• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

OpportunityCost said:
I might read this if it were a Xyphlin post. But you?

This is a tactic known as the kitchen sink. Toss up so much crap that its difficult to refute point by point because there are endless rhetorical talking points, evasions and outright lies. If you cant say it in 100 words, dont expect it to get read---its a rant past that. Underlined paragraph in particular qualifies, one solid paragraph of text full of evasions and ranting ideology. God, I wish we could thumbs down posts.
Click to expand...

BTW...why are you answering for him? Did he lose his talking points?
 
OpportunityCost said:
LOL both sides hated it. The idea was to have something so bad both sides would reach an agreement to get around it. Your sense of denial is unbelievably strong.
Click to expand...

The idea was to have something so bad both sides would reach an agreement to get around it.
Click to expand...

You didn't know that? Really? :shock:
 
obvious Child said:
Socialism is not defined as anything you dislike. Furthermore, my parents have been there and it's HARDLY a Socialist country. It's questionable if the government even works in parts of the country.



The Cold War is not the best tool in which to define political ideologies. The US and Russia switched sides in Mozambique purely because the other side started to support one faction. The Cold War made strange bedfellows.

What did the ANC do as a government that was Socialist? And don't go about defining Socialism as anything you don't like.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that South Africa was a socialist country, I said the ANC were socialist, internationalist socialist. Communist are internationalist socialist, Where as Nazis are also socialist but they are nationalist socialist.

Barack Obama is a socialist but he hasn't yet turned America in to an internationalist socialist country. He has a little problem with the Constitution. As we have seen over the past four years, Obama has ignored the Constitution, has refused to show leadership and cross the aisle in Congress and compromise, has misused Executive Order Privilege to bypass Congress, has used the U.S. military for liberal social engineering experimentation.

In Barck Obama's own words in his book, "Dreams From My Father" Obama said "I never looked upon my self as being an American but as an internationalist."

The first time I visited South Africa was in 1975. That's during apartheid. In 1975 I met a girl at Long Beach State University who was attending college on a student visa from Rhodesia. Well we hooked up and became engaged. In 75 I traveled to Rhodesia to meet her parents via South Africa. They owned a large cattle ranch in Rhodesia.

A year later she returned home during Christmas vacation in 1976. She was raped and murdered by Communist terrorist, Her mother was raped and murdered by Communist terrorist. Her father was murdered by Communist terrorist. The same terrorist who were affiliated with the ANC and today rule Zimbabwe.

I visited South Africa again in the early 1990's after apartheid. Not a safe place at all. The middle class including the black middle class all live behind walled communities where the cost of living includes paying for armed mercenaries providing perimeter security.

In South Africa most of the cars are European, mostly German or British, All have sun roofs. No one drives with the sun roof open in South Africa, especially if your a woman. If you make that mistake your very likely the be dragged out of your car through the sun roof and raped.

There are times when some people aren't ready for freedom. Africa today is a perfect example where former European colonies were never prepared for independence and freedom. The entire African continent is a basket case today.

The same can be said about the Arab Spring that Obama supported. The entire Middle East and North Africa are complete basket cases today. and Obama's foreign policies are responsible.

Liberals hate me because I have an animosity towards socialist.. #### them them. All you have to look at the 100 MILLION people who have been murdered by internationalist socialist.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
And Child if your going to attempt to rebut ANY of my post, have the decency to at least be prepared with relevant points and honest data. Now slink away defeated and marginalized and go blame the banks and Bush where you can get away with it. Like at the Democrat Under Ground or the Disney Channel's WebSite.

"A 1997 Urban Institute report found that local and regional lenders seemed more willing than the GSEs to serve creditworthy low- to moderate-income and minority applicants. After this, Fannie and Freddie modified their automated underwriting systems to accept loans with characteristics that they had previously rejected. This opened the way for large numbers of nontraditional and sub-prime mortgages. These did not necessarily come from traditional banks, lending under the CRA, but from lenders like Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest sub-prime and nontraditional mortgage lender and a firm that would become infamous for consistently pushing the envelope on acceptable underwriting standards."
 The Banks that wouldn't play ball like Wells FARGO were extorted by the DOJ's eric holder.
Click to expand...

Your bit was just opinion. And your own link STATES that local and regional lenders were themselves making the choices to lend to low credit scoring people. Oops.

No one forced the banks to partake in that system.
No one forced the local and regionals to lower their criteria.

Just as I stated. Thanks for providing an article that refutes your own argument.

