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

How come no one has asked this question?

Tam

Well-known member
A Year Ago Gee I think if you asked people if they are better off that they were 6 weeks ago many would say NO? :wink:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Ya but, my point is that NO ONE IS ASKING THE QUESTION...

remember how many times that question was asked publicly...now it
seems no one wants to ask it. Tsk, tsk, what a shame...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Ya but, my point is that NO ONE IS ASKING THE QUESTION...

remember how many times that question was asked publicly...now it
seems no one wants to ask it. Tsk, tsk, what a shame...

Most realize we took a long time getting to this point- and its going to take a time to get out of it...Folks like you and me may never be around to see the full recovery from the Bush Bust- nor will many of our generation ever recover everything they lost...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I guess you are right, OT, since this problem started with your boy, CLINTON. He is the one who wanted everyone in a house whether they
could afford it or not. Maybe he realized the problems would surface under another president, not under his reign. Pretty sad.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
I guess you are right, OT, since this problem started with your boy, CLINTON. He is the one who wanted everyone in a house whether they
could afford it or not. Maybe he realized the problems would surface under another president, not under his reign. Pretty sad.

No doubt it started during the Clinton era- when the Republican controlled Congress threw out much of the banking regulation that was put in in the 1930's and Great Depression era just to keep this from happening again...That was followed by 8 more years of more deregulation/nonenforcement- and regulators taking an 8 year coffee break- with Congress doing no oversight- and the Boss sleeping at the wheel-- and we end up with the Bush Bust....

15 years of misdirection -- ain't going to get fixed overnight....
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
I guess you are right, OT, since this problem started with your boy, CLINTON. He is the one who wanted everyone in a house whether they
could afford it or not. Maybe he realized the problems would surface under another president, not under his reign. Pretty sad.

No doubt it started during the Clinton era- when the Republican controlled Congress threw out much of the banking regulation that was put in in the 1930's and Great Depression era just to keep this from happening again...That was followed by 8 more years of more deregulation/nonenforcement- and regulators taking an 8 year coffee break- with Congress doing no oversight- and the Boss sleeping at the wheel-- and we end up with the Bush Bust....

15 years of misdirection -- ain't going to get fixed overnight....

Oldtimer you are such a liar, you know that the Republicans proposed regulations for the banks while Bush was in office and the Democrats blocked them. And you know it was Barney Franks telling the Congress and public that he saw no problems with Fanny and Freddy so there was no regulations needed. STOP LIEING :x
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Ya, OT, Bush and sometimes McCain brought this to Congress' attention 17 times and was blocked by Demorcrats (who, BTW called Bush a
racist because it was mostly minorities that had the homes they
couldn't pay for)...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The reason that law regarding Fannie and Freddie was not passed and was dropped and not reintroduced was that they "voluntarily" did what it required- and switched over to the Banking rules of transparency and oversight/regulation- which Fannie was/is now doing- but Freddie was already so mired in fraud (and a fraud investigation) by then that their books still haven't been reconciled so has been unable to report....

But if the regulators don't look-or don't want to see what they see- all the reporting and transparency in the world is no good....
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
It has been on the news, FOX news for one. What do you listen to,
Reader? It's common knowledge that this was Clinton's brainchild. it was
his project and the Under-regulation you referred to was Clintons as
he changed the way Frannie and Freddie did business.

Oh, and do you knolw how much money Fannie and Freddie contributed
to BO?

And BTW, don't you give Bush any credit for keeping us safe for
8 years? I certainly do.
 

Mike

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Faster horses said:
I guess you are right, OT, since this problem started with your boy, CLINTON. He is the one who wanted everyone in a house whether they
could afford it or not. Maybe he realized the problems would surface under another president, not under his reign. Pretty sad.


I do not know how you could justify this statement given the enormous amount of money that was spent on the war in Iraq. Anything Clinton spent pales compared to the deficit that Bush left us with.

Go get me figures from a reliable and objective source to show that it was Clinton who got us into this and not under-regulation and the trillions spent in Iraq.

Trillions spent in Iraq? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
Yes but when you talk about the country being on bad economic times, how can you overlook the huge deficit that Bush left us with?

And the fact that the economic crisis came after 8 years of him being on the job.

Reader- they don't want to talk about that- or the 12 of the last 14 years Republicans controlled both houses of Congress or the 6 years Bush was in when they controlled all of D.C... Nope- all the problem either skips back to Clinton- or happened since 2006 and Dems took control of Congress... :roll: :wink: :lol: :p

The cultist rose colored glasses and holes in the sand do not allow it.....
 

Steve

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Faster horses said:
I guess you are right, OT, since this problem started with your boy, CLINTON. He is the one who wanted everyone in a house whether they
could afford it or not. Maybe he realized the problems would surface under another president, not under his reign. Pretty sad.


I do not know how you could justify this statement given the enormous amount of money that was spent on the war in Iraq. Anything Clinton spent pales compared to the deficit that Bush left us with.

Go get me figures from a reliable and objective source to show that it was Clinton who got us into this and not under-regulation and the trillions spent in Iraq.

I do not know how you could justify this statement given the enormous amount of money that was spent on the Stimulus bill, bail out plans and the projected spending. Anything Bush spent pales compared to the deficit that Obama will leave US with..

Go get me figures from a reliable and objective source to show that it was Bush who got us into this and not the current doom and gloom talk and over burdened wasteful spending.. .
 

Tam

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Faster horses said:
I guess you are right, OT, since this problem started with your boy, CLINTON. He is the one who wanted everyone in a house whether they
could afford it or not. Maybe he realized the problems would surface under another president, not under his reign. Pretty sad.


I do not know how you could justify this statement given the enormous amount of money that was spent on the war in Iraq. Anything Clinton spent pales compared to the deficit that Bush left us with.

Go get me figures from a reliable and objective source to show that it was Clinton who got us into this and not under-regulation and the trillions spent in Iraq.

Reader would you please provide a reliable source that claims the US spent trillions in Iraq?
Could you explain to us WHO was encouraging the Banks in 1999 to enter into the Sub Prime Mortgages that caused the economic meltdown in Bush's presidency? We will even let you quote the bias New York Times on this one. :wink:
Who sued Citibank in the late 90's to force them to make risky loans Reader?
WHO warned Congress against the upcoming problems if something wasn't done to stop the Banks?
And please use a reliable source :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Yes but when you talk about the country being on bad economic times, how can you overlook the huge deficit that Bush left us with?

And the fact that the economic crisis came after 8 years of him being on the job.

9/11 and two wars on terrorists and the first TARP program due to the Dems not allowing Regulations to be passed to regulate Fanny and Freddy added to the Bush Deficit . Reader What is your safety worth? :?

What do you think the deficit will be like after one year of Obama? He is doubling down on the debt in the first 2 months of his term and there is talk of another stimulus package already. What is that going to do to the US deficit?

BTW Reader WHO got 2008 campaign donations from Fanny and Freddy?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
reader (the Second) said:
Yes but when you talk about the country being on bad economic times, how can you overlook the huge deficit that Bush left us with?

And the fact that the economic crisis came after 8 years of him being on the job.

Reader- they don't want to talk about that- or the 12 of the last 14 years Republicans controlled both houses of Congress or the 6 years Bush was in when they controlled all of D.C... Nope- all the problem either skips back to Clinton- or happened since 2006 and Dems took control of Congress... :roll: :wink: :lol: :p

The cultist rose colored glasses and holes in the sand do not allow it.....

So you think the Republicans had control of both houses so lets see. PLEASE try Remember something Oldtimer, it takes 60 in the Senate to pass a bill.

Going into the 2000 elections,
House: 223 Republicans - 211 Democrats - 1 Independent
Senate: 55 Republicans - 45 Democrats (Nope they needed 60 so 5 Dems would have had to agree)

After 2000
House 221 Repub. - 212 Dems 1 Indep.
Senate 50 Repub 50 Dems (Split even so at least 10 Dems would have had to agree)

After 2002
House 229 Repub - 204 Dems 1 Indep.
Senate 51 Repub. - 48 Dems 1 Indep (still no 60 vote 9 Dems would have to agree)

After 2004
House 232 Repub. - 202 Dems 1 Indep
Senate 55 Repub. - 44 Dems 1 Indep (still on 60 vote 5 dems would have to have agreed)

After 2006
House 233 Dems 202 Repub.
Senate 49 Dems 49 Repub. 2 Indep. (Even split again with 11 dems having to have to walk across the floor)

After 2008
Dems control all three
House 257 Dems 178 Repub.
Senate 56 Dems 41 Repub. Indep. 2 (Well the Dems only need 4 to walk across the floor and they seem to know who they are. :wink:)

Since the Republicans never had a 60 vote in the Senate they never had control of the Senate. Could this be the reason that the Senate is known as the place bills go to DIE. Hey Oldtimer I just heard Pelosi is threatening to toss the omnibus Bill out if it is not passed by tomorrow night. Why hasn't it passed if the Dems are now in control of both houses?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
reader (the Second) said:
Yes but when you talk about the country being on bad economic times, how can you overlook the huge deficit that Bush left us with?

And the fact that the economic crisis came after 8 years of him being on the job.

Reader- they don't want to talk about that- or the 12 of the last 14 years Republicans controlled both houses of Congress or the 6 years Bush was in when they controlled all of D.C... Nope- all the problem either skips back to Clinton- or happened since 2006 and Dems took control of Congress... :roll: :wink: :lol: :p

The cultist rose colored glasses and holes in the sand do not allow it.....

So you think the Republicans had control of both houses so lets see. PLEASE try Remember something Oldtimer, it takes 60 in the Senate to pass a bill.

Going into the 2000 elections,
House: 223 Republicans - 211 Democrats - 1 Independent
Senate: 55 Republicans - 45 Democrats (Nope they needed 60 so 5 Dems would have had to agree)

After 2000
House 221 Repub. - 212 Dems 1 Indep.
Senate 50 Repub 50 Dems (Split even so at least 10 Dems would have had to agree)

After 2002
House 229 Repub - 204 Dems 1 Indep.
Senate 51 Repub. - 48 Dems 1 Indep (still no 60 vote 9 Dems would have to agree)

After 2004
House 232 Repub. - 202 Dems 1 Indep
Senate 55 Repub. - 44 Dems 1 Indep (still on 60 vote 5 dems would have to have agreed)

After 2006
House 233 Dems 202 Repub.
Senate 49 Dems 49 Repub. 2 Indep. (Even split again with 11 dems having to have to walk across the floor)

After 2008
Dems control all three
House 257 Dems 178 Repub.
Senate 56 Dems 41 Repub. Indep. 2 (Well the Dems only need 4 to walk across the floor and they seem to know who they are. :wink:)

Since the Republicans never had a 60 vote in the Senate they never had control of the Senate. Could this be the reason that the Senate is known as the place bills go to DIE. Hey Oldtimer I just heard Pelosi is threatening to toss the omnibus Bill out if it is not passed by tomorrow night. Why hasn't it passed if the Dems are now in control of both houses?

So under your definition :roll: the Dems haven't been in control of the Congress the last two years so couldn't be any of the cause :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Ya but, my point is that NO ONE IS ASKING THE QUESTION...

remember how many times that question was asked publicly...now it
seems no one wants to ask it. Tsk, tsk, what a shame...

Most realize we took a long time getting to this point- and its going to take a time to get out of it...Folks like you and me may never be around to see the full recovery from the Bush Bust- nor will many of our generation ever recover everything they lost...

Don't you mean the Lib bust, courtesy of Frank, Dodd and their ilk?
 
Top