Comments for Massive probe of corporate theft to be launched by FBI »
Posted By cowboygrandpa 9 months, 3 weeks ago in Political NewsDespite an expected wave of fraud in the trillion-dollar bailout that aims to stop the ongoing financial meltdown, federal law enforcement officials told Congress on Wednesday that they have nowhere near the level of resources to combat it.
Top FBI and Justice Department officials said they believed mortgage fraud and other types of corporate criminal behavior has contributed to the economic tailspin. And they said they already have more than 2,300 open investigations into suspected illegal financial activity -- including 38 probes specifically linked to the crisis.
Those investigations are already straining the resources of the FBI and the Justice Department, FBI Deputy Director John Pistole and Acting Assistant Atty. Gen. Rita Glavin said in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
But the problems will worsen exponentially as the economy plunges, and as the Obama administration and Congress spend more than $1 trillion in various bailout and stimulus packages in an effort to forestall foreclosures, corporate bankruptcies and a prolonged economic depression, they said.
Pistole said he expected the number of major investigations to rise into the many hundreds, focusing on big-name companies that "everybody knows about," and to be similar in scope and complexity to the massive probe of energy company Enron Corp. after its collapse in 2001.
Read Full Story at latimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 269 of 271 Comments
-
100%
cowboygrandpa9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ya know I'm sick of this kind of crap.
Reply
Ya wonder why we are in such deep trouble ????
Take a look at what is running our companies. Crooks and liars as well as con men and thieves.
We better start putting these crooks in prison where they belong.-
80%
Goppy9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And yet ... what is The Modern Republican take?
Reply
As phrased so eloquently by Sarah Palin during the campaign ...
The Federal Government just needs to ... 'Get Out Of The Way of Business'.
.
But my new understanding of The Modern Republican Party has led me to understand their solution for this issue .... TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY ... FOR TO TRICKLE DOWN TO THE MIDDLE CLASS.
(I've had the epiphany that this is their mantra for every problem or issue.)
.-
33%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little, tiny - yes - porky amendments: the American people really don't care."
Reply
~Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), February 11, 2009, On Senate Floor
This is the liberal solution?-
94%
Goppy9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your words are empty, Hhussk.
Reply
You never complained when the Republicans controlled ALL branches of the Federal Government for 6 straight years.
For 6 straight years, you and my fellow Conservatives never complained about the 'unprecedented pork-fest'.
For 6 straight years, you and my fellow Conservatives never complained about the 'pay-to-play' schemes.
For 6 straight years, you and my fellow Conservatives never complained about the burgeoning size of Government (THIRTY PERCENT INCREASE) that Bush & co presided over.
The point is, Hhussk, The Modern Republican has given NO thought to ANY solution .... other than TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY.
This single solution blinds them to every other form of behavior.
They can spend more in 8 years than all Congresses before them ... COMBINED ... and they don't worry because they believe that TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY will solve any outflow from spending.
They can start wars and not fund them because they believe that ... TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY will solve any bankruptcy issues.
They can ignore their duty as Regulators because they believe that ... if their cynicism towards the role of the Federal Government causes problems ... they believe that ... TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY will pick up the pieces.
Ideology is a funny thing ... maybe even an idiotic thing ... when discussing real life issues.
.
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
-
88%
Goppy9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well sure you would ... because you're used to Government giving handouts.
Reply
Military Contractors ... Banks ... Corporations ... these have been the recipients of Government Welfare for quite a while. You've probably grown quite used to it.
But has it helped our nation become stronger? Obviously not.
I believe you'll get over the unpleasantness of it all from a 'personal' standpoint ... and learn to respect the character building aspects of this approach.
.-
44%
BB649 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hand outs? When someone orders a slushy from your counter, you collect the money when you give them the slushy right? I don't get hand outs. If the government or private firm wants to order a plant, I sell them a plant. We pay taxes like most people do. We employ a lot of people and provide a ton of benefits. So I'm not sure how or why you're claiming I've received a handout.
Reply
As to capitalism, yesterday there was a posting quoting Putin warning Bacon about his communist, I mean socialist plan. Former KGB general giving the president of the United States a lesson in capitalism verses socialism. How times have changed.-
87%
JEBUS089 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you cant argue the banks didnt get welfare, and as far as the military contractors: getting a no bid contract is pretty much welfare for they end up getting money for goods and services they never end up supplying -
Reply
if you dont like socialism i suggest you take a private copter to your business and stay off of my roads, i would also appreciate it if you would keep your family out of my parks, schools, and libraries - also dont count on the fire or police dept coming to rescue you because they will be busy saving people who appreciate their help
-
-
50%
icono19 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Comrade Guppy as Maggie Thacher said and Putin strongly implied about the trouble with socialism is simply this.... 'it runs into trouble when you run out of everybody else's money'.
Reply
Oh by the way Comrade Guppy ,if you got no money, you get no food and heat, and starvatrion, while being bone cold, builds all kinds of character.
-
-
100%
sinophil499 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB - Trickle-down economics, or supply side economics has now proven to be a massive failure and bankrupt as a guiding economic principle.
Reply
Sadly, supply side economics COULD have worked if the Republican party remembered the second half of the principle. That is, the economy can improve if you cut taxes AND SPENDING SIMULTANEOUSLY. Reagan and Bushes all forgot the 2nd half. All Republicans were interested in were cutting taxes and INCREASING spending. This is an absolute recipe for massive deficits and rising debt.
Supply side economics, in the hands of Republicans, also will fail without a concomitant oversight and regulatory control to prevent the economic plunder we are now realizing has been occuring in all corporations. Cutting taxes to the rich, relaxing safety and environmental laws, cutting the budgets of all the regulatory agencies, simply mean that the rich will simply take home all the increased money and NOT pass it down to the employees or hold cost down to the consumer.
THERE HAS BEEN NO TRICKLE DOWN UNDER THE REPUBLICAN RULE.
Last year there was $18 billion given out in corporate executive bonuses. The effective tax burden on the rich proportionately went down. While that on the poor and middle class went up.
Why? Because of the decreased revenues, local governments all had to increase their user fees, license fees, college fees, sales taxes, permit fees, etcf, etc. Programs that helped the poor went under-funded - like the No Child Left Behind program, WIC program, mentally ill programs, etc.
To summarize, Trickle Down economics is a failure and a fraud.-
Neutral
beavith19 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the top 1% of taxpayers pay 50% of taxes. the top 10% pay 70%. The top 20% pay 80%.
Reply
proportionally, if the poor and middle class went up. samll proportion is still small proportion.
'To summarize, Trickle Down economics is a failure and a fraud.'
and you've been taken in by the lefty libs. everything you say is democratic election rhetoric.
it wasn't trickle down economics that failed. it was a lag in the Gov't figuring out that unregulated growth in a small, new, but extremely lucrative 'investment vehicle' was out of control.
-
-
-
-
25%
Georgia509 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Goop,
Reply
Partisan hacks like yourself notwithstanding, how is corruption in business a partisan issue? Sure...we can nit-pick and take potshots once the party of a corrupt person is known. Cause and effect might be a bit trickier to prove...not that you of all people ever require evidence for you daily rants. -
100%
rimbaud9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Republicans MAY BE right, but they have lost credibility, and their self-righteousness (like McCain's on the Senate floor) just doesn't play well (we cannot suspend our disbelief). Maybe they can frame their cause in different words than those we've been hearing all the way down to where we are, today.
Reply -
-
-
44%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
But the problems will worsen exponentially as the economy plunges, and as the Obama administration and Congress spend more than $1 trillion in various bailout and stimulus packages in an effort to forestall foreclosures, corporate bankruptcies and a prolonged economic depression, they said.
It's like you didn't even read the article. Government has been the hallmark of innefficiency and corruption since the beginning of time.'
Just to clarify, You want the same people who created the housing crisis to arrest the companies they forced and promoted into bad practices? ....The blind truly are leading the blind.-
-
30%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I see you were unable to bring a defense. Read about Ad Hominem.
Reply
Here's the proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8
-
-
JebobaComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
100%
rimbaud9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When everyone's making money, from mortgage brokers to banks which would be selling the mortgages, relationships become cozy. The brokers are egged on, by borrowers, and by attractive commissions, to exploit any flexibilities in the lenders' requirements for qualification and documentation. How important is it when the value of the property is well above (or expected to get well above) the value of the loan? No one MADE anyone make these bad loans, but with Wall Street buying them and packaging them as investments, it was never clear who would end-up holding the bag: you took your share and passed it on.
Reply
-
-
91%
dunkirk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe you need to read some as to what caused the housing crisis, Seems the REPUBLICANS went out of their way to make sure nothing interfered with the only thing that pumped up the economy while they were in control so much so they went after states to stop them from putting the brakes on predatory lending. Yeah the politicos caused the housing crisis but the party that backed it and pushed it is out of power now. It is amazing how you reach conclusions from information that does NOT lead you to that conclusion. But that seems to be the pattern of the right lately, state some information and then generate a conclusion way out of left field. ROFLMAO, you guys LOST the last two elections get use to it its a pattern thats going to repeat since most people understand the mess we are going thru was caused by you guys.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
rimbaud9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Whenever there is BIG money involved (bricks of dollars to Iraq, or billions of dollars to Wall Street), even those who see themselves as trustworthy somehow find it hard to stay on the straight path and start going crooked. The high-fliers who ran Wall Street into the ground do not see themselves as the ones responsible, especially since they made money both on the way up for their investors, and the way down.
Reply
-
-
-
-
96%
gamahuche9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
The FBI has only 240 agents working on mortgage fraud cases, a fraction of the agents working on the savings and loan failures in the 1980s, Pistole said, adding that the current crisis "obviously dwarfs" the previous one.
*****
Seems like if they hired some of the people who've been ripped off/and or those who are otherwise unemployed they could easily get their wages paid out of the pockets of those found convicted of scamming.
Talk about killing 2 birds with one stone!
Heck - that might even lure me back to the US for a paid vacation!
Thanks for the story and the heads-up cbgp!-
-
31%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From The Article: But the problems will worsen exponentially as the economy plunges, and as the Obama administration and Congress spend more than $1 trillion in various bailout and stimulus packages in an effort to forestall foreclosures, corporate bankruptcies and a prolonged economic depression, they said.
Reply
"And let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little, tiny - yes - porky amendments: the American people really don't care."
~Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), February 11, 2009, On Senate Floor
Please read the article and also learn what Democrats and liberals are actually saying.-
93%
Beau78909 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From the article, directly below the paragraph you quoted:
Reply
Pistole said he expected the number of major investigations to rise into the many hundreds, focusing on big-name companies that "everybody knows about," and to be similar in scope and complexity to the massive probe of energy company Enron Corp. after its collapse in 2001.
In the meantime, the wholesale redeployment of federal agents and prosecutors to counter-terrorism work after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has depleted the ranks of financial specialists needed to investigate such cases and bring perpetrators to trial, Pistole said.
The "problems" that "will worsen exponentially" being discussed in your quote are the problems of not having enough FBI agents to investigate fruadulent lenders.
Please read the article and focus on the topic of beefing up law enforcement.-
-
92%
dunkirk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So your saying the Bush policy of not to worry we'll just print more doesnt work? That the economic policy that you fully supported over ALL indications it was a disaster in the making failed? The only thing remaining, and it has already been done by a few of the righties, is to blame the Dems for allowing it since they didnt complain louder. Why is it the party that proclaimed accountability is far from taking accountability for anything.
Reply
-
-
-
dunkirkComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Spadecaller9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks CG
Reply
I have heard too much blame put on the consumer for causing the mortgage meltdown. What nonsense.
Do life insurance companies risk paying out claims to substandard risks? Of course not! Mortgage companies know who they are lending to; it was and is their fiduciary responsibility of the agents to protect their business and to honor guidelines that do not exploit ignorant borrowers.
Just as is the case with insurance companies, there are and always will be unscrupulous agents who try to place bad business on the books; but the states and companies are required to investigate all applications to determine their authentic eligibility.
The same responsibility was true of these mortgage lenders. But they knew they gave away bad loans to make an immediate profit, and they gave themselves bonuses.
When the sh!t hit the fan, they were quick to run to the taxpayers and the same people they already screwed once.
Greedy bastards. They should be expelled from the industry.-
92%
Beau78909 months, 3 weeks ago
-
86%
Spadecaller9 months, 3 weeks ago
-
85%
bruhaha9 months, 3 weeks ago
-
83%
Spadecaller9 months, 3 weeks ago
-
33%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines"
Reply
~Maxine Waters, 2004 Senate Hearing where the Republicans called for more regulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8
I have more proof if you need it...
Seriously, was that your best defense against liberal corruption?-
88%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
explain why the Bush justice department actively stopped states from enforcing stricter banking regulations..