Let's recap.

Your entire argument blames the HUD and CRA via the GSEs for the mess. While I do not contest that the GSEs created serious mortal hazard here, you are deliberately ignoring the key point made.

My argument relies upon the fact that the vast majority of NPLs came from non-covered, non-CRA banks outside of HUD and the CRA.

How does your argument, which blames CRA, HUD, GSEs and covered banks, which fyi, did not originate the vast majority of NPLs refute my argument?

You are explicitly blaming the originators of a small portion of NPLs for the mess while exonerating the banks that actually did originate the Lion's Share of NPLs.

In an analogy, you are saying that the small bank robber who stole 10% of the bank's assets actually caused the bank to fail, not the inside embezzler who stole 90% of the assets.
 
Last edited:
APACHERAT said:
I didn't say that South Africa was a socialist country, I said the ANC were socialist, internationalist socialist. Communist are internationalist socialist, Where as Nazis are also socialist but they are nationalist socialist.
Click to expand...

Communists don't have a state. Second, what did the ANC do that was Socialist?

You are again defining Socialism as anything you don't like.

Barack Obama is a socialist but he hasn't yet turned America in to an internationalist socialist country. He has a little problem with the Constitution. As we have seen over the past four years, Obama has ignored the Constitution, has refused to show leadership and cross the aisle in Congress and compromise, has misused Executive Order Privilege to bypass Congress, has used the U.S. military for liberal social engineering experimentation.
Click to expand...

Every President since Washington has ignored the Constitution. And Obama is merely doing the same EO crap that Bush did. Wrong, but hardly without precedent. As for leadership and compromise, that is your view, one not shared by actual facts. Especially considering that Obama has frankly ripped off Republican idea after Republican idea. As I've been saying since 2009, Obama is Bush's 3rd and now 4th term.

In Barck Obama's own words in his book, "Dreams From My Father" Obama said "I never looked upon my self as being an American but as an internationalist."

The first time I visited South Africa was in 1975. That's during apartheid. In 1975 I met a girl at Long Beach State University who was attending college on a student visa from Rhodesia. Well we hooked up and became engaged. In 75 I traveled to Rhodesia to meet her parents via South Africa. They owned a large cattle ranch in Rhodesia.

A year later she returned home during Christmas vacation in 1976. She was raped and murdered by Communist terrorist, Her mother was raped and murdered by Communist terrorist. Her father was murdered by Communist terrorist. The same terrorist who were affiliated with the ANC and today rule Zimbabwe.
Click to expand...

How does this prove they are Socialist? I don't disagree that South Africa is run by thugs and has serious order problems. I did in fact allude to that.

I visited South Africa again in the early 1990's after apartheid. Not a safe place at all. The middle class including the black middle class all live behind walled communities where the cost of living includes paying for armed mercenaries providing perimeter security.

In South Africa most of the cars are European, mostly German or British, All have sun roofs. No one drives with the sun roof open in South Africa, especially if your a woman. If you make that mistake your very likely the be dragged out of your car through the sun roof and raped.

There are times when some people aren't ready for freedom. Africa today is a perfect example where former European colonies were never prepared for independence and freedom. The entire African continent is a basket case today.
Click to expand...

And this is related to the discussion how?

The same can be said about the Arab Spring that Obama supported. The entire Middle East and North Africa are complete basket cases today. and Obama's foreign policies are responsible.
Click to expand...

Come again? The Middle East has been a basket case since the French and English drew lines in the sand and created countries from nothing. The notion that it's Obama's fault they are messed up ignores their entire history. And Iran's rise to power is directly the fault of the Bush Invasion.

What makes you think that supporting dictators would have led to better outcomes? You would have backed Obama as he let Quaddafi commit millions of brutal murders? You would have backed Obama as he sent in American troops to shoot Egyptian protestors? The Egyptian Army itself was not going to put down the revolution. Like the Russians, they would not fire upon their own people. And the secret police was simply too small to deal with a nation wide revolution. So you would have supported sending American troops to shoot Egyptian protestors? You would have had us support a massacre that would make Sebrenica look small?

Name me the actual Obama policy that is causing their mess. Try.

Liberals hate me because I have an animosity towards socialist.. #### them them. All you have to look at the 100 MILLION people who have been murdered by internationalist socialist.
Click to expand...
Your drama is hardly helping your cause.
 
Fenton said:
No Jethro it doesn't. It takes an adherance to fundamental character traits and the abillity to objectively see through the rhetoric of politicians and their supporters and find the truth.

