I Apologize

[Miller101]

Originally Posted by budw38

here is an article from the NY times in 2003 on reform in regards to banking / home loans New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com who was right on this, Hmm ? In 2005 ,Dems were saying we had no need for reform , video included Maxine Waters Caught Lying About Fannie Mae Ties on 'Real Time' | NewsBusters.org
McCain - Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (Democrats blocked reform) back in 05 , dems were saying Rep's sucked for wanting to pass reform on Banking and the GSE's too ... Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess - WSJ.com And also in 2005 , lord Obama met with Fannie Mae CEO , and ... well we know how well that worked out . IN 2006 , Pelosi and Co. took control of congress , 4 years later have we seen anything get better ? Both parties suck , sad to say ,but the entitlement mantra from the Dems is sick .... we are entitled to what we work for , not what politician can steal from Peter and give to Paul .

Democrats didn't block the bill budw. You can check it out here:

S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)

It specifically says that the bill was reported by the committee. Which means that the bill passed committee and then was put on the Calendar waiting for the Majority leader of that Chamber of Congress to put it on the floor for a vote/ debate. In this case it would have been the Senate Majority Leader; but he didn't. The Dems never filibustered this bill. This bill was never voted on. It was just a bad bill that several Republicans didn't like and ALOT of Dems; therefore it didn't pass.

And you can see it right here. This is the "Bills Summary/ Status and all Congressional Actions":

Bill Summary & Status - 109th Congress (2005 - 2006) - S.190 - All Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

The Dems didn't filibuster this bill at all. It was your majority leader that failed to bring this to the floor for debate or a vote.

You have to keep in mind that this bill basically privatized the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It basically took what was already there and switched it from Government to Private. Dems really didn't like that. In fact one of them said it was a shell game and it made no sense to do it...................thats a loose quote.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by The Goat

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me lose faith in our citizenry and the collective future. We had a President who oversaw roughly $3 TRILLION IN NEW NATIONAL DEBT BECAUSE HE SLASHED TAXES AND DRASTICALLY INCREASED SPENDING (NOT ON THE PUBLIC BUT SOLELY ON THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX) AND YET PEOPLE SOMEHOW WANT TO HOLD ONTO A FANTASY OF FISCAL CONSERVATISM.

I mean that's just nonsense. Why waste time w/ insipid, stupid fantasies that contradict the historical record? I'm not even creative but I can think of more exciting fairytales on a whim!

It's easy to read charts and graphs without putting things into historical context. It's also easy to type in all caps, SEE I CAN DO IT TOO. Not putting things into context is what is "nonsense", and an "insipid, stupid" idea.

You should read this:
Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation Remembers

"Though Reagan promised deep cuts in domestic spending, that did not turn out to be the case. Indeed, overall welfare spending increased during the Reagan presidency -- primarily because Reagan could not overcome, even with vetoes and the bully pulpit of the White House, the spending impulses of Congress, which, after all, signed the checks. Throughout his two terms, he was confronted by Democrats still enthralled by the New Deal as well as Republicans (particularly in the Senate) still mesmerized by its political appeal."

"But it is a little-remembered fact, as Cato Institute economist Stephen Moore has emphasized, that by the end of the Reagan era, the federal deficit as a share of gross domestic product was falling, and rapidly -- from 6 percent in 1985 to 3 percent in 1989. As Reagan left office, the Democrat-controlled Congressional Budget Office projected that "deficits were on a path to fall to about one percent of GDP by 1993," without any action by future presidents.[xxiii]"

And he was working with a Dem controlled congress for his first 4 years and a Dem controlled House in his last four. A majority of his increase in the debt was due to defense spending and the USSR at the time was a lot more than a "fairy tale" threat.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by The Goat

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me lose faith in our citizenry and the collective future. We had a President who oversaw roughly $3 TRILLION IN NEW NATIONAL DEBT BECAUSE HE SLASHED TAXES AND DRASTICALLY INCREASED SPENDING (NOT ON THE PUBLIC BUT SOLELY ON THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX) AND YET PEOPLE SOMEHOW WANT TO HOLD ONTO A FANTASY OF FISCAL CONSERVATISM.

I mean that's just nonsense. Why waste time w/ insipid, stupid fantasies that contradict the historical record? I'm not even creative but I can think of more exciting fairytales on a whim!

Yes, and down came that wall and now we don't live in fear of an all out WWIII. If anything that was money well spent and probably has save us billions over the years.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

OK the Dems and Repubs are to blame. But TEA party ain't the answer. No one would listen to them or respect them. It would be a free for all. Talking tough, quoting the declaration of independence will get their card pulled and their bluff called. What would be left is a group of emotional fanatics.

I respect the Tea Party. Why the hell not they have issues and have the right to be heard and run for office. Why is the left so dam scared of them and their god given rights to free speech. What on their agenda is it that scares you so bad or you think is so wrong? What the hell could be any worse then what we have right now?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

It's easy to read charts and graphs without putting things into historical context. It's also easy to type in all caps, SEE I CAN DO IT TOO. Not putting things into context is what is "nonsense", and an "insipid, stupid" idea.

You should read this:
Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation Remembers

"Though Reagan promised deep cuts in domestic spending, that did not turn out to be the case. Indeed, overall welfare spending increased during the Reagan presidency -- primarily because Reagan could not overcome, even with vetoes and the bully pulpit of the White House, the spending impulses of Congress, which, after all, signed the checks. Throughout his two terms, he was confronted by Democrats still enthralled by the New Deal as well as Republicans (particularly in the Senate) still mesmerized by its political appeal."

"But it is a little-remembered fact, as Cato Institute economist Stephen Moore has emphasized, that by the end of the Reagan era, the federal deficit as a share of gross domestic product was falling, and rapidly -- from 6 percent in 1985 to 3 percent in 1989. As Reagan left office, the Democrat-controlled Congressional Budget Office projected that "deficits were on a path to fall to about one percent of GDP by 1993," without any action by future presidents.[xxiii]"

And he was working with a Dem controlled congress for his first 4 years and a Dem controlled House in his last four. A majority of his increase in the debt was due to defense spending and the USSR at the time was a lot more than a "fairy tale" threat.

I was with it until I read that. Terrible.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by Miller101

Democrats didn't block the bill budw. You can check it out here:

S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)

It specifically says that the bill was reported by the committee. Which means that the bill passed committee and then was put on the Calendar waiting for the Majority leader of that Chamber of Congress to put it on the floor for a vote/ debate. In this case it would have been the Senate Majority Leader; but he didn't. The Dems never filibustered this bill. This bill was never voted on. It was just a bad bill that several Republicans didn't like and ALOT of Dems; therefore it didn't pass.

And you can see it right here. This is the "Bills Summary/ Status and all Congressional Actions":

Bill Summary & Status - 109th Congress (2005 - 2006) - S.190 - All Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

The Dems didn't filibuster this bill at all. It was your majority leader that failed to bring this to the floor for debate or a vote.

You have to keep in mind that this bill basically privatized the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It basically took what was already there and switched it from Government to Private. Dems really didn't like that. In fact one of them said it was a shell game and it made no sense to do it...................thats a loose quote.

Maybe thats because Dems were running fannie and FMac , and Frank & Dodd were the Chair on the Sen/Cong. Finance committee's . YouTube - obama fannie mae freddie mac .... Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .... Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Lets face it , congress = fail !

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Yes, and down came that wall and now we don't live in fear of an all out WWIII. If anything that was money well spent and probably has save us billions over the years.

how you gonna give reagan credit for the 25 years of fighting the afghans did and died for. they destroyed the soviet union. the wall fell way after reagan.

[Miller101]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I respect the Tea Party. Why the hell not they have issues and have the right to be heard and run for office. Why is the left so dam scared of them and their god given rights to free speech. What on their agenda is it that scares you so bad or you think is so wrong? What the hell could be any worse then what we have right now?

Yeah! I don't know why either man! Why the left is so scared of them! I should be able to pay my doctor with a bucket of chicken thighs from KFC! Right now, they want the $30 co-pay you know that? $30 in cash just to walk in that door! And then they send you a bill in the mail for $100 more!!!! Sometimes $500 more! WTF!!!!!!!! That chicken lady from Utah is right! We should just be able to buy some chicken from KFC and be done with it! Or, if its the $500 bill, a bucket of paint!

Like you, I don't know what the left's problem is with the Tea Baggers. They have some really good ideas and I hope they win some elections. They'll bring about change alright.