U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector

Middleground said:

The banking deregulation that begun under Reagan and continued until Dubya.

Click to expand...

It began under Carter and Glass Stegal was passed under Clinton. CRA has been expanded under every President since Carter. If you are going to toss blame around can the partisan bull**** talking points to foist it all off on the mean, evil Republicans.

Matt Foley said:

So you should be for the GM bailout, right? For the greater good.

Click to expand...

Against. I didnt argue for it, I just pointed out the blind eye government tends to turn to the consequences of what it does. I was against all the bailouts and TARP.

Neomalthusian said:

Yes it most certainly does. Defend your position that it does not. Capitalism is self-regulation.

Click to expand...

On paper yes, in reality no. We have seen it time and time again, where capitalism has failed to regulate it self. Take a look at the crisis we are in now, it is a failure of self regulation in the private sub-prime mortgage market that is the root cause of the crisis. Does government regulation "screw things up"? Sure, but in an imperfect world it is our only way to quickly fix the failures of capitalism.

The only place capitalism probably fails to self-regulate is environmentally. It is possible for capitalism to lead to tragedies of the commons that don't self-correct very quickly or peacefully. But then again I'm not sure any other economic model is terribly concerned with the environmental impacts of our pro-growth policies.

Click to expand...

Capitalism does nothing for the environment or workers. That is its primary problem which has lead to new forms of ideology.. socialism, communism, enviormentalism and so on. Capitalism has one goal.. profit at any cost and with that power and this is what leads it to its own downfall if not regulated (self or government). And since self regulation goes out the window as one of the first in a lazzie-faire regulatory system, then well...

Not really. You end up with an quasi-socialist oligarchy that learns how to disguise itself as a capitalist republic. Capitalism may bring about ****ty scenarios now and then, but that is a very necessary aspect of the self-regulatory nature of capitalism. When government step in and interfere, they're destroying that self-regulatory mechanism and turning the system into something other than a free market.

Click to expand...

More horse**** based on a text book. In the real world, no amount of self regulation would have stopped using children in mines or factories. The capitalists were earning millions doing it, so why change it? Just because a few children died, so what.. they are replaceable. It was only when government came in and said on behalf of all people... no using children is wrong, that the capitalists changed their tunes. And that was not because they wanted too, but they were forced to do so because of changing political ideologies that threatened their whole business.. aka communism and socialism. There is nothing like a revolution and riots that can "regulate" a capitalist society... but do we really have to go that far to change things for the better?

Listen, capitalism is by far the superior method of doing things. However like everything in life it is far from perfect, and having a lazzie-fair attitude when it comes to regulating it, only spells doom. Time and time again we have seen this, because there is two major flaws in most human beings... power and greed. And if a person can via the lazzie-fair capitalism gain more money and power by doing bad things, then that person will do so. Now you can say that the opposition in capitalism will prevent that (self-regulation), but often the opposition is out of business or/and dead and the power of the one left behind is so huge that people are afraid of him/her. Standard Oil comes to mind. Walmart comes to mind now days in certain geographic areas. Microsoft comes to mind back in the day. Apple comes to mind today.

Lets put this in perspective. Capitalism is like a teenager. Now we can have a lazzie-fair attitude to raising said teenager, and let "society" and "experience" form the teenager over time. Or we can go by the control aspect and ban a teenager for doing things, keep watch and so on. Which one is the best method or is it a mix of the two? But ultimately the parent can and does step in an take control if the teenager gets out of line... those families where parents dont act like parents, we get what... criminals and problem teenagers in larger numbers than families where parents act like parents.

It is no different in the overall economy... let the business run amok in a self regulating environment with no boundaries... and watch that eventually implode. Go the totally opposite way and regulate everything, and you are asking for hurt as well as no one likes to be told what to do all the time. Hence a mix of the two, and often the regulation is brought out of need to fix a problem rather than a preventive measure. So basically.. if it had not been for the abuses and flaws of capitalism, then there was no need for government regulation.

Problem of course comes when corporations own the regulatory arm of government and the regulation is made to prevent competition... it is still capitalism,.. you cant deny that.. but it is a flawed version.

lordnate said:

That's pretty much right. I'm not really an expert on Glass-Steagal, but that's pretty much what it did from my understanding. However, it doesn't prevent a lending crisis, as Glass-Steagal was active during the Carter Administration where we had another lending meltdown.

