-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Sub-prime meltdown: More evidence where it came from.
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
Werbung:
asur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
The Democrats for years resisted any oversight into risky mortage
practices. The Republicans actually tried to correct this problem, without success.
The housing debacle was partly due to affirmative action policies, that now have hurt minorities.
How? The whole economy was eliminated, although many don't understand it yet.
Jobs were eliminated for all people including minorities. The jobs aren't coming
back and neither is the economy.
practices. The Republicans actually tried to correct this problem, without success.
The housing debacle was partly due to affirmative action policies, that now have hurt minorities.
How? The whole economy was eliminated, although many don't understand it yet.
Jobs were eliminated for all people including minorities. The jobs aren't coming
back and neither is the economy.
Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Timeline on the mortgage crash
PROLOGUE:
For a long time, banks decided who they would lend money to, by evaluating how likely the people were to pay it back as they had agreed. Some criteria were obvious: People with higher incomes were judged more likely to keep up their payments, than those with lower incomes. People with a record of always being on time with other loan payments, are more likely to keep up their payments, etc. etc. Their purpose, as in any normal business, was to earn money by lending money and charging interest, without losing the money they lent of course. They would protect themselves against failures to pay back, by taking possession of a delinquent house and selling it, thus getting back the money they had lent out.
To motivate risky buyers to keep up the payments for the money they had borrowed, banks wouldn't loan the entire purchase price, but would usually require the buyer to put down a large amount themselves. Thus the buyer would face the specter of losing a lot of money if the bank had to foreclose, and it became important for both the buyer and the lender to see the payments kept up and the loan paid off as promised.
TIMELINE:
In 1977, Congress passed a law, signed by Pres. Jimmy Carter, requiring banks etc. to lend more money to people who were less likely to pay it back. Under the liberal Carter administration, the idea that housing was a "right", was becoming more important than mundane details such as whether the buyer could pay for it. The title, "Community Reinvestment Act", concealed the riskiness of the lending it required.
In 1986, a bill was introduced in Congress to reform this. Republicans voted for it, Democrats against, it failed.
In 1988, after Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, more laws were passed, making it easier for people to sue landlords and lenders if they felt they had been discriminated against in housing. Many lenders started making even more loans to low-income and other credit risks, based on their race or ancestry, to avoid expensive lawsuits.
In 1993, Congress mandated that government-sponsored companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.
In 1995, Bill Clinton ordered the Treasury Dept to rewrite its rules for making CRA loans, increasing quotas of blacks and other minorities getting loans. Since many of those groups who had previously failed to qualify, were still high-risk borrowers, F&F began buying more and more such high-risk mortgages from banks. Other rules changes between 1997 and 2001 by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo allowed F&F to hold a huge number of such mortgages in their portfolios, with a minimum amount of cash on hand to back them up, greatly increasing the risk if mortgages started defaulting .
Freddie and Fannie began buying up huge numbers of these risky loans, essentially guaranteeing to lenders that they could make all the risky loans they wanted, and be able to unload them to those two companies. So banks began pouring billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no documentation" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income. Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines received huge salary bonuses after employees faked some profit numbers to make it look like Fannie Mae had achieved various target goals. Raines later became a financial adviser to the Barack Obama campaign.
In 2001, George W. Bush's first proposed budget stated that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were becoming so large, and cornering so much of the mortgage market, that any problem with these companies could have huge impacts on the entire U.S. economy; and that their lending practices were pushing them toward just such problems.
In 2003, House Finance Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) insisted that Freddie and Fannie were "not facing any kind of financial crisis", and that people were exaggerating the problems seen by the govt-sponsored companies. One month later, Fannie Mae disclosed a $1.2 billion accounting error. Still, Democrat Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refused to acknowledge any necessity for reform.
In 2005, The Bush budget again expressed grave concerns over the explosive growth of Freddie and Fannie, stating flatly that they could no longer meet their financial responsibilities. Barney Frank (D-MA) ignored the warnings, and accused the Bush administration of creating an "artificial issue". Senate Republicans introduced a strong reform bill designed to reduce the loans to high-risk borrowers. All Republicans voted for it, but Democrats filibustered and voted against bringing the bill to the Senate floor. Republicans were unable to get the 60% needed to get the bill voted on and passed, so it died in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced "We cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes." It was the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, co-sponsored by John McCain.
By 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned or guaranteed nearly half of the entire U.S. mortgage market. President Bush called emphatically for legislation to reform Freddie and Fannie, insisting that "Congress needs to get them reformed, and then I will consider other options." Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) ignored the warnings and called on Bush to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.
As late as September 2007, legislators including Barack Obama maintained that these high-risk loans were sound financial policy.
Finally, in July 2008, Congress heeded Republicans' call for reform, and passed reform legislation for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But the companies were already crashing. Democrats forgot their previous almost-solid opposition to reforms, and Senator Dodd questioned, "Why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."
PROLOGUE:
For a long time, banks decided who they would lend money to, by evaluating how likely the people were to pay it back as they had agreed. Some criteria were obvious: People with higher incomes were judged more likely to keep up their payments, than those with lower incomes. People with a record of always being on time with other loan payments, are more likely to keep up their payments, etc. etc. Their purpose, as in any normal business, was to earn money by lending money and charging interest, without losing the money they lent of course. They would protect themselves against failures to pay back, by taking possession of a delinquent house and selling it, thus getting back the money they had lent out.
To motivate risky buyers to keep up the payments for the money they had borrowed, banks wouldn't loan the entire purchase price, but would usually require the buyer to put down a large amount themselves. Thus the buyer would face the specter of losing a lot of money if the bank had to foreclose, and it became important for both the buyer and the lender to see the payments kept up and the loan paid off as promised.
TIMELINE:
In 1977, Congress passed a law, signed by Pres. Jimmy Carter, requiring banks etc. to lend more money to people who were less likely to pay it back. Under the liberal Carter administration, the idea that housing was a "right", was becoming more important than mundane details such as whether the buyer could pay for it. The title, "Community Reinvestment Act", concealed the riskiness of the lending it required.
In 1986, a bill was introduced in Congress to reform this. Republicans voted for it, Democrats against, it failed.
In 1988, after Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, more laws were passed, making it easier for people to sue landlords and lenders if they felt they had been discriminated against in housing. Many lenders started making even more loans to low-income and other credit risks, based on their race or ancestry, to avoid expensive lawsuits.
In 1993, Congress mandated that government-sponsored companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.
In 1995, Bill Clinton ordered the Treasury Dept to rewrite its rules for making CRA loans, increasing quotas of blacks and other minorities getting loans. Since many of those groups who had previously failed to qualify, were still high-risk borrowers, F&F began buying more and more such high-risk mortgages from banks. Other rules changes between 1997 and 2001 by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo allowed F&F to hold a huge number of such mortgages in their portfolios, with a minimum amount of cash on hand to back them up, greatly increasing the risk if mortgages started defaulting .
Freddie and Fannie began buying up huge numbers of these risky loans, essentially guaranteeing to lenders that they could make all the risky loans they wanted, and be able to unload them to those two companies. So banks began pouring billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no documentation" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income. Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines received huge salary bonuses after employees faked some profit numbers to make it look like Fannie Mae had achieved various target goals. Raines later became a financial adviser to the Barack Obama campaign.
In 2001, George W. Bush's first proposed budget stated that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were becoming so large, and cornering so much of the mortgage market, that any problem with these companies could have huge impacts on the entire U.S. economy; and that their lending practices were pushing them toward just such problems.
In 2003, House Finance Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) insisted that Freddie and Fannie were "not facing any kind of financial crisis", and that people were exaggerating the problems seen by the govt-sponsored companies. One month later, Fannie Mae disclosed a $1.2 billion accounting error. Still, Democrat Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refused to acknowledge any necessity for reform.
In 2005, The Bush budget again expressed grave concerns over the explosive growth of Freddie and Fannie, stating flatly that they could no longer meet their financial responsibilities. Barney Frank (D-MA) ignored the warnings, and accused the Bush administration of creating an "artificial issue". Senate Republicans introduced a strong reform bill designed to reduce the loans to high-risk borrowers. All Republicans voted for it, but Democrats filibustered and voted against bringing the bill to the Senate floor. Republicans were unable to get the 60% needed to get the bill voted on and passed, so it died in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced "We cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes." It was the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, co-sponsored by John McCain.
By 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned or guaranteed nearly half of the entire U.S. mortgage market. President Bush called emphatically for legislation to reform Freddie and Fannie, insisting that "Congress needs to get them reformed, and then I will consider other options." Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) ignored the warnings and called on Bush to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.
As late as September 2007, legislators including Barack Obama maintained that these high-risk loans were sound financial policy.
Finally, in July 2008, Congress heeded Republicans' call for reform, and passed reform legislation for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But the companies were already crashing. Democrats forgot their previous almost-solid opposition to reforms, and Senator Dodd questioned, "Why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Rather than listen to Top Gun's out of context propaganda film... Listen to the Democrats attacking the Republicans actual attempts at regulating Fannie and Freddie:
From FactCheck.Org:
But ya got to tell it all and in full context... and Republicants ain't all that good at that are they.
The best way to understand what happened is to start off with an understanding of when things happened. Therein lies the bait-and-switch. The financial problems at Fannie Mae began after these Congressional hearings, which were conducted a few weeks before the November 2004 elections. Fannie Mae's troubles were caused by Daniel Mudd, who reversed the policies of his predecessor, Franklin Raines, when he became CEO in December 2004. The New York Times laid it out very clearly:
By the time Mr. Mudd became Fannie's chief executive in 2004, his company was under siege. Competitors were snatching lucrative parts of its business. Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans.
"So Mr. Mudd made a fateful choice. Disregarding warnings from his managers that lenders were making too many loans that would never be repaid, he steered Fannie into more treacherous corners of the mortgage market, according to executives.
"Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers -- more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined, according to company filings and industry data."
Democrats Supported Regulatory Oversight But Objected to a White House Power Grab
So if the October 2004 hearings did not address concerns associated with Fannie's risky mortgages, what was everyone talking about? Something quite different, though an ignoramus like George Will could easily conflate the two concepts. An Administration report had skewered Fannie for engaging in some dodgy accounting practices - relating to timing differences over the recognition of income - which had a slight impact on its overall financial metrics. Fannie and its management deserved to be criticized and increased regulatory oversight was absolutely appropriate. But what the House Democrats in the video were objecting to was the Administration's level of overkill. From how they saw things, the Bush Administration was using the pretext of regulatory oversight to accomplish a power grab that would compromise the mission of Fannie Mae. Here's what Barney Frank said at the time:
"I believe we were well on the way, the chairman and I and the staffs, to putting together a bill that would have enhanced the regulator and could have passed. What stopped progress on a new bill was the Bush administration's determination to go beyond safety and soundness and into provisions that would have restricted the housing function.
"To the extent that people played games [with accounting rules] to get bonuses, I'm outraged. People making that much money, let me put it this way, at the level of compensation of the top officers of Fannie Mae, they should get bonuses if they rush into a burning building a rescue a kid, maybe a cat, but not for doing their job. I think it is unseemly of them to be getting bonuses in the first place for doing what they're getting paid very well to do.
"To the extent that there was manipulation, that is very wrong and should be penalized. But I've seen nothing in here that suggests that the safety and soundness are at issue, and I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as a kind of a general shibboleth, when it does not seem to be the issue."
Banks Governed by The Community Reinvestment Act Were Not The Ones Who Caused the Subprime Market to Expand
Daniel Gross in Slate attacks a lot of the same mythology discussed herein, focusing specifically on phony claims pertaining to the Community Reinvestment Act, which has been around for 30 years and never affected the soundness of the mortgage markets. The CRA never suggested that anyone compromise credit standards and it didn't apply to the mortgage lenders or investment banks who were pumping up subprime mortgages.
Hank Paulson: The mortgage crisis was caused by events that began during the run up to the 2004 election and ended soon after the Democrats took Congress in early 2007.
Again, to understand what happened, begin with understanding when things happened. In this regard, there's no secret. Everyone in financial services knows when and how things happened. Hank Paulson's report to the President reflected the common knowledge expressed by Treasury, the Fed, the SEC and the CFTC:
"The turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for US. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into early 2007. "[Italics in original text.]
We see this in all the numbers. According to a survey by the New York Fed, about 77% of subprime mortgages and 85% of Alt-A mortgages were issued after 2004. What happened in 2004? Subprime mortgage securitizations were able to take off because, as Bloomberg reported, in August 2004 Moody's and Standard and Poor's loosened their standards for rating mortgage backed securities, which had traded in a highly liquid market for almost 20 years. The impact of the rating agencies' practices cannot be overstated. To date, banks have recognized about $500 billion in losses on subprime mortgages, the lion's share of which were packaged in securities originally rated AAA, i.e. presumed to always be salable at close to par.
In 2004 short term interest rates, reduced by Alan Greenspan to stimulate the economy going in to the election cycle, reached their lowest point, enabling certain buyers to get variable rate mortgages at teaser rates of 3% for the first two years.
Nowhere in Paulson's report will you find anything that suggests that the financial crisis was triggered by, as George Will put it, regulation that compelled lending to "non-productive borrowers" or by Fannie or Freddie, which had been around for decades, "rigging the housing market."
