[QUOTE=Avatar2005;412747]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?[/QUOTE]Fire someone. That's the 'new normal'
Printable View
[QUOTE=Avatar2005;412747]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?[/QUOTE]Fire someone. That's the 'new normal'
[QUOTE=Miamipro;412746]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.[/QUOTE]For a serial antagonist you have a sense of humor! Go figure? Must be a red dog as most bleeding heart liberals certainly lack any sense of humor and are easily offended. LOL. Monger on dude. Toymann
This thread got real quiet.
Come-On WW... I still love you
[QUOTE=Toymann;412745]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]
I have no problem with El Jeffe's censoring of that particular comment. While it was neither derogatory nor a personal attack (the stock language from the admin post), the gist of my comment was, in fact, antithetical to the fundamental function of the forum (i.e. encouraging someone not to participate).
As for MP, I am trying to make sure that I am in Bs As in early November so we can watch the election returns together.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 412765]I have no problem with El Jeffe's censoring of that particular comment. While it was neither derogatory nor a personal attack (the stock language from the admin post, the gist of my comment was, in fact, antithetical to the fundamental function of the forum (I. E. Encouraging someone not to participate.
As for MP, I am trying to make sure that I am in Bs As in early November so we can watch the election returns together. [/QUOTE]I am leaving tomorrow night back home. However I will be with you in spirit.
It's probably just a bunch of Wall Street guys complaining how Fannie and Freddie caused all their problems.
[QUOTE=Esten;412768]It's probably just a bunch of Wall Street guys complaining how Fannie and Freddie caused all their problems.[/QUOTE]It is an absolute travesty of justice that GG was ever incarcerated!
"Greed, for lack of a better term, is good" I had my Motorola Brick-phone bronzed and keep it on the mantle.
Footnote: I know that GG is a fictional character but it seems liberals live in an alternate reality where fictional characters are as real as you and me, therefore, I don't want to upset our Cool-Aid drinking friends by pointing out that their realities are make believe.
For me, the mid term election results is not a referendum of whether the Republicans or Democrats are the better ruling party. Both have failed us especially for the long term. Obama's inexperience has led to the Democrats reliquishing the momentum that they came in with, which the Republicans can now capitalize on.
So the main issue is the economy, jobs and unemployment. And Obama / Democrats will pay for it as the well qualified and distinguished Bush senior did in 2002 when the upstart Clinton walk into the White House. This after one of the hightest ratings for Bush senior after the first Iraq campaign. My point, is for all the verbal propoganda that is going on now of who is right or wrong in political philosophy, it is all about your stomach and your paycheck. An example, if the economy gets roaring again, all the hard talk about illegal immigration will tone down to a whisper.
The business of America is business, after all.
How do you know when a godless ideologue is behind in the polls?
He starts to tell you how pious he is:
"WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is getting more public about his Christianity.
First he raised his Christian faith at a White House news conference this month. Then he went church for the first time in five months. And on Tuesday he responded to a question with an expansive talk about how he chose Christianity, how Jesus Christ influences his life and how he prays every day. " From McClatchy Press.
Does anyone really believe that BHO believes in a higher power (I. E. Higher than himself) This religious charade is more cynical than the Soviets. The USSR formally existed for 69 years, during which time the Soviets actively persecuted Christians (right up until the fall of the Communist regime. Oddly, the crosses that adorned the towers of the four Cathedrals within the Kremlin were never removed. The justification for this was "just in case. " While they held out the possibility that God might exist they didn't pretend to be pro-christian while executing their agenda.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;412779]For me, the mid term election results is not a referendum of whether the Republicans or Democrats are the better ruling party.[/quote]
Agreed
[quote=] Both have failed us especially for the long term.[/quote]
The individuals and groups of individuals bearing these political monikers have screwed us as well as past and future generations. However, history has shown us repeatedly (because we are slow learners and keep putting our hands back into the fire) that freedom, self-determination and capitalism work while controlled economies, limited personal freedoms and socialism do not. End of story.
A free society enabled to pursue personal self interests (including happiness) - within the constraints of social folkways and morays, codified into law by a democratically-elected, representative government - is as good as it is ever going to get. It will never be perfect, it will never completely eliminate poverty, hunger, drug addiction, body odor or obsessive masturbation.
[quote=] Obama's inexperience has led to the Democrats reliquishing the momentum that they came in with, which the Republicans can now capitalize on.[/quote]
It is Obama zealotry and impatience to force it on the country that has betrayed him.
[quote=]So the main issue is the economy, jobs and unemployment.[/quote]
Yes.
The negative socioeconomic impact of the global financial meltdown (regardless of who caused it), as manifested in poor economic data and high unemployment, has been grossly exacerbated by BHO and his adhesion to his neo-marxist agenda. Increased regulation, increased national indebtedness, increased money supply, increased regulatory risk, increased cost of doing business, increased unforeseen business risk are the hallmarks of Obama's attempts to recast our country into his Utopian society - all of which have helped to delay or eliminate any real recovery.
[quote=] And Obama / Democrats will pay for it as the well qualified and distinguished Bush senior did in 2002 when the upstart Clinton walk into the White House. This after one of the hightest ratings for Bush senior after the first Iraq campaign.[/quote]
92% approval rating for GHWB, cleared out the Democrat field of candidates. Clinton didn't care. He was going to run and lose just to get his name recognition up. No one, especially Clinton, expected things to unfold the way that they did. A week is a long time in a political campaign, a year is an eternity.
[quote=] My point, is for all the verbal propoganda that is going on now of who is right or wrong in political philosophy, it is all about your stomach and your paycheck. An example, if the economy gets roaring again, all the hard talk about illegal immigration will tone down to a whisper.[/quote]
Who was it that said "It's the economy, stupid"
America votes with its wallets. That is because that is how the public interprets the prevailing macro and micro economic conditions and the way that it is connected to the economic policies of its leader. The majority of the public do not usually delve deeper into the subject nor do they necessarily grasp the connection of the above-mentioned freedom to their personal, financial well being.
I think that since the silent majority seems to have found its voice, tough issues such as immigration are going to face tougher debate both within the congress and the public forum -- based upon the merits of the issue (and relying less on the various political agendas).
It is not anti-immigrant or racist to oppose the wholesale elimination of federal law, as they relate to immigration, for the purpose of adding 20 million people to the democrat voter rolls.
I do support eliminating immigration constraints on attractive, single females (who are not pregnant) from all countries of origin.
That said, it is more difficult to get the public to focus on such issues when things are going well and the abundance of "riches" provides them with more distractions.
My favorite topic.
In the 1940's Cuba was the worlds top exporter of coffee.
In the early 1960's Cuba produced more than 60,000 tons of coffee.
This year Cuba produced about 5,000 tons of coffee and has to import the vast majority of coffee it consumes.
And they wonder why people proposing a larger governmental role are like fingernails on a blackboard to us.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 412788]My favorite topic.
In the 1940's Cuba was the worlds top exporter of coffee.
In the early 1960's Cuba produced more than 60,000 tons of coffee.
This year Cuba produced about 5,000 tons of coffee and has to import the vast majority of coffee it consumes.
And people wonder why those people proposing a larger governmental role are like fingernails on a blackboard to us. [/QUOTE]Didn't you forget to point out that those marginalized by the 83% reduction of the industry, get FREE healthcare? Besides, if Cuba's coffee industry was still strong, Starbucks would just exploit the crap out of those poor starving people by paying them a decent wage to perform jobs. How cruel are you?
The shrinking effect that the left has on industries, is not dissimilar from the effects of a dip in freezing water on the size of your willie (or I guess on your Guillermo, in Bs As)
Obama: Well I hate going. Why can't I worship the Lord in my own way, by pretending that I pray to my Blackberry every day and by praying like hell on my death bed
Rham Emanuel: Mr. President, they can hear you inside!
Obama: Relax! Those pious morons are too busy talking to their phoney-baloney God!
[the Obama family enter the church to total silence and angry looks. They make their way to their pew]
Obama: How ya doin'? Peace be with you. Praise Jebus.
If I worked in an aspirin factory, I'd be pretty nervous going to work for the next five weeks.
When all else fails, time to wag the dog.
[QUOTE=Esten;412738]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?[/QUOTE]
I don't need to slow down. You need to be candid rather than pushing an agenda in obvious disregard of the facts.
There are many reasons the housing bubble occurred. The primary one, however, related directly to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
1. The low income housing quota for these entities stood at 40% in 1996. This means that the stated goal was that 40% of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie purchased would be loans to low-income borrowers who likely would not otherwise qualify for a mortgage. These were subprime loans (because borrowers had bad credit) and later became known as "toxic debt."
2. That quota was raised to 50% in the year 2000, and 56% in the year 2004. That's a 40% increase in the quota over an 8-year period.
3. While all that was going on, Fannie and Freddie [b]greatly[/b] expanded their presence in the marketplace. In the year 2000, they bought $35 billion in mortgages each year. By 2004, it was [b]$170 billion[/b]. That's a 500% increase in four years, and it continued thereafter until things started to unravel -- when Democrats finally agreed that someone else should regulate Fannie and Freddie.
4. Between 2000 and 2004, Fannie and Freddie essentially went from being large players in the subprime mortgage market, to being [b]the[/b] players in the mortgage market. In the year 2004 alone, Fannie and Freddie purchased [b]44% of all subprime mortgages.[/b] That's astronomical.
5. Add all of the above together, and you have a recipe for disaster: a 40% increase in the toxic loan purchase requirement and 500% more money being thrown at these bad loans, and two GSEs that essentially own this market -- ostensibly for "the public good." One of the reasons for this is that various Democrat-sponsored pressure groups -- primarily ACORN -- began to pressure HUD, Fannie and Freddie to enforce the low-income loan quotas and to expand these programs. Before 2000, Fannie and Freddie frequently didn't hit their 40% quota. After 2000, they exceeded their quotas. So, while Democrats were able to reward their pet activist groups and constituents with free money, the day of reckoning crept closer.
6. HUD is the group that sets the low income housing quota, and an arm of HUD is responsible for auditing Fannie and Freddie. Both were obvious failures at the time Bush proposed firing HUD as the regulator. In 2003, when the legislation was proposed, a HUD audit revealed that Fannie and Freddie had been cooking the books for years in order to pay huge bonuses to Franklin Raines and his subordinates. It had been going on for some time, but HUD's auditing arm never got around to looking. This, and the fact that HUD had no practical enforcement mechanism for requiring Fannie and Freddie to ensure that the loans they purchased were to "quality" borrowers (even if low income), is why we saw all the "liar" loans that started the housing bubble. Basically, Fannie and Freddie would purchase [i]anything[/i] -- they had to -- and all the lenders and mortgage brokers knew it.
Bush made it a part of his agenda to stop this for years and years. Every year Fannie and Freddie came up, and every year Democrats shot it down. They protected their buddies who were funneling them campaign contributions and ensuring that constituents could get free money. You can say a lot about George Bush, but you simply can't say that he did nothing to try to stop the eventual housing debacle. He clearly put his finger on the problem, highlighted the issue, and was thwarted by Democrats at every turn.
That YouTube video is just one of many showing Democrats in lock-step against anything being done to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Had you been paying any attention at all, you couldn't have missed it.