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

Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

Was it Ever?

  • Total voters
    28
Boo Radley said:
There are proper reasons for wanting more Americans to become homeowners.
Click to expand...
Want whatever you like, but it's wrong to use government to try and acheive such a goal. Hint, that's why it backfired in every important way.
 
Boo Radley said:
We agree it si not a party specific problem, and that there is little to no difference between the parties. However, I think you put too much, and I would call it partisan, emphasis on Frank. There are proper reasons for wanting more Americans to become homeowners.
Click to expand...

I would love for the blind to see also.

We completely tossed aside standards that have been in place for decades. Look, I have no problem with wanting to see more people put into houses. My first house was bought through FHA. Frank knew things were out of control though. We had commissions and hearings on the mess long before the collapse. Frank stood up and insisted that all is well. So one of two things happened there. He is either incompetant or he simply didn't care.

Now, Bush had to know all of this also. He had to. He was too busy in the middle east and making sure that was financed to care about this problem at home. No this does not all fall on the shoulders of Frank but he was the face of the program. We then allowed him and Dodd (who was as responsible) to write the legislation that was supposed to fix these problems (they have done nothing of the sort).

Bush and Dodd are gone.
 
1Perry said:
I would love for the blind to see also.

We completely tossed aside standards that have been in place for decades. Look, I have no problem with wanting to see more people put into houses. My first house was bought through FHA. Frank knew things were out of control though. We had commissions and hearings on the mess long before the collapse. Frank stood up and insisted that all is well. So one of two things happened there. He is either incompetant or he simply didn't care.

Now, Bush had to know all of this also. He had to. He was too busy in the middle east and making sure that was financed to care about this problem at home. No this does not all fall on the shoulders of Frank but he was the face of the program. We then allowed him and Dodd (who was as responsible) to write the legislation that was supposed to fix these problems (they have done nothing of the sort).

Bush and Dodd are gone.
Click to expand...

I'm not excusing Frank for his insistance. It is more your view of his motives.

Nor was this the whole of the problem. There were many giving subprime mortages that were not associated with the government. :eek:ok around you, many have found away to take advantage of the poor, lower income people with poor credit. Putting the full blame ona government program is a mistake.
 
Mach said:
Want whatever you like, but it's wrong to use government to try and acheive such a goal. Hint, that's why it backfired in every important way.
Click to expand...

They didn't have to, there were plenty of subprime lenders outside the government.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not excusing Frank for his insistance. It is more your view of his motives.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that some of his motives were good. So were Bush's IMO with the war in Iraq but both allowed that to get away from them. They allowed things to try and keep the lid on that are unexcusable.

Nor was this the whole of the problem. There were many giving subprime mortages that were not associated with the government. :eek:ok around you, many have found away to take advantage of the poor, lower income people with poor credit. Putting the full blame ona government program is a mistake.
Click to expand...

I don't blame one government program. What have we been talking about the last day? G.S. fraud and why we are not doing anything about it. But that does come back to the governments failure in enforcing their own laws.
 
Mach said:
Why not blame the big finance banks, like Goldman, in addition to the fed (formerly Greenspan) then, since you noted they were a big part of the issue? You have to blame them first, then seek to get backing by one or both political parties on the issue. If you simply blame both political parties, that makes neither have to change any behavior, since it becomes a moot point.

I mean that to us all, not so much you...beause you're right about some of the causes, but we all screw up when it comes to how to fix it (including government).
Click to expand...

It should make both have to change. It is important to understand the all problems and not simply choose a political side.
 
Boo Radley said:
They didn't have to, there were plenty of subprime lenders outside the government.
Click to expand...

That would not have been there if they were forced to hold these loans.
 
1Perry said:
I don't doubt that some of his motives were good. So were Bush's IMO with the war in Iraq but both allowed that to get away from them. They allowed things to try and keep the lid on that are unexcusable.
Click to expand...


Good? Not sure I can either's were good. I simple say there are valid reasons for wanting more home ownership (think It's Wonderful Life).

I don't blame one government program. What have we been talking about the last day? G.S. fraud and why we are not doing anything about it. But that does come back to the governments failure in enforcing their own laws.
Click to expand...

I think when we started you singled out F&F as the culprits, But I see us closer than being far apart.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think when we started you singled out F&F as the culprits, But I see us closer than being far apart.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what I said but you can't generally take one statement out of full context and come to a conclusion. I still can not figure out why we are not insisting that the government force these bad loans back onto G.S.
 
1Perry said:
I'm not sure what I said but you can't generally take one statement out of full context and come to a conclusion. I still can not figure out why we are not insisting that the government force these bad loans back onto G.S.
Click to expand...

My best guess, is as noted, they have too many on government with ties to these companies.
 
Our agreeing must have killed this topic. I guess agreeing on something isn't good for business.
 
1Perry said:
Our agreeing must have killed this topic. I guess agreeing on something isn't good for business.
Click to expand...

Seldom is. Look at our political entertainers. They're doing well. ;)
 
1Perry said:
Our agreeing must have killed this topic. I guess agreeing on something isn't good for business.
Click to expand...