David Fiderer
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Republicans are bad but you don't even try...
From YOUR article:
Altruism and business do not mix... Actually, altruism doesn't mix with government either and this is a case where both were running amok.
Barney Frank - Banking Queen
Actually we try very hard. And the American people then got rid of the Republicants by huge numbers and the more Conservative couldn't get enough support even within their own Party to even come up to bat.
Tells ya something good!
Republican Congress Talked About Financial Reform, But Did Nothing
September 18, 2008
According to the New York Times, in September 2003 the Bush Administration "recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." (tip)
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...
After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
The President's call came after "a Freddie Mac accounting scandal" in July.
"It seems that Congress doesn't have the stomach to do anything substantial,'' said Marshall Front, president of Front Barnett Associates LLC, which manages $1.5 billion in Chicago, including shares of Fannie Mae. (quote from July 2003)
It seems Mr. Front was correct.
In 2003, Republicans controlled both branches of Congress (108th) and the White House. What happened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory reform under Republican leadership? Nothing.
Here's what I found when I searched THOMAS for the phrase Fannie Mae for the 108th Congress (2003-2004): eight bills .... but only six appear to relate to this topic, per their title. Of those six, only one was introduced after the White House weighed in (at least rhetorically) in September ... and the prime sponsor of that bill was a Democrat. The other bills seem to have resulted from the July scandal. No bill moved out of committee.
1.H.R.2022 introduced on 7 May 2003 by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT,4).
Title: To extend the registration and reporting requirements of the Federal securities laws to certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
2.H.R.2117 introduced 23 May 2003 by Rep. Pete Fortney (D-CA,13).
Title: To amend the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act to remove certain competitive advantages granted to the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises relative to other secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
3.H.R.2575 introduced on 24 June 2003 by Rep. Richard H Baker (R-LA,6).
Title: To reform the regulation of certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.
4.H.R.2803 introduced on 21 July 2003 by Rep. Edward R Royce (R-CA,40).
Title: To establish the Office of Housing Finance Oversight in the Department of the Treasury to ensure the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks.
Latest Major Action: 8/4/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
5.H.R.2897 introduced on 25 July 2003 by Rep. Julia Carson (D-IN,7)
Title: To end homelessness in the United States.
Latest Major Action: 8/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
6.S.1508, introduced 31 July 2003 by Sen Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 4/1/2004 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
7.S.1656, introduced 23 September 2003 by Sen Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
8.H.R.3507 introduced 18 November 2003 by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA,27).
Title: To expand homeownership opportunities in States having high housing costs.
Latest Major Action: 1/2/2004 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
Clearly, in 2003 and 2004 the issue of finance reform was not a priority of the White House or Congressional Republicans.
In the 109th Congress (2005-2006), the House overwhelmingly approved (331 to 90) HR 1461, The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, designed "to create a stronger regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." The Senate, still controlled by Republicans lagged the House in taking action. It is not clear if this was a lack of Republican leadership or blockage by Democratic leadership (filibuster threats).
HR 1461 remained stalled in the Senate: last action, 31 October 2005, referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
On 31 July 2007, after the Democrats obtained control of the Congress in the November 2006 election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced HR 3221, a "bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes." Among other things, the bill granted the newly formed Federal Housing Finance Agency "supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks (enterprises)" (per CRS analysis).
Pelosi's bill became Public Law 110-140 on 19 December 2007 110-289 on 30 July 2008.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
To lie and obfuscate the truth...
Nice blog... US Politicsblog... Not even a legitimate news source... Not that the New York Times is all that legitimate...
From the 2003 NYT article that blogger referenced:
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd sat on the two most powerful committees responsible for oversight of Fannie and Freddie and being chairmen of their committees, they were able to stifle attempts at reform... Chris Dodd was the number one recipient of campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie (with Obama in a close second) and Barney Frank just happened to be literally in bed with the CEO of Fannie, Frank Raines.
It was political corruption by both parties and trying to pawn it off on only the Republicans is typical progressive chicanery. Both parties suck on ice but you remain a steadfast apologist for anything any Democrat does, no matter how unethical.
It's a shame that you can't be more fair and honest yourself at times. The fact that mistakes are made does not mean politicians are just all liars that don't try.
The fact is it's the system itself that creates the problem. But it's still the best system around. When a system is set up where to legislate you have to pass things through a group that gets elected to fight to better their own single District or State you are going to have some problems on the big board. That just goes with the territory.
And I can assure you that if a polititian you absolutely loved was ever elected... they might have some policies you like... but the above problem would be every bit the same.
If you look at some of my previous posts on this subject (before you just started bashing) you'll see I felt it was a bipartizan issue as well. I said this is not a finger pointing issue because both were involved. [/B]
The difference is you see everything as corruption. I see some individual cases of misdeeds but also simply just mistakes of predicted outcome made by well intended people on both sides on this one.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Problem is, you blame the Republicans for "deregulation" but cite no specific examples.... I cite specific Democrats, with specific examples of them blocking Republican led reforms and you ignore it like it never happened!
It was your Democrat buddies blocking attempts at regulating the market, not Republicans, but all you can do is cry "DEREGULATION!" and blame the Republicans whenever the topic is broached.
I see corruption as corruption and there's no shortage of it in Washington or even politics in general (New Jersey). You turn a blind eye or make excuses when its a Democrat but scream for blood when its a Republican. Cold Cash Jefferson?
What's the road to hell paved with?
No matter what they do, it never turns out as promised, its always an over budget train wreck... But we're not supposed to judge politicians based on results.. Oh no... just their good intentions.
Dude!!! Deregulation is part of the Republicants standard stump speech!
They at every turn speak for deregulation. Are you SERIOUSLY now saying that is not true? Because it's not hard to pull up them saying it. I've posted several lengthy overviews of who did what when and have said it's a bipartisan problem. That seems very fair of me.
Look you kick the dog you're gonna get bit! I have very reasonable calm discussions in here with other Conservatives but I'll not sit idly by while you hypocrite your way through a post. If you play your old weak and tired Karl Rove move then you get it back in every case I can pull up. It's that simple.
That is simply a lie! I have an extremely good memory. This started way back during the campaign when you boasted even before President Obama was elected (paraphrasing) that you would bash and smear Obama like crazy if elected because you didn't like the way Liberals treated Bush.
When you go in with a that moniker you SERIOUSLY thought you wouldn't get punched back? That's a world class underestimation my friend. If we're gonna have to be a bear we're gonna be a Grizzly Bear.
What's the road to hell paved with?
No matter what they do, it never turns out as promised, its always an over budget train wreck... But we're not supposed to judge politicians based on results.. Oh no... just their good intentions.
Am I saying that there is never wrong doing in government? No... I've never said that.
Did I say Dems are never corrupted? No... I've never said that.
What I have said and will continue to say is this whole Republicant or Conservative holier than thou routine is tedious and a false premise. That's what I say.
As far as the overview I vote & work for people I think will do the most good. I'm not like you in some fantasy world thinking if I scream enough insults about people there is going to be this big overthrow to just exactly the way I want it.
To me that's counter productive and if you ever worked on a national campaign for either Party you'd know that. Changing government is like steering a big cruise ship. It doesn't turn on a dime like a speed boat. You slowly head it in the direction you want to go.
Werbung:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Oh there's no denying the SAY it... but as we know, politicians rarely, if ever, follow through once elected.... Obama has a long list of broken promises that prove that.Dude!!! Deregulation is part of the Republicants standard stump speech!
When you LIE like a dog, you're gonna get kicked!
Where have I been hypocritical in this thread?
Actually, you're the one using the Rovian tactics, screaming racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe and otherwise engaging in the politics of personal destruction.
We've been through that... I couldn't LOWER myself to your level.
So you scream "HYPOCRITE!", "OBSTRUCTIONIST!" and "DEREGULATION!", because that's all you've got. Republicans are hypocrites because they TALK deregulation but don't follow through. There were 57,000 new regulations during 8 years of Bush... That's hardly a record of "DEREGULATION!", but it does qualify Republicans as hypocrites for running on that platform.
But insult, lie and scream is all you do... You guys are in total control now but you're still angry. You own the White house and Congress, but you still resort to blaming Republicans when Democrats "OBSTRUCT!" bad legislation you want passed.
But I have and that's why I can't support those who sell out on basic principle. I refuse to drink your poison and that's all you have to offer.
The direction its been going for the last 100 years is towards collapse and an authoritarian government... And you think we're getting there to slowly.
You place no limits on government, more is always better for you; bigger government, less freedom, more regulations, higher taxes, bigger welfare state... You're contemptuous of our nations founding, our founding fathers, our constitution, to you... they were all fatally flawed from the beginning and you want them abandoned or remade in the image of your Progressive Socialist Utopia.
You are an Anti-Liberal.
Similar threads
