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

Two standards

Sandhusker

Well-known member
If we all had the same standards for president, we could discuss the pros and the cons of either candidate as measured by those standards,
and then reach a consensus. However, it has occured to me that the argueing on this board is the result of two different sets standards for the office of President of the US. We're never going to reach a concensus because one side uses one measuring stick, and the other side uses another.

For example, the Right is looking at the candidates and grading them according to experience, honesty, character, their vision of how America should be, etc... The Left is looking for somebody who talks smoothly and has a catchy campaign slogan.

Both sides have settled on a candidate based on their own set of qualifications, and unless those qualifications change, their choice won't.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
If we all had the same standards for president, we could discuss the pros and the cons of either candidate as measured by those standards,
and then reach a consensus. However, it has occured to me that the argueing on this board is the result of two different sets standards for the office of President of the US. We're never going to reach a concensus because one side uses one measuring stick, and the other side uses another.

For example, the Right is looking at the candidates and grading them according to experience, honesty, character, their vision of how America should be, etc... The Left is looking for somebody who talks smoothly and has a catchy campaign slogan.

Both sides have settled on a candidate based on their own set of qualifications, and unless those qualifications change, their choice won't.

:roll: It's not about "standards." It's about George W. Bush and the Conservative Republican party. Anyone can look around and see what almost eight years of conservative government has done to this country and something like 70% of us don't like it.

The Right is looking to reelect George W. Bush in John McCain.

The Left is looking to elect someone else. Hopefully someone who will put the middle class on an even keel with rich folks and hedge fund managers. Obama is certainly the one running for president most likely to do that.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc... are not conservatives. Don't hang conservatives with their screwups.

I see what you're after getting even with the rich folks. In the old America, that meant getting off your ass and getting a job, building a business, living under your means for a while, etc.... you know, EARNING it. Socialists just take the easy road and have the government confiscate wealth from those that have it simply because they do. I think that's what OLenin calls "Evening things out". Well, you've probably got the right guy then. One thing that you're not considering, though; You can bleed from the rich for only so long before they go dry, and the more you give the undeserving, the more they want. Socialism is a proven failure. But, what do you care? You'll get "yours".
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc... are not conservatives. Don't hang conservatives with their screwups.

I see what you're after getting even with the rich folks. In the old America, that meant getting off your ass and getting a job, building a business, living under your means for a while, etc.... you know, EARNING it. Socialists just take the easy road and have the government confiscate wealth from those that have it simply because they do. I think that's what OLenin calls "Evening things out". Well, you've probably got the right guy then. One thing that you're not considering, though; You can bleed from the rich for only so long before they go dry, and the more you give the undeserving, the more they want. Socialism is a proven failure. But, what do you care? You'll get "yours".

Millions of hard working Americans are watching their 401Ks and IRAs go down the tubes. Millions more are losing the jobs and their homes. There was a time in this country when people who worked hard knew they could retire with dignity. That's not true today and I blame the Bush Administration and the right wing Conservatives who screamed about too much government regulation.

No one is talking about Socialism except you. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. You're right Socialism is not a viable economic path and Obama is smart enough to know that. That's why he's not a Socialist. But for almost eight years, Bush has tipped the scales toward big business. It's time for some re-alignment of those scales.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Millions of hard working Americans are watching their 401Ks and IRAs go down the tubes.

Just a year ago the Dow 30 topped out at an all time high.

Isn't it strange that things were going fine until the Dems got in control of Congress? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc... are not conservatives. Don't hang conservatives with their screwups.

I see what you're after getting even with the rich folks. In the old America, that meant getting off your ass and getting a job, building a business, living under your means for a while, etc.... you know, EARNING it. Socialists just take the easy road and have the government confiscate wealth from those that have it simply because they do. I think that's what OLenin calls "Evening things out". Well, you've probably got the right guy then. One thing that you're not considering, though; You can bleed from the rich for only so long before they go dry, and the more you give the undeserving, the more they want. Socialism is a proven failure. But, what do you care? You'll get "yours".

Millions of hard working Americans are watching their 401Ks and IRAs go down the tubes. Millions more are losing the jobs and their homes. There was a time in this country when people who worked hard knew they could retire with dignity. That's not true today and I blame the Bush Administration and the right wing Conservatives who screamed about too much government regulation.

No one is talking about Socialism except you. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. You're right Socialism is not a viable economic path and Obama is smart enough to know that. That's why he's not a Socialist. But for almost eight years, Bush has tipped the scales toward big business. It's time for some re-alignment of those scales.

AMEN
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
Millions of hard working Americans are watching their 401Ks and IRAs go down the tubes. Millions more are losing the jobs and their homes. There was a time in this country when people who worked hard knew they could retire with dignity.
.

