American Politics during the Obama Presidency

In some videos you only see Colbert's prepared remarks, about 5 minutes. It's almost all humor. But it was followed by several minutes of Q&A. Washington Post has a video with some of it. The Q&A starts with more humor... there's a hilarious response about Iowan 'cornpackers'.

But Colbert finishes on a serious note in his responses to questions from Rep. Judy Chu. The final Q&A hits it home:

[QUOTE]CONGRESSWOMAN JUDY CHU: Mr. Colbert, you could work on so many issues, why are you interested in this issue?

COLBERT: I like talking about people who don't have any power. And this seems like some of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but don't have any rights as a result. And yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave. And that's an interesting contradiction to me. And, you know, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, and these seem like the least of our brothers, right now. A lot of people are least brothers right now because the economy is so hard, and I don't want to take anyone's hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that, but migrant workers suffer, and have no rights. "[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 412643]Black Shirt, from your response to Toyman I got the impression you were calling him a Redneck.

Got this from a frined and though I would pass it along in defese of all us Rednecks:

We have enjoyed the redneck jokes for years. It's time to

Take a reflective look at the core beliefs of a culture that

Values home, family, country and God. If I had to stand

Before a dozen terrorists who threaten my life, I'd

Choose a half dozen or so rednecks to back me up.

Tire irons, squirrel guns and grit. That's what rednecks are

Made of. I hope I am one of those.

Y'all know who ya are

You might be a redneck if: It never occurred to you to

Be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God. '

You might be a redneck if: You've never protested about seeing

The 10 Commandments posted in public places.

You might be a redneck if: You still say ' Christmas'

Instead of 'Winter Festival. '

You might be a redneck if: You stand and place your

Hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.

You might be a redneck if: You treat our armed forces

Veterans with great respect, and always have.

You might be a redneck if: You've never burned an

American flag, nor intend to.

You might be a redneck if: You know what you believe

And you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.

You might be a redneck if: You'd give your last dollar to.

A friend. [/QUOTE]There's some "redneck" in all of us, I'm just concern about the shade of the red. I'm sure you know what I mean.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412647]Did you like my Confederate Flag tattoo? I can't tell what a pain in the ass it was to park my ford F150 in Recoleta.[/QUOTE]Even if I didn't see you, I am sure I could hear your voice from the house way before I get to the door. You don't sound like George Wallace by any chance?

[QUOTE=Esten; 412678]My initial reaction when I heard about it: hmmm, not sure what to make of it.

My reaction when I watched the video: laughter.

My realization after watching the video: I would never have read about this hearing or given the matter any thought if Colbert hadn't done this.

It was amusing to watch the obvious or restrained smiles of others in the video. And meanwhile Colbert keeps a straight face all the time. One of the better lines I thought:

[i]For one thing, when you're picking beans, you have to spend all day bending over.

It turns out, and I did not know this, most soil is at ground level.

If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we make the earth waist-high?

Come on, where is the funding? [/i][/QUOTE]Any day now, I expect to see CSPAN coverage of Barack Obama, wearing a Roman toga [I]a la[/I] Caligula, leading a white horse into the Senate chambers.

[QUOTE=Esten; 412678][i]If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we make the earth waist-high?
Come on, where is the funding? [/i][/QUOTE]Please don't give the Democrats any more ideas on where to spend my money!

[QUOTE=Westy;412684]Any day now, I expect to see CSPAN coverage of Barack Obama, wearing a Roman toga [I]a la[/I] Caligula, leading a white horse into the Senate chambers.[/QUOTE]

Bingo! The horse is Elizabeth Warren -- the unconfirmed and unconfirmable non-head of the Consumer Protection Agency.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;412681]Even if I didn't see you, I am sure I could hear your voice from the house way before I get to the door. You don't sound like George Wallace by any chance?[/QUOTE]I like to announce my presence whereas if I was a liberal I would be looking to mask my pretense

Today, President Obama repeated his shop-worn lies about the economy, trying to blame Republicans for the mess Democrats created.

He repeatedly claims that Republican policies are what caused today's economic difficulties. Who does this guy think he's fooling at this point? Democrats have been in control of Congress since January of 2007 (just before the current malaise started. They had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since January 2009, and are still just one vote shy of that status. Republicans share the blame to this extent: They had a President too weak-willed to say no with his veto stamp.

To the extent Republicans tried to say "no" to the irresponsible quasi-government entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Democrats threw a tantrum. Barney Frank and Maxine Waters personally saw to it that that these entities could not be reformed and, as it has now come to light, could continue to funnel money to Democrat campaigns. It is beyond dispute that these two entities led the housing collapse with their misguided quotas that required lenders to make loans to people who couldn't afford them. No further proof is necessary than this: We've spent $150 billion bailing them out, and there's no end in sight. They collectively lost $20 billion [i]more[/i] last quarter, and Fed officials estimate that resolving them completely ultimately will cost [i]more than all the other bailouts combined. [/i] [url]http://www.qfinance.com/blogs/anthony-harrington/2010/09/21/freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae-the-mother-of-all-us-bailouts-still-to-come[/url].

Democrats just close their eyes and hope Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will go away. Think happy thoughts and someday you can fly. They made financial reform a key agenda point this past year. Republicans asked them to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the reforms. Yet they refused? So, these entities, which started this mess, which Democrats refused [b]and still refuse[/b] to reform, continue to lose billions each quarter. Just what are the failed policies of the past that Obama keeps throwing at Republicans' feet?

Obama apparently is doing his own Peter Pan impersonation. He closes his eyes and keeps repeating, "it's their fault; it's their fault. " That and some happy thoughts, and perhaps someday he will be able to fly. We can only hope he goes to Never Neverland for good.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;412688]Bingo! The horse is Elizabeth Warren -- the unconfirmed and unconfirmable non-head of the Consumer Protection Agency.[/QUOTE]Warren will have plenty of influence in setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Just remember what they both stand for.

It's fair to say the financial crisis had two components: (i) the housing bubble, and (ii) what the financial industry did around the bubble.

Both the private sector and public sector contributed to each component. Based on Jackson's insistance on the role that government intervention played, I've been doing some research on how the government influenced the bubble.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 412692]Today, President Obama repeated his shop-worn lies about the economy, trying to blame Republicans for the mess Democrats created.

He repeatedly claims that Republican policies are what caused today's economic difficulties. Who does this guy think he's fooling at this point? Democrats have been in control of Congress since January of 2007 (just before the current malaise started. [/QUOTE]Yes, and both chambers of Congress had a Republican majority from January 2003 to January 2007, the main period over which the bubble inflated.

[QUOTE]Republicans share the blame to this extent: They had a President too weak-willed to say no with his veto stamp.[/QUOTE]Au contraire, Bush was an active player in housing. How you ask? Well, Bush issued a challenge in 2002 called 'America's Home Ownership Challenge'. Listen to what Bush said back then:

[i]Now, we've got a problem here in America that we have to address. Too many American families, too many minorities do not own a home. There is a homeownership gap in America. The difference between Anglo America and African American and Hispanic homeownership is too big. And we've got to focus the attention on this Nation to address this. And it starts with setting a goal. [/i]

[i]That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America by achieving the goal of 5 1/2 million new minority homeowners. I call it America's homeownership challenge. [/i]

[i]And so here are some of the ways to address the issue. First, the single greatest barrier to first-time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many low-income families to make the high downpayment. And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund. This will use money, taxpayers' money, to help a qualified low-income buyer make a downpayment, and that's important. [/i]

[url]http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=62687 [/url]

So what happened? To address the challenge, the American Dream Downpayment Act was introduced in 2003 by USA Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla), with companion legislation introduced in the Senate by USA Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo). It was signed into law by Bush in 2003. All Republicans.

The timing is important. Case Shiller indices show the bubble started around 2001-2002, before this legislation was enacted, when interest rates were approaching historic lows. So at a time when housing prices were rising to new highs, Bush signed legislation that further increased demand by helping borrowers with their down payment and closing costs, up to $10,000. What might have been a mild to moderate bubble, was effectively turbo-charged into a massive bubble.

Of course Dems and especially private sector players share some blame as well. But Bush and Republicans in Congress were active players. And there are more examples as well.

I wonder if Stan has enough integrity to acknowledge this. Or if he will just stick to his lies that the only blame Repubs deserve is that Bush didn't use his veto power.

[QUOTE=Esten; 412700]It's fair to say the financial crisis had two components: (I) the housing bubble, and (ii) what the financial industry did around the bubble.

Both the private sector and public sector contributed to each component. Based on Jackson's insistance on the role that government intervention played, I've been doing some research on how the government influenced the bubble.

Yes, and both chambers of Congress had a Republican majority from January 2003 to January 2007, the main period over which the bubble inflated.

Au contraire, Bush was an active player in housing. How you ask? Well, Bush issued a challenge in 2002 called 'America's Home Ownership Challenge'. Listen to what Bush said back then:

[i]Now, we've got a problem here in America that we have to address. Too many American families, too many minorities do not own a home. There is a homeownership gap in America. The difference between Anglo America and African American and Hispanic homeownership is too big. And we've got to focus the attention on this Nation to address this. And it starts with setting a goal. [/i]

[i]That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America by achieving the goal of 5 1/2 million new minority homeowners. I call it America's homeownership challenge. [/i]

[i]And so here are some of the ways to address the issue. First, the single greatest barrier to first-time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many low-income families to make the high downpayment. And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund. This will use money, taxpayers' money, to help a qualified low-income buyer make a downpayment, and that's important. [/i]

[url]http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=62687 [/url]

So what happened? To address the challenge, the American Dream Downpayment Act was introduced in 2003 by USA Rep. Katherine Harris (are-Fla, with companion legislation introduced in the Senate by USA Sen. Wayne Allard (are-Colo. It was signed into law by Bush in 2003. All Republicans.

The timing is important. Case Shiller indices show the bubble started around 2001-2002, before this legislation was enacted, when interest rates were approaching historic lows. So at a time when housing prices were rising to new highs, Bush signed legislation that further increased demand by helping borrowers with their down payment and closing costs, up to $10,000. What might have been a mild to moderate bubble, was effectively turbo-charged into a massive bubble.

Of course Dems and especially private sector players share some blame as well. But Bush and Republicans in Congress were active players. And there are more examples as well.

I wonder if Stan has enough integrity to acknowledge this. Or if he will just stick to his lies that the only blame Repubs deserve is that Bush didn't use his veto power. [/QUOTE]Bush was playing politics with this program and should be faulted for it. It wasn't a material component of the meltdown. If you think this was the beginning and that Republicans played other than a walk-on roll, you are hopeless.

Ahh, Esten. If I couldn't count on you to attempt to mislead with lies and distortion, I would know something is wrong. You say you've been looking into this for some time now, eh? Well, then that's par for the course. Because if you've been paying attention at all, you couldn't possibly have missed this:

In September of 2003, George Bush and the Republicans were sounding the alarm bells about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. True, Republicans supported (as did all previous administrations) affordable housing. But there is a difference between supporting affordable housing and countenancing outright fraud. The latter is what Democrats supported. Let's review, shall we?

In 2001, Bush and the Republicans recognized that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were potentially problematic and began raising the issue. This from Bush’s 2001 budget submission: Fannie and Freddie are "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." [url]http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5487[/url]

In 2003 the Bush Administration proposed legislation to create a new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That bastion of liberalism, the New York Times, even reported on it. [url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print[/url]

It’s important to remember who Fannie and Freddie were back then (as they are today). They were and are “government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.” What did they do? They “buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.” Both quotes above are from this same NYT article written in 2003. So, Fannie and Freddie were the two largest players, and they repackaged what we ultimately came to call “toxic debt.” They were, by far, the most significant actors on this crime scene. Between 2001 and 2005, these monstrosities increased their holdings from 2.1 trillion to 4 trillion. That’s [i]trillion[/i]. In five years, they increased their portfolio by nearly 100% over what it had taken the previous 30 years to accumulate.

So why was Bush proposing new regulation and oversight? “The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.” That’s the New York Times description – in 2003, years before everything began to unwind -- of why Republicans were urging new legislation to regulate the two largest players in what became the biggest financial meltdown we’ve seen in 80 years.

So, what became of the legislation? Republicans supported it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also supported it (see aforementioned NYT article). So who opposed such sensible measures? Democrats. This from the above-linked NYT article: “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.”

What became of the legislation? Chris Dodd buried it by threatening a Democratic filibuster. If you’ve looked into this issue at all, you could not possibly have missed all of the coverage on these issues. Republicans were on one side; Democrats on the other. Here’s a sample summary:

[i]When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut successfully threatened a filibuster. Later, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed, Mr. Dodd asked, "Why weren't we doing more?" He then voted for the Bush reforms that he once called "ill-advised."

But Mr. Dodd wasn't the only Democrat to heap abuse on the Bush reforms. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts defended Fannie and Freddie as "fundamentally sound" and labeled the president's proposals as "inane." He later voted for the reforms. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York dismissed Mr. Bush's "safety and soundness concerns" as "a straw man." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," was the helpful advice of both Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware and Rep. Maxine Waters of California. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York berated a Bush official at a hearing, saying, "I am just pissed off" at the administration for raising the issue.[/i]

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137220550562585.html[/url] That article is from 2009. So, when it says these blithering idiots later voted for reform, it means that they voted for reform after it was far too late (2008). By then, they had fiddled while Rome burned.

Still not convinced that it was Democrats that killed every effort to reform these two monstrosities? Watch the Youtube video and you can see all of their chicanery back in 2005. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs[/url]

Featured prominently in that video are Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd and Franklin Raines – all Democrats. Franklin Raines, the then-head of Fannie Mae who helped that GSE commit accounting fraud so they could pay huge bonuses to top officials and continue to funnel campaign contributions to Democrats. Just who were the top recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions? Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry – all Democrats. [url]http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html[/url] Make no mistake, Fannie and Freddie gave to Republicans, too – until it became clear that Republicans wanted to reform them. Then, they turned the spigots on for their Democrat patrons.

What became of Franklin Raines? He resigned from Fannie Mae after what was described as an “Enron-like” accounting scandal. Was he sent to prison? No. He became an Obama campaign advisor. After all, Obama received far more contributions from Fannie and Freddie per year in Congress than anyone else, so why not reward such a resourceful guy? [url]http://hennessysview.com/2008/09/15/franklin-raines-criminal-enterprise-and-barack-obama-his-accomplice/[/url]

What became of Maxine Waters? She’s been been charged with ethics violations by the House for failing to disclose her lobbying efforts on behalf of a failed bank where her husband was a board member.

How about Chris Dodd? He saw the writing on the wall and chose not to run for re-election. Too many of his constituents were aware of the role he played in the housing scandal. He later sponsored the most recent round of “financial reform,” yet who did he exempt from reform? You guessed it: Fannie and Freddie. He’s one of the rats getting off the sinking ship, which is why he could afford to exempt these donors from reform.

So, did Bush just drop his efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie after Dodd killed the 2003 effort? Nope. [b]Every year[/b], attempts were made, but they were headed off at the pass on each occasion by Democrats. The web is chock full of these accounts. A chronology can be found here, [url]http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5487[/url] but there are hundreds more for anyone who cares to look.

Esten, I’ve no doubt that you’re aware of most of the above. If you’ve looked into the matter, as you claimed, you couldn’t possibly have missed it. But, predictably, you simply chose not to mention any of this. How convenient. You simply can’t be taken at face value, which is why I rarely respond to anything you post, except when you: (a) lie about what I’ve said; or (b) challenge my integrity.

Need further proof that Democrats are responsible for this mess? Watch that last two minutes of that YouTube video, linked above. [i]Even former President Clinton says Democrats are responsible for resisting efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie.[/i] Ahh, but then, former President Clinton is a crackpot, just like Jimmy Carter, isn’t he Esten?

At least Democrats will always have you to rebut their former Presidents when these ex-leaders finally suffer a brief moment of candor. Perhaps you’d like to weigh in on how misguided Castro is, now that even he’s declared that socialism doesn’t work.? The Cubans are lucky they have you on their side – they haven’t got much else. But, of course, that’s Republicans’ fault, as well, isn’t it.

Congress (Democrats) blocked every attempt to reign in Fannie and Freddie because they (Fannie and Freddie) represented huge govt slush funds for the Dems. End of story.

The current political scenario we are witnessing is what I call "electoral paristalsis" It is an automatic and important function. What will be expelled is human detritus.

Esten's plan sounds great provided we want to experience another housing bubble and financial meltdown.

The timing needs to be correct. Wait until 2013, implement Esten's plan, and then blame the next Depression on the Republican we elected in 2012.

This plan has worked before. We were able to blame the last housing bubble and financial meltdown on George Bush when it was obvious to anyone with at least 2 functioning neurons that Barney Franks, Chris Dodd and their friends Freddie and Fannie were the real real culprits behind the housing bubble and ensuing financial meltdown.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;412716]This plan has worked before. We were able to blame the last housing bubble and financial meltdown on George Bush when it was obvious to anyone with at least 2 functioning neurons that Barney Franks, Chris Dodd and their friends Freddie and Fannie were the real real culprits behind the housing bubble and ensuing financial meltdown.[/QUOTE]So what you are saying is, during GWB tenure as President, he wasn't bright enough to figure out what was going on with the housing bubble? (the rest of the country did) I mean he was the President and could have said, "Hey this isn't looking good, we need to change the qualifications on home loans by not making it so easy for people who can't afford homes from buying them". When you talk about 2 functioning neurons it would be safe to say GWB and Cheney couldn't come up with that many between the 2 of them.

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?

[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.