Big Government, will you be my Valentine?

Vern · Feb 15, 2014

I found this quite humorous (and timely). I'm sure cons wont get the joke. The butt of jokes usually don't

"
You protect me from terrorists and pathogens and pollution and bigots and foreign armies and racketeers. You enforce a semblance of order in the neighborhood and in the marketplace. You finance stuff that I use all the time, more or less for free: bridges, dams, GPS, federal reserve banks, crash-test dummies (indirectly), and Medicare (soon).

You deliver my mail, plus the odd cruise missile.........

The Homestead Acts lured settlers to the Wild West, a century long land redistribution program … conceived by Republicans.

Pretty ironic, eh? Oh, Big Government, not only does conservative dogma ignore the GOP’s proud history, it ignores some bedrock conservative values—such as, just to name one, law and order. The same folks who demand you frisk loiterers want you to leave oil companies and banks unmolested by tyrannical job-killing measures like, whaddya call them … laws."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_big_government_a_valentine_for_big_gov.html

X Factor · Feb 15, 2014

I don't get it.

ttwtt78640 · Feb 15, 2014

Vern said:
I found this quite humorous (and timely). I'm sure cons wont get the joke. The butt of jokes usually don't

"
You protect me from terrorists and pathogens and pollution and bigots and foreign armies and racketeers. You enforce a semblance of order in the neighborhood and in the marketplace. You finance stuff that I use all the time, more or less for free: bridges, dams, GPS, federal reserve banks, crash-test dummies (indirectly), and Medicare (soon).

You deliver my mail, plus the odd cruise missile.........

The Homestead Acts lured settlers to the Wild West, a century long land redistribution program … conceived by Republicans.

Pretty ironic, eh? Oh, Big Government, not only does conservative dogma ignore the GOP’s proud history, it ignores some bedrock conservative values—such as, just to name one, law and order. The same folks who demand you frisk loiterers want you to leave oil companies and banks unmolested by tyrannical job-killing measures like, whaddya call them … laws."

Why I love big government: A Valentine for Big Gov.

Is the bolded the joke? Does our ever growing federal gov't really make these things happen "for free"?

Slartibartfast · Feb 15, 2014

GPS is freaking awesome.

eohrnberger · Feb 15, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
Is the bolded the joke? Does our ever growing federal gov't really make these things happen "for free"?

Exactly the weakest point here. It's 'free' as long as it doesn't cost personally. Never mind that this really isn't free, but it's always claimed to be free.

As to the GOP's proud history, a time and a place for everything. Currently the government is too big, too expensive, too onerous, and far too interceding and imposing in things it should leave alone, IMHO.

ttwtt78640 · Feb 15, 2014

eohrnberger said:
Exactly the weakest point here. It's 'free' as long as it doesn't cost personally. Never mind that this really isn't free, but it's always claimed to be free.

As to the GOP's proud history, a time and a place for everything. Currently the government is too big, too expensive, too onerous, and far too interceding and imposing in things it should leave alone, IMHO.

A good clue that a big gov't is getting too big is when they dare not ask for taxation sufficient to cover their spending.

eohrnberger · Feb 15, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
A good clue that a big gov't is getting too big is when they dare not ask for taxation sufficient to cover their spending.

Exactly correct. No, Washington DC doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a massive spending problem. Each time the debt ceiling is raised it's a clear indication that this is indeed the case.

MTAtech · Feb 15, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
A good clue that a big gov't is getting too big is when they dare not ask for taxation sufficient to cover their spending.

Those are two thoughts. Are you all for those things the government does as long as we raise taxes to cover them? Or, is government just too darn big? If the latter, what would you cut that would make a meaningful difference?

MTAtech · Feb 15, 2014

Vern said:
I found this quite humorous (and timely). I'm sure cons wont get the joke. The butt of jokes usually don't

"
You protect me from terrorists and pathogens and pollution and bigots and foreign armies and racketeers. You enforce a semblance of order in the neighborhood and in the marketplace. You finance stuff that I use all the time, more or less for free: bridges, dams, GPS, federal reserve banks, crash-test dummies (indirectly), and Medicare (soon).

You deliver my mail, plus the odd cruise missile.........

The Homestead Acts lured settlers to the Wild West, a century long land redistribution program … conceived by Republicans.

