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

Just one week to go OT before the national election....

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Brad S said:
You clearly have insufficient capacity for the truth, OT, how did Hoover cause the depression or bush this mild recession?

Hoover was at the wheel when the Great Depression came on- the same as GW was when the Bush Bust came to be... GW's own financial advisors and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were advising him that such would happen if he didn't change course as far back as 2002....GW's response- he fired O'Neill...
Even I predicted the Bush Bust by 2005... Anyone who took their partisan blinders off could see it coming...

Like you, Bush even warned about it...
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Brad S said:
You clearly have insufficient capacity for the truth, OT, how did Hoover cause the depression or bush this mild recession?

Hoover was at the wheel when the Great Depression came on- the same as GW was when the Bush Bust came to be... GW's own financial advisors and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were advising him that such would happen if he didn't change course as far back as 2002....GW's response- he fired O'Neill...
Even I predicted the Bush Bust by 2005... Anyone who took their partisan blinders off could see it coming...

Like you, Bush even warned about it...

Hypo, don't be trying to distract the Fatman with facts. It ruins the story...
 

hopalong

Well-known member
don't ya know oldtimer is the MISS CLEO of ranchers,,,, if he could really predict thing he could control the world :roll: :roll: :roll: but he cant!!! he relies on boring witz to keep him informed
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Brad S said:
You clearly have insufficient capacity for the truth, OT, how did Hoover cause the depression or bush this mild recession?

Hoover was at the wheel when the Great Depression came on- the same as GW was when the Bush Bust came to be... GW's own financial advisors and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were advising him that such would happen if he didn't change course as far back as 2002....GW's response- he fired O'Neill...
Even I predicted the Bush Bust by 2005... Anyone who took their partisan blinders off could see it coming...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That ain't nothin', Fatman.

Bush warned as early as 2001-2003............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
 

Brad S

Well-known member
The question was cause. You didn't answer the question. Bush was fending off a recession beginning with the recession he inherited at the beginning of his first term.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Andy Borowitz


The Pope's views on the creation of the universe have destroyed his chances of ever winning the Republican nomination.

A stupid statement deserves a stupid response:
When the Pope announced publicly in 1980 that priests would henceforth not be permitted to hold political office, he was foreshadowing the change that would soon be articulated in the new Code of Canon Law.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Borowitz can't answer the question. You claimed bush was responsible for the 08 recession. Just what did he do to cause the recession?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
Borowitz can't answer the question. You claimed bush was responsible for the 08 recession. Just what did he do to cause the recession?

We have gone over this 1000 times... You Johnny come lately's need to catch up...

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.---------------------


Park Place South is, in microcosm, the story of a well-intentioned policy gone awry. Advocating homeownership is hardly novel; the Clinton administration did it, too. For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an “ownership society,” in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.

But for much of Mr. Bush’s tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like Mr. West.

So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for federally insured mortgages with no money down. Republican Congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as Mr. West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. “Corporate America,” he said, “has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place.”

And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Mr. Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment.

“This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight,” said L. William Seidman, who advised Republican presidents and led the savings and loan bailout in the 1990s. “To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules.”

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all


One of the main things making the housing bubble bust so big was GW's thought that all Mexicans loved him-- so in return he would reward them with homes... In fact in the hearings that followed, it was shown his Administration had went so far as to drop the requirement that the regulators require the moneylenders to ID or verify citizenship of the home loan borrowers.... Also they didn't have to match loan amounts to purchase values (often giving out $50,000+ more than the value of the house to folks for walking around money or to buy a caddy, or whatever)

So when the economy started to crash- all the illegal Mexicans walked away from their loans, went back to Mexico...That is the reason some of the hardest hit states were ones like Colorado, California, and Florida with large illegal communities... Read some of Tom Tancredo's articles...

And yes- Clinton did some of the same-- but Clinton kept some oversight of the operation.... GW just dropped everything- intentionally or stupidedly ...

Greedy bankers and money lenders, bought out crooked politicians (Foreclosure Phil Gramm comes to mind first), Barney Frank ,Greenspan, Clinton, all played a role in the years leading up to the crash -BUT
GW Bush was at the wheel (and had been for almost 8 years ) as the country crumbled around him... To me and many others- it will always be the Bush Bust...

The Republicans always looked bad three years out of four. But the year they look good is election year. A voter don't expect much. If you give him one good year he is satisfied.


WILL ROGERS

Will is right- its a good thing voters have short memories... GW screwed up and his bust came during an election year- the reason Obama sits in the White House today....
 