Who eased the regulations on the Banking industry?................Clinton

Who called for more regulations on Fannie and Freddie.............Bush and McCain

Who said all was fine with Fannie and Freddie.......................Democrats

Who was raking in the big bucks in contributions from Fannie and Freddie........................Democrats (specifically Obama)


Who is retarded because she can not realize the facts?....................fff


Bet you can not prove the above wrong! :p :roll:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc... are not conservatives. Don't hang conservatives with their screwups.

I see what you're after getting even with the rich folks. In the old America, that meant getting off your ass and getting a job, building a business, living under your means for a while, etc.... you know, EARNING it. Socialists just take the easy road and have the government confiscate wealth from those that have it simply because they do. I think that's what OLenin calls "Evening things out". Well, you've probably got the right guy then. One thing that you're not considering, though; You can bleed from the rich for only so long before they go dry, and the more you give the undeserving, the more they want. Socialism is a proven failure. But, what do you care? You'll get "yours".

Millions of hard working Americans are watching their 401Ks and IRAs go down the tubes. Millions more are losing the jobs and their homes. There was a time in this country when people who worked hard knew they could retire with dignity. That's not true today and I blame the Bush Administration and the right wing Conservatives who screamed about too much government regulation.

No one is talking about Socialism except you. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. You're right Socialism is not a viable economic path and Obama is smart enough to know that. That's why he's not a Socialist. But for almost eight years, Bush has tipped the scales toward big business. It's time for some re-alignment of those scales.


fff...in a free market economy you cannot penalize people for being successful. That's what makes it work. Big government is what kills a free market economy. You have to strive and work to reach your maximum potential....not pull them back down to your level. I am no more responsible for your health insurance than I would be your income or lack of it. You never "re-align the scales". That's when you begin the decline and fall of the free market system. There is no motivation to excel.
 

Vision

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc... are not conservatives. Don't hang conservatives with their screwups.

I see what you're after getting even with the rich folks. In the old America, that meant getting off your ass and getting a job, building a business, living under your means for a while, etc.... you know, EARNING it. Socialists just take the easy road and have the government confiscate wealth from those that have it simply because they do. I think that's what OLenin calls "Evening things out". Well, you've probably got the right guy then. One thing that you're not considering, though; You can bleed from the rich for only so long before they go dry, and the more you give the undeserving, the more they want. Socialism is a proven failure. But, what do you care? You'll get "yours".

Millions of hard working Americans are watching their 401Ks and IRAs go down the tubes. Millions more are losing the jobs and their homes. There was a time in this country when people who worked hard knew they could retire with dignity. That's not true today and I blame the Bush Administration and the right wing Conservatives who screamed about too much government regulation.

No one is talking about Socialism except you. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. You're right Socialism is not a viable economic path and Obama is smart enough to know that. That's why he's not a Socialist. But for almost eight years, Bush has tipped the scales toward big business. It's time for some re-alignment of those scales.


Prove it.
 

Vision

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
If we all had the same standards for president, we could discuss the pros and the cons of either candidate as measured by those standards,
and then reach a consensus. However, it has occured to me that the argueing on this board is the result of two different sets standards for the office of President of the US. We're never going to reach a concensus because one side uses one measuring stick, and the other side uses another.

For example, the Right is looking at the candidates and grading them according to experience, honesty, character, their vision of how America should be, etc... The Left is looking for somebody who talks smoothly and has a catchy campaign slogan.

Both sides have settled on a candidate based on their own set of qualifications, and unless those qualifications change, their choice won't.

:roll: It's not about "standards." It's about George W. Bush and the Conservative Republican party. Anyone can look around and see what almost eight years of conservative government has done to this country and something like 70% of us don't like it.

The Right is looking to reelect George W. Bush in John McCain.

The Left is looking to elect someone else. Hopefully someone who will put the middle class on an even keel with rich folks and hedge fund managers. Obama is certainly the one running for president most likely to do that.

Liar.

Obama is the one in Wall Streets back pocket.... shall I post those links to who those hedge fund managers and such are giving the most money to...AGAIN???

Obama is more of the same corruption.
 

Vision

Well-known member
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/bush-administration-warned-congress-over-20-times-reforms-were-needed/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html

Bush Administration Warned Congress Over 20 Times Reforms Were Needed

The List -


For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
 

Vision

Well-known member
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

New York Times Excerpt:

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
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 current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,” Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ”We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,” the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

”These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,” he added.

”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.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
You have the floor, frankie. What were you saying?


The same thing she says everytime blubbbber blubbber blubbber, noting of any sense, even the Cab advocates are tired of her BLUBBER.
 
Top