Reply
Fannie and Freddie.. both overstated earnings.. at the time of the hearing you tout.. they LIED TO CONGRESS and their books were reflective of the LIES.. not the truth...
so the knowledge that Maxine and Frank had was faulty.. you forgave Bush for going to war on faulty data.. is your forgiveness so partisan ... ???-
38%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I will do you one better. Read this article:
Reply
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0...
This is where Bush proposed regulation and Democrats tried to make him a villian for it.-
40%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The link posted above doesn't appear correctly, and I've revised it to where I believe it will work.
Reply
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0... -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ADAGUY9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The Democrat party made it look as if Republicans were against housing for poor people, so it never made it to legislation."
Reply
Is that the best you can come up with?
That is as stupid as expecting the dems to roll over and play dead when the GOP refuses to approve the stimuli package!
You can't continue to blame others for the failure of your party to lead.
-
-
-
-
RRconComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned10 Replies
-
-
85%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO.. he's laughed his ass of so many times.. he's bruised his brain...causing irreversible damage
Reply
his mind set is caused by hiding under the bed afraid of LIBERAL COMMIE PINKOS... and anyone to the left of Hitler.. is a LIBERAL COMMIE PINKO...-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
91%
GWHayduke9 months, 3 weeks ago
-
88%
Spadecaller9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hhussk
Reply
There's enough blame to go around to both sides of the aisle. But, it is partisan bigotry that stymies effective reformation. Besides, anyone knows that deregulation has primarily been a GOP agenda for years. Have you also conveniently forgot about the Federal banking deregulation used against the states (especially NY) that permitted the Bush family to rip off Silverado Savings and Loan banks to the tune of a trillion dollars?
Partisan hacks who want to blame liberals for deregulation are no different than people who believe the world is 6000 years old.-
89%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Want really good insight.. there's a LOT of data with links supporting at this site....
Reply
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080928_rove.htm -
11%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spadecaller, that is incorrect.
Reply
Here is a link that shows the opposite.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0...
This is where Bush proposed regulation and the Democrats effective tried to make it look like he was against houses for poor people.-
83%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, right. Watch this!!!! This was in 2002 when GEORGE W. BUSH loosened up the mortgage industry
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo-
50%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I watched it. It was very good. It's about a President trying to get affordable housing for minorities.
Reply
Is there anything wrong with that? No. It's an admirable goal. But the process in which it happened was wrong.
Clinton did the same thing. Was he wrong? No. But the process in which it would occur was bad.
And who influenced the call for minoirty housing? The Hispanic and Black Caucuses.
So, in essence, I'm saying that everyone was involved. Because Bush - even while he was trying to get affordable housing for minorities also tried to get better regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned4 Replies
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned4 Replies
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
89%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spade,
Reply
The problem is, the lenders themselves didn't keep the shady loans they were making...they sold them off to Lehman brothers and the like. So the lenders didn't give a crap who got burned. They made their money up front and then bailed.
This was all made possible when Fannie and Freddie stopped buying loans. The investment banks jumped in and there were no rules, no regulations, no government oversight.
This was the Perfect Storm for the Republicans. Government was NOT involved in the investment banking business AND THEY LOVED IT.
The current crisis started with Reagan and all of his deregulation...the the holy manna of the Republican party. You want to place blame? It has a BIG "R" on its forehead.-
17%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is incorrect, Jeboba.
Reply
And here is the proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8
"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis."
~Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Press Release, September 9, 2003-
80%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fannie and Freddie were NOT facing any kind of financial crisis because Fannie and Freddie would not buy any loans that the borrower had not put down at least 20% and had very good credit!
Reply
Get your facts straight!
It was the investment banks that bought the bad loans, NOT Fannie and Freddie. So Barney Frank was correct!!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hhussk, that links takes me to the NYT,
Reply
but only to a blank page.
I tried from 2 different browsers.
So I am stuck wondering, - 'the bush administration' proposed' something?
Who?
Why wasn't it done?
Was it a fix or just more government?
And particularly:
Does proposing a fix excuse the bush admin from responsibility
for the crisis, or does it double because they did not act?
Also, why doesn't the NYT have comics?-
50%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for telling me. I'll post the other link.
Reply
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0...
If this doesn't work, I'll look into links.-
100%
CRYMTYPHON9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It isn't working for me; I get the NYT and a blank page with links to current stories .
Reply
But others might not have that problem;
You could copy and past the essentials .
Or give us the key words (title, author) to google the article itself.
Of course, since I will thunderously trounce the thing anyway you may not want to bother. -
50%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I belive I have resolved the link issue. The following link seems to be working correctly.
Reply
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0...
-
-
-
-
22%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the following article, the Bush administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. [paraphrased]
Reply
"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0...
Please.-
20%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Having problems with the link. So I will try to respost it. In summary, it's an article in the New York Times on September 11, 2003 called "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae", written by Stephen Labaton. Please google it and it will show up correctly.
Reply
The crux of the story is that regulation was proposed, but Democrats in Congress tried to make it appear as if there were no problems.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0... -
83%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
B.S !
Reply
http://headlines.centerleft.info/?p=457 -
89%
dunkirk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is this the same story you;ve been pushing for a few months now where the minority Democrats held up legislation from the majority REPUBLICANS? That legislation that somehow NEVER made it out of a REPUBLICAN controlled committee because the democrats in the committee ( who were outnumbered by he REPUBLICANS) stopped it? That legislation? Stopped by the MINORITY Dems (that means there were fewer of them then REPUBLICANS), Stopped in a committee that all it would take to bring the legislation to the floor would be a straight party vote since the "concerned" REPUBLICANS outnumbered those DEMS in the committee??
Reply
-
-
100%
lvrofwolves9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What kills me is, white collar criminals getting away with thieving 100s of 1,000s of dollars if not millions, and seriously the majority of the time the punishment does not fit the crime with a slap on the wrist. I know some petty thieves that get harsher sentence, and are looked down upon way more then those people. It's comparable to some people bitching about poor people on welfare, but on the other hand it's acceptable to them to have welfare for the rich.
Reply
'While the true extent and cost of white-collar crime are unknown, it is estimated to cost the United States more than $300 billion annually, according to the FBI.'-
22%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
'While the true extent and cost of white-collar crime are unknown, it is estimated to cost the United States more than $300 billion annually, according to the FBI.'
Reply
And yet, few liberals seem to have a problem with the 800 Billion dollar stimulus bill that economists say will makes things worse.-
92%
lvrofwolves9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hhussk-Well all I can say is, this time it best be made sure there is 100% accountability and transparency, which should have been done with the other stimulus instead of it being a free for all for the already rich and greedy, you know....like the previous one.
Reply-
14%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
14%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think you spend too much time blaming Bush. First of all, we are seeing evidence that this housing problem started in 1998. Maybe even before then.
Reply
Can you show me a statement where Bush states he was hoping it would take longer so everyone would blame Democrats? Why was Bush so helpful in helping Obama during the transition, if so?-
88%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why was Bush so helpful in helping Obama during the transition, if so?
Reply
--
how do we really know.. course if I appear to be HELPFUL.. I can show you what I WANT YOU TO KNOW..
sure he's gonna publicly state. I want my house of cards economy to last until exactly 2:00pm on 01/20/2009..
i posted a link below.... and THANK YOU for a reasonable debate without name calling at least to me. it is refreshing..-
20%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It doesn't make sense to me to assume, by default, that our President is doing everything in his power to ruin our country. I believed Clinton was selfish for his legacy, but I never believed he hated his country. And remember, his people literally removed the "W" from keyboards when Bush came in.
Reply
In the same respects, even though Obama is having difficulties and working towards policies that I am adamantly against, I still do not believe he wants to ruin this country.
So, my problem with your comments is that you believe President Bush actually wanted to destroy our country. And I cannot meet with you on that premise. Hell, I don't believe any President wants to be known as the guy who ruined America.-
88%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your comments are well taken. I do not believe Bush wanted to ruin the country but by his catering to the corrupt influences in the big corporate world and listening to the conservatives, he did indeed ruin this country.
Reply
I just don't believe Bush was intelligent enough to know what he was doing. He was being told what to do by Rove and Cheney. -
83%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
why not... if theres enough MONEY involve....
Reply
do you have any idea how much money could have been made investing a relatively small amount in currency and then having the power to manipulate the currencies involved...
in 2005.. had you invested JUST 5 Billion in 2001 in the dollar euro spread.. the right plays and if you had the power to control the action you would be able to make the right plays.... would be have been worth approximately 160 TRILLION.. everyone has a price...
if you can find member Saneman... he deals in currency and understands..
EVERYONE... who cares what history thinks.. hell history could END...
it makes everyone slaves TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER... -
100%
sinophil499 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
hhusk - Come on. You really believe that urban myth about Clinton's staff removing all the W's from keyboards. The Bush staff had already laid that to rest years ago.
Reply
I do agree with you that no president sets out to deliberately ruin the country. I give you credit that you did not fall into that conservative cr*p about Obama being a hidden muslim terrorist or a black revolutionary activist that was thrown at him during the campaign.
Bush'sw greatest character fault, however, is his absolute refusal to acknowledge that his policies and war pursuit were ruining the country and his inability to change direction when even he finally acknowledged that he had made mistakes.
Any military commander worth his salt knows that real battle almost never follows the pre-battle plans. A good commander can think on his feet and change his tactics or thinking to adapt to changing conditions.
Bush never did.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/18/republica...
Reply
"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."
Okay I admit that I dug this up just for polemic purposes, I have no doubt the GSE lobbyists had our reps in their pocket.
But what about "deeds not words" -
100%
dunkirk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Bush can only sign legislation he receives"
Reply
Hmmmmm a REPUBLICAN controlled congress with a bill sitting in a REPUBLICAN controlled committee AND it never left the committee. Hmmmmmm
BTW maybe you can explain how the bill meant poor people would be on the sreet? The bill had nothing to do with existing mortgages or removing them. Bush had more then enough legislation he passed that ensure the poor would remain that way.
-
-
-
100%
cowboygrandpa9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hhussk:
Reply
You are a funny man. LMAO hahahaaahahaaa
Democrats had the narrowest of margins and Bush still had his veto.
Ummmmmmm, wake up and smell the crap man !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The policies that allowed this financial boondogle have been fostered by the incredibly naive Bush administrations beliefs that free markets without rules or oversight work best.
Yeah just allow the greedy bastards to takle it all.
These clowns deserve to be in prison period.
As far as blaming Obamam for the problems he inherited . Wake up and see what true Americans already know. Bush is and was a Fascist leaning leader.
Your supposedly conservative ways are actually the ways of the wealthy to steal and accumulate all the wealth they can in oprder to make the word into their image. One of unbridled greed and no control of their depravity.
Get real the people of thwe world are tired of being robbed by the non deserving as*es.-
0%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tell you what, Grandpa.
Reply
While you're busy, "unifying" the country, watch what happens for the next two years while Democrats try to expand the size of government four times the size of Bush's proposals and spend all your money.
At this point in time, Democrats hold a sizeable majority...more than Republicans have had. They have managed to spend more money in one "stimulus" bill than we have ever seen spent. And without Republican support.
So, you own it now. And this bill was not inherited; the Democrats created it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
91%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The GOP controlled the congress for the first 6 years of the Bush presidency they had plenty of time to fix this.
Reply
these blame shifting games by the GOP are pathetic and won't work.
now the Republican party is responsible for turning the USA in the United Socialist States of America executed by Bush and Paulson.-
11%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is your proof that Republicans tried to fix it.
Reply
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0...
Your problem is that you define everything through the prism of "Republicans vs. Democrats", when it's actually an issue of liberalism vs. conservatism. President Bush was not very conservative on many issues. In those respects, he was much aligned with the Democratic Party. For example, conservatives were against his stimulus bill back in November. Obviously, you believe it's all the Republicans fault, but you fail to recall that Democrats were in charge in Congress and could have sent him an entirely different piece of legislation.-
86%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i read your article.. now read the following post...
Reply
this is debate.. and it works for me...
all of our problems certainly did not start overnight they have been building for a VERY LONG TIME....
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/sumner-
25%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Will1313.
Reply
No offense, but John McCain is not a conservative. To be honest, I'm surprised he voted against the Stimulus Bill. I was very unhappy with the Republican Party nominee, but saw him as the only choice against Obama.
That said, I don't really see how your article is a defense against President Bush pushing for regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which was the premise of my article).
Please explain.-
83%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
-
25%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All I see is McCain, Gramm, a mention of Fred Thompson and Keating.
Reply
I still don't see how your article is a defense against President Bush pushing for regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which was the premise of my article).
Please explain. -
89%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush pushing for regulation of entities that had a very small part in the financial collapse.. Fannie and Freddie accounted for only about 10% of the credit swap mess.. Goldman Sachs and AIG were major players.. isn't it funny that the people who engineered that have been the TREASURY SECRETARY...
Reply
Greenspan was a huge proponent of the credit swap paper..
don't you find it just a little more than a coincidence that the S & L scandal the caused the largest foreclosure rate in history until this current crisis happened under George HW Bush...
Bush would never have made a second term if there was a recession.. .. Greenspan to stave off a recession in 2001 artificially lowered the interest rates.. fueling BORROWING.. and SPENDING.. that is fueled this economy for almost 6 years..
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080928_rove.htm
check out that link.. ..
Bush pushing for regulation with one hand and with the other creating an atmosphere of economic illusion..
a house of cards always collapses.. and the higher you build it..the bigger mess you have..
this one is HUGE.. not all in default but there is around 42 TRILLION in credit swap paper floating around...-
33%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fair accusations. But the S scandal was occurring back in the Clinton era. That's not Bush. I was there.
Reply
And Freddie and Fannie, while I don't agree was 10%, still collapsed early and was the precursor to the greater collapse. They were buying the bad loans from other companies that made bad loans. That's twice as bad, especially since its the government.
And finally, Greenspan served in the Clinton era mostly. How is that only Bush?
My final point? Absolutely there is blame to go around. But I still do not see how it is all linked to Bush and Republicans.-
86%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Clinton did not take office until.. 1992... he did get to clean up after Bush.. I was there also.. you were doing so well up to that point..
Reply
The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S crisis) was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (S) in the United States. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government—that is, the U.S. taxpayer, either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts[1]—which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s.
The concomitant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990–1991 economic recession. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed per year dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million, the lowest rate since World War II. [2]
---
My final point? Absolutely there is blame to go around. But I still do not see how it is all linked to Bush and Republicans.
----
but you seem not to want to accept that Bush and the Republicans could have ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT..
----
And finally, Greenspan served in the Clinton era mostly. How is that only Bush?
---
Alan Greenspan (born March 6, 1926 in New York City) is an American economist and was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006.
appointed by DADDY.. 5 years.. and 4 years under Jr.. about equal..
---
he artificiality lowered rates in 2001-2002 which fueled the fire to head off a recession after the dot com bubble burst.. .. after raising them in the late 90's early 2000's to burst the bubble..-
50%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
but you seem not to want to accept that Bush and the Republicans could have ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT..
Reply
Incorrect.
If you spend time looking at my comments, you'll see that I don't believe President Bush was very conservative. He handled many issues liberally (i.e. the "Compassionate Conservative")
It's not that I won't accept President Bush's responsibility (or the Republicans), it's that I won't allow it to fall squarely on him or the Republicans.
You see, I'm not a Republican. It's in my profile. In a way, I'm glad McCain lost the Presidency, because it would have been another liberal pretending to be a conservative.
And no, I did not support Ron Paul. -
-
100%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yes.. thank you.. SL scandal was what cost daddy Bush a second term.... and
Reply
IF
Greenspan had ticked up the interest rates in 2002 -2003.. we would have had another 1 term Bush....
IF
Clinton had a recession at the end of his term.. it was Greenspan raising the rates in 2000 - 2001 that slowed the economy and most probably cost Gore the election...
-
-
-
86%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
S scandal in the Clinton era? What are you smokin? It was during the Reagan era.
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_cris...
Causes?
Tax Reform Act of 1986
By enacting 26 U.S.C. § 469 (relating to limitations on deductions for passive activity losses and limitations on passive activity credits) to remove many tax shelters, especially for real estate investments, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 significantly decreased the value of many such investments which had been held more for their tax-advantaged status than for their inherent profitability. This contributed to the end of the real estate boom of the early to mid '80s and facilitated the Savings and Loan crisis. Prior to 1986, much real estate investment was done by passive investors. It was common for syndicates of investors to pool their resources in order to invest in property, commercial or residential. They would then hire management companies to run the operation. TRA 86 reduced the value of these investments by limiting the extent to which losses associated with them could be deducted from the investor's gross income. This, in turn, encouraged the holders of loss-generating properties to try and unload them, which contributed further to the problem of sinking real estate values. This turmoil and repositioning in real estate markets was caused not by changes in market conditions.[citations needed]
Deregulation
The deregulation of S (aka thrifts) gave them many of the capabilities of banks, without the same regulations as banks. Savings and loan associations could choose to be under either a state or a federal charter. Immediately after deregulation of the federally chartered thrifts, state-chartered thrifts rushed to become federally chartered, because of the advantages associated with a federal charter. In response, states such as California and Texas changed their regulations so to be similar to federal regulations.
Both are rather Reaganesque wouldn't you say?-
25%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I appreciate you pointing that out. I did make a mistake because I missed the accusation against "HW" Bush and took it as an accusation against the 43rd President.
Reply
By the way, in your posting, you neglected to also print one of the major causes of the S scandal.
Major causes according to United States League of Savings Institutions
Item 1#: Lack of net worth for many institutions as they entered the '80s, and a wholly inadequate net worth regulation.
I believe Jimmy Carter was in charge before companies "entered the 80s".-
100%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The article I quoted from was pretty long and didn't see a need to go beyond the first and most glaring reasons for the crisis, Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Reagan's baby) and Deregulation (Reagan's PASSION).
Reply
It is time for you Repubs to admit that your theories of letting the markets seek their own levels and to regulate themselves simply DOES NOT WORK because the foxes end up being in charge of the hen houses when there are no rules!-
-
0%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fair enough.
Reply
When you see the outcome of this stimulus bill and the further policies, we'll be able to talk again.
You will not be able to simply attack Republicans after this bill. At some point, you will have to accept responsibility.-
100%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fair enough, but you have doomed it before it has even begun. You are not even willing to give the benefit of the doubt that something may go right for a change!
Reply
THAT is what is wrong with the Republican point of view and their banking on tax cuts to work. They never worked before...they won't work now.
The Dems need to ostracize and shut out the Republicans until the GOP can rid itself of the radicals in office and get their act together for the good of America, NOT the GOP and their neocons and fundamentalists and rich buddies who have taken us all down the river with them.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329565,00.html
Reply
House passage by a 380-34 vote came a few hours after Senate leaders ended a drawn-out stalemate over the bill. The $168 billion plan is intended to provide cash for people to spend and tax relief for businesses to make new investments — boosts for an economy battered by a housing downturn and a credit crunch.
The Senate's 81-16 vote capped more than a week of political maneuvering. The stalemate ended when majority Democrats dropped their demand that rescue proposal offer jobless benefits, heating aid for the poor and tax breaks for the home building and energy industries.
-
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user32 Replies
-
89%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush pushing for regulation of entities that had a very small part in the financial collapse.. Fannie and Freddie accounted for only about 10% of the credit swap mess.. Goldman Sachs and AIG were major players.. isn't it funny that the people who engineered that have been the TREASURY SECRETARY...
Reply
Greenspan was a huge proponent of the credit swap paper..
don't you find it just a little more than a coincidence that the S & L scandal the caused the largest foreclosure rate in history until this current crisis happened under George HW Bush...
Bush would never have made a second term if there was a recession.. .. Greenspan to stave off a recession in 2001 artificially lowered the interest rates.. fueling BORROWING.. and SPENDING.. that is fueled this economy for almost 6 years..
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080928_rove.htm
check out that link.. ..
Bush pushing for regulation with one hand and with the other creating an atmosphere of economic illusion..
a house of cards always collapses.. and the higher you build it..the bigger mess you have..
this one is HUGE.. not all in default but there is around 42 TRILLION in credit swap paper floating around...-
20%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And so...
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8
"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis."
~Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Press Release, September 9, 2003
"We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines"
~Maxine Waters, 2004 Senate Hearing where the Republicans called for more regulation-
86%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
-
20%
BB649 months, 3 weeks ago
-
83%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
-
0%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You want to give the Republicans a pass and condemn the Democrats. Typical brainwashed Republican reaction!
Reply
No way. I say we need need full accountability. We should condemn big government, which is the REAL problem. The smaller we make government, the less crooks we'll have trying to make money inside it.
You are starting to realize...-
-
100%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The smaller we make government, the less crooks we'll have trying to make money inside it.
Reply
---
first you blame democrats (wrongly) of blocking regulation.. then you want to do away with government intervention aka regulation......
bizzaro world.. they are diametrically opposed..-
0%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't blame democrats of blocking regulation. I cited statements and articles proving they did.
Reply
And I never said I wanted to do away with government intervention. I said I wanted smaller government. You'll find out that they are not diametrically opposed.
Take the IRS, for example. It's huge. The tax code is huge, has much in regulation, and is an organization of oversight. But is it better? No. Make the tax code smaller, streamline it, and it will work better...
...just like government.-
-
-
-
75%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll be following your comments because I'm interested in your transition to the Democratic Party.
Reply
I don't have a problem if you dislike Bush. He did many things I did not agree with. Many. Maybe not the same things you disliked, but I was certainly unhappy with some of his policies.
However, I'm interested in how a person who, at least, thought he was a conservative, feels about President Obama, who is clearly not going to run a conservative agenda.
I guess we'll be debating in the future. Good luck.-
100%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you need look no further --- and i haven't switch to a dem.. than the Bush name.. you say he did many things you don't agree with. I cannot think of a single thing that he did that I'd agree with..
Reply
get back to small government .. stay out of individuals lives.. we have more issues than gay marriage.. guns and abortion..
get the religious nut bags out and i'm with you..
I don't think he will be a conservative.. Palin and McCain kissing Bush's ass for 8 years.. after Bush's campaign spread LIES about HIM.. I used to think he had balls.. will Bush's people neutered him in 2000..
-
-
-
100%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Both of you, watch out what you wish for! The so-called FAIR tax and a national sales tax is regressive. It will have a bigger impact on those least able to pay. The amount of tax paid will far exceed that of a LARGE number of Americans pay now... and I'm talking about the middle class!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
83%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republicans had 6 years of total control and were in control of congress since 1994...
Reply
could it be.. no ..
you see a LIB behind every problem.. it was a bi-partisan effort but one the could easily have been stopped by the Republicans any time they wished.. and since 2002 .. it would have been unpatriotic to go against ANYTHING the Republican gods wanted to do...
thanks for stopping by with your 2 cents worth.. don't you have a coal to gas unit to build...for such an IMPORTANT man you sure **** away a lot of time here.. with the peons... the unclean..-
0%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you see a LIB behind every problem.. it was a bi-partisan effort but one the could easily have been stopped by the Republicans any time they wished..
Reply
Not exactly, remember this?
We killed the Patriot Act
~Harry Reid, December 2005, after Patriot Act extension was filibustered
My point is that Democrats have had enough members to stall and defeat legislation, just as Republicans have had in the past 2 years to defeat legislation.
Unfortunately, there are no longer enough Republicans to defeat this bad stimulus package. But at least you won't be able to blame anyone else this time.
-
-
-
33%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nice try.
Reply
But in the same link, you can easily see where other people called for regulation. The point is that Frank and Waters were completely wrong and made villians out of the people trying to establish regulation.
And clearly, those people have had an impact on what is occurring today. Do I blame them fully? Not at all.-
100%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
100%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
funny thru all this thread. I haven't seen you ONCE admit that a Republican had ANY hand in this..
Reply
and the bill you mention .. never made it out of a REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED COMMITTEE.. you cannot filibuster a committee..
Good try, though..-
0%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
funny thru all this thread. I haven't seen you ONCE admit that a Republican had ANY hand in this..
Reply
...then you're not reading the rest of this thread.
I'll say it again. I'm happy to blame Republicans and Republican Presidents. Can you join with me and spread the blame to Democrats and Democrat Presidents?
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i'm not saying that didn't happen.. it clearly did.. and like everything else a democrat said during the years 2002 - 2006.... they could EASILY have been put in their place.. which seems to me like you and others think was equal to the PRESIDENT and THE MAJORITY OF CONGRESS..
Reply
regulation of Fannie and Freddie would have done LITTLE .. before around 2003.. THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED to directly buy MBS.. only loans.. actual loans.. not the credit swaps.. they were actually fairly safe investments up to that point.. the MBS are what led to the downfall.. and they were touted to congress in 2002 by none other than Alan Greenspan.. who is still in bewilderment at what happened.. how could anyone be so greedy.. greed INDEED.. ..
this collapse was caused by the brokerage giants who played the game.. and fueled the fire.... the provided a ready market for the banks and loan companies like Countrywide to sell the paper to..-
0%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm extremely surprised how Alan Greenspan was treated like a god during the 90's, but is now considered the angel of death.
Reply
No matter, I never liked him. And I'm guessing you don't want to know if he is a liberal or a conservative. And that he's married to Andrea Mitchell from MSNBC/NBC.
I tell you what, I'll blame Republicans and Republican Presidents if you blame Democrats and Democrat Presidents.
Of course, you can still say I'm all one-sided if you want.
My point is that enlarging the size of government will not solve the problem.-
100%
Tangent0019 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And that he's married to Andrea Mitchell from MSNBC/NBC."
Reply
What does that have to do with it? Liberal Maria Schriver is married to Conservative Governator Ahnold.
Greenspan may have some liberal leanings, but he was certainly gung-ho about trickle-down economics.-
0%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I won't try to spell his last name right now, But the Governor of California is barely conservative, if at all. I disagree with his policies because I find them too liberal.
Reply
That wasn't my point. My point was Greenspan was cheered in the 90's, maybe early 2000's, but rebuked later on.
-
-
100%
Will13139 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No matter, I never liked him. And I'm guessing you don't want to know if he is a liberal or a conservative. And that he's married to Andrea Mitchell from MSNBC/NBC.
Reply
---
why would you think my knowledge is inferior to yours..
he's always espoused conservative ideas.. and i've always wondered about the Andrea Mitchell thing is she blind..
-
-
-
-
-
75%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Barney Frank was correct! There was NO crisis in 2003 with Fannie and Freddie! F and F were not buying the bad loans.... the private investment banks were. F and F were only buying good loans. Admittedly, a few of the bad ones slipped through because of the lies and corruption of the secondary private market but it was absolutely minimal. F and F never owned more than 10% of the bad loans!
Reply
You Cons just keep drinking your koolaid!-
-
100%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Clearly you are delusional. There STILL is no crisis with Fannie and Freddie! It is the private investment banks wherein the crisis lies!
Reply
Can't you REALLY get it straight? Are you so intent on believe the bullcrap the Republicans dish out that you refuse to see the true facts?
Debating with you is like arguing with a rock.-
Neutral
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If there was no crisis, why did government have to infuse them with capital and keep them from collapsing last year?
Reply
The Freddie Mac Foundation in McLean unveiled a new round of grants Feb. 12, the surest sign to date that it has returned to normalcy. The two mortgage giants were put under the control of the Federal Housing Finance Agency last September to prevent their collapse under the weight of bad debt.
http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2009/02/...
-
-
-
-
-
-
33%
BB649 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Instead of wasting time with this, why not ask Congress when they're holding the hearings investigating the SEC. When are they holding the hearings for Freddie and Fannie? Rather than worrying about a few stupid CEO's why are our politicians flying on my dime. With a budget so screwed, it's time to cut back. One staffer per elected official. No more benefits either. You want a health insurance and a pension, pay for it yourselves like the rest of us. No more life time positions either. You have 2 terms that's it. No more government drivers. You want a limo, pay for it out of your campaign funds. You want a private plane, use your own money. Now for the leaders, they do need security but it's time for them to live like you and I. Reduce and cut back.
Reply-
100%
bluetexasvalley9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mr. Bechtel, how is it possible that a company as large as yours has no health insurance as an employee benefit? And if, as I suspect, Bechtel DOES provide employee health insurance, the owner/CEO (and perhaps several of the top management) get this benefit for FREE. So where does this "...like the rest of us..." come from?
Reply
-
-
71%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
100%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I knew a LOT about Barack Obama and knew far too much about John McCain. Why do you assume I knew nothing about Obama?
Reply
Did you know that Obama had more qualifications to be President than Abraham Lincoln had? Hmmm? Did you know that?
Lincoln: Lawyer, 7 years in Illinois state senate
Obama: Lawyer, 7 years in Illinois state senate, 2 years in national senate
But yet Lincoln is the Republicans hero and Obama is not worthy. Go figure. You just can't see beyond your political ideologies you so make crap up.
Enough! I'm through arguing with you. You are truly hopeless. I would wish for you to become elucidated at some point in your life.-
40%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Relax. Did you know Lincoln raided the house of a person running from Senate and had him banned to Canada for speaking out against the government?
Reply
Obama is no Lincoln.
Jeboba, just agree with me on one thing. If we had less fulltime politicians -- and less people overall in government -- we'd have less corrupt people in office and less inefficiency.
All I really want is smaller government. Yes, I'm for conservatiism, but I welcome liberal points of view.-
-
50%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you like our tax code? It's extremely big, has more regulation, and has an entire wing of government dedicated to its oversight, too.
Reply
If we have more government, doesn't that mean we'll just have more people who can subvert and corrupt the will of the American people?
Wasn't our Constitution created based on the notion of smaller government and people serving the country for short terms and then returning to their original careers?
Didn't we also break away from England because we were being unfairly taxes by a distant land and wanted to take away the power of government to rule our lives?
Sure, some regulation is a good thing, but increasing the size of government won't increase regulation.-
100%
flyonthewallzz9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just for the sake of offering a moonbat liberal concept of a fair tax:
Reply
How about this?
Eliminate personal and pay role and charge business 8% of their receipts.
I know crazy: but in 2002 business receipts where $23 trillion and personal income was about $6 trillion.
Sure the cost would be passed to the consumer, but so would the “fair tax”: and it would be filtered by competition.
Corporate sponsored think tanks will say companies will just take their business elsewhere, but guess what we are the market. I could provide a clean link that (GPA) states that 85% of corporate profits are generated here.
They will also argue that the corporate rate in this country is higher than other OECD countries. The OECD provides data that corporations in other countries pay a higher percentage of both GDP and a percent of government revenue.
The IRS provides data that suggests that corporations (greater than $50 million) have the lowest margins of profit, yet receive more than half the amount of receipts.
I am all for smaller government, but I think the big corporations need to be knocked back a bit first. I would prefer to see it happen through clean competition.
It appears to me that most of the past and present “Robber Barons” have had the assistance of the government to achieve their monopolies or cartels.
I hate the tax code!-
100%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
8% would be peachey but proponents of a fair or flat tax are anywhere between 18-28%! On top of that, the states surely wouldn't give up their sales taxes!
Reply
Watch out what you wish for! I don't like the present tax code either but I guarantee you it is much fairer than what you are proposing!-
100%
flyonthewallzz9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually I think the fair tax would amount to more than 30%.
Reply
No doubt: I did not take into account state or local stuff.
It is just an idea I have been playing with.
It is very difficult to figure out how "fair" the tax code is.
I think the percent I quoted match's the revenue we get now.
There are about 25 million business returns and about 130 million personal returns.
I just thought it was simpler than the "fair tax" concept (business has to keep records anyway) and small businesses that actually pay a lot for employees would would see a gain. The big guys pay less than 9% of their receipts for "salaries and wages". Sole owners and partnerships would also see a big gain in personal income.