Mike

Well-known member
There appears to be ample evidence that the Bush administration recognized both the risk of subprimes, and specifically the risks posed by the GSE's (Government sponsored Entity's) who had an implicit guarantee of government backing. For example, in 2003, the Bush administration, recognizing that the current regulators for Fannie and Freddie were inadequate, proposed that a new agency be created to regulate the GSE's. This new agency would have been tasked specifically with setting capital reserve requirements, (removing that authority from Congress), approving new lines business for the GSE's, and most importantly, evaluating the risk in their ballooning portfolios. It was in specific response to this regulatory effort that Barney Frank made his now infamous statement "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Had this new regulatory agency been put in place in 2003, it likely would have uncovered the accounting fraud regarding executive bonuses which was occurring at that time at Fannie Mae. This accounting scandal would later force the resignation of Franklin Raines and others executives.This new agency may also have slowed or stopped the further movement of the entire mortgage industry into subprime loans by exposing the full extent of the risks then taken by Fannie and Freddie, who at this time, controlled nearly half of all subprime loans being issued.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Look at the date of OT's article...a lot of information has become known since then. And many Dem. lies have been exposed since Dec 2008. :roll:

Gee, I wonder if those lies had an influence on the election of the "greatest Liar in American History"
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
I just find it amazing and pathetic that anyone who voted for The Messiah has the balls to blame anyone for anything.

You folks grab your junk packages because after the election next week there's going to be a conveyor belt of sh!t sammiches coming America's way.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
Oldtimer said:
Midterms Prediction: Billionaires to Retain Control of Government

By Andy Borowitz

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—With just one week to go until the midterm elections, a new poll indicates that billionaires are likely to retain control of the United States government.

The poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, shows that the proxy candidates of billionaires are likely to win ninety-eight per cent of next Tuesday’s races, with the remaining two per cent leaning billionaire.

Although the poll indicates that some races are still “too close to call,” the fact that billionaires funded candidates on both sides puts the races safely in their column.



Davis Logsdon, who supervised the poll for the University of Minnesota, said that next Tuesday should be “a big night for oligarchs” and that both houses of Congress can be expected to grovel at the feet of their money-gushing paymasters for at least the next two years.

Calling the billionaires’ upcoming electoral romp “historic,” Logsdon said, “We have not seen the super-rich maintain such a vise-like grip on the government since the days immediately preceding the French Revolution.”




I will admit it has rained more under Republican administrations, that was partially because they have had more administrations than Democrats. There is no less sickness, no less earthquakes, no less progress, no less inventions, no less morality, no less Christianity under one than the other. They are all the same. It won't make 50 cents difference to a one of you. Unless you're foolish enough to bet on it.


WILL ROGERS





As a young boy, I didn't know a Republican from a Democrat, only in one way: If some man or bunch of men rode up to the ranch to sit or stay all night, and my Father set me to watching 'em all the time they was there -- what they did and what they carried off -- I learned they were Republicans.


WILL ROGERS





The Republicans always looked bad three years out of four. But the year they look good is election year. A voter don't expect much. If you give him one good year he is satisfied.


WILL ROGERS




I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.

Will Rogers

Kochs Approve Plan to Fire Cash from Cannon at Voters
BY ANDY BOROWITZ


NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—The billionaire Koch brothers have approved a controversial plan to shoot cash from cannons directly at voters heading into polling places on Election Day.

The plan, which Koch insiders have privately referred to as Operation Money Shot, would distribute as much as seventy million dollars in small bills in the hopes of seizing Republican control of the United States Senate next Tuesday.


While most state laws prohibit electioneering within a hundred feet of polling places, the Koch plan craftily skirts that restriction by using high-powered cash cannons, similar to the T-shirt cannons used in sports arenas, which have a range of up to a hundred and fifty feet.


According to a spokesman for the Kochs, “Under the law, corporations are considered people, and people have always had the right to fire money from cannons at other people.”

When news of Operation Money Shot reached Democratic circles several weeks ago, there were howls of protest and threats of a legal challenge, as Democratic leaders complained that firing cash directly at voters about to cast their ballots would be a subversion of the election process.

But the Supreme Court upheld the Koch brothers’ plan by a five-to-four vote on Thursday, arguing that spending money on elections was protected by the First Amendment, and that using a cannon was protected by the Second.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
blah blah and boring withz go together,,, walking on hands and knees comes along oldtimer how really has no thoughts of his own,,, only cut and pastes
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Andy Borowitz

I have long been in favor of banning political ads from TV, as we've done with cigarette ads, based on the fact that politicians kill more people than cigarettes.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Im in favor of banning leftwingernuts, after all their votes and kisssing azs with the dems and the obama regime has killed more people than any political ads
 

Latest posts

Top