American Politics during the Obama Presidency

If you read Stan's post above you would have noticed several times when GWB and the Republicans attempted to address the problem but Dodd, Franks et al kept stonewalling those attempts. Perhaps they could have been more forcefull but how?

By the way, did you notice Dodd never made his financing arrangements with Country Wide available as promised? Wonder why. Franks did a lot of crawfishing after the bubble burst and Fannie and Freddie started bleeding to death.

While increasing home ownership is nobel the way the Dem's went about it was criminal.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;412718]While increasing home ownership is nobel the way the Dem's went about it was criminal.[/QUOTE]Again. To blame one party. Either one for that matter is a mistake. I'm sure there is a fair amount of blame to go around the table. But my point is GWB had the ability to make some changes. And didn't. You say he tried. But not hard enough to do the responsible thing IMHO.

[QUOTE=Miamipro;412720]Again. To blame one party. Either one for that matter is a mistake. I'm sure there is a fair amount of blame to go around the table. But my point is GWB had the ability to make some changes. And didn't. You say he tried. But not hard enough to do the responsible thing IMHO.[/QUOTE]Well gee, that is like saying that rank and members of rouge regimes deserve the same blame as the depots that run (ran) them.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412724]Well gee, that is like saying that rank and members of rouge regimes deserve the same blame as the depots that run (ran) them.[/QUOTE]WW.

I love the way you distort comparisons. But its nice to see you finally admit that the GWB admin is a rouge regime. First step to solving a problem is admitting you have one.

[QUOTE=Miamipro; 412725]WW.

I love the way you distort comparisons. But its nice to see you finally admit that the GWB admin is a rouge regime. First step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. [/QUOTE]I am no fan of GWB. Although I was and remain in support of all three wars (Iraq, Afghan and "on terror") and believe he did a fantastic job protecting us from terrorists.

Your guy is almost at 52% disapproval. In case you don't know, that isn't good.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 412726]I am no fan of GWB. Although I was and remain in support of all three wars (Iraq, Afghan and "on terror") and believe he did a fantastic job protecting us from terrorists.

Your guy is almost at 52% disapproval. In case you don't know, that isn't good. [/QUOTE]In case you didn't know. Obama is not my guy. Hasn't been since showing his lack of balls with policies I wanted passed. While you may not be a fan of GWB. His disapproval ratings were the lowest in Presidential history, when he was leaving office. Bush's final approval rating was 22 percent. Only war I support is the one against Al-Qaeda and nailing Osama. And as much as I support our troops. I don't support going in to Iraq. No reason to. Unless you can give me viable one. But don't try to play the terrorist card on that one. It was played out along time ago. To no avail. Our efforts and resources would have been better spent focusing on the 2 I previously mentioned.


BTW.... Bush did a fantastic job protecting us on 9/11... I am pretty sure he was President that day

[QUOTE=Miamipro;412731]BTW.... Bush did a fantastic job protecting us on 9/11... I am pretty sure he was President that day[/QUOTE]If you can wash the fecal matter from your eyes (due to having your head up your ass) you can do some homework. There are many, many independent sources you can consult that will provide you with a decent time-line for 911 and where the blame belongs. Of course, you seem to chose the Al Jazera version (which is standard issue for American liberals and democrats in general.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412732]If you can wash the fecal matter from your eyes (due to having your head up your ass) you can do some homework. There are many, many independent sources you can consult that will provide you with a decent time-line for 911 and where the blame belongs. Of course, you seem to chose the Al Jazera version (which is standard issue for American liberals and democrats in general.[/QUOTE]HaHaHa. Its ok WW, your insults, I'm sure, are based upon your own personal experiences of having ones head up an ass. However I am aware of the events of the time line that led up to 9/11. Just letting you know there were warning signs under his watch that went ignored. I included a link so maybe you could educate yourself starting in 1968 up through 2010. There are only 6,393 references so it might take you a while. But below I outlined those that were important to me pertaining to GWB. Take note especially of the December 2000 note I put in there.

[url]http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?[/url] Timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=0&theme=exactday.

March 2000: Clinton Attempt to Fight Terrorism Financing Defeated by Republican.

The Clinton administration begins a push to fight terrorism financing by introducing a tough anti-money laundering bill. The bill faces tough opposition, mostly from Republicans and lobbyists who enjoy the anonymity of offshore banking, which would be affected by the legislation. Despite passing the House Banking Committee by a vote of 31 to 1 in July 2000, Senator Phil Gramm (are) refuses to let the bill come up for a vote in his Senate Banking Committee. [TIME, 10/15/2001] Other efforts begun at this time to fight terrorism financing are later stymied by the new Bush administration in February 2001.

October 12,2000: Attack Warning Arrives Several Hours Too Late for USS Cole.

October 12,2000: Candidate Bush Responds to Terrorism Question with Missile Shield Proposal

'Bush's proposal of an antiballistic missile system suggests that he failed to understand that al-Qaeda's terrorism was fundamentally different from conventional warfare. ' [UNGER, 2004, PP.107,479] Bush will make similar comments on other occasions, causing the 9/11 Commission to later note, 'Public references by candidate and then President Bush about terrorism before 9/11 tended to reflect [his] priorities, focusing on state-sponsored terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction] as a reason to mount a missile defense. ' [9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP.509]

December 19,2000: Clinton Tells Bush His Top Priority Should Be Bin Laden; Bush Says It's Saddam Hussein Instead.

Resident Clinton and President-Elect Bush meet for their "exit interview, " in a two-hour meeting. [CNN, 12/19/2000] Clinton gives Bush his list of his top five priorities. At the top of the list is dealing with Osama bin Laden. Clinton also discusses the tensions between Pakistan and India, who are threatening each other with nuclear strikes; the crisis in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine; he discusses North Korea; and he discusses Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Bush shakes Clinton's hand after Clinton wraps up his presentation, and says, "Thanks for your advice, Mr. President, but I think you've got your priorities wrong. I'm putting Saddam at the top of the list. " [MOORE, 3/15/2004, PP.16-17] Just one day before, CIA Director George Tenet had warned Clinton that al-Qaeda could attack US interests in the next several weeks (see December 18,2000. In 2003, Clinton will speak about the interview, saying that he recognized Bush felt the biggest security issues facing the US was Iraq and a national missile defense: "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden. " [REUTERS, 10/16/2003]

Early 2001: Bush Staffers Less Concerned with Terrorism.

May-July 2001: NSA Picks Up Word of 'Imminent Terrorist Attacks'

May 8,2001: Cheney to Oversee National Effort for Responding to Domestic Attacks, but No Action Is Taken before 9/11.

May 10,2001: Attorney General Ashcroft Omits Counterterrorism from List of Goals.

May 16-17,2001: US Warned Bin Laden Supporters Are Inside US and Planning an Attack.

May 25-26,2001: Bush Told Bin Laden May Be Hinting about New Attack

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots.

Early August 2001: CIA's Concern over Planned Bin Laden Strikes Inside US Are Heightened.

Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings.

Between August 6 and September 10,2001: 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' Memo Is Not Acted Upon.

August 15,2001: CIA Counterterrorism Head: We Are Going to Be Struck Soon

September 10,2001: NSA Intercepts: 'The Match Begins Tomorrow' and 'Tomorrow Is Zero Hour'

(Between 8:46 am And 8:55 a. M) September 11,2001: Bush's Motorcade Quickly Hears of Flight 11 Crash, but Bush Reportedly Still Unaware.

(8:47 a. M-9:20 a. M) September 11,2001: Mayor Giuliani Learns of First WTC Crash, Yet Doesn't Go to Special Emergency Command Center.

(8:55 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Chats with Greeting Committee Instead of Taking Urgent Call from Rice.

(8:55 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Arrives at Elementary School for Photo-Op.

(9:03 a. M-9:06 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Enters Classroom Photo-Op, Still Claims to Think WTC Crash Is Accidental.

(9:06 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Told WTC Hit Again and US Is Under Attack; He Continues Photo-Op.

(9:06 a. M-9:16 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Reads Pet Goat Story for Nearly Ten Minutes; Warned Not to Talk.

(9:16 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Takes His Time Leaving Classroom Photo-Op.

(9:16 a. M-9:29 a. M) September 11,2001: President Bush Works on Speech with Staff; Makes No Decisions

Stan you need to slow down a little and read more carefully.

The point of my last post was that Bush and Republicans played more than a minor role. When you say the only blame Repubs deserve is that Bush didn't use his veto, you bet I am going to challenge you on it. I did point out that Dems and the private sector also shared blame. But I did not get into how much blame each deserved, aside from an implication that most rests with the private sector. Your red herring essay on the GSEs doesn't change the fact that Bush made an aggressive push on housing at a time when the bubble was just beginning.

You said I conveniently omitted things. Let's take a look at that. If I had been making the case that Repubs were responsible for the entire economic mess, you would be correct. But I wasn't. Read slower. I was making the case that Repubs played more of a role than you claimed. OTOH, aside from the comment about Bush not using his veto, you have pinned the economic mess on Dems a number of times now. No mention of Bush's housing push, no mention of the private sector. All Dems re: Fannie and Freddie. I am sure in your research you have seen that most accounts cite multiple factors for the financial crisis. But you have chosen to focus on only one. Convenient omissions? Pot - Kettle?

Remember when Bush said "Wall Street Got Drunk"? Well there's a good case that Bush helped foster that environment to some extent. I recommend you take some time to read this article. There was a little more involved than Bush not using his veto.

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html? _r=1&pagewanted=all[/url]

As far as Fannie and Freddie that's a separate debate. Tell me this: Fannie and Freddie existed for decades without anything near the kind of housing bubble we just had. So how did we get a massive housing bubble during 2001-2007 when Bush was in office?

Stop wasting our collective time and cyerspace. Read my prior post on our treatment of terrorism as law enforcement issues. Feel free to comment. [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]

[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was edited in accordance with the Forum's Zero Tolerance policy regarding reports containing any [u]personal attacks or derogatory comments[/u] directed towards another Forum Member or the Forum Membership in general.[/blue]

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412739]Stop wasting our collective time and cyerspace. Read my prior post on our treatment of terrorism as law enforcement issues. Feel free to comment. Otherwise STFU.[/QUOTE]Why do you always change the subject when I point out facts. We were debating the competency of GWB and how you think he did a fantastic job protecting us from terror. When he in fact dropped the biggest ball along with other people in the admin at the time. And no I won't STFU. Hate to burst your bubble but this time and this cyberspace belongs to me as much as it does you and I can express my opinions and state fact as much as I damn well please. And if it bothers you that much, only makes it that much more enjoyable for me.

The funny thing about political talk / debate is no matter what you say or what I say, probably isn't going to convince the other one of any thought change. So you believe what you will and I will do the same. Time will judge all and maybe one day you can say I told you so or vice versa.

Cheers!

I went to see WallStreet 2 tonight and it wasn't to bad. Better than I thought it would be. Typical Hollywood ending though. You know they want everyone to feel all happy and warm inside. I post this comment here because the movie has a lot to do with the financial collapse.

Check it out.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 412739]Stop wasting our collective time and cyerspace. Read my prior post on our treatment of terrorism as law enforcement issues. Feel free to comment. [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]

[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was edited in accordance with the Forum's Zero Tolerance policy regarding reports containing any [u]personal attacks or derogatory comments[/u] directed towards another Forum Member or the Forum Membership in general. [/blue][/QUOTE]

Welcome to the El Jeffe's editing zone brother. Apears that El Jeffe is showing his liberal side these days. Patience brother this too will pass. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;412745]Apears that El Jeffe is showing his liberal side these days.[/QUOTE]So if "El Jeffe" up holds the rules of the board, its considered liberal? HaHa OK. Thats funny. But honestly I wasn't offended by the STFU comment.

I was in NYC a couple of weeks ago when an old friend told me whats about to happen to his family due to the new Obamacare plan. The family run publishing company he works for (30 employees) held a meeting for all employees to discuss the ramifications of the new health plan. The Company had been paying 1/2 of their people's health bills for the last 25 years, but due to the new regulations, it would cost the Company $1.5 million a year come January, and if he does that he would have to cease operations! So he called the meeting to tell everyone that he will not be paying any of their health insurance costs anymore because it is cheaper for him to pay the yearly fine of $5,000 per employee (150,000 / yr) than pay the $1.5 million that would put him out of business! So my friend has to now figure out how to come up with $14k / yr to provide health insurance for his family! That's some health care program, huh?