If you don't want to battle and want to stay exclusivley on topic then stop with veiled insinuations and direct attacks on peoples intelligence because if you do it to me I'm firing right back and I have plenty of ammunition.

As for your arguments if I see youv'e said something incorrect, lied, made generalizations , inconsistent statements or just parroted nonsensical talking points I'm going to call you out on it.

Its the point of the Site " debate politics ". If you want to make it personal then that's up to you.

But about that post I wrote. Long wasn't it ? And all kinds of awesome.

But apparently I posted in the wrong thread according to obvious.

Hell it was 1 am and I was on my 7th drink so hey, even I make the occasional mistake.

You Libs have made a curious choice, to defend the undefendable in the midst of a failing Presidency. But it's getting old as you rely on the one and most pathetic excuse time and time again to mitigate the suffering of the American middle Class.

So, you continue with your " Bush blame " andb I'll continue to expose your desperation.
Click to expand...

No Jethro it doesn't. It takes an adherance to fundamental character traits and the abillity to objectively see through the rhetoric of politicians and their supporters and find the truth.
Click to expand...

Yes...well even that is a skill. "It takes an adherance to fundamental character traits and the abillity to objectively see through the rhetoric of politicians and their supporters and find the truth". And of course you have aquired this...skill and have the ability to be objective? Really. Just how objective are you? Are you objective enough to recognize you could be wrong? You label yourself a conservative. That's an ideology that you subscribe to. That's a bias viewpoint that you proclaim to hold. You can't be biased and objective at the same time. That's a contradiction in terms. If you REALLY want to find the truth, then it might be a good idea to accept the FACT that you could be wrong about everything. Because the truth is that you are fallible and that means you are prone to error. So just how objective are you againe?:think:
 
Adagio said:
Of course it is. Which is exactly how I'm going to respond to a battery of talking points. The only difference is that these are MY thoughts. Not something given to me.
Click to expand...
Except they match up almost exactly with liberal talking points I have seen over and over. Do you believe in coincidence?

Adagio said:
That's what talking points do. I responded to several of his. But mine aren't talking points. They're my own and they're my view of the psychology and tactics of conservatives. I told our friend that I'm not going to engage in a back and forth over who can gather the most talking points riddled with distorted data to try and prove a point. Would you accept a series of those from me? I highly doubt it. The part you underlined came from a book that I wrote. If you have something to say that's an original thought, then skip the provided talking points and make your case. Otherwise, it's amateur hour. Use some reason and logic and historical reference to make your case.
Click to expand...

Amateur hour? Use some reason and logic? And you accused me of personal attacks. Again your responses match liberal ideas exactly. They dont look very original.

Adagio said:
I didn't ask you to read it. It wasn't addressed to you. But since you picked up on it, you should know by now that I don't concern myself with your opinion or anybody's for that matter. That guy decided to post a bunch of crap. He claimed I wouldn't engage him. Well, there you have it. Consider yourselves engaged. If you can't handle what the response is then find a thread where people like short quips and insults. I don't. I learned how to express my views a long time ago.
Click to expand...

I will respond to whatever thread I wish and however I please within the rules of the forum. So far, you seem to parrot out the same things I've heard over and over. You are like one giant confirmation bias echo chamber.

Adagio said:
Your reading comprehension is weak. It's not an ideology. It's a critique of one. Know the difference. I never offered any ideology nor defended one in that paragraph. I don't subscribe to them. They're all false. Including yours.
Click to expand...

Oh you subscribe to one alright, you just dont have the temerity and honesty to admit it. Again, you arent providing anything new and you act as though your parroted lines are awe inspiring beacons of clear thought. Same discourse, slightly different words and nothing new.
 
APACHERAT said:
I didn't say that South Africa was a socialist country, I said the ANC were socialist, internationalist socialist. Communist are internationalist socialist, Where as Nazis are also socialist but they are nationalist socialist.

Barack Obama is a socialist but he hasn't yet turned America in to an internationalist socialist country. He has a little problem with the Constitution. As we have seen over the past four years, Obama has ignored the Constitution, has refused to show leadership and cross the aisle in Congress and compromise, has misused Executive Order Privilege to bypass Congress, has used the U.S. military for liberal social engineering experimentation.

In Barck Obama's own words in his book, "Dreams From My Father" Obama said "I never looked upon my self as being an American but as an internationalist."

The first time I visited South Africa was in 1975. That's during apartheid. In 1975 I met a girl at Long Beach State University who was attending college on a student visa from Rhodesia. Well we hooked up and became engaged. In 75 I traveled to Rhodesia to meet her parents via South Africa. They owned a large cattle ranch in Rhodesia.

A year later she returned home during Christmas vacation in 1976. She was raped and murdered by Communist terrorist, Her mother was raped and murdered by Communist terrorist. Her father was murdered by Communist terrorist. The same terrorist who were affiliated with the ANC and today rule Zimbabwe.

I visited South Africa again in the early 1990's after apartheid. Not a safe place at all. The middle class including the black middle class all live behind walled communities where the cost of living includes paying for armed mercenaries providing perimeter security.

In South Africa most of the cars are European, mostly German or British, All have sun roofs. No one drives with the sun roof open in South Africa, especially if your a woman. If you make that mistake your very likely the be dragged out of your car through the sun roof and raped.

There are times when some people aren't ready for freedom. Africa today is a perfect example where former European colonies were never prepared for independence and freedom. The entire African continent is a basket case today.

The same can be said about the Arab Spring that Obama supported. The entire Middle East and North Africa are complete basket cases today. and Obama's foreign policies are responsible.

Liberals hate me because I have an animosity towards socialist.. #### them them. All you have to look at the 100 MILLION people who have been murdered by internationalist socialist.
Click to expand...

I am so very much convinced about your oh-so-terrible experiences in South Africa and the hellhole it is, and I can only think how much Jetboogieman, a South African, and many other members of the forum also agrees whole-heartedly with you
 
Conservative said:
Data from the U.S. Treasury can never be manipulated, it is what it is just like your bank account is what it is. I use BEA.gov, BLS.giv, and the Treasury data, not CBO, not leftwing sites. All my data can be verified but why would you ever waste your time when it is so easy to buy what you are told by leftwing partisans who have no problem making you look foolish.

The very concept of conservatism is based upon human behavior and human achievement. It is all about accepting personal responsibility where you spend in the name of compassion but actually get compassionate results, results that actual solve problems. Not once have I ever heard a liberal blame the individual for poor choices made and for personal mistakes. It is always blame somone else for individual failures.

Love the personal attack, which is normally the case with liberals when they cannot refute actual data. Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
Click to expand...

The very concept of conservatism is based upon human behavior and human achievement
Click to expand...

Is that a fact?? What do you base that fact on?
 
Adagio said:
Not for me. But then I'm retired. The tax cuts enacted under Bush...have been kept for 98% of the people. They'v been extended.



We're coming out of recession. The more money injected into the economy, the more jobs are created. We have jobs bills that don't get voted on. And yes it comes from taxpayers. And in these circumstances that money put back into the economy is needed. We could invest in our infrastructure and rebuild the entire country and put millions to work, who will spend the money they are making on TV's or computers, or cloths or food, or a new car, get them off food stamps, have them paying taxes. An economy requires spending to move goods and services. That demand opens the doors for more jobs. And jobs are the most important issue rigth now. And yes, the Republicans did win in 2010. Your problem was that the people that got elected were set against governing, and the people lost their infatuation with what you offered in 2010. So you lost in 2012. When Repubs won in 2010, Obama had to make concessions to that decision. Now that table has turned.



Which he does. That's why he got reelected. Who am I going to ask about this? A Conservative?? :roll: What you may think about his governing is a minority viewpoint. His approval ratings are in the upper 50% range. The GOP?? in the tank. And Congress is about 10%. The majority of the country agrees with him. He's not going to worry about appeasing a minority in this country that wants to block everything he does.



No they don't. In fact Obama has slowed the rate of spending more than anyone in the past 60 years.



Then you have a short memory. Obama was calling for closing the loopholes and deductions on Corporat jets, and yachts back in 2011. It was never just raising taxes on the top 2%. The loopholes were part of it. Romney capitulated on that because he knew he didn't have a winning hand.



It wasn't a GOP idea. It goes back to 2011.

Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 04:00 PM PDT.
Obama calls for White House debt meeting on Thursday; Boehner opens door on loopholes?

Obama: GOP tax breaks for corporate jets, closing loopholes hold up debt ceiling talks
Washington : DC : USA | Jun 30, 2011 at 6:54 AM PDT

Obama said; "It would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is, but we've got to make some tough choices here if we want to reduce our deficit. And if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we've got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. That means we've got to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. Those are the choices we have to make."

Republicans hadn't even considered this at that point.



But you don't. We already know that other guy doesn't. He needs talking points. So you would be a conservative because it's better than being a person that question conservatism? Sounds like you're an ideologue to the bone. Do you even question your beliefs? I mean...there is no justification for being a conservative, not that they don't try with appeals to authority like the other guy, or appeals to tradition. But those are not logically valid ideas for a justification for an ideology. So what is it based on? Do you even know? How can I take somebody seriously when they don't even know why they believe what they believe?
Click to expand...

Citing material without a link avails you nothing. Either link it or dont post it at all. BTW, what was Romney's tax plan?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Citing material without a link avails you nothing. Either link it or dont post it at all. BTW, what was Romney's tax plan?
Click to expand...

Romney's tax-plan usually depended on his audience.Kinda like a weather vane.:peace
 
Conservative said:
Really? You are retired? You are too old then to be so naive, gullible, and poorly informed. I retired in 2004 at the age of 57. Want to compare experience and bank accounts? I made it and people like don't think I am that smart so if I can make it why do we need the govt and Obama taking a bigger role in each American's life? Still waiting for answers to my questions, how many people are making minimum wage, who are they, and how long do they make that wage/
Click to expand...

Want to compare experience and bank accounts?
Click to expand...

:lamo you don't want to go there junior.

I made it and people like don't think I am that smart
Click to expand...

Really? What do you think gives them that impression? Like maybe it's the way you express yourself?

Still waiting for answers to my questions, how many people are making minimum wage, who are they, and how long do they make that wage/
Click to expand...

That depends. How many people are out of work and willing to take anything? As for who they are, I don't have their names and phone numbers, but you can look at the labor statistics to get an idea. How's that sound? And they'll make that wage until they can find something better. In the meantime they have bills to pay.
 
Dickieboy said:
First, go back and find anywhere in this thread where I attacked anyone...THEN you can accuse me of what I'm doing...



Now, please explain how calling McCain a putz is not a personal attack...then explain how you are not guilty of what you falsely accused me of...

junior indeed...:coffeepap
Click to expand...

Now, please explain how calling McCain a putz is not a personal attack
Click to expand...
A personal attack would be directed at you. That's what makes it, you know..personal. You aren't McCain are you? Didn't think so.
 
Adagio said:
And they're still millionairs???:shock: Wow! The way you hear them cry all the time, you'd think wouldn't be able to afford food on their table or a roof over their head.
Click to expand...

Interesting side note on income taxes.

I tried to find some information about corporate income taxes for myself and uncovered a aspect of the methodology that surprised me.

Did you know that the federal government credit corporate income taxes to the personal income tax statistics based on share of income. The idea is that if these people make these much of the income, they must own this much of the corporations, so we'll just add those dollars to the taxes paid by that income group.

Of course the top 1% have a huge portion of the income, so they get a big chunk of the corporate income taxes credited to them.

On that top 1% thing, I think it is a mistake to talk about the top 1%, the top 1% starts at $350k, barely enough to live well, and certainly not enough to considered in the group that makes Millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and billions. Most of the actual people in the top 1% make under a million, almost 90% of them. the top 1/10 of the top 1% is where the money is. This group is about 135,000 people and they make 17% of all income, they pay 37% of federal income taxes, but federal income taxes is only about 58% of total federal taxes. So that 17% of all income taxes is less than 10% of total federal taxes, and their share of the taxes is tiny since they are mostly regressive taxes like payroll taxes. So the top 1/10 of 1% takes in 17% of the income, pays 10% of the taxes, and they are bitching, and a third of Americans who are flat out paupers relative to these guys, are bitching about "soaking the rich".

It is flippin' brilliant how these folks have gotten people to argue their case for them, against their own interests.

If it were not so tragic, it would be funny.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You new liberal inductees are really getting old quick on the Boooooshhhhhh mantra. Speaking of which you must have missed all the hold ups with Bush appointees from 2000 to 2008. Political obstruction isnt anything new. Please stop pretending it is.



You don't understand bi-partisan apointees as cover to partisan policy do you? You're pretty new to this whole political manuevering aren't you? Hagel is a republican apointee that doesn't agree with republican policy and his every agreement with Obama's policy decisions will be called "bi-partisan". Hagel will be used as a political tool. He's going to be used to screw over his own party. I wouldn't approve his nomination either.



Sigh, I was saying Hagel is incompetent, not Obama.




Nah its more like having a political maturity over the age of 12 and believing people act in their own self interest, because they DO. . Obama is not in full governing mode, hes in legacy mode. Dont play stupid with me, hes a Chicago political operative: they cement party political power, they act to enrich their supporters and then they act in the interest of those that elect them.



Stop posting moronic ****, that quote was directly attribted to the surge.




Yeah like there werent 10 other reasons for military action against Iraq. So how do you feel about action in Afghanistan? (hint: Its a TRAP!)





Hagel wasnt a political asset in liberal eyes until he trashed republican policy, your comments are laughable, more hilarious is that you think anyone buys your bull****.
Yep, Bush spending policies were dumb, so the solution was to triple that. Yup, seems to be working. :roll:
Click to expand...

Political obstruction isnt anything new. Please stop pretending it is.
Click to expand...

A record number of filibusters say's you're wrong.

You don't understand bi-partisan apointees as cover to partisan policy do you?
Click to expand...

I understand you're a conspiracy theorist who's immersed in his own cynical view of people. It's a cover for partisan policy now. Couldn't be that maybe it's the best guy for the job? Nahhhh...it's all a cover.

Hagel will be used as a political tool
Click to expand...

The only tool I see here is you.

Nah its more like having a political maturity over the age of 12 and believing people act in their own self interest, because they DO.
Click to expand...

Nahhhh it's cynicism in full regalia. You think people always act in their own self-interest? My son is part of an A-Team with Special Forces ( Green Beret ) They don't act on their own self-interest. They work as a team. So making a blanket statement like that is simply false. Unless you think that our SF guys and SEALS are all self serving assholes?

Stop posting moronic ****, that quote was directly attribted to the surge.
Click to expand...

Wrong. And McCain knows it because he knows Hagels position on the war as do the rest of the Republicans. Hey John..the war was a really stupid idea, but that surge thing, piece of art. McCain even said they didn't like Hagel for opposing Bush. So...do stop posting your bile on this.

Yeah like there werent 10 other reasons for military action against Iraq. So how do you feel about action in Afghanistan? (hint: Its a TRAP!)
Click to expand...

No, there weren't. You don't go to war because you don't like the guy or he threatened you Dad. That's self interest. You look for the reasons NOT to go to war. It's a last resort, not the first. As for Afghanistan I was for it when it started. That's where bin Laden was with al Qaeda and the Talliban. If we hadn't shifted to Iraq, we'd be out of there by now. But no...Rummy wanted something sexier. He wanted Shock and Awe. We've got to show the people back home some **** blowing up other than a bunch of rocks.

Hagel wasnt a political asset in liberal eyes until he trashed republican policy, your comments are laughable, more hilarious is that you think anyone buys your bull****.
Click to expand...

That's when I realized he had a funtional brain. He's a prolife conservative Republican and I liked him. He wasn't an echo chamber for Bush. That made him independent. Let me know when you've engaged your brain.
 
Fenton said:
I don't know why Adagio is giving you a like. Your rebut was irrelevant and completely missed the point and wrong. Oh wait.....now I know why he gave you a like....lol....Wow.

And before either of you two go into your pathetic generic Bush Blame let me add the following..

2001 April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

2002 May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

January: 2003 Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: 20030The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

November: 20030Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.”

February: 2004 The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.”

April: 2005 Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.”

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities perform their public mission successfully.”

......and on and on. The documented evidence of the Bush administration trying to get the GSEs under control is extensive so enough with the retarded Bush Blame. I can post more if you need me too.

And exactly why Child would a bank lower their lending Standards on their own with out being forced to by a corrupt Clinton administration ? What's in it for them ? Bankruptcy ? Because prior to the HUD mandates the GSE's wouldn't touch that kind of loan with a 10 foot pole.

Next, from 1993 to 1998 Clinton replaced the GSEs CEO's, and their second in charge and over half of their board of directors..Franklin Raines anyone ? Oh he made millions.

1995 President Clinton introduced his National Homeownership Strategy, which included the expansion of Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) and changed CRA compliance from a "process" oriented law to a law that focused on results.....for you two that means they HAD TO MAKE LOANS to comply to expanded and enforced CRA regulations.

Oh wait, a Fantastic quote from Clinton...“Our home ownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation" LOL !!! One extra cent huh ? He was off a few trillion wasn't he ?

Two more since I'm posting actual quotes....documented History unrevised by corrupt Liberals.

“I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” – Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.” – Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL), September 30, 2008

In 1989, only 1 in 230 homebuyers made a down payment of 3 percent or less by 2007, it was 1 in 3. By 2008 74% of sub-prime and low quality loans were on the books of Govt backed or regulated government agencies. That's the GSE's, FHA etc.

The regulations that forced the GSEs to buy up trillions in bad debt were in Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (the “GSE Act”). Under Clinton.

The quotas spelled out that INITIALLY 30 percent of the GSEs’ mortgage purchases had to be loans that were made to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. During the Clinton administration, HUD increased this quota to 42 percent in 1995 and 50 percent in 2000. HUD mandated quotas increased to 55% under Bush with sub quotas added that mandated the buying of mortgages from borrowers who were at or below the median income by 80%, Andrew Cuomo was the HUD secretary when he committed and extra 2 trillion to the buying up of "affordable housing" debt.

Here you two, learn something...This is a HUD dispatch from 2000

"Because the GSEs have a funding advantage over other market participants, they have the ability to under price their competitors and increase their market share. This advantage, as has been the case in the prime market, could allow the GSEs to eventually play a significant role in the subprime market. As the GSEs become more comfortable with subprime lending, the line between what today is considered a subprime loan versus a prime loan will likely deteriorate, making expansion by the GSEs look more like an increase in the prime market."....ouch.


One of CRA's decrees was that banks had a "affirmative obligation" to make loans to the people in its community. Groups like ACORN and other radical inner cities activist argued for an expansion of CRA mandates and Clinton was all too happy to comply. " Affirmative Obligations "????

ACORN Housing had a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York. Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America had a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America. The New Jersey Citizen Action had a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance" "CRA is the backbone of everything we do "

After Clintons 1995 EXECUTIVE ORDER that basically put CRA on steroids he moved to force those mandated lax ending standards on the GSE's. From the NYT..

“In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of [subprime] lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.”

Its actually right on the money isn't it. For the NYT that's unusual. Usually they just unleash Paul Krugman, the old fat cat lady trapped in a frumpy bearded mans body.

Clinton with the Community Development Act of 1992 shifted the moral hazard to the tax payer of ALL low quality, sub-prime, alt-a loans, etc. From that day, anybody could originate a crap loan and pawn it off to a all to willing Government Service Enterprise and use the "loose under writing standards " mandated and enforced by Clinton to qualify any borrower.

The 1994 HUD ACT called for "“financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home or to make the payments.”

"A 1997 Urban Institute report found that local and regional lenders seemed more willing than the GSEs to serve creditworthy low- to moderate-income and minority applicants. After this, Fannie and Freddie modified their automated underwriting systems to accept loans with characteristics that they had previously rejected. This opened the way for large numbers of nontraditional and sub-prime mortgages. These did not necessarily come from traditional banks, lending under the CRA, but from lenders like Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest sub-prime and nontraditional mortgage lender and a firm that would become infamous for consistently pushing the envelope on acceptable underwriting standards."
 The Banks that wouldn't play ball like Wells FARGO were extorted by the DOJ's eric holder.

So it's clear now to the both of you. That the 2008 Sub-Prime collapse was the brain child of your dear President CLINTON and his cronies that he put into place as the CEO's of the GSEs from 1993 to 1998. Those Cronies ? Got millions in bonus's by running our Country into the ground. Democrats, Liberals....as corrupt as they come. But you guys......blame the banks.

And Child if your going to attempt to rebut ANY of my post, have the decency to at least be prepared with relevant points and honest data. Now slink away defeated and marginalized and go blame the banks and Bush where you can get away with it. Like at the Democrat Under Ground or the Disney Channel's WebSite.
Click to expand...

I don't know why Adagio is giving you a like.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about. When did I do that? Don't just re-post the comment, include the comment number. If I did, it was surely by mistake. I haven't knowingly agreed with anything he's said.

Your post is exactly what your friend was talking about. The "Kitchen Sink" Approach to debate. Fill your comment with so many things from your talking points, that it's ridiculous. You haven't an original thought in your head, have you?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Except they match up almost exactly with liberal talking points I have seen over and over. Do you believe in coincidence?



Amateur hour? Use some reason and logic? And you accused me of personal attacks. Again your responses match liberal ideas exactly. They dont look very original.



I will respond to whatever thread I wish and however I please within the rules of the forum. So far, you seem to parrot out the same things I've heard over and over. You are like one giant confirmation bias echo chamber.



Oh you subscribe to one alright, you just dont have the temerity and honesty to admit it. Again, you arent providing anything new and you act as though your parroted lines are awe inspiring beacons of clear thought. Same discourse, slightly different words and nothing new.
Click to expand...

Except they match up almost exactly with liberal talking points I have seen over and over. Do you believe in coincidence?
Click to expand...

Since I don't use them, I wouldn't know. I don't bother with talking points. I look at that philosophical argument for conservatism and find it easy to critique. I don't get heavily involved in policy issues, and that's where the talking points come from. It's good to be informed on that, but I find conservatism itself the problem.

"Amateur hour?"- yes Amateur hour.


Use some reason and logic?
Click to expand...

Oh good! My two favorite things.

And you accused me of personal attacks.
Click to expand...

Yeah..I could list them, but I don't want to go running through all the comments.

Again your responses match liberal ideas exactly. They dont look very original.
Click to expand...

Well I am a liberal. But that's in the sense of being open to being wrong. That's a hard place for a conservative to be, but I find it the more rational way of being. But I'm not a member of any party. I'm not surprised that they echo my views. But mine come from a philosophical and historical framework. Those aren't part of any talking points I'm aware of. And I do use logic and reason, as do most liberals. Perhaps thats where you find the similarities.

I will respond to whatever thread I wish and however I please within the rules of the forum. So far, you seem to parrot out the same things I've heard over and over. You are like one giant confirmation bias echo chamber.
Click to expand...

Fine and so will I. But if you're going to accuse me of throwing the Kitchen Sink...maybe you should take a look at post 1224 by your friend. Lets see if the criticism is really objective. I doubt that you've heard extended critiques of conservatism. What you've heard or read is I'm right, you're wrong talking points. I've posed this question to each conservative I run into... Why are you a conservative? And they never answer it. That's not a talking point. Thats a philosophical and ideological question. It has nothing to do with fiscal cliffs or sequesters, or debt ceilings. It has to do with the fundamental idea that your ideology rests on which I say is baseless.

Oh you subscribe to one alright, you just dont have the temerity and honesty to admit it.
Click to expand...

Nope. Sorry. I gave those up for Lent. And I am being honest. I never stay in one place long enough to get married to an idea. The framework I come from permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position. So...I have no position to justify irrationally. You on the other hand...do. I can't help it if reason, rationality, and logic have a liberal bias.

I reject positive methodologies and that's what conservatism is. It's a man made system, which is flawed from the start. What makes it really nasty, is that it doesn't recognize its own fallibility. Like the song said, Knowing your right isn't easy, it takes all your energy stayin so strong, but God made you fallible down to the core, and God knows you just might be wrong.

I'm a fallibalist. I already know that everyone is fallible including me. I could be wrong. Can you? This doesn't come from talking points. This comes from using your brain.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Citing material without a link avails you nothing. Either link it or dont post it at all. BTW, what was Romney's tax plan?
Click to expand...

And you think that is going to change the date of the report that is listed in both cases? What Tax 'Loopholes' Does Obama Want to Close? : NPR.


What Tax 'Loopholes' Does Obama Want to Close?

by Scott Horsley

June 30, 2011 3:00 PM

We're go take a closer look now at some of the tax loopholes that President Obama wants to close over the objection of congressional Republicans. There are plenty of loopholes to choose from in the tax code.

But as NPR's Scott Horsley reports, the White House has focused on some fairly narrow provisions.

SCOTT HORSLEY: Loopholes and tax breaks cost the federal government more than $1 trillion a year in loss revenue. In his White House news conference yesterday, President Obama went after only a tiny fraction of that.

President BARACK OBAMA: The tax cuts I'm proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners.

HORSLEY: Corporate jets were a favorite target. Mr. Obama mentioned them half a dozen times during his news conference. He might have thought he could balance the budget just by grounding a few high-flying Gulfstreams, but the president's actual proposal is not so lofty. It would make companies take two extra years to write off their jets.

Dan Hubbard, of the National Business Aviation Association, says that would generate two or $3 billion over the next 10 years.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Coming from someone who backs a Chicago pol, that doesnt mean a damn thing.
Click to expand...

Ahhh let the stereotyping begin. Well, at least he's not some dufus that thinks Rape can't make you pregnant. It takes a special talent to come up with that. Or maybe, it's that God want's a pregnancy result from a rape. Yeah,,,lets put that guy on the science committee. Brilliant. :roll: That's called an insult dude. A Chicago pol?? Dicto Simpliciter. Stereotyping is really a big part of conservatism isn't it? I mean you do it with Chicago pols, race, liberals. just about everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom