidence I posted instead of just claiming that I dont know what I am talking about.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Vision said:
TSR said:
Depends on which report you want to read we've been through this so many times it not funny. Maybe you need to search the archives or maybe you have, or maybe you were active in those other discussions. :wink: :)

BTW what is your stance on the Energy Task Force meeting with Cheney and the energy exec.s not being made a matter of public record with some even denying the meeting ever took place??

I have read every OFHEO report since 2001. I have read the testimony of the congressional hearings on the matter going back to 2004.

I posted links to several of the reports in my articles on the subject. At the risk of seeming immodest I have made myself a near expert on the issue.

The energy task force meeting in private was fine. If fact is was done exactly how meetings with excecutives are done.

There is something called executive priviledge. IT means that those who give the president or VP advice on an issue are legally protected to give that advice in private.

WHY?

Because if it wasnt that way partisans in Congress would take everyone who ever gave the executive advice on anything and grill them and go through their life with a fine tooth comb and trash them in televised hearings. The president cannot get good advice under such circumstances.

Every president gets advice the same way with the same protections... ALL of them. The energy council meetings are a media created issue that means nothing. Every president has councils and task forces and such on a variety of issues that give him advice.

The bill that Bush tried to get through Congress that would have really expanded domestic energy production was blocked by Democrats in the Senate.

How about you go and READ that evidence I posted instead of just claiming that I dont know what I am talking about.

So this gives them the right before a Congressional committee to DENY or say I don't remember such a meeting ever took place. When they could have said this meeting is private because....... No Vision that old dog just won't hunt. Some Congressmen finally "refreshed" their memory
when they were told they could be prosecuted whether they were under oath or not. My My how memories returned. :wink: :D
BTW I watched the Republicans block energy speculation legislation proposed by the Dem's on C-span. (Gosh I said I wasn'g going to rehash this) Could it have been their buddies were those speculators making the big gucks most of the time???
 

Vision

Well-known member
I see that you are still trying to avoid the subject.....

Energy speculation is just a small part of the problem. Republicans blocked it because the Democrats refused to address the other aspects of the problem. The last time the Democrats trie dto mess with the market like that was during Jommy Carter and those of us who are old enough remember the results of that mess.

You may have noticed that the price of gas has gone down lately and now a barrel of oil is under $98 a barrel. Bush lifted the executive order against offshore drilling and Congress was unable to renew the offshore drilling ban that expired.

So this means that the likleyhood of increased future production is higher this forcing the speculators to lower the price of future contracts.

Speculation is tied to oil production and demand. Democrats did all they could to stop expansion of domestic energy, thus sthe speculators bidded up.

Now would you like to address the information in my first post now or are you going to come up with a new distraction??
 

Vision

Well-known member
So lets see where we are now.

I post a TON of information in my first post - you pretend like it didnt exist.

You tried to talk about secret task forces and found out that executive priviledge makes it PROPER. Those who give the president advice should not be harassed or the president cant get good advice. No president would give up names under those circumstances and none should.

Then you tried to get me on the speculation - only to find out that what I said about the demand issue was spot on.

What is next. Will you bring up the price of tea in China before you show the people here some courage and attempt to tackle the information in my first post... or are you going to keep running away???

I will be back in a few hours.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Vision said:
I see that you are still trying to avoid the subject.....

Energy speculation is just a small part of the problem. Republicans blocked it because the Democrats refused to address the other aspects of the problem. The last time the Democrats trie dto mess with the market like that was during Jommy Carter and those of us who are old enough remember the results of that mess.

You may have noticed that the price of gas has gone down lately and now a barrel of oil is under $98 a barrel. Bush lifted the executive order against offshore drilling and Congress was unable to renew the offshore drilling ban that expired.

So this means that the likleyhood of increased future production is higher this forcing the speculators to lower the price of future contracts.

Speculation is tied to oil production and demand. Democrats did all they could to stop expansion of domestic energy, thus sthe speculators bidded up.

Now would you like to address the information in my first post now or are you going to come up with a new distraction??

Well it seems to me that you are the one coming up with the distractions. If such executive privilege exists then I guess the president/vp can claim it on every meeting they have, right?? The people need not know anything according to your views. Golly wonder why the freedom of information laws were ever passed?
No one ever said speculation was the ONLY problem of energy price increases but just a part of it. It should have been addressed as well as drilling but it wasn't BOTH parties are at fault here.
Now answer my question. Should there have been denial (that is basically what happened) by the vp and the energy exec's that such a meeting ever took place?
 

Vision

Well-known member
TSR

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-executiv-pr.html

executive privilege

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition
executive privilege exemption of the executive branch of government, or its officers, from having to give evidence, specifically, in U.S. law, the exemption of the president from disclosing information to congressional inquiries or the judiciary. Claims of executive privilege are usually invoked to protect confidential military or diplomatic operations or to protect the private discussions and debates of the president with close aides. Efforts by various presidents since Eisenhower to gain absolute and unqualified privilege have been rejected by the courts, though they remain inclined to support most claims of executive privilege.


Now how about you address the evidence and stop being such a coward?
 

Vision

Well-known member
Now answer my question. Should there have been denial (that is basically what happened) by the vp and the energy exec's that such a meeting ever took place?

I did answer it - can you read???

I said<

Because if it wasnt that way partisans in Congress would take everyone who ever gave the executive advice on anything and grill them and go through their life with a fine tooth comb and trash them in televised hearings. The president cannot get good advice under such circumstances.

Every president gets advice the same way with the same protections... ALL of them. The energy council meetings are a media created issue that means nothing. Every president has councils and task forces and such on a variety of issues that give him advice.

Indeed - the executive was right to tell the Democrats in Congress to take a hike. The people who were asked to give advice did so under strict conditions on anonymity. They didnt have to go there and subject themselves to crap by people who have Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The Democrats made it clear that their intention was to drag these people in front of a committee and trash them. Only bad Americans would want to do such a thing.

So I answered your question directly so now lets see if you have the guts to answer mine.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Vision said:
Now answer my question. Should there have been denial (that is basically what happened) by the vp and the energy exec's that such a meeting ever took place?

I did answer it - can you read???

I said<

Because if it wasnt that way partisans in Congress would take everyone who ever gave the executive advice on anything and grill them and go through their life with a fine tooth comb and trash them in televised hearings. The president cannot get good advice under such circumstances.

Every president gets advice the same way with the same protections... ALL of them. The energy council meetings are a media created issue that means nothing. Every president has councils and task forces and such on a variety of issues that give him advice.

Indeed - the executive was right to tell the Democrats in Congress to take a hike. The people who were asked to give advice did so under strict conditions on anonymity. They didnt have to go there and subject themselves to crap by people who have Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The Democrats made it clear that their intention was to drag these people in front of a committee and trash them. Only bad Americans would want to do such a thing.

So I answered your question directly so now lets see if you have the guts to answer mine.

Americans want openness and transparency- especially after their President and his Administration gets caught in a pile of lies , falsehoods, and incompetent statements/actions...
 

TSR

Well-known member
Vision said:
TSR

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-executiv-pr.html

executive privilege

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition
executive privilege exemption of the executive branch of government, or its officers, from having to give evidence, specifically, in U.S. law, the exemption of the president from disclosing information to congressional inquiries or the judiciary. Claims of executive privilege are usually invoked to protect confidential military or diplomatic operations or to protect the private discussions and debates of the president with close aides. Efforts by various presidents since Eisenhower to gain absolute and unqualified privilege have been rejected by the courts, though they remain inclined to support most claims of executive privilege.


Now how about you address the evidence and stop being such a coward?

Hit a nerve Vision :lol: :lol:
I am glad you posted that explanation of executive privilege. Now we will let the readers decide if executive privilege was in order for the vp and the oil exec's. I think most on here know what the majority of American's think. Its one thing to invoke executive privilege. Its another to deny any such meeting ever took place and then decide to invoke that privilege once the meeting has been acknowledged.
 

Vision

Well-known member
I see that Old Timer and TSR, are still trying to avoid the verifyable evidence I have posted.

I have answered their questions and they will not answer the evidence I have presented them that proves that they are full of crap.

I have to conclude that TRS and Old Timer are just nuts. Because if their parents or children ever saw how much they tell lie after lie after lie, how they continually talk smack, and continually run away form the core of an argument they would be posting here and apologizing for the behavior of their relatives and would likely move to have them committed.

You have all seen it in thread after thread. They post lie after lie, or load of nonsense after load of nonsense. They literally make it up as they go. Yet when it comes to real verifyable reality, they turn tail and run.

So they are either cowards in the extreme, or nuts. Either way I really do feel sorry for them. Pity is the right word.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Vision said:
Now answer my question. Should there have been denial (that is basically what happened) by the vp and the energy exec's that such a meeting ever took place?

I did answer it - can you read???

I said<

Because if it wasnt that way partisans in Congress would take everyone who ever gave the executive advice on anything and grill them and go through their life with a fine tooth comb and trash them in televised hearings. The president cannot get good advice under such circumstances.

Every president gets advice the same way with the same protections... ALL of them. The energy council meetings are a media created issue that means nothing. Every president has councils and task forces and such on a variety of issues that give him advice.

Indeed - the executive was right to tell the Democrats in Congress to take a hike. The people who were asked to give advice did so under strict conditions on anonymity. They didnt have to go there and subject themselves to crap by people who have Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The Democrats made it clear that their intention was to drag these people in front of a committee and trash them. Only bad Americans would want to do such a thing.

So I answered your question directly so now lets see if you have the guts to answer mine.

Americans want openness and transparency- especially after their President and his Administration gets caught in a pile of lies , falsehoods, and incompetent statements/actions...

OT there hasn't been "transparency" since JFK was screwing Marilyn Monroe.
 
Top