Pretty ironic, eh? Oh, Big Government, not only does conservative dogma ignore the GOP’s proud history, it ignores some bedrock conservative values—such as, just to name one, law and order. The same folks who demand you frisk loiterers want you to leave oil companies and banks unmolested by tyrannical job-killing measures like, whaddya call them … laws."

Why I love big government: A Valentine for Big Gov.

If you read the 1956 Republican Platform, you get an idea of how much the current Republican Party has moved to the right. This is one example:

Today's GOP thinks those who created the nation were the rich "job creators." This is what they said in the platform:

Under the Republican Administration, as our country has prospered, so have its people. This is as it should be, for as President Eisenhower said: "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."

Vern · Feb 15, 2014

eohrnberger said:
Exactly correct. No, Washington DC doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a massive spending problem. Each time the debt ceiling is raised it's a clear indication that this is indeed the case.

oh you cons and your delusions. I cant help but laugh. When Bush first destroyed the economy, it was mostly a revenue problem. Now that President Obama has reduced spending every year as % of GDP, its literally only a revenue problem. Someday you cons will have to explain how you think pretending not to know the facts makes something true.

eohrnberger · Feb 15, 2014

Vern said:
oh you cons and your delusions. I cant help but laugh. When Bush first destroyed the economy, it was mostly a revenue problem. Now that President Obama has reduced spending every year as % of GDP, its literally only a revenue problem. Someday you cons will have to explain how you think pretending not to know the facts makes something true.

Oh Vern. Yeah, keep your partisan blinders on, WRT Bush. I'd expect nothing less of you.

Any time a government's taxation revenues are less than it's spending, it's more preferable to reduce spending than increase taxation. Government is, after all, an overhead function, and as such, it needs to live within it's means, like any other fiscal entity, and being an overhead function, it's living off of the productive parts of the economy, and should, by all rights, keep it's taxation demands to the minimum necessary to perform the role, and not one cent more. Better to have that cent spent int he productive part of the economy, rather than the government.

Vern · Feb 15, 2014

eohrnberger said:
Oh Vern. Yeah, keep your partisan blinders on, WRT Bush. I'd expect nothing less of you.

Any time a government's taxation revenues are less than it's spending, it's more preferable to reduce spending than increase taxation. Government is, after all, an overhead function, and as such, it needs to live within it's means, like any other fiscal entity, and being an overhead function, it's living off of the productive parts of the economy, and should, by all rights, keep it's taxation demands to the minimum necessary to perform the role, and not one cent more. Better to have that cent spent int he productive part of the economy, rather than the government.

partisan blinders? oh Eohrn, I see you just as misinformed about debt and deficits as you are the Bush Mortgage Bubble (tell us again how bush tried to stop it). This is priceless.

it's more preferable to reduce spending than increase taxation

really? is that written down somewhere? anyhoo, if cutting spending is better that increased taxation or even better than a blend of spending cuts and tax increases (President Obama's plan) then why did republicans back peddle and finger point about the measly (by republican standards)* 85 billion in cuts from the sequester? No person has yet to explain how republicans screamed for something for 4 years (even when the economy was crashing at -8.3% GDP and losing 700,000 jobs a month) and then couldn't run away fast enough from a measly (by republican standards) 85 billion in spending cuts.

it needs to live within it's means, like any other fiscal entity

Name one corporation you invest in that "lives within its means". See Eohrn, spouting silly conservative ideology isn't really an argument.

* the republican 'argument' against simply letting the Bush tax cuts EXPIRE AS SCHEDULED on the top 2% was "its only 80 billion a year". Are republicans ever not flaiming hypocrites?

eohrnberger · Feb 15, 2014

Vern said:
partisan blinders? oh Eohrn, I see you just as misinformed about debt and deficits as you are the Bush Mortgage Bubble (tell us again how bush tried to stop it). This is priceless.

You and your Bush Derangement Syndrome. Now that's priceless.

Vern said:
really? is that written down somewhere? anyhoo, if cutting spending is better that increased taxation or even better than a blend of spending cuts and tax increases (President Obama's plan) then why did republicans back peddle and finger point about the measly (by republican standards)* 85 billion in cuts from the sequester?

Did they really? Seems to me that there were the ones that took alteration of the administration's suggested sequester off the table for quite some time. Yes, I know, in the end there were some sequester changes in the most recent spending bill, but so be it.

Vern said:
No person has yet to explain how republicans screamed for something for 4 years (even when the economy was crashing at -8.3% GDP and losing 700,000 jobs a month) and then couldn't run away fast enough from a measly (by republican standards) 85 billion in spending cuts.

Sure, make the worst part of the financial collapse the baseline to apply to the entire period. That seems like one heck of a distortion of reality to me. There was one month, maybe 2 that had that level of job losses, and then stabilized out far less. Here, the BLS graph has the trending for you.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

If you note, end of the year '08 and beginning of the year '09 show the 700K job loss that you were referring to. It wasn't the entire period of time there.

Vern said:

Name one corporation you invest in that "lives within its means". See Eohrn, spouting silly conservative ideology isn't really an argument.

Click to expand...

Seems to be that corporations that can't or don't live within their means show their unprofitably, and suffer dire consequences from being unprofitable. You know like stock value loss, lack of market confidence, seriously pissed off stockholders and the like. I think there are more corporations that are living within their means and profitable than not.

Vern said:

* the republican 'argument' against simply letting the Bush tax cuts EXPIRE AS SCHEDULED on the top 2% was "its only 80 billion a year". Are republicans ever not flaiming hypocrites?

Click to expand...

As if Democrats are any less flaming hypocrites. Oh please.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 · Feb 15, 2014

MTAtech said:
Those are two thoughts. Are you all for those things the government does as long as we raise taxes to cover them? Or, is government just too darn big? If the latter, what would you cut that would make a meaningful difference?

From the federal gov't I would cut the entire department of education, half of foreign aid and reduce "safety net" spending to one program that gives no more than 2080 X the minimum wage to any household. I would alter all federal pensions (including the military) such that they start paying only upon disability or at the SS retirement age.

MTAtech · Feb 15, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
From the federal gov't I would cut the entire department of education, half of foreign aid and reduce "safety net" spending to one program that gives no more than 2080 X the minimum wage to any household. I would alter all federal pensions (including the military) such that they start paying only upon disability or at the SS retirement age.

That's what I expected, cutting along the edges. In terms of spending, think of the federal government as a big insurance company with an army. Its major spending is really only in five areas: Defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt. Eliminate all of the Dept. of Ed ($68.4 billion), all of what you call welfare ($59 billion) and all foreign aid ($40 billion/yr.) and you made a drop-in-the-bucket effect to federal spending, which totals $3 trillion. Cutting all three to zero, which nobody wants to do, only lowers spending by $150 billion. Anyone interested in making any serious reduction in federal spending has to talk about cutting the big five, or they don't know what they are talking about.

Vern · Feb 15, 2014

eohrnberger said:
You and your Bush Derangement Syndrome. Now that's priceless.

Oh eohrn, derangement is when you ignore bush’s policies that encouraged, funded and protected the mortgage bubble that started late 2004 and then claim “bush tried to stop it”. Hysterical.

Did they really? Seems to me that there were the ones that took alteration of the administration's suggested sequester off the table for quite some time. Yes, I know, in the end there were some sequester changes in the most recent spending bill, but so be it.

Classic conservative babble. You made absolutely no point. Watch how I do it

Republicans screamed for spending cuts for 4 years
They even wanted spending cuts when the economy was shrinking at -8.3% and losing 700,000 jobs a month (notice I didn’t put a number on the months)
They blocked president Obama’s plan to let the Bush tax cuts EXPIRE AS SCHEDULED for the top 2% because it was too small
Republicans could back peddle and finger point fast enough from blaming President Obama for sequester

Sure, make the worst part of the financial collapse the baseline to apply to the entire period. That seems like one heck of a distortion of reality to me. There was one month, maybe 2 that had that level of job losses, and then stabilized out far less. Here, the BLS graph has the trending for you.
If you note, end of the year '08 and beginning of the year '09 show the 700K job loss that you were referring to. It wasn't the entire period of time there.

Your “baseline” comment is either dishonest or delusional. Read this slowly, republicans screamed for spending cuts for 4 years, even when the economy was losing 700,000 jobs a month. I in no way said or implied the economy was losing 700,000 for 4 years. See how you have to “misparaphrase” what I post to respond to it. I get that a lot from cons. And fyi, there was at least 4 months of 700,000 k job losses a month.

Seems to be that corporations that can't or don't live within their means show their unprofitably, and suffer dire consequences from being unprofitable. You know like stock value loss, lack of market confidence, seriously pissed off stockholders and the like. I think there are more corporations that are living within their means and profitable than not.

Here you prove you have no clue about debt. You equate “having debt” with “not living within their means” and predict “dire consequences”. Practically every company has debt. They call it “leverage”.

As if Democrats are any less flaming hypocrites. Oh please.

You call dems hypocrites. I’ve proven republicans are hypocrites. See the difference? Their backpeddling and fingerpointing about the sequester is just one of many examples. Its why you are trying to distort my clear straight forward posts.

eohrnberger · Feb 16, 2014

Vern said:
Oh eohrn, derangement is when you ignore bush’s policies that encouraged, funded and protected the mortgage bubble that started late 2004 and then claim “bush tried to stop it”. Hysterical.

I suppose you are free to ignore this as well then.

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 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

September: Then-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.

September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)

October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

November: Then-Council 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." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform

As I still maintain, Barney Frank deserves some of the blame, as does Bush, as do a great many people. Your continued sole blaming of Bush is as perfect an example of Bush Derangement Syndrome as I could possibly find.

Vern said:
Classic conservative babble. You made absolutely no point. Watch how I do it

Republicans screamed for spending cuts for 4 years
They even wanted spending cuts when the economy was shrinking at -8.3% and losing 700,000 jobs a month (notice I didn’t put a number on the months)

You are equating that those spending cuts caused those job losses or that not instituting those spending cuts would have saved those jobs. Neither is true. Those 2 things are not related, and I don't see where you have grounds to relate them.

Vern said:
They blocked president Obama’s plan to let the Bush tax cuts EXPIRE AS SCHEDULED for the top 2% because it was too small
Republicans could back peddle and finger point fast enough from blaming President Obama for sequester

The sequester was invented by Obama's administration, Gene Sperling in fact. This is already on the record. Blaming the sequester on Republicans is dishonest. They didn't come up with it. They didn't propose it. The extent that the sequester could be blamed on the Republicans is that they agreed to it, and, to top it all off, they agreed to it with reservations no less.

We’ve earlier written that there are bipartisan fingerprints over the looming defense cuts that Mitt Romney has sought to pin on President Obama. Now, in the final presidential debate, Obama sought to toss the hot potato of sequestration — the process that is forcing those defense cuts and reductions in domestic spending — into Congress’s lap. Fortunately, there is a detailed and contemporaneous look at the debt ceiling deal that led to the current budget crunch: Bob Woodward’s “The Price of Politics.” The book clearly had the full cooperation of top White House and congressional officials. With the help of our colleague, we took a tour through the relevant sections in order to determine the accuracy of the president’s statement.

Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester - The Washington Post

Vern said:
Your “baseline” comment is either dishonest or delusional. Read this slowly, republicans screamed for spending cuts for 4 years, even when the economy was losing 700,000 jobs a month. I in no way said or implied the economy was losing 700,000 for 4 years. See how you have to “misparaphrase” what I post to respond to it. I get that a lot from cons. And fyi, there was at least 4 months of 700,000 k job losses a month.

Here you prove you have no clue about debt. You equate “having debt” with “not living within their means” and predict “dire consequences”. Practically every company has debt. They call it “leverage”.

Companies do have debt. It is not my position that they don't. The debt they carry is well managed within their income / profit.

The question or point here really is whether the federal government has reached that point. Clearly, it isn't a fiscally well managed entity in that their performance is consistent yearly deficits and consistent yearly debt increases. That's not fiscally sustainable, nor fiscally healthy. Spending cuts need to continue until the government is on fiscally sound footing once again, at least not consistent yearly debt increases.

Vern said:
You call dems hypocrites. I’ve proven republicans are hypocrites. See the difference? Their backpeddling and fingerpointing about the sequester is just one of many examples. Its why you are trying to distort my clear straight forward posts.

As demonstrated above, the sequester is not from the Republican. You failed on this point, further you continue to fail with your Bush Derangement Syndrome version of solely blaming Bush for the mortgage bubble and ensuing financial collapse.

One could reasonably propose that the Democratic disowning of of the sequester, and blaming shifting it to the Republicans is a stellar example of how hypocritical Democrats can, and have, been. Don't even have to get to the 'you can keep your plan' and 'you can keep your doctor'.

Vern · Feb 17, 2014

oh eorhn, you make me laugh. The problem with your "bush tried to warn us” quotes is that you ignore the facts to cling to it. Here, read them slowly

A Bush told you there was nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie
B Bush stopped GSE reform (twice)
C Freddie and fannie didn't cause the bush mortgage bubble, lower lending standards did.
D The Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004 (even Bush told you)

see, you can post the quotes over and over but like all cons but you have to pretend not to know that the Bush Mortgage Bubble that started late 2004 because banks lowered their lending standards and Bush not only let them, he encouraged them. Hey, why are you posting your silly quotes in this thread instead of the thread where I proved Bush is the one that stopped reform? Oh, you’re doing that thing that all cons do “pretending something doesn’t exist if you read it in another thread”. Hey, good luck with that.

eohrnberger said:
As I still maintain, Barney Frank deserves some of the blame, as does Bush, as do a great many people.

You “maintain” a lot of things that have no basis in fact. Hey do you still ‘maintain’ that bush simply didn’t try hard enough not to stop the Bush Mortgage Bubble?

You are equating that those spending cuts caused those job losses or that not instituting those spending cuts would have saved those jobs. Neither is true. Those 2 things are not related, and I don't see where you have grounds to relate them.

Look how you ‘maintain’ your delusional spin of what I posted (all cons have to ‘misparaphrase’ what I say because they simply cant respond to the facts). Don’t feel bad, its not your fault, as a con you’ve literally become so dependent on the lies from the right, actual facts now upset you. Your brain tries to protect you from the ‘hurt’ actual facts cause so it causes you not to understand clear straightforward facts. So, let me limit the facts you have to try to understand. Read this slowly over and over until you understand

Republicans called for spending cuts for 4 years but couldn’t run away fast enough from the measly 85 billion in spending cuts.

When you can grasp that fact, get back to me.

eohrnberger · Feb 17, 2014

Vern said:
oh eorhn, you make me laugh.

Well, we'er even on that one. You make me laugh too.

Vern said:

The problem with your "bush tried to warn us” quotes is that you ignore the facts to cling to it. Here, read them slowly

A Bush told you there was nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie
B Bush stopped GSE reform (twice)
C Freddie and fannie didn't cause the bush mortgage bubble, lower lending standards did.
D The Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004 (even Bush told you)

Click to expand...

The two are not mutually exclusive as you pretend them to be. Those warning from the administration were in fact issued. Yes, as you stated, Bush did also have a policy in place that contributed to the mortgage bubble, hence his fair share of blame.

Vern said:

see, you can post the quotes over and over but like all cons but you have to pretend not to know that the Bush Mortgage Bubble that started late 2004 because banks lowered their lending standards and Bush not only let them, he encouraged them.

Click to expand...

And if you trace back just a little bit further, you can see where Clinton with the banking deregulation as well as his overt threat of federal agency investigations and audits of banks that didn't lighten up on lending standards ala the CRA is also part of the record. Of course, since this doesn't fit your world view, you predictably ignore it.

Vern said:

Hey, why are you posting your silly quotes in this thread instead of the thread where I proved Bush is the one that stopped reform? Oh, you’re doing that thing that all cons do “pretending something doesn’t exist if you read it in another thread”. Hey, good luck with that.

Click to expand...

Picking one position at one time to support your point and not looking even a little bit further? Clearly, there's a movement in policy and position from the Bush mortgage you cite to interceding in GSE reform to supporting GSE reform. Of course, since the last movement in the position doesn't fit your narrative, you discard it. Most dishonest.

Vern said:

You “maintain” a lot of things that have no basis in fact. Hey do you still ‘maintain’ that bush simply didn’t try hard enough not to stop the Bush Mortgage Bubble?

Click to expand...

Frank's and Dodd's prevention of GSE reform, as is their continued pushing of the GSE leaders to increase the exposure to toxic mortgages are both on the record. You discard it and ignore it. Not very honest.

Vern said:

Look how you ‘maintain’ your delusional spin of what I posted (all cons have to ‘misparaphrase’ what I say because they simply cant respond to the facts). Don’t feel bad, its not your fault, as a con you’ve literally become so dependent on the lies from the right, actual facts now upset you. Your brain tries to protect you from the ‘hurt’ actual facts cause so it causes you not to understand clear straightforward facts. So, let me limit the facts you have to try to understand. Read this slowly over and over until you understand

Republicans called for spending cuts for 4 years but couldn’t run away fast enough from the measly 85 billion in spending cuts.

When you can grasp that fact, get back to me.

Click to expand...

When you can grasp the fact that the housing bubble is more complex and complicated than 'Bush did it', get back to me. Perhaps you'll even be able to get past your Bush Derangement Syndrome, but from what I've read of your posts, I kinda doubt it. Surprise me.

Vern · Feb 17, 2014

eohrnberger said:
The two are not mutually exclusive as you pretend them to be. Those warning from the administration were in fact issued. Yes, as you stated, Bush did also have a policy in place that contributed to the mortgage bubble, hence his fair share of blame.

Read this slowly, Bush had numerous policies in place that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You cling to silly quotes that only prove bush said something. Stop looking at convenient but out of context quotes and just look at the facts.

And if you trace back just a little bit further, you can see where Clinton with the banking deregulation as well as his overt threat of federal agency investigations and audits of banks that didn't lighten up on lending standards ala the CRA is also part of the record. Of course, since this doesn't fit your world view, you predictably ignore it.

See you're doing it again. You're not only clinging to what lying editorials told you, you're ignoring the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. That's always the first fact cons have to pretend not to know And read this slowly, its not my 'world view'. I posted Bush's working group and the fed telling you it started late 2004. And I posted actual mortgage data to back it up. What you are doing is officially called "wailing and flailing". You cant post an intelligent or factual response so you "wail and flail" at the facts.

Picking one position at one time to support your point and not looking even a little bit further? Clearly, there's a movement in policy and position from the Bush mortgage you cite to interceding in GSE reform to supporting GSE reform. Of course, since the last movement in the position doesn't fit your narrative, you discard it. Most dishonest.

If you are going to call me dishonest, can you do it in a fashion I understand. Your point makes no sense. watch how I do make a clear point

Frank's and Dodd's prevention of GSE reform, as is their continued pushing of the GSE leaders to increase the exposure to toxic mortgages are both on the record. You discard it and ignore it. Not very honest

See how you once again post something that has no basis in fact. And you simply doubled down on your delusion by saying "frank and Dodd" instead of just "Frank". Lets look at the facts you have ignore to cling to your delusions
A Bush stopped reform
B republicans controlled congress

Yea, I stopped you from posting the completely dishonest "democratically controlled congress" in the other thread. But you still post your silly delusions based on it. here's an actual example of Bush "pushing of the GSE leaders to increase the exposure to toxic mortgages " (see how I back up my points)

"•Substantially increase by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market;"

Homeownership Policy Book - Executive Summary

Yes that's Bush bragging he got Freddie and Fannie to buy 440 billion MBS in the secondary market. So lets add that to the documented facts you have to ignore to cling to your delusions
Bush stopped reform
Bush forced Freddie and fannie to buy more low income home loans
Bush reversed the Clinton rule that 'reined in' Freddie and fannie.

Why don't you read Bush's executive summary on housing. And don't think I didn't notice the way you cowardly ran away from "Republicans called for spending cuts for 4 years but couldn’t run away fast enough from the measly 85 billion in spending cuts. " after you dishonestly tried to "misparaphrase" it.

Vern · Feb 18, 2014

eohrn, where'd you go. I stripped down my point, I thought that would clear up the confusion you were having. Here it is again

"Republicans called for spending cuts for 4 years but couldn’t run away fast enough from the measly 85 billion in spending cuts. "

Vern · Feb 14, 2015

Happy Valentine's Day

Big Government, will you be my Valentine?

Vern

back from Vegas

X Factor

Anti-Socialist

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.

eohrnberger

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

eohrnberger

MTAtech

MTAtech

Vern

back from Vegas

eohrnberger

Vern

back from Vegas

eohrnberger

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

MTAtech

Vern

back from Vegas

eohrnberger

Vern

back from Vegas

eohrnberger

Vern

back from Vegas

Vern

back from Vegas

Vern

back from Vegas