And I think they would be able to offer valid competition to those industries that are "to big to fail". Most of the big companies are managed by folks that own way less than .01% of the company.
I am just a dumb carpenter, but I kind of buy into the "invisible hand" concept, I just think it has been corrupted.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17%
BB649 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since the Reagan days in the White House you complained about deficit spending. Today, your side is pushing a massive spending program some people call Pork-Zilla. It's so large it eclipses all of the past deficits. They're wrapping this in a sales pitch and calling it a stimulus. It's a scam. It's little more than lefty gifts to every lefty group out there.
Reply
I remember Michelle Obama complaining the $600 checks from last year were a joke. Now we're told we'll see a "huge" tax cut of around $ 13.00 per week. What a scam. Almost a trillion dollars and we'll see $13.00. When even Putin is trying to explain to Bacon Obama this isn't a good plan. There's one good thing this will do. When people realize how disastrous this plan was, there will be a huge change in the House and Senate in less than 2 years.-
100%
Tangent0019 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You just elected a man whom you knew nothing about..."
Reply
On no! You're not still on that old saw, are you? Like Obama is some sort of 'mystery man'? The man wrote TWO books about his life and wore his policies and opinions on his sleeve. His past was perhaps the most scrutinized of any candidate EVER. If you wanted his stand on any particular issue, his web site was a mouse-click away.
True, we never learned if the carpet matches the drapes, but I think that falls under 'too much information'...-
25%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On no! You're not still on that old saw, are you?
Reply
I don't consider it an "old saw". If he wrote those books, then he gets to say whatever he wants. But everytime we attempted to nail him on his past, his comments, or his associations, he stated it wasn't him.
On top of that, he had no record of accomplishments in government or leading.
By the way, I have his website copied. You'll be seeing some of it later on.
-
-
-
80%
Jeboba9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh man did you leave yourself wide open for this one. WHO demanded the tax cuts? Hmmm? IT WAS THE REPUBLICANS YOU IDIOT! WHO gave the $600 meaningless credit last year. IT WAS BUSH YOU IDIOT!
Reply
The Dems tried to put more money into circulation through spending which creates jobs. It is NOT pork. But all you can do is call it pork. The Republicans demanded less spending (which would do far more to recover our economy) and more tax cuts (which will do NOTHING for our economy)
You want to see a reason for failure? Look to the Republicans if it doesn't work out.
I just hope the Dems find their "balls" soon and tell the Republicans to F-Off!-
25%
Hhussk9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is NOT pork. But all you can do is call it pork.
Reply
"And let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little, tiny - yes - porky amendments: the American people really don't care."
~Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), February 11, 2009, On Senate Floor
Clearly one Democrat believes it's pork...maybe you should discuss it with your party.
-
-
0%
BBcamaro9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jeboba writes
Reply
"Democrats seem to study the issue, do their homework, and make informed decisions."
I bet you feel pretty stupid now that the democrats just passed a stimulus bill that none of them had time to read, do their homework, and make informed decision on.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
PainGoddess9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The NYTimes posted an article about the corruption probes into the Republican Party and the movie room where people were paid to record movies for the lawmakers and the printing house with exclusive uses by the Republicans. I wonder what is left to uncover from both sides.
Reply -
-
-
0%
icono19 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yep you put that much big money out there with out any way to protect it then it will get stolen one way or another.
Reply
As for the FBI Maybe just maybe the govt dosent really want all of the crooks caught because they could give up or flip on some really important politicians. -
100%
jcdinform9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What difference would it make if the FBI had evidence on Any or All of the Corporate Elite Criminal? --
Reply
They would just Take all the evidence and store it on the 11th and 13th floor of a Skyscraper and run an Large Jet liner into the Building and then Blame it on the Funny talking, Dark skinned people of the Middle east. -
-
100%
frctm59 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If real wages had increased beyond the rate of inflation instead of going flat, then more people would have been able to afford their mortgage payments. The Republican policy of milking the middle class to put lard on pigs doesn't help the economy.Consumers are the engine that drives this economy. When more of the money that is in circulation gets into their pockets in the form of wages rather than over priced debt, this creates financial stability. All this nonsense about Fannie and Freddie ignores the real culprit. With the influx of foreign saving into the American credit market, the only place for these savings to go was into the housing market. That bubble was inevitable. On the other hand, if workers wages had gone up or if that money had been invested in infrastructure that yielded long term benefits instead of a war in Iraq, we might have a different outcome now.
Reply -
100%
tschrnywolf9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"CORPORATE WELFARE" RUSH LIMBAUGHS' SOLUTION: COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM. THE SAME OLD RADICAL CRAP. STALIN ALSO
Reply
RULED LIKE THE CZARS USED TO. NEITHER THE LEFT, NOR THE RIGHT HAVE THE ANSWERS. MODERATE AMERICAN LIBERALISM SOUNDS BETTER. NOT PERFECT, BUT AT LEAST A BIGINNING. PRESIDENTS OBAMA AND LINCOLN WERE RIGHT: WE THE PEOPLE MUST UNITE AND WORK TOGETHER TO HELP AMERICA RECOVER :)
LET US IGNORE THE DIVIDED AND CONFUSED RADICALS ARGUE WITH THEMSELVES :))))))))) THERE IS NO TIME FOR THEM :) -
100%
tschrnywolf9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"CORPORATE WELFARE" RUSH LIMBAUGHS' SOLUTION: COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM. THE SAME OLD RADICAL CRAP. STALIN ALSO
Reply
RULED LIKE THE CZARS USED TO. NEITHER THE LEFT, NOR THE RIGHT HAVE THE ANSWERS. MODERATE AMERICAN LIBERALISM SOUNDS BETTER. NOT PERFECT, BUT AT LEAST A BIGINNING. PRESIDENTS OBAMA AND LINCOLN WERE RIGHT: WE THE PEOPLE MUST UNITE AND WORK TOGETHER TO HELP AMERICA RECOVER :)
LET US IGNORE THE DIVIDED AND CONFUSED RADICALS ARGUE WITH THEMSELVES :))))))))) THERE IS NO TIME FOR THEM :) -
Neutral
jack70andhalf9 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
About ten years ago the banks started appraising about any price that was put on a house. It seemed that every buyer qualified. I am not rocket scientist jut a small builder, but I told my wife, the banks are going to eat some homes. I sold one for $54,000. within three years the bank had loaned the owner $120k on it, in equity loans, six months later the bank owned it. Someone had to see this coming. But tha tis all hind sight now.
Reply -
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.