The biggest issue is that we have this bad habit of always thinking things will continue in the way they have been going. If the economy is good, then it will remain good. In bubble markets you have what's called the "Greater Fool Theory." That is, that bubbles will continue to grow as long as there is a greater fool. If you over pay for a house, but the next person over pays even more, you are a fool, but the person that followed is a greater fool. The last person to buy in a bubble is called the greatest fool. No one should buy just before the market goes down unless they absolutely have to for some reason, but there always seems to be a few fools willing to join in. This is just a negative aspect of capitalism, but there are ways to prevent this or at least limit the problem.

One of the big issues that I learned from an online course I took for work on the housing market crash, is that in some states they were lending 120% LTV loans. That's where the loan is 20% greater than the appraised value. Basically, the house was underwater the day it was bought. The idea was, that people who had credit card debt could buy a home and use the remaining loan to wipe out the credit card debt. Since mortgages have a lower interest rate than credit cards, it would be a very affordable option. The only issue is that when you have people that have a tendency to have bad credit card debt, once their credit cards are no longer maxed out, they start using them again.

Basically, what needs to be done is that the LTV of a loan needs to be set at a rate lower than the value of the house, requiring a down payment. This would prevent the housing market from inflating too fast and give some insurance for when housing markets go down. I think we could get away with giving out 90% LTV loans, but if we really wanted to be safe they would have a maximum of 80%.

Click to expand...

Correct a return of 10% plus down and no LTV plus 20 loans ensures some form of equity.

Something that has not been investigated or is being investigated very quietly is that Standard and Poor and Moodys were neck deep in evaluating derivatives and were constantly evaluating them entirely too high for investors to know what they were getting into. Similar to the LIBOR issue, the valuers of the derivatives were hand in hand with the sellers creating misleading valuations.

PeteEU said:

On paper yes, in reality no. We have seen it time and time again, where capitalism has failed to regulate it self. Take a look at the crisis we are in now, it is a failure of self regulation in the private sub-prime mortgage market that is the root cause of the crisis. Does government regulation "screw things up"? Sure, but in an imperfect world it is our only way to quickly fix the failures of capitalism.



Capitalism does nothing for the environment or workers. That is its primary problem which has lead to new forms of ideology.. socialism, communism, enviormentalism and so on. Capitalism has one goal.. profit at any cost and with that power and this is what leads it to its own downfall if not regulated (self or government). And since self regulation goes out the window as one of the first in a lazzie-faire regulatory system, then well...



More horse**** based on a text book. In the real world, no amount of self regulation would have stopped using children in mines or factories. The capitalists were earning millions doing it, so why change it? Just because a few children died, so what.. they are replaceable. It was only when government came in and said on behalf of all people... no using children is wrong, that the capitalists changed their tunes. And that was not because they wanted too, but they were forced to do so because of changing political ideologies that threatened their whole business.. aka communism and socialism. There is nothing like a revolution and riots that can "regulate" a capitalist society... but do we really have to go that far to change things for the better?

Listen, capitalism is by far the superior method of doing things. However like everything in life it is far from perfect, and having a lazzie-fair attitude when it comes to regulating it, only spells doom. Time and time again we have seen this, because there is two major flaws in most human beings... power and greed. And if a person can via the lazzie-fair capitalism gain more money and power by doing bad things, then that person will do so. Now you can say that the opposition in capitalism will prevent that (self-regulation), but often the opposition is out of business or/and dead and the power of the one left behind is so huge that people are afraid of him/her. Standard Oil comes to mind. Walmart comes to mind now days in certain geographic areas. Microsoft comes to mind back in the day. Apple comes to mind today.

Lets put this in perspective. Capitalism is like a teenager. Now we can have a lazzie-fair attitude to raising said teenager, and let "society" and "experience" form the teenager over time. Or we can go by the control aspect and ban a teenager for doing things, keep watch and so on. Which one is the best method or is it a mix of the two? But ultimately the parent can and does step in an take control if the teenager gets out of line... those families where parents dont act like parents, we get what... criminals and problem teenagers in larger numbers than families where parents act like parents.

It is no different in the overall economy... let the business run amok in a self regulating environment with no boundaries... and watch that eventually implode. Go the totally opposite way and regulate everything, and you are asking for hurt as well as no one likes to be told what to do all the time. Hence a mix of the two, and often the regulation is brought out of need to fix a problem rather than a preventive measure. So basically.. if it had not been for the abuses and flaws of capitalism, then there was no need for government regulation.

Problem of course comes when corporations own the regulatory arm of government and the regulation is made to prevent competition... it is still capitalism,.. you cant deny that.. but it is a flawed version.

Click to expand...

Capitalism is the basis of what we use for one reason only. It works better than anything we have used so far.

Regulation is a fine line. Too much and it enriches government too much (usually in terms of power), too little and it enriches business too much. Ostensibly government should regulate just enough to allow business to grow without trampling the rights of individuals, consumers and employees. That should be the goal. That doesnt appear to be the goal on either side lately. So I dunno.

OpportunityCost said:

Capitalism is the basis of what we use for one reason only. It works better than anything we have used so far.

Regulation is a fine line. Too much and it enriches government too much (usually in terms of power), too little and it enriches business too much. Ostensibly government should regulate just enough to allow business to grow without trampling the rights of individuals, consumers and employees. That should be the goal. That doesnt appear to be the goal on either side lately. So I dunno.

Click to expand...

You forget the part where regulation is dictated by business via the government. That is the dangerous one, and that is the one happening in the US and other countries. When business and politics mix, capitalism goes out the window.

Else I agree. My motto is always... we only need the regulation that is needed, no more, no less.

OpportunityCost said:

It began under Carter and Glass Stegal was passed under Clinton. CRA has been expanded under every President since Carter. If you are going to toss blame around can the partisan bull**** talking points to foist it all off on the mean, evil Republicans.

Click to expand...

I can't believe you need a Canadian to inform you of this, but Clinton was between the two Presidents I named. So how can my quote be partisan, when I also blamed him?

And no, deregulation started under Reagan.

PeteEU said:

On paper yes, in reality no. We have seen it time and time again, where capitalism has failed to regulate it self. Take a look at the crisis we are in now, it is a failure of self regulation in the private sub-prime mortgage market that is the root cause of the crisis. Does government regulation "screw things up"? Sure, but in an imperfect world it is our only way to quickly fix the failures of capitalism.



Capitalism does nothing for the environment or workers. That is its primary problem which has lead to new forms of ideology.. socialism, communism, enviormentalism and so on. Capitalism has one goal.. profit at any cost and with that power and this is what leads it to its own downfall if not regulated (self or government). And since self regulation goes out the window as one of the first in a lazzie-faire regulatory system, then well...



More horse**** based on a text book. In the real world, no amount of self regulation would have stopped using children in mines or factories. The capitalists were earning millions doing it, so why change it? Just because a few children died, so what.. they are replaceable. It was only when government came in and said on behalf of all people... no using children is wrong, that the capitalists changed their tunes. And that was not because they wanted too, but they were forced to do so because of changing political ideologies that threatened their whole business.. aka communism and socialism. There is nothing like a revolution and riots that can "regulate" a capitalist society... but do we really have to go that far to change things for the better?

Listen, capitalism is by far the superior method of doing things. However like everything in life it is far from perfect, and having a lazzie-fair attitude when it comes to regulating it, only spells doom. Time and time again we have seen this, because there is two major flaws in most human beings... power and greed. And if a person can via the lazzie-fair capitalism gain more money and power by doing bad things, then that person will do so. Now you can say that the opposition in capitalism will prevent that (self-regulation), but often the opposition is out of business or/and dead and the power of the one left behind is so huge that people are afraid of him/her. Standard Oil comes to mind. Walmart comes to mind now days in certain geographic areas. Microsoft comes to mind back in the day. Apple comes to mind today.

Lets put this in perspective. Capitalism is like a teenager. Now we can have a lazzie-fair attitude to raising said teenager, and let "society" and "experience" form the teenager over time. Or we can go by the control aspect and ban a teenager for doing things, keep watch and so on. Which one is the best method or is it a mix of the two? But ultimately the parent can and does step in an take control if the teenager gets out of line... those families where parents dont act like parents, we get what... criminals and problem teenagers in larger numbers than families where parents act like parents.

It is no different in the overall economy... let the business run amok in a self regulating environment with no boundaries... and watch that eventually implode. Go the totally opposite way and regulate everything, and you are asking for hurt as well as no one likes to be told what to do all the time. Hence a mix of the two, and often the regulation is brought out of need to fix a problem rather than a preventive measure. So basically.. if it had not been for the abuses and flaws of capitalism, then there was no need for government regulation.

Problem of course comes when corporations own the regulatory arm of government and the regulation is made to prevent competition... it is still capitalism,.. you cant deny that.. but it is a flawed version.

Click to expand...

It goes both ways. Government intervention in business affairs for political gains can also hurt the economy. The issue is that the federal government is allowed to make laws the are entirely too specific. Why do some businesses get tax breaks that others do not? Why are some businesses subsidized and others not? When different industries and business get to play by different rules, the economy stops producing that which it can profit most efficiently. Capitalism is simple. Where there is a demand, there is a market. In this way, capitalism can provide for the needs of everyone, except the poor. And when I say except the poor, I do not mean only the wealthy. It can very well provide for all the needs for the middle class too. A few things the government needs to do for balance, but typically capitalism works best with a small set of simple rules.

If the government was prevented from subsidizing or creating specific taxes, it would be impossible for companies to get an advantage by having a hand in the government. Heavy government regulation will ensure that a few major corporations will run the country and not the citizens, because they will be the ones throwing the money at politicians making sure the regulations favor them. Further, government spending on an industry can help the specific industry, but it creates an imbalance in the markets. It may appear like its helping the economy because the sector that the government is spending in gets larger, but where is that money coming from? Its coming from the sectors that are doing much better. In this way, it causes the public to invest in things that have a low return or in some cases a negative return. Because of that, government intervention almost always limits the economy.

The government had a hand in many of the aspects of this current recession. Fannie Mae was originally a creation of the Federal Government back in 1938. About 90% of all mortgages sold on the secondary market are sold to Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae therefore sets the standards in the lending industry. If Fannie Mae accepts high risk loans, then the banks will make high risk loans knowing that Fannie Mae will buy them. The banks don't care how risky the loan is since they aren't the ones that will suffer the consequences. They just care that the loan meets the standards set by Fannie Mae so they can sell it. If Fannie Mae sets the standard, and the standard they set is good, then there shouldn't be a lending crisis. A few banks that take their own risks might fail, but the industry as a whole should be fine.

As far as your comment on child working, that can be implemented as a general law that covers all industries. So I'm not against child labor laws. There are plenty of good laws that the government can come up with. They just shouldn't be making laws that favor certain individuals or industries.

OpportunityCost said:

Correct a return of 10% plus down and no LTV plus 20 loans ensures some form of equity.

Something that has not been investigated or is being investigated very quietly is that Standard and Poor and Moodys were neck deep in evaluating derivatives and were constantly evaluating them entirely too high for investors to know what they were getting into. Similar to the LIBOR issue, the valuers of the derivatives were hand in hand with the sellers creating misleading valuations.

Click to expand...

I'm not really a finance expert, but it seems to reason if there was a better standard for lending, like the one I stated, and there were no exceptions, the value of mortgage backed securities would be easier to determine. The problem, is that you have subprime loans and loans with all different kinds of payment rules and LTVs. If the standards were more universal, the investors wouldn't have to rely on so heavily on Moody's or Standard and Poor's ratings. The whole problem is that its way too confusing for most investors to figure it out.

Middleground said:

I can't believe you need a Canadian to inform you of this, but Clinton was between the two Presidents I named. So how can my quote be partisan, when I also blamed him?

And no, deregulation started under Reagan.

Click to expand...

You committed a lie of ommision. When you mention only some entities and make sure both of them are republicans you frame the conversation to those two rather than both parties.

As to "starting" under Reagan, no. Jimmy Carter: Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 Remarks on Signing H.R. 4986 Into Law.


I dont care if youre Egyptian,Finnish or Swiss but stop with false narratives and talking points.

OpportunityCost said:

Correct a return of 10% plus down and no LTV plus 20 loans ensures some form of equity.

Something that has not been investigated or is being investigated very quietly is that Standard and Poor and Moodys were neck deep in evaluating derivatives and were constantly evaluating them entirely too high for investors to know what they were getting into. Similar to the LIBOR issue, the valuers of the derivatives were hand in hand with the sellers creating misleading valuations.

Click to expand...

I haven't followed it recently but I think a court in Italy indicted Standard and Poors. It's been a little while since I read about it so I can't remember the particulars but if you're interested it should be fairly easy to find

TheDemSocialist said:

[/FONT][/COLOR]U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector - YouTube

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Welcome to corporatism folks...... Enjoy it while it lasts. We gotta pay for all the mistakes of the capitalistic elite, while we get told its the lazy poor peoples fault... Enjoy it! The coming oligarch! Yayyy!![/FONT]

Click to expand...

You leave out the fact that banks got in trouble in the first place because democrats forced them to give loans to people that didn't qualify. That annoying little fact is always ignored by you socialist types.

OpportunityCost said:

You committed a lie of ommision. When you mention only some entities and make sure both of them are republicans you frame the conversation to those two rather than both parties.

As to "starting" under Reagan, no. Jimmy Carter: Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 Remarks on Signing H.R. 4986 Into Law.


I dont care if youre Egyptian,Finnish or Swiss but stop with false narratives and talking points.

Click to expand...

My original quote:

The banking deregulation that begun under Reagan and continued until Dubya.

How is that omitting Clinton? :screwy

Republic Now! said:

I had never heard that Glass-Steagall prevented subprime loaning. Maybe it prevented the bundling of subprime loans in CDOs, but from my understanding, the method used in the housing crisis was largely criminal anyway.

Click to expand...

It didn't in a direct manner, but it did, in that financial institutions were required to maintain satisfactory CRA ratings in order to have FDIC backing. When financial institutions are required to make a set percentage of loans to higher risk customers, and those loans are implicitly backed up by government, the financial institutions have nothing to lose by doing so. Why do you think we bailed them all out?

Middleground said:

My original quote:

The banking deregulation that begun under Reagan and continued until Dubya.

How is that omitting Clinton? :screwy

Click to expand...

So you should perhaps amend your statement to accurately reflect "Started under Carter, and dramatically exacerbated by Clinton with the repeal of Glass-Steagall"

Truth is that all the finger pointing is rather useless. Republicans and Democrats all had large roles in the problems we currently face. Blaming the other guys isnt going to get the problem fixed. Neither is throwing good money after bad.

VanceMack said:

So you should perhaps amend your statement to accurately reflect "Started under Carter, and dramatically exacerbated by Clinton with the repeal of Glass-Steagall"

Truth is that all the finger pointing is rather useless. Republicans and Democrats all had large roles in the problems we currently face. Blaming the other guys isnt going to get the problem fixed. Neither is throwing good money after bad.

Click to expand...

About the GM bailout: Taxpayer losses tied to auto bailout rise | Fox News

ttwtt78640 said:

About the GM bailout: Taxpayer losses tied to auto bailout rise | Fox News

Click to expand...

Personally I dont buiy in to the 'too big to fail' bs. I think congress should have acted...a few very basic changes. Banks should not be allowed to package and sell loans...you offer them, you sign them, you own them. Banks should have been required to sit down and work out equitable deals with the homeowners that got into the ARMs. Finally...if a bank goes under, the home notes go to the home buyer...free and clear. The incentive would then have been on the bank owners and their investors to clean their **** up quick, fast, and in a hurry with no need for taxpayer involvement. Bush was wrong for introducing the bailout. Obamas bailouts were also wrong. They have put future generations at risk. Hell...we would have been better off taking all of that bailout money and just given it in lump sums to citizens. That at least would have been a natural form of stimulus. Wrong thing to do...but still more effective than what was done.

VanceMack said:

So you should perhaps amend your statement to accurately reflect "Started under Carter, and dramatically exacerbated by Clinton with the repeal of Glass-Steagall"

Truth is that all the finger pointing is rather useless. Republicans and Democrats all had large roles in the problems we currently face. Blaming the other guys isnt going to get the problem fixed. Neither is throwing good money after bad.

Click to expand...

:doh

You complain about finger pointing, yet you do it yourself. Jeepers, y'all, get a freakin' grip. There is plenty of blame to go around, no doubt. I think instead of focussing on past Presidents, maybe your attention should be diverted to your politicans who are nothing more than puppets. Money talks.

Middleground said:

:doh

You complain about finger pointing, yet you do it yourself. Jeepers, y'all, get a freakin' grip. There is plenty of blame to go around, no doubt. I think instead of focussing on past Presidents, maybe your attention should be diverted to your politicans who are nothing more than puppets. Money talks.

Click to expand...

Middle would you please stop with such common sense....your going to confuse all of us even more than we are lol

PeteEU said:

On paper yes, in reality no. We have seen it time and time again, where capitalism has failed to regulate it self.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. When I say "it self-regulates" I do not mean it produces literal regulations. I mean when things are allowed to succeed or fail on their own, that has a regulatory (i.e. economic Darwinian) effect.

Capitalism does nothing for the environment or workers.

Click to expand...

It pays workers, so that's not true.

That is its primary problem which has lead to new forms of ideology.. socialism, communism, enviormentalism and so on. Capitalism has one goal.. profit

Click to expand...

But that's also the goal of all the individual people within any society: self-betterment. More. For me and my family.

In the real world, no amount of self regulation would have stopped using children in mines or factories. The capitalists were earning millions doing it, so why change it? Just because a few children died, so what.. they are replaceable. It was only when government came in and said on behalf of all people... no using children is wrong, that the capitalists changed their tunes.

Click to expand...

That is more a function of a society recognizing an age of consent and abolishing slavery. Why is it whenever we talk about free markets the liberals swing it to the extremes of slavery and anarchy?

Middleground said:

:doh

You complain about finger pointing, yet you do it yourself. Jeepers, y'all, get a freakin' grip. There is plenty of blame to go around, no doubt. I think instead of focussing on past Presidents, maybe your attention should be diverted to your politicans who are nothing more than puppets. Money talks.

Click to expand...

Shocking...the partisan union shill 'liked' your comment... :lamo

The Carter/Clinton post was a gentle 'dig' at your need to bookend your blame with two republicans. Sorry you couldnt see that. You might note that in the very SAME thread I did indeed assign 'blame' squarely where it belongs...on BOTH parties. Of course...if you noted that, it would be hard to maintain the partisan line.

Middleground said:

:doh

You complain about finger pointing, yet you do it yourself. Jeepers, y'all, get a freakin' grip. There is plenty of blame to go around, no doubt. I think instead of focussing on past Presidents, maybe your attention should be diverted to your politicans who are nothing more than puppets. Money talks.

Click to expand...

I have to chuckle at that those that cast blame on Clinton for signing the Republican bill that dismantled the Glass-Steagall Act, and then will turn right around and defend the GOP in their present day efforts to block the reestablishment of the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks.

They obviously don't see the hypocrisy of their position.

sawyerloggingon said:

You leave out the fact that banks got in trouble in the first place because democrats forced them to give loans to people that didn't qualify. That annoying little fact is always ignored by you socialist types.

Click to expand...

Really? "Democrats forced them to give out loans"? This is the time where you back it up with facts..

TheDemSocialist said:

Really? "Democrats forced them to give out loans"? This is the time where you back it up with facts..

Click to expand...

Be glad to. This is just a sample from a site that explains the whole thing, do yourself a favor and check the link out, you may learn something.

"But the Clintons and many other Democrats apparently believed such economic nonsense. To remedy the alleged racism at banks, they strengthened the "anti-redlining" regulations of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had originally been passed during the Carter years, and they instituted an aggressive campaign that forced lenders to abandon their established underwriting criteria and drastically lower their standards to accommodate minorities who would not otherwise qualify for a home loan."

"Key figures in the matter were Attorney General Janet Reno and her Deputy, none other than Eric Holder. They aggressively intimidated banks with threats of prosecution, lawsuits, stiff fines, and regulatory roadblocks to expansion and mergers. They paid little attention to actual lending practices and underwriting criteria, focusing instead on the end results in terms of percentages of minority loans approved. It mattered not whether the lenders were actually discriminating on the basis of race or whether minorities in general simply had worse credit histories (statistics show that they do). It was classic "affirmative action" for home loans."

How Democrats Wrecked the Economy and Successfully Blamed Republicans


Or google it yourself, theres a plethora of sites that go into great detail on this, broaden your horizons.

solletica said:

Bailing out large failed businesses is the prime directive of the GOP

Click to expand...

I didn't know Obama was a Republican? :shock: