- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It deserves almost as much ridicule as someone comparing an eight year Presidency with a four and a third year Presidency would you say?:2wave:
Not really. BHO has already added more to the national debt than did GWB, so we know he works fast. And BHO has achieved exactly one month with unemployment as low as GWB's worst (highest) month. Unemployment under BHO has averaged 8.9%. Under GWB the average was only 5.3%.
It is one of many economic indicators and is itself a combination of several individual indicators. I disagree with the level of importance you give it. I agree that it is an economic indicator.
Agree to disagree, its my opinion.
WELL- he DOES have three and two thirds of his second term to correct that does he not?:thumbs:
I see you lurken con.comeon in we need a few laughs before betime.
Still lying I see.
Point to one economist that forecasted a depression if we had NOT passed the stimulus.
Everything from jobs to monthly GDP had already bottomed out befpre stimulus was enacted
We are talking the 81-82 recession and recovery vs the 07-09 recession and recovery? Behind door number one we had a 20 misery index including 10.8% unemployment and behind Door number two we had a 12 misery index and 10% unemployment. Hmmmm, now which door to pick? Sorry you must not have gotten your XBos that you were hoping for or IPAD
It doesn't indicate ****. Let's see you explain this (Conservative wouldn't touch it) ...Oh cmon. Its a combination of a variety of economic indicators. It is an indicator of sorts. I wouldnt argue its as important as Conservative likes to make it or he gathers data as well as he should but to declare it isnt an indicator is false. It is, its just not as reliable as others.
One bad argument shouldnt lead to a counter argument that is worse...and false.
Doubt seriously that you want to wager that the employment picture will get better although if he keeps on the pace he has of having hundreds of thousands drop out of the labor force he could get that unemployment rate down.
Unfortunately for you, the record demonstrates I am not. Your hollow accusations do not even begin to dent the record.Yes you are lying and pushing propaganda
It doesn't indicate ****. Let's see you explain this (Conservative wouldn't touch it) ...
... Just based on the misery index, which is worse ... ? An economy with 4% unemployment and 2% inflation (misery index of 6.0) ? Or an economy with 10% unemployment with 5% deflation (misery index of 5.0)? Now, for extra credit, explain why the misery index indicates the former is worse...
You're right. it seems Americans are happier than ever!
And they owe it all to Barrack H. Obama.
That's a rather asinine challenge given that Democrats were the minority party while the majority party Republicans wouldn't even pass such a bill.Please point to the Democrat bills that were pushed prior to the collapse that would have reigned in Fannie and Freddie.
Shortly after taking over the Congress, they began working on it. Barney Frank submitted a bill just two months into the 110th Congress. He got it passed in the House but it failed in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi took parts of it and sponsored her own bill a few months later. Democrats did what Republicans couldn't. Pass GSE oversight in the House and the Senate and get a bill in front of the president for him to sign. Unfortunately, by then it was too late. Even by 2006, the housing market started turning south. We needed a bill passed years earlier to stave off the economic crisis we ultimately faced.And if you cant because they didn't exist then tell us why they didn't exist.
How would I know? I don't speak for them. My guess would be they didn't like what was in it. Hell, even the Republicans wouldn't let it get put to a vote when they had the chance in 2005. :lamoAlso that Hagel McCain bill was re-introduced in 2007. Why didn't it get out of committee ?
Blah blah blah. Excuse excuse excuse. The bottom line is all that matters. 5.3% vs 8.9%.:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
Unfortunately for you, the record demonstrates I am not. Your hollow accusations do not even begin to dent the record.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping make housing more affordable, both in general through leveraging the mortgage market, and in particular, they have a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing, and that is what I am concerned about here. I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals. I worry frankly that there is a tension here.
The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.
Rep. Frank, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said he was "baffled" that so much attention had been devoted to whether the federal government should be able to put the companies into receivership in the event of a financial crisis.
"I think it is an artificial issue created by the administration," he said in a speech at a Mortgage Bankers Association conference.
Why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem?'' Dodd said in a Bloomberg Television interview. ``I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years.''
FHFA letter, dated December 3, 2004, to Congressman Barney Frank: "On November 15, 2004 Fannie Mae filed a Form 12b-25 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Fannie Mae indicated that its external auditors could not complete their reviews of its financial statements and noted the possibility of up to a $9 billion loss dating back to 2001. As a result, OHFEO has determined it will not provide a monthly capital classification at this time."
'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.'
It doesn't indicate ****. Let's see you explain this (Conservative wouldn't touch it) ...
... Just based on the misery index, which is worse ... ? An economy with 4% unemployment and 2% inflation (misery index of 6.0) ? Or an economy with 10% unemployment with 5% deflation (misery index of 5.0)? Now, for extra credit, explain why the misery index indicates the former is worse...
That's a rather asinine challenge given that Democrats were the minority party while the majority party Republicans wouldn't even pass such a bill.
Shortly after taking over the Congress, they began working on it. Barney Frank submitted a bill just two months into the 110th Congress. He got it passed in the House but it failed in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi took parts of it and sponsored her own bill a few months later. Democrats did what Republicans couldn't. Pass GSE oversight in the House and the Senate and get a bill in front of the president for him to sign. Unfortunately, by then it was too late. Even by 2006, the housing market started turning south. We needed a bill passed years earlier to stave off the economic crisis we ultimately faced.
How would I know? I don't speak for them. My guess would be they didn't like what was in it. Hell, even the Republicans wouldn't let it get put to a vote when they had the chance in 2005. :lamo
Look it's not my problem you don't understand how our Government works
The record demonstrates that you are a liar. With full Democrat opposition to the bill it was withdrawn because it would not have passed the 60 vote cloture rule for a floor vote. That's why they tried to reintroduce a very similiar bill the next year but again, Democrats blocked any reform down a party line vote. It wouldn't have passed the 60-vote cloture needed on the Senate floor. Democrats only needed 41 votes to stop an up or down vote. You're acting like they were powerless and stood by twiddling their thumbs. It doesn't pass the laugh test.
Here's a speech Barney Frank gave in 2003
Barney Frank on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 | Tax Foundation
Frank calling it a "phony issue" as he and his fellow Democrats repeatedly tried to block any GSE reform
Frank: GSE Failure a Phony Issue - American Banker Article
Harry Reid rejecting GSE reform
Dems rip new Fannie Mae regulatory measure - UPI.com
Bush repeatedly called for GSE reform. He was ignored. After the bubble burst, Chris Dodd and the Democrats (the people you worship who scoffed at reform and attacked the regulators as racist) whined how they should have done more. They play people like you like a fiddle.
Fannie Mae, Freddie `House of Cards' Prompts Takeover (Update2) - Bloomberg
Frank knew of the accounting errors for years but still did nothing.
New Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch Show Congress Ignored Corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for Years | Judicial Watch
The Bush Administration diagnosed the problem and proposed new regulations. Frank again opposed it and claimed there was not a problem with the GSEs.
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - Page 2 - New York Times
Both Dodd and Frank, (who both dismissed and criticized any reform) then used The Housing Crash to draft Socialist Legislation that has been crippling the Economy ever since
They opposed GSE reform every step of the way. Even in 2010 AFTER the financial crisis, Democrats BLOCKED GSE reform. You are wasting everyone's time with your nonsense. Democrats = directly responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis. They blocked any meaningful reform and then used the crisis to ram their political agenda through. Ever since 2008 Obama and the Democrats have been tuning the Public like a fork from one crisis to the next, using crisis' that THEY manufacture to increase the size and power of Government. That's all they keep doing as they poke, prod, and attack the Constitution. Claiming crisis crisis crisis.
When the left's lies and economic policies continue to fail all we keep hearing are excuses, finger pointing and blame. Only an ignorant clown wouldn't see this scam for what it is and continue to vote Democrat.
Seriously, do you think posting a lot of unrelated information is going to make up for your inability to prove that bill was filibustered?
The fact is, it wasn't -- and I gave a link to the bill which proves that it wasn't. Anything else you post is mere deflection on your part because you don't want to blame Republicans for dropping the ball over GSE oversight.
Democrats were not in charge, so no, they don't get the blame. Republicans wanted the job of running the Congress and they were given that job. With being the party in charge comes the responsibilty when things go wrong. For example, I didn't see a single Conservative blame Republicans for the failure of Congressional Democrats to pass a budget during the years when Democrats controlled both chambers? Nor should they have ... Democrats were in charge, they get the blame.After what occurred, some measure would have been passed no matter which party was in office. Getting credit for strengthening fire protection after the town burns down is hardly an achievment.
Secondly, arguing that Republicans couldnt pass a bill because they had some party defectors when the entire dem caucus was against any such measures is a bad argument. If all the dems were against it, how can you then try to say they bear no blame? The were in opposition more than the party attempting to rein in the GSEs.
And if it were so important, why is it there were no democrat defectors to lend bipartisan support?
Simple: the democratic caucus and specifically the Congressional Black Caucus were dead set against any such measures. Exposing the utter, stinking lie of your argument.
Democrats were not in charge, so no, they don't get the blame. Republicans wanted the job of running the Congress and they were given that job. With being the party in charge comes the responsibilty when things go wrong. For example, I didn't see a single Conservative blame Republicans for the failure of Congressional Democrats to pass a budget during the years when Democrats controlled both chambers? Nor should they have ... Democrats were in charge, they get the blame.
There is no lie. You too can look at the bill and see it wasn't filibustered. Just because Democrats were against it doesn't translate into the bill was filibustered. Republican leadership in the Senate wouldn't even put it to a full vote. Maybe had they, THEN Democrats would have filibustered it. But it never came to that.
Republicans dropped the ball.
But it didn't pass in the Senate -- your logic dictates that Republicans share in the blame even though they were the minority party and were not in charge of which bills made it to the Senate floor. I don't agree with that, but that's your logic.They absolutely get the blame if they intend to vote against and intend to issue charges of racism to damage the parties attempting to pass the legislation. Opposition to good legislation and your simpleton argument is contrary to how things really work in Washington. It wasnt about the legislation it was about damaging the other party. For putting partisanship above the country they deserve more blame, not less.
Second moronic argument---The House has been passing multiple budget bills, Reid is refusing to let them leave his desk for a vote. He wont even let them go into committee.
But it didn't pass in the Senate -- your logic dictates that Republicans share in the blame even though they were the minority party and were not in charge of which bills made it to the Senate floor. I don't agree with that, but that's your logic.
Nope, not wrong. I showed the bill. It contains the record. There was no filibuster. Period. No amount of demonstration of Democrats being against it is going to magically change the record into one which includes a filibuster.Wrong: Dem language in committee--we not only will oppose you on this, we will paint you as racists if you try to bring it to a vote. And they had the entire Congressional Black Caucus ready to engage in that rhetoric if it came to it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?