I thought the topic was "Was a Big Deal Ever Possible" ? My Answer was "NO" the big deal or for that matter would any deal R or D solve the debt problem
 
it's looking like it will be exceedingly difficult to find any deal that is possible. I wonder if a big one would actually be easier than a little one since both sides could declare victory. a BBA for the revenue increases Boehner agreed to before the President reneged?
 
cpwill said:
it's looking like it will be exceedingly difficult to find any deal that is possible. I wonder if a big one would actually be easier than a little one since both sides could declare victory. a BBA for the revenue increases Boehner agreed to before the President reneged?
Click to expand...

Boehner and the republicans never negotiated in good faith, they intended from the start to take the country into default. It's time for President Obama to use section 4 of the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling
 
If the Tea Party didn't exist, I think a deal could've been brokered.

You can't make deals when someone says they'll never make a deal with you.

Can I ask this? If Boehner knows that the Senate won't pass his bill and that Obama won't sign it, the ONLY reason for passing it for political points, right?

So, you cannot feasibly argue that he is doing anything but trying to achieve political points. If he wanted to solve the problem, he'd craft a bill that could pass both houses and get signed. He could easily get a bill through the House if he would abandon the Republicans who abandoned him and instead ask the Democrats for something they'd be willing to vote on. But instead of being Speaker of the House, he is being Spokesmodel for the Republican Party.

That said, I think he was forced into it by the most-appropriately-named-ever freshmen class.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
If the Tea Party didn't exist, I think a deal could've been brokered.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's good they exist. There will be a deal but it will be different than the one we would have seen without them.

You can't make deals when someone says they'll never make a deal with you.
Click to expand...

You are speaking about Obama right?

Can I ask this? If Boehner knows that the Senate won't pass his bill and that Obama won't sign it, the ONLY reason for passing it for political points, right?
Click to expand...

What would be the reason for not signing it then?
 
1Perry said:
Which is why it's good they exist. There will be a deal but it will be different than the one we would have seen without them.



You are speaking about Obama right?



What would be the reason for not signing it then?
Click to expand...

Likely worse. The Tea Party IMHO has not been good for anything. Anger is not a movement, and they are too incoherent, contradictatory, and silly to really be positive.
 
EarlzP said:
Boehner and the republicans never negotiated in good faith, they intended from the start to take the country into default. It's time for President Obama to use section 4 of the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling
Click to expand...

I agree, he should use his emergency powers to protect the nation's fragile recovery. Just heard on the news today that 401K's have already taken a hit on average of $4,300 because of the GOP's self-induced crisis.
 
EarlzP said:
Boehner and the republicans never negotiated in good faith, they intended from the start to take the country into default. It's time for President Obama to use section 4 of the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling
Click to expand...

what BS. Republicans have now passed two measures to raise the debt ceiling and Boehner and Reid took the President a third plan which he rejected. The only actor in this that has refused everything and deliberately killed every deal he was offered was the President.

Even Reid is reportedly furious with his complete detachment on this issue.
 
Reid's plan includes bigger spending cuts than Boehner's plan.
 
Boo Radley said:
Likely worse. The Tea Party IMHO has not been good for anything. Anger is not a movement, and they are too incoherent, contradictatory, and silly to really be positive.
Click to expand...

Everybobdy should be angry. It's amazing that they aren't. So tell me. You aren't angry that you are going to be paying for Goldman Sachs fraud while they continue to rake in record profits?
 
cpwill said:
what BS. Republicans have now passed two measures to raise the debt ceiling and Boehner and Reid took the President a third plan which he rejected. The only actor in this that has refused everything and deliberately killed every deal he was offered was the President.

Even Reid is reportedly furious with his complete detachment on this issue.
Click to expand...

The republican party has not offered a compromise bill that could pass both houses, they have brokered bills that would further erode the middle class, in fact they are in a win win win position unless President Obama uses the section 4 of the 14th amendment to stop them. If he signs the bill they brokered he will have turned his own voter contingency against the democratic party, if he does not Boehmer and his lot can blame him for the default, the rise in interest rates can only help those who have money to invest to begin with.

Fortunately I think the poor, the middle class and seniors have a longer memory then the republicans give them credit for so continue to hold our earned benefits hostage and suffer the consequences in 2012

In my opinion President Obama and the dems have already given up too much and need to get tough with the carpet baggers opps I mean tea baggers running the republican party
 
EarlzP said:
The republican party has not offered a compromise bill that could pass both houses, they have brokered bills that would further erode the middle class, in fact they are in a win win win position unless President Obama uses the section 4 of the 14th amendment to stop them. If he signs the bill they brokered he will have turned his own voter contingency against the democratic party, if he does not Boehmer and his lot can blame him for the default, the rise in interest rates can only help those who have money to invest to begin with.
Click to expand...

I'm missing what plan the Dems have offered up that can pass both houses. Now it seems that both did have the basis for a plan but Obama dismissed it.

Fortunately I think the poor, the middle class and seniors have a longer memory then the republicans give them credit for so continue to hold our earned benefits hostage and suffer the consequences in 2012
Click to expand...

Many seniors would benefit from a bump in interest rates.
 
1Perry said:
I'm missing what plan the Dems have offered up that can pass both houses. Now it seems that both did have the basis for a plan but Obama dismissed it.



Many seniors would benefit from a bump in interest rates.
Click to expand...

How about the talks between President Obama and Speaker Boehner that Boehner walked out on, how about the talks between the gang of six that the republicans walked out on how about the talks between Reid and McConnell that McConnell walked out on. The republicans never negotiated in good faith and never intended to, This has never been about the budget or deficits it has always been about who would control the government big business or We The People.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom