Democrats Blocked Bush From Stopping the Recession

Here’s a couple of names you forgot to mention: Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, and his successor, Larry Summers, and Slick Willie—Dimocrats one and all.

Rubin actively fought against regulating the derivatives market, while Summers personally endorsed and promoted the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. And “Slick Willie”? Oh, he’s the one who actually signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill into law.

Summers thoughts on the subject: "to date [1998] there has been no clear evidence of a need for additional regulation of the institutional OTC derivatives market, and we would submit that proponents of such regulation must bear the burden of demonstrating that need."

BTW, that Dimocrat Obama hired Summers as the director of the White House National Economic Council, until Summers came under fire for accepting perks from Citigroup, including free rides on its evil corporate jet in 2008. The Wall Street Journal, reported that Summers called Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and asked Dodd to remove caps on executive pay at firms that have received stimulus money, including Citigroup.

Matters grew worse for Obama and Summers when on April 3, 2009, Summers came under renewed criticism for receiving millions of dollars in pay from companies which he monitored as a public servant. He earned $5 million from the hedge fund D. E. Shaw, and collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street companies that received government bailout money. Ol' Summers no doubt felt mighty "stimulated".

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Is there a democrat politician who hasn't had his cock sucked by you? Originally Posted by Marshall

Good response. Stupid yet cowardly. And so on point.

Anything else?

Let me rephrase that.

Do you have anything to say about the thread that can possibly show you are not projecting your unspoken dreams?

Didn't think so.

We can talk more about who caused this later. As far as containing the issue or solving it after it was obvious it existed, the fact remains. While controlling Congress and the Presidency for 6 years, 2001 till 2007, the republicans did nothing about this. And on top of that to claim the democrats blocked them?

Go figure. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Saying there wasn't an R response in the first 6 of the 43rd administration is disengenious to say the least. Especially since the D's took congress, they still had another opportunity to head off the collapse of the bubble.

From US News...
In this artical Barney Frank is quoted as saying that nothing was done until 2005 where the legislation was held up in the senate, but if you look at the article from the NY Times you will see that action was in comittees and talks in 2003. Barney lied.

What was Frank's response to the proposal in 2003?

"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."

...and the NY Times on September 11, 2003...
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Politicians are supposed to be representative of their constituencies on the left and right. They are ALL becoming more and more beholden to the special interest groups. You don't like the R's, we get it. The R's don't like the D's, but SOME of us on the right have recognized that the R's have some 'splainin' to do, also. When the D's wake up that there is corruption on their side also instead of giving them a pass because of the "D" behind the name and try to clean up their party also, we might actually begin to progress.

Hell, even TTH has the balls to denounce the Prez on certain policies. For that I can respect him, even if I disgree with him in general.

Adding: In 2008 youtoob

Saying there wasn't an R response in the first 6 of the 43rd administration is disengenious to say the least. Especially since the D's took congress, they still had another opportunity to head off the collapse of the bubble.

From US News...
In this artical Barney Frank is quoted as saying that nothing was done until 2005 where the legislation was held up in the senate, but if you look at the article from the NY Times you will see that action was in comittees and talks in 2003. Barney lied.

What was Frank's response to the proposal in 2003?

"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."

...and the NY Times on September 11, 2003...
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Politicians are supposed to be representative of their constituencies on the left and right. They are ALL becoming more and more beholden to the special interest groups. You don't like the R's, we get it. The R's don't like the D's, but SOME of us on the right have recognized that the R's have some 'splainin' to do, also. When the D's wake up that there is corruption on their side also instead of giving them a pass because of the "D" behind the name and try to clean up their party also, we might actually begin to progress.

Hell, even TTH has the balls to denounce the Prez on certain policies. For that I can respect him, even if I disgree with him in general.

Adding: In 2008 youtoob Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

The title of this thread stated the dems blocked rep/bush's efforts to stop the recession. The op said the dems controlled congress. That is not correct. I agree that the reps didn't sit on their hands and made honest attempts at solving the problems we were facing.

As far as not liking reps in general, that is not the case. As far as liking all dems, that also is not the case. If you look at the top 10 current threads, how many are pro rep? Pro dem? Anti rep? Anti dem? What I can say I don’t like are posters who don’t do their own research and continue to pass bullshit. I’m not talking about opinions. I’m talking about facts. Like who controlled congress n 2003. In the paragraph above, I acknowledged that I was wrong in saying the reps did nothing. I don’t have a problem admitting it if I’m wrong about something factual.

Conspiracy theories? Hidden socialist agendas? Trying to run America into the ground? These are opinions not facts.
Cock sucking bastards who continually use libotard, dimocrats, rethugs, wingnuts or refuse to spell the President’s name properly; occasionally for emphasis or if pissed off is one thing, ongoing disrespect is another. In my opinion, of course.

In many posts, I’ve said there are enough real issues with the present administration that things like the number of golf games or verbal slips don’t mean shit. A thread concerned with solving problems vs attaching blame would be nice. So would providers who give 5 BJs for the price of 4.
I’ve spoken out against general blanketing statements concerning both parties. The vast majority of my posts provide a link to correct misinformation or to backup a statement or opinion I have posted. I’m a fiscally conservative and socially liberal right leaning moderate independent. The chance that a party could match all of my concerns is unlikely.

I just gave a description of my politics. If you have questions about anything I say or post, go ahead and ask. Don’t tell me how I feel about something or what I think about something.

Life is a bell curve. A few are going to hate something, a few are going to love it, and everybody else will be somewhere in between.
Life is not digital either. It’s analog. Of course some people think it is digital, some think there are no right or wrong answers, and everybody else……….you get the idea.

...

Life is not digital either. It’s analog. Of course some people think it is digital, some think there are no right or wrong answers, and everybody else……….you get the idea. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Digital, binary bit, is read in three states now, On, Off, or Null. There are people who are either right or wrong then there are those that have no opinion.

Digital, binary bit, is now read in three states now, On, Off, or Null. There are people who are either right or wrong then there are those that have no opinion. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

What about "Onnulloff"? Isn't that a do-over for marriage?

The federal government was never supposed to have this much power....

The founders of our great country new this and it has taken some time to destroy the constitution. I do believe most if not all politicians are corrupt and have been fucking all of us in the ass for some time.

The worst of the housing bubble is not over yet....
Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

The founding fathers wrote the constitution for a small country they assumed would grow and become a world power, while the rural and agricultural people would be the backbone of the country. There's no way they could have foreseen the industrial revolution, population growth, our military and economic supremacy, accompanied with the sheer laziness and less educated fast food nation we've become. Do you honestly think the 2nd amendment was put in simply so everyone could have a gun? Guns were a necessity for food and in case we needed to form a militia in wartime. While it's a fantastic piece of legislation, there was a reason it can be amended. CHANGE! Some parts are timeless. Things like the Electoral College need to be changed.

The Constitution hasn't been destroyed, although we have had some recent execs who have chosen to thumb their nose at checks and balances and do what they wanted because the thought they knew better than anyone else.

Good response. Stupid yet cowardly. And so on point. How so? It’s a statement of fact used to offset the bias of the poster to whom it was addressed. It’s amusing to see you—“who professes to be so fair and impartial”—squirm in the light of the truth.

Anything else?

Let me rephrase that.

Do you have anything to say about the thread that can possibly show you are not projecting your unspoken dreams?

Didn't think so. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The title of this thread stated the dems blocked rep/bush's efforts to stop the recession. The op said the dems controlled congress. That is not correct. I agree that the reps didn't sit on their hands and made honest attempts at solving the problems we were facing.

As far as not liking reps in general, that is not the case. As far as liking all dems, that also is not the case. If you look at the top 10 current threads, how many are pro rep? Pro dem? Anti rep? Anti dem? What I can say I don’t like are posters who don’t do their own research and continue to pass bullshit. I’m not talking about opinions. I’m talking about facts. Like who controlled congress n 2003. In the paragraph above, I acknowledged that I was wrong in saying the reps did nothing. I don’t have a problem admitting it if I’m wrong about something factual.

Conspiracy theories? Hidden socialist agendas? Trying to run America into the ground? These are opinions not facts.
Cock sucking bastards who continually use libotard, dimocrats, rethugs, wingnuts or refuse to spell the President’s name properly; occasionally for emphasis or if pissed off is one thing, ongoing disrespect is another. In my opinion, of course. You missed a few that your brethren often employ: Tea-bagger, Luddite, xenophobe, Bible Thumper, reactionary, jackboot, fascist, gun-nut, Bircher, Redneck, right-wing militia, and the tried and true favorite from the left: “racist”. For three years now, everyone who has dared to disagree with or challenge the current administration on anything has been called a “racist”.

In many posts, I’ve said there are enough real issues with the present administration that things like the number of golf games or verbal slips don’t mean shit. You have yet to chastise your brethren for doing exactly the same thing. A thread concerned with solving problems vs attaching blame would be nice. So would providers who give 5 BJs for the price of 4.
I’ve spoken out against general blanketing statements concerning both parties. The vast majority of my posts provide a link to correct misinformation [and yet you criticize others with a different POV who do the same thing: see above] or to backup a statement or opinion I have posted. I’m a fiscally conservative [and yet you support the fiscal policies of the current administration?????] and socially liberal right leaning moderate independent. The chance that a party could match all of my concerns is unlikely.

I just gave a description of my politics. If you have questions about anything I say or post, go ahead and ask. Don’t tell me how I feel about something or what I think about something.

Life is a bell curve. A few are going to hate something, a few are going to love it, and everybody else will be somewhere in between.
Life is not digital either. It’s analog. Of course some people think it is digital, some think there are no right or wrong answers, and everybody else……….you get the idea. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Pardon, but your bias is showing.

m

to.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution for a small country they assumed would grow and become a world power, while the rural and agricultural people would be the backbone of the country. There's no way they could have foreseen the industrial revolution, [One qualification: the Industrial Revolution was underway before the U.S. secured its independence from Great Britain, and its impact was evident by the time Adams and Jefferson died in 1826.] population growth, our military and economic supremacy, accompanied with the sheer laziness and less educated fast food nation we've become. Do you honestly think the 2nd amendment was put in simply so everyone could have a gun? Guns were a necessity for food and in case we needed to form a militia in wartime. [You need to read a little more on the Founding Fathers’ purpose and intent behind the 2nd Amendment ] While it's a fantastic piece of legislation, there was a reason it can be amended. CHANGE! [True. But today, the Amendment process is often suborned by the too frequent use of the “executive order” or "judicial decision."] Some parts are timeless. Things like the Electoral College need to be changed. [Ten years ago, I would have agreed with you. But after this last presidential election – not so much. Rural citizens should not be subjected to "national laws" that are created for the “sake of convenience” for those who choose to live in cities. The Electoral College is a last vestige of true federalism.] The Constitution hasn't been destroyed, although we have had some recent execs who have chosen to thumb their nose at checks and balances and do what they wanted because the thought they knew better than anyone else. Originally Posted by surcher

mmmm

The founding fathers wrote the constitution for a small country they assumed would grow and become a world power, while the rural and agricultural people would be the backbone of the country. There's no way they could have foreseen the industrial revolution, population growth, our military and economic supremacy, accompanied with the sheer laziness and less educated fast food nation we've become. Do you honestly think the 2nd amendment was put in simply so everyone could have a gun? Guns were a necessity for food and in case we needed to form a militia in wartime. While it's a fantastic piece of legislation, there was a reason it can be amended. CHANGE! Some parts are timeless. Things like the Electoral College need to be changed.

. Originally Posted by surcher

You American-hating cock-sucker..they didn't have to see into the future...the Constitution has an amendment process built-in which requires a fair amout of consensus, but makes the Constitution adaptable.....the Founding Fathers could foresee that things change but didn't have to foresee exactly how.....

You American-hating cock-sucker. Originally Posted by Marshall

You're so cute when you're angry.

Pardon, but your bias is showing.

m Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Good response. Stupid yet cowardly. And so on point. How so? It’s a statement of fact used to offset the bias of the poster to whom it was addressed. It’s amusing to see you—“who professes to be so fair and impartial”—squirm in the light of the truth.
Sorry for misunderstanding. My response was for marshall’s award winning comment.
I try to be fair and impartial. I admit it when I’m wrong. No squirming here. 3 traits we don’t share.

Conspiracy theories? Hidden socialist agendas? Trying to run America into the ground? These are opinions not facts.
Cock sucking bastards who continually use libotard, dimocrats, rethugs, wingnuts or refuse to spell the President’s name properly; occasionally for emphasis or if pissed off is one thing, ongoing disrespect is another. In my opinion, of course. You missed a few that your brethren often employ: Tea-bagger, Luddite, xenophobe, Bible Thumper, reactionary, jackboot, fascist, gun-nut, Bircher, Redneck, right-wing militia, and the tried and true favorite from the left: “racist”.Guess in your haste to bitch you didn’t notice I listed a repub term, a democ term, a conser term, and a liberal term. Pretty fucking fair and balanced. Then you went on to cry about all the bad names you get called. While failing to list a single term the other side is called by your brethren. And the elephant in the room? The fact that the ongoing disrespect to the President wasn’t touched on. And as I’m sure you have guessed by now, you are the cock sucking bastard I was referring to.

For three years now, everyone who has dared to disagree with or challenge the current administration on anything has been called a “racist”.Nothing I can say will change any of your basic core beliefs. I’ll just say you are full of shit and leave it at that.

In many posts, I’ve said there are enough real issues with the present administration that things like the number of golf games or verbal slips don’t mean shit. You have yet to chastise your brethren for doing exactly the same thing.Wrong. You need to look harder. I’ll post some examples tomorrow. I know you won’t post any examples of you chastising yours. Not only because none exist but because you hold me to higher standards than yourself. That’s OK. I do too.

I’m a fiscally conservative [and yet you support the fiscal policies of the current administration?????]Look how you react to a different point of view. The only fiscal policy I have stated support for is tax hikes and spending cuts both being included. I called you on your incorrect statement that you claimed the President only wanted tax hikes. You have not shown a link or admitted you were wrong. Can you show any examples of being asked for a link to prove something and you then provided it? I can show several examples of my requests you have ignored.and socially

To sum up, you do everything you bitch about me doing. I don’t do everything you bitch about me doing.

I try to be fair and impartial. I’m willing to admit it when I wrong and to correct my error. You aren’t, you aren’t and you don’t.


What bias?

You American-hating cock-sucker..they didn't have to see into the future...the Constitution has an amendment process built-in which requires a fair amout of consensus, but makes the Constitution adaptable.....the Founding Fathers could foresee that things change but didn't have to foresee exactly how..... Originally Posted by Marshall

I know that this was supposed to make conservative, reactionary, teavangelist sense. But it seems that after penning "You American-hating" you ran out of gas because you just made the case against "strict constructionism."

I try to be fair and impartial. I admit it when I’m wrong. No squirming here. 3 traits we don’t share.

What bias? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You are quite delusional. You are not fair and impartial, and you are very dishonest and wrong when you claim you are.

You are quite delusional. You are not fair and impartial, and you are very dishonest and wrong when you claim you are. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What a chicken shit. You don't address any issues. You just make a typical, general statement with no examples.
All you do is play "Flip the Script".

You American-hating cock-sucker..they didn't have to see into the future...the Constitution has an amendment process built-in which requires a fair amout of consensus, but makes the Constitution adaptable.....the Founding Fathers could foresee that things change but didn't have to foresee exactly how..... Originally Posted by Marshall

I have refrained from this, but in all honesty you are nothing more than a blow-hard moron with poor comprehension skills. I said it's amendable, dumbass, yet, you'd rather see yourself spout your American hating BS and homosexual preferences. You seem like nothing more than a profanity laden, loud-mouthed, teabagging Ted Haggard.