View Poll Results: Who would you rather have as president?

Voters
59. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hillary Clinton

    19 32.20%
  • Elizabeth Warren

    40 67.80%
Page 20 of 42 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 420

Thread: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton[W:336]

  1. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    05-04-15 @ 04:39 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,422

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    No, it actually wasn't. My post had nothing to do with Bush, who you mentioned in your post.

    Do you have anything to add about Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton?
    Sorry , your premise on SEVERAL posts here say regulations/regulators aren't needed. Clearly you are wrong. I pointed out Bankster free to wheek and deal aided and abetted by weak regulatory oversight in the US under Bush, allowed this to happen. If you decide to continue to bury your head to FACTS, I can't help you

    BTW, Policy has consequences, thus BUUUSSSSHHHHHH was brought up. Despite right wingers amnesia of 2001-20098

  2. #192
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,550
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by dad2three2001 View Post
    +

    You'll hang onto the MYTH that the subprime crisis was ANYTHING other than Bush ignoring regulator warnings that started in 2004 (like Reagan did with the S&L crisis that had begun in 1984)? Weird


    The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


    Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Oxley pulls Fannie, Freddie bill under heat from Bush - MarketWatch



    STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

    The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

    George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

    Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers".


    Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform



    Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


    June 17, 2004

    (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

    Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


    ANYTHING OTHER THAN PEOPLE SEEING BUSH IGNORING REGULATOR WARNINGS AND PUSHED HIS REGULATORS TO IGNORE THE WARNINGS IS JUST DISHONEST

    Nice historical rewrite. Here's another version:

    . . . .Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces most recently, in yesterday's paper detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.
    Bush's first budget, written in 2001 seven years ago called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
    In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry sincethe savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.
    "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. . . .

    . . . .In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.

    Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."
    Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.
    RealClearMarkets - Don't Blame Bush for Subprime Mess
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  3. #193
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,550
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Ideally, a bank or lender should advise borrows of the risks of the loan they're taking, not prey upon their ignorance and suck them into an inescapable situation. It's not Warren's job to tell people how to spend or save their money.
    Well she seems to think it is her job to control the financial institutions of America. And I think you are missing the point that she seems to think the government can underwrite the irresponsible quite nicely and seems to have no interest in writing regulation to accommodate the responsible instead of the irresponsible.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  4. #194
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Well she seems to think it is her job to control the financial institutions of America. And I think you are missing the point that she seems to think the government can underwrite the irresponsible quite nicely and seems to have no interest in writing regulation to accommodate the responsible instead of the irresponsible.
    You're not thinking pragmatically. The problem exists, whether people were irresponsible, foolish, or retarded. Do you want another economic collapse caused by the exact same problem, or do you want sensible regulations that fix it?

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    05-04-15 @ 04:39 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,422

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Nice historical rewrite. Here's another version:

    . . . .Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.
    Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
    In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry sincethe savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.
    "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. . . .

    . . . .In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.

    Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."
    Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.
    RealClearMarkets - Don't Blame Bush for Subprime Mess
    WEIRD, YOUR LINK SAYS

    'Bush's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, warned: "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole." He too proposed reforms, and they too went nowhere.'

    WHY DID BUSH DO THIS THEN

    'June 17, 2004

    Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

    Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


    "(In 2000, CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

    How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

    "In 2004 9BUSH) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

    http://business.gwu.edu/creua/resear...ie-freddie.pdf


    SO THE DEMS ARE TO BLAME BECAUSE THE GOP COULDN'T BRING UP A VOTE IN 2005 ON A WATERED DOWN GSE REFORM BILL THAT PASSED WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE? WEIRD

    Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.


    OOPS

    OH RIGHT THAT WAS THE DEMS FAULT *shaking head*

    Freddie Mac's Secret Plan To Kill Reform - CBS News

    One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


    Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform.

    The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

    “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

    Oxley was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress


    TIMELINE:

    The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


    Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


    http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/to...Disaster_0.pdf



    OOPS

  6. #196
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    05-04-15 @ 04:39 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,422

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Nice historical rewrite. Here's another version:

    . . . .Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.
    Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
    In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry sincethe savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.
    "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. . . .

    . . . .In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.

    Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."
    Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.
    RealClearMarkets - Don't Blame Bush for Subprime Mess
    Weird Bush couldn't get passed in the GOP Congress 2001-2007 GSE reform he 'wanted' right?

    2003-2005

    STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
    The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

    George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

    Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"


    READ THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN...

    DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

    Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

    Bush Increasing Homeownership

    He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

    Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

    And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down


    Thanks again to the Bush administrations allowing the greedy & unethical brokers to operate at their will.

  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    05-04-15 @ 04:39 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,422

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    You're not thinking pragmatically. The problem exists, whether people were irresponsible, foolish, or retarded. Do you want another economic collapse caused by the exact same problem, or do you want sensible regulations that fix it?
    We elect those that don't 'believe in' regulations or regulators then are shocked when the Banksters hose US?

    Reagan ignored warnings on the S&L crisis that began in 1984 that would have stopped 90%+ oh his crisis

    Bush ignored FBI warnings that started in 2004 and ALLOWED the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US



    Regulations without those in the executive branch to enforce them, is basically useless, IMO

    Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

    BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

    Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR

    “When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/bu...pagewanted=all

    The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
    '
    William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

  8. #198
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    05-04-15 @ 04:39 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,422

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Nice historical rewrite. Here's another version:

    . . . .Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.
    Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
    In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry sincethe savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.
    "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. . . .

    . . . .In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.

    Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."
    Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.
    RealClearMarkets - Don't Blame Bush for Subprime Mess
    Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae

    In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.

    Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005.


    In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

    WEIRD FRIST WOULDN'T CALL FOR A VOTE RIGHT? DEMS FAULT? lol

    Freddie Mac Tried to Kill Republican Regulatory Bill in 2005 | Fox News


    Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.

  9. #199
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by dad2three2001 View Post
    Sorry , your premise on SEVERAL posts here say regulations/regulators aren't needed. Clearly you are wrong. I pointed out Bankster free to wheek and deal aided and abetted by weak regulatory oversight in the US under Bush, allowed this to happen. If you decide to continue to bury your head to FACTS, I can't help you

    BTW, Policy has consequences, thus BUUUSSSSHHHHHH was brought up. Despite right wingers amnesia of 2001-20098
    Actually, no, I never said that regulations aren't needed, in fact, I never implied it, and I never mentioned regulators to say they aren't needed. I was talking about the CFPB, which has nothing to do with Bush, and everything to do with Elizabeth Warren, who is one of the 2 subjects of this thread.

  10. #200
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    05-04-15 @ 04:39 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,422

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Actually, no, I never said that regulations aren't needed, in fact, I never implied it, and I never mentioned regulators to say they aren't needed. I was talking about the CFPB, which has nothing to do with Bush, and everything to do with Elizabeth Warren, who is one of the 2 subjects of this thread.

    Squishy narrative, that's what YOU are. Your entire premise was people aren't stupid and don't need someone between them and the Banksters. Honesty, try it once!

Page 20 of 42 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •