You've supplied supporting info & links to your argument, some of which I was not aware - thank you.
But I still don't see how this absolves the Bush Administration & the GOP controlled government of responsibility. They had complete control of the government for nearly 8 years leading-up to the '08 fiasco, during which they could pass (or veto) any legislation they so chose. They signed-off on this.
Perhaps a case could be made for Dem complicity (you've done a good job), but the guys in control were in-charge & this is the way they chose to run their government (whether through action, or inaction).
You're attempting to build a case where the boss abrogates responsibility for signing-off on an employee's bad idea.
Last edited by Chomsky; 05-09-15 at 02:11 PM. Reason: grammar
right-wing sites like this.
What are these "two important boards that prevented any kind of banking change from getting through committee"?
He says "when that minority party refuses to act and keep their head in the sand then yes they are to blame." As you've asked, what about the majority, ya know, the people who control what gets voted on? And who was in the White House while this crisis developed?
Here's a press release from a member of the Financial Services Committee (yes, their hero, the distinguished Rep from LA, Ms. Waters) in which Mr. Frank reviews the history surrounding this matter.
Back when th Dems were the minority party they used the Rulel 22 Fillibuster option repeatedly against the GOP.
Sb190 was pushed back through the Senate Banking committee in 2007 by the GOP as Sb1100 after they lost the Senate and the Democrats chaired the committee.
It never got out of committee.
A year later the GSEs were declared insolvent and the dems finally passed GSE regulation.
Too little too late.
17 times the Bush administration and the GOP called for GSE regulatory reform. In 2004 72 House Democrats signed a letter warning Bush not to chose the safety and soundness of the GSEs over their " affordable lending " iniatives.
I bet they wish they could scrub that letter from the record.
In 2002 Bush warned of the systemic economic consequences from unregulated GSEs. 6 years before the crash he called it perfectly.
" If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else ? "
I'd like to thank those the responded to me in the last several posts.
We can go around in circles over who's to blame for the '08 meltdown it seems, and there's apparently more than enough FUD & propaganda out there to bolster any argument one cares to make.
After touching on just a moment's research into Fenton's well written reply, I found rebuttals from Barney Frank & others stating the exact opposite as he wrote (not unexpectedly, and not denigratory to those who believe otherwise).
And I have no detailed personal knowledge of the intricate procedural details of that time.
But I will close by saying regardless of the procedures & politics, it's hard to let the majority & Presidential party off the hook - I feel it's the President and majority party's onus to get the job done - that's why they've been put in charge. And this goes for any President, Obama included. It's true the Republicans often stymied him, but ultimately it's his responsibility to get the job of running the country done - whether by compromise, political sway, or procedural force! I actually am happy he resorted to more use of EOs, (even though I disagree with one of them - immigration), and only as long as they remain lawful.
I voted for him (like my other Presidential votes) to lead and produce results, not complain.
If Obama had declined it, you guys would have ranted about how disrespectful he was being.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.
One thing in particular helped me and several Americans out and that was the auto industry bailout. The place I work can't keep up with orders. It makes transmission and coil springs along with stabilizer bars. This place does not shut down at all anymore. It just goes 24/7 365 holidays or not and went from 3000 employees before the recession to 5000 employees (Just in the Florence, KY area) all of which make a significant amount more than they did before the recession.
Also, Obama kept austerity from happening and proved a good case for it by pointing to the bad stuff that was happening because of it in a lot of European countries. He also has done a lot to get new energy and technology spending. Beyond that, he screwed up a little with certain things I think like the housing market is still iffy, I know people buying houses but I wouldn't buy one honestly. I think the rising economies in areas that took advantage of the recessions namely China and India giving them a middle class and demand for American products or at least American components also gave companies more incentive to just make products in USA. A lot of our electronics for example the innards and glass on tablets and phones are made right here in America, and created tens of thousands of jobs in states such as Kentucky, New York, Texas, and California. Still a lot of work to do, but things look a hell of a lot better than they did 8 years ago.
"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan
But I will add that while they were op-ed pages, 'ludin' cited The Boston Globe', which is an excellent source IMO, and also 'U.S. News & World Reports', which is another mainstream source (as far as I'm aware).
(BTW, I too have a Beagle!)
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.