Conservative Conundrum 2014 [W:215]

sangha said:

Sorry, but there's only one party that not only denies evolution, but runs their science-deniers for president.

Didn't you notice how only one of the two major parties ran presidential candidates that, with one exception (ie Huntsman) don't believe in evolution, and he was the one who did the worst in the primaries?

Didn't you notice that only one of the two major parties ran a VP candidate who accused the other side of being "pals" with terrorists, of being a muslim *and* a radical christian?

Did you not notice that only one of the two major parties ran a VP that accused the other of wanting "death panels" to deny grandma of needed medical care?

Tell me again about how "both parties" did that?

Click to expand...

One could list a bunch of atheist stuff for the Democrats, but I will not lower myself to that. I suppose I will just be basically a third party non-entity while Republicans and Democrats slit each others throats and in the process destroy this nation. Enjoy.

sangha said:

Sorry, but there's only one party that not only denies evolution, but runs their science-deniers for president.

Didn't you notice how only one of the two major parties ran presidential candidates that, with one exception (ie Huntsman) don't believe in evolution, and he was the one who did the worst in the primaries?

Didn't you notice that only one of the two major parties ran a VP candidate who accused the other side of being "pals" with terrorists, of being a muslim *and* a radical christian?

Did you not notice that only one of the two major parties ran a VP that accused the other of wanting "death panels" to deny grandma of needed medical care?

Tell me again about how "both parties" did that?

Click to expand...

"only one party that not only denies evolution" - That's an overly broad brush I think. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that some of those that deny evolution are part of the party? Where is it in the party platform to deny evolution? Because I don't think that it's in there.

"but runs their science-deniers for president" - Which one would that be?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-
In 1992, under the leadership of Democrat James Johnson, Fannie and Freddie were given a NEW Affordable Housing Mandate. ( in Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 ) which was enforced through HUD ( Housing Urban Development ) regulations by placing them under a Quota System which started at 30%

The GSE's percentage of sub-prime or "Alt-A" loans prior to 1992, were under 10%.

But on its own this new "Affordable Lending" policy wasn't enough to increase loan opportunity to the millions of "disadvantaged" Americans with poor credit, questionable work history and no collateral, so the Democrats set off to manufacture the massive False Narrative of " discrimination in lending.

In 1992, at the direction of the Clinton adminisitration the Boston Fed published a highly flawed study called " Closing the Gap ", which gave legitimacy to the charges that banks were discrimination based on the color of their lenders skin. It also offered measures for addressing this made up narrative which included loosening income thresholds for receiving a mortgage, and using government policy to influence the standards that had kept Lenders solvent for decades.
http://www.bostonfed.org/commdev/closing-the-gap/

Private analyst and at least one FDIC economist found embarrassing mistakes in the data used by the Boston FED. The Boston FED study didn't take into account relevent information like the applicants prior denials, his net worth, his debt burden and his employment records. It also failed to verify the integrity of the information submitted by the applicants.

In 1994, the 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" was entered into the Federal Register by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending, which was the Agnecy created by Clinton to address suspected "redlining" and discrimination.

"The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form," the document warned financial institutions.

At the Clinton administrations dircection, 10 Federal agencies set out to enforce the new standards set forth by the Clinton administartion which included easing the credit restrictions for low income and minority lenders or face DOJ investigations for lending discrimination. Lenders were also threatened with denial of access to the Secondary Markets.

"HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices,"

In 1994, The Riegle Neal Act tied a banks CRA score directly to the abillity to expand accross state lines and merge with other banks.

Perotista said:

One could list a bunch of atheist stuff for the Democrats, but I will not lower myself to that. I suppose I will just be basically a third party non-entity while Republicans and Democrats slit each others throats and in the process destroy this nation. Enjoy.

Click to expand...

Feel free to go right ahead and list all of the things that Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates from the DNC has said that is not just contrary to science but also contrary to sanity.

Or feel free to run away from your claim that "both sides do that"

eohrnberger said:

"only one party that not only denies evolution" - That's an overly broad brush I think. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that some of those that deny evolution are part of the party?

Click to expand...

Since the evolution-deniers are the GOP's presidential candidates, it is not an overly broad brush.

But I'll note that you did not even try to address my point - that while both sides have their extremists, only the GOP has extremists as their leading candidates for President and VP.

"Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible," it said. "In addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible."

The FDIC warned banks that even UNINTENTIONAL Discrimination would be prosecuted. The FDIC advised banks to be PROACTIVE in making "multicultural" loans. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," they warned.

The threat of DOJ prosecution was real and even the American Bankers Association issued a "fair-lending tool kit" to every member. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America signed a "fair-lending" contract with HUD. So did Countrywide.

"The Department of Justice is authorized to use the full range of its enforcement authority."

In 1998 Attorney General Janet Reno bragged in a speech about her 13 succesful lawsuites against lenders and one against NationWide Insurance for discriminatory actions against minority lenders.

In 1998, HUD settled with ACUBank for 2.1 Billion dollars. The claim that lenders weren't forced is of course a lie. If Lenders were sincerely discriminating on the basis of color, and NOT lending to minorities, then WHY did they have to lower standards to fight it ?

The truth is the innate Free Market Lending Standards that had kept the primary and secondary markets stable for decades were deemed " racist " by the Clinton administration.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The Corruption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.



In 1994, the Chairman of Fannie Mae, James Johnson commited 1 TRILLION Dollars in " Targeted Home Loans".
FANNIE MAE CHAIRMAN JIM JOHNSON SAYS $1 TRILLION COMMITMENT IS ON TARGET AND IS TRANSFORMING FANNIE MAE AND THE AMERICAN MORTGAGE FINANCE INDUSTRY - Free Online Library

Clintons long list of executive orders comprised in his 1995 National Homeownership Strategy set a new HUD affordable lending goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"In 1994, at the President’s request, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began work to develop a National Homeownership Strategy with the goal of lifting the overall homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the end of the year 2000. While the most tangible goal of the National Homeownership Strategy was to raise the overall homeownership rate, in presenting the strategy HUD pointed explicitly to declines in homeownership rates among low-income, young, and minority households as motivation for these efforts." - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research

"At the request of President Clinton, HUD is working with dozens of national leaders in government and the housing industry to implement the National Homeownership Strategy, an unprecedented public-private partnership to increase homeownership to a record-high level over the next 6 years." - Urban Policy Brief Number 2, August 1995

HUD's 1996-2000 GSE Goals...
http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/AREUEA_Presentation.pdf

HUD established the GSEs’ housing goals for 1996-99 on December 1, 1995, and these
goals continued in effect for 2000, as follows:

The low- and moderate-income (LM) goal: at least 40 percent of the dwelling units
financed by each GSE had to be for LM families in 1996, and the goal rose to 42 percent
for 1997-2000.

The special affordable (SA) goal: at least 12 percent of the units financed by each GSE
had to be for SA families in 1996, and the goal rose to 14 percent for 1997-2000.

The underserved areas (UA) goal: at least 21 percent of the units financed by each GSE
had to be for families in UAs in 1996, and the goal rose to 24 percent for 1997-2000.

The special affordable multifamily (SAMF) subgoals: for each year 1996-2000, Freddie
Mac had to finance at least $0.99 billion in special affordable multifamily housing, and Fannie Mae had to finance at least $1.29 billion.

From 1993 to 1998 Clinton appointed his Democrat buddies to the Executive and chair positions at the two GSE's including Franklin Raines, who was at the the center of the 2004 SEC investigation into Fannie Maes corrupt accounting scam.

It also included Jamie Gorelick who in 2000 at a banking conference beseeched lenders to sell Fannie Mae their CRA loans...
"We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals. "We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities."

Jamie Gorelick characterized CRA firendly loanswith a 3% or less down payment and that were made using "flexible underwriting" methods. So much for CRA not being Sub-prime.

Clintons 1995 CRA changes also required lenders to be scored by Federal regulators on their CRA commitments. Those scores were then published so that Community Activist groups like ACORN could target them for " racist lending pracitices".

In 1995 The Chicago Sun ran this add from ACORN....

"‘You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.'

In 2000, the Senate Banking Committee estimated that community groups such as ACORN and La Raza had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries stemming from Clintons 1995 CRA changes.

By 1997, Fannie Mae was offering to buy 97% loan-to-value (LTV) mortgages

In November of 1998, " Freddie Mac helped First Union Capital Markets and Bear Stearns & Co launch the first publicly available securitization of CRA loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. All carried a Freddie Mac guarantee as to timely interest and principal. First Union was not a subprime lender "

In 1999 the New York Times ran this article detailing Clintons plans to further push Fannie and Freddie into the Sub-prime markets...


" In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders."


"These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans."


http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/bu...e-lending.html

In 1999, Andrew Cuomo commited the two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 TRILLION in mortgages over 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families.


President Clinton comment on Cuomo's new GSE iniative : "During the last six and a half years, my Administration has put tremendous emphasis on promoting homeowners and making housing more affordable for all Americans. Our housing programs and institutions have been a success. Today, the homeownership rate is at an all-time high, with more than 66 percent of all American families owning their homes. Today, we take another significant step. Raising the GSEs goals will help us generate increased momentum in addressing the nation's housing needs. I congratulate HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo and the entire HUD team on their efforts in this important area."

In 2000 HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo raised the GSE Quota to 50%

"We believe that there are a lot of loans to black Americans that could be safely purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if these companies were more flexible."


Also under Cuomo's tenure as HUD Chairman Fannie Mae developed a "flexible" product line, providing up to 100 percent financing and requiring borrowers to make as little as a $500 contribution, and bought $13.7 billion of those loans in 2003.


HUD Archives: Cuomo Announces Action to Provide $2.4 Trillion in Mortgages for Affordable Housing for 28.1 Million Families


As early as 2001 the Bush administration was sounding the alarm on the two Demcrat controlled and defended GSE's. The Bush administration also fired Fannies Clinton appointed auditor, Arthur Anderson and hired Price Waterhouse Cooper.

Arthur Anderson was ENRONs auditor.

For all those Libs and misinformed posters that said Bush and the Republicans did nothing ? Here's a timeline..that starts with a warning from 1992..

October 1992 Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, warned about the impending danger nonregulated GSEs posed. He worried that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were changing "from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few."Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., countered that "the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans."


" 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. "


In May of 2002 another Bush administration call for disclosure into the accounting of the two GSEs.." The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. " (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)


In January 2003 Freddie Mac announces it had to restate its financial goals for the previous 3 years.


In February of the same year , Fannies Regulator, the OFHEO The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining to investors that the implicit Governmet guarantee of Fannie and Freddie could lead to the spread of unexpected problems that reach beyond the Housing Market.


(Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03).

In September, Fannie Mae discloses that they are currently under investigation by the SEC and they acknowlecdged that their regulators review found earnings manipulations.


In October, Fannie Mae discloses a $1.2 billion accounting error.


In February of 2004, The President’s FY05 Budget againhighlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator. " (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)


The Democrats response to the Bush administrations multiple calls for new regulatory action on Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac ?


A Letter that was sent to Bush signed by 72 Democrats ......


" We have been concerned that the Administration's legislative proposal regarding the GSEs would weaken affordable housing perfonnance by the GSEs, by emphasizing only safety and soundness. While the GSEs' affordable housing mission is not in any way incompatible with their safety and soundness, an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing.

We have been led to conclude that the Administration does not appreciate the importance of the GSEs mission

GSE's affordable housing mission, as. evidenced by its refusal to work with the House and Senate on this important legislation. It now appears that, because Congress has not been willing to jeopardize the GSE's mission, the Administration has turned to attacking the GSEs publicly."

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/fil...ic-reality.pdf


Also in 2004, Barney Frank recieved a letter from Fannies regulator, the OFHEO, stating that the two GSEs were seriously under cpaitalized and that Fannie Mae would be declaring a 9 Billion dollar loss.

In 2004, the SEC started their investigation into Fannie Maes improper accounting techniques.


Office of the Chief Accountant Issues Statement on Fannie Mae Accounting


In 2006 they posted their findings and reported that Fannie Mae would be fined 400 Million dollars for Acounting Fraud.


"The conduct of Mr. Raines, CFO Timothy Howard, and other members of the inner circle of senior executives at Fannie Mae was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity," the report said. "Those individuals engaged in improper earnings management in order to generate unjustified levels of compensation for themselves and other executives."


That fraud netted Clinton Appointee Franklin Raines over 50 Million in bonus's.


https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litre...06/lr19710.htm


The SEC filings and subsequent investigation found evidence of extensive fraud at Fannie Mae.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052300184.html

Their report indicated that the Senior executives were misreporting Billions in Securities so they could meet their executive bonus targets but in addition they were misrepresenting the value of Fannie Maes collateral and debt. Since they were the primary consumer of Sub-prime loans and securities backed by Sub-prime loans they manipulated the entire Sub-prime Backed Securities market.


There were two legislative attempts to reign in the two bloated and corrupted GSEs. The House bill HR1461in 2004 , and the Senate Bill SB190 in 2005.


I've debated with Liberals before who like to bring up the fact that Bush shot down HR1461, but there was a good reason.


The bill expanded the maximum loan amount allowed by the GSE as Fannie Mae looked to expand into the "Jumbo Market " It set up a affordable housing slush fund, which the GSEs controlled and it contained language that could lead to a third party Regulator being put off for a year.


In 2005 Senate Bill ( SB190 ) Made it through a Republican chaired Commitee with zero Democrat Support. With only 55 seats in the Senate the Republicans needed 5 Democrats to step up to make the Bill Filibuster proof.


During the Bush administration the Democrats were using the "Rule 22 " Fillibuster with regularity. The Senate Rule 22 Fillibuster allows any one Senator to stop a piece of opposition legislation just by threat alone.


Democrats on the Senate Banking commitee were voicing their opposition to the bill. On May 5, 2006, they wrote an open letter to Senate leadership that began, “We are concerned that if effective regulatory legislation for the housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”


The Bill never made it to the Senate floor and was pulled so it could be re-submitted. In 2007 the Bill was re-submitted as SB1100 to a Democrat chaired committee. It never made it out of that committee.

Perotista said:

You are a prime example of my party is always right and the other party is always wrong. Enough said and sorry I took some of your time away from you. When one thinks as you do, one can never have an intelligent conversation. Bye.

Click to expand...

deflect deflect deflect whine insult cut and run. great plan pero. However concerning your insult of me, I post clear straight forward factual posts. To put me in the same category of people like you, eohrn, Conservative and fenton is quite an insult. Especially since you never even tried to respond to the thread topic. That's not a function of my intelligence or my integrity. That is a function of yours. I even took time out of my busy day to savage your meandering and deflecting "both sides do it". your welcome.

sangha said:

Since the evolution-deniers are the GOP's presidential candidates, it is not an overly broad brush.

Click to expand...

I'd contend that it is an overly road brush, as I don't believe that your assertion is true, but please, prove me wrong.

sangha said:

But I'll note that you did not even try to address my point - that while both sides have their extremists, only the GOP has extremists as their leading candidates for President and VP.

Click to expand...

Yes, both sides have their extremists, from your view, obviously. Other views would differ. Which extremists are leading candidates in your opinion?

Fenton said:

In 1993, James Johnson committed the GSEs to 1 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases.

In 1995 Clinton changed the CRA laws and co-opted the GSEs into the Subprime mortgage markets.

He also allowed them to count Subprime purchases towards their HUD affordable lending quotas which he raised to 42 percent.

In 1998, Janet Reno bragged about the effectiveness of Clintons 1995 CRA changes.

Also in 1998 Clintons Treasury Secretary Larry Summers congratulated Clinton on the effectiveness of his CRA changes in allowing low income borrowers to get home loans.

In 1998, 380 Million dollars in Subprime securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac, and given a AAA rating and sold off to investors.

In 1999 Andrew Cuomo committed the GSEs to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases.

Also in 1999 Clinton signed the Futures Modernization act which DE-REGULATED CDSs.

In 1999 Country Wide and Fannie Mae started a partnership when Country Wide created a loan process specifically tailored for people who were low income and had bad or no credit and low down payments.

It was called the Fast and EZ loan.

In 1999 Franklin Raines admitted that Clintons CRA changes had helped MILLIONS of low income borrowers buy homes.

Homeowner-ship rates under Clinton rose from 63 percent in 1993 to 68 percent in 2000.

Under Bush's presidency they rose another 1 percent.

Clinton also appointed his Democrat buddies to the executive and Chair positions at the GSEs including Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick.

In 2000 Jamie Gorelick lobbied banks publicly to sell the GSEs their Subprime loans.

I guess I could go on.....but why ?

I've embarrassed VERN enough today.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, but Obama's economy is great now! That's the meme, and they are sticking to it.

It is not just conservatives who criticize Obama's economy, but banks, investors, and trading partners. Obama is closing in on $18 trillion in debt, one of the largest per capita debt load of the industrialized world, and projected to go past 26 trillion. That's the cost of propping up Obama's image.

While the propagandists whistle past the grave yard, they ignorantly refuse to see Obama's bull**** in comparison to the progress of other countries, where the likes of Iceland, Canada, and others have leap-frogged past the US while Obama was non-stop campaigning for the over-priced Obamacare. In 1995 80% of Canada's trade was with the US, today, after six years of Obama, it is below 40% and dropping as Canada and other countries increase their position in the global market at the cost of the US.

The White House basement can play Herman Goebbles all they want, but the truth is Obama's economy is the same as everything else he has done, lies wrapped in bull****, decorated with dishonesty and fed to "stupid voters"

Anyone who buys this **** certainly qualifies for Gruber's assessment.

can someone tell fenton this thread is not where I've proven Bush was responsible for the Bush Mortgage Bubble and the Great Bush Recession. I did that in another thread. this thread is how conservatives make excuses for Bush for things that happened 7 years into his presidency but President Obama is responsible for everything he inherited. So we don't need to see his non stop irrelevant blurts of questionable veracity. Oh and tell him he proves my point perfectly.

sangha said:

Feel free to go right ahead and list all of the things that Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates from the DNC has said that is not just contrary to science but also contrary to sanity.

Or feel free to run away from your claim that "both sides do that"

Click to expand...

So if you are not a Democrat you are insane. Being I am insane, I am not rational. Such is the political discourse of today. So this mad man will just disappear. You wouldn't want to put up with a mad man I am sure.

Vern said:

deflect deflect deflect whine insult cut and run. great plan pero. However concerning your insult of me, I post clear straight forward factual posts. To put me in the same category of people like you, eohrn, Conservative and fenton is quite an insult. Especially since you never even tried to respond to the thread topic. That's not a function of my intelligence or my integrity. That is a function of yours. I even took time out of my busy day to savage your meandering and deflecting "both sides do it". your welcome.

Click to expand...

You didn't, you just have blinders on like an old Missouri Mule. That's okay. Quite a lot of people do. Take care.

Vern said:

Aka Con Con 14


I cant help but notice that in their attempt to blame President Obama for everything he inherited, conservatives (and conservative like posters) ignore the collapsed economy with GDP cratering at -8.2%, 700,000 job losses a month, UE shooting up like a rocket, the financial and housing sector in ruins soon to be followed by the automotive industry, a credit freeze that zero rates was unable to fix, trillion dollar deficits because of collapsed revenue, a market that had already collapsed 40% on its way to 50% but a crisis that manifested itself in late 2006 was Clinton’s fault.

Wow, 6 years into Bush’s presidency, the MBS markets collapsed due to "dramatically lower lending standards starting late 2004" and it’s not Bush’s fault. Now to be fair, some cons (and con like posters) say Bush gets “some” blame. How magnanimous of them. Mmmm, I don’t recall such magnanimous gestures when cons (and con like posters) were claiming “bush tried to stop it” or “ its all Barney Frank’s fault" or "CRA CRA CRA." I only recall such gestures after I posted the Bush’s policies that caused it.

So even if we pretend that Clinton had something to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble, by all conservative (and conservative like poster) standards, its all Bush’s fault starting 1/20/2001.

Click to expand...

The simple truth is that the mortgage bubble existed long before Bush even ran for president. It is also a fact that the Bush administration saw the collapse coming and attempted to head it off almost immediately after taking office and were stopped by the likes of Barney Franks. The cause of the problem was the banks being pushed to offer loans to low income folks who could not otherwise qualify them on credit history and points. They made these bad loans in the name of getting low income folks into home ownership. Valiant goal, but stupidly done. They hid the loss of bank profits on these bad loans through quasi-government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This disasterous policy roots go all the way back to the "Community Re-investment act signed into law by Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. You can continue to sit there and attempt to blame Bush, however you are just coming off as goofy.

Vern said:

can someone tell fenton this thread is not where I've proven Bush was responsible for the Bush Mortgage Bubble and the Great Bush Recession. I did that in another thread. this thread is how conservatives make excuses for Bush for things that happened 7 years into his presidency but President Obama is responsible for everything he inherited. So we don't need to see his non stop irrelevant blurts of questionable veracity. Oh and tell him he proves my point perfectly.

Click to expand...

Since your whole thread hinges, in part, on your contention that you've proven that Bush is responsible for the recession, it is incumbent upon you to provide that proof...not to just say "I did it". But you won't provide that proof. Why not? Could it be that you have actually never proven a thing? Could it be that you have some ridiculous idea in your head and you refuse to listen to facts and reason that shows your idea is nothing more than a dream?

Now, add to that your continued use of a ridiculous strawman and the result is this thread...which is perilously close to being nothing more than a troll-bait thread.

Kind of sucks when people slap you upside the head and shatter your own blather, isn't it?

ObamacareFail said:

The simple truth is that the mortgage bubble existed long before Bush even ran for president. It is also a fact that the Bush administration saw the collapse coming and attempted to head it off almost immediately after taking office and were stopped by the likes of Barney Franks. The cause of the problem was the banks being pushed to offer loans to low income folks who could not otherwise qualify them on credit history and points. They made these bad loans in the name of getting low income folks into home ownership. Valiant goal, but stupidly done. They hid the loss of bank profits on these bad loans through quasi-government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This disasterous policy roots go all the way back to the "Community Re-investment act signed into law by Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. You can continue to sit there and attempt to blame Bush, however you are just coming off as goofy.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry for laughing but its just funny how cons just cant grasp what this thread is about. I'm not asking for you to post the silly delusions you cling to so as to not hold bush responsible for anything. I'm pointing out how cons have all the excuses in the world for everything that happened under bush but blame President Obama for everything he inherited starting on day 1. OF, the Great Bush Recession started 7 years into Bush's presidency.

thanks for proving my point.

Mycroft said:

Since your whole thread hinges, in part, on your contention that you've proven that Bush is responsible for the recession, it is incumbent upon you to provide that proof...not to just say "I did it". But you won't provide that proof. Why not? Could it be that you have actually never proven a thing? Could it be that you have some ridiculous idea in your head and you refuse to listen to facts and reason that shows your idea is nothing more than a dream?

Now, add to that your continued use of a ridiculous strawman and the result is this thread...which is perilously close to being nothing more than a troll-bait thread.

Kind of sucks when people slap you upside the head and shatter your own blather, isn't it?

Click to expand...

The lad (Vern) does not have the foggiest clue about the mortgage industry or recessions. He is a wind up artist.

Mycroft said:

Since your whole thread hinges, in part, on your contention that you've proven that Bush is responsible for the recession, it is incumbent upon you to provide that proof...not to just say "I did it".

Click to expand...

I'm sorry Mycroft, you need help. I've been quite clear,this thread is not about proving Bush is responsible for the recession. I've said that over and over and over. I'm pointing out how cons like you make excuses for things that happened 7 years into the bush presidency and yet hold president Obama responsible for everything he inherited from day 1. And MC, you proved my point perfectly. Let me refresh your memory

Mycroft said:

Conservatives don't blame Obama for everything he inherited, they blame him for the things he's done since he was elected. They also don't give him excuses just because he inherited something...what he inherited just comes with the job.

Unsubstantiated claims: The Recession is Bush's fault. It's not.

Click to expand...

so again I ask, whose fault is the Great Bush Recession that started 7 years into his presidency? (the first time I asked you went off with your deflecting word forts.)

Vern said:

I'm sorry FL, this isn't about Bush. Its about conservatives (and conservative like posters) hypocritical standards of accountability. I'm pretty sure my point was clear.

Lets review. By conservative (and conservative like posters) standards:
President Obama is 100% responsible for everything starting 1/20/2009
Bush is responsible for nothing

see, its really that simple.

Click to expand...

Right. And even though Ronald Reagan clearly pushed for assault weapons bans, he is still Captain America to the cons.

The entire thing is an agenda that does not include you and I. That is why it seems so screwy. That is why it's full of contradiction. The tactic is to confuse the issue to the point of not knowing their origin or who is really for what. Saturation with bogus claims and historical revision: FDR was a fascist socialist unconstitutional president. Obama was born in Kenya... Obama went on an apology tour... It's all BS designed to control the discourse and influence the stupid. When Dems come out in masses to vote, the cons always lose. So that's the way to deal with them.

Vern said:

I'm sorry Mycroft, you need help. I've been quite clear,this thread is not about proving Bush is responsible for the recession. I've said that over and over and over.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes...I fully understand that you only want to assert that Bush is responsible for the recession, but you assiduously avoid proving your assertion...except to say that somewhere, sometime, you already proved it. And you do keep saying that over and over. Well, sorry dude, that's not good enough and if you can't handle it...too bad for you.

I'm pointing out how cons like you make excuses for things that happened 7 years into the bush presidency and yet hold president Obama responsible for everything he inherited from day 1. And MC, you proved my point perfectly. Let me refresh your memory

Click to expand...

Yes...repeat that you are using that strawman. You are making broadbrush statements that have no basis in fact and using that strawman to imply that there should be some kind of conundrum. Again dude...that's not good enough.

so again I ask, whose fault is the Great Bush Recession that started 7 years into his presidency? (the first time I asked you went off with your deflecting word forts.)

Click to expand...

Wait...are you now asking me to show you who is at fault for the recession? You just said that's not what this thread is about. So which is it? Do you want to talk about it or not?

In any case, Fenton has provided all the data you...or anyone who is not a political hack...need to realize that the recession is the result of actions, policies and decisions made by a LOT of people. Much of it long before Bush became President. And what was your response?? You plead with someone...anyone...to please ask Fenton not to bother you with the facts. All I've got to say, Vern, is again...if you can't handle it, too bad for you.


btw, what the hell is a "deflecting word fort"?? :shrug:

Mycroft said:

btw, what the hell is a "deflecting word fort"?? :shrug:

Click to expand...

Its what you just posted. and I asked you "who is responsible for the Great Bush Recession' after you claimed I didn't know what I was posting. I didn't ask for links. I just wanted your "opinion". You knew you were going to get hammered so you didn't answer. wise choice.

So let me type this real slow you. Cons make excuses for everything bush did. Cons hold President Obama responsible for everything starting Day1. By conservative standards, Bush is responsible for things that happened Day 2494. And you proved my point perfectly in spite of your dishonest honest attempts to deflect, whine and pretend not to understand the thread.

thanks MC. you've been very helpful.

Vern said:

Its what you just posted. and I asked you "who is responsible for the Great Bush Recession' after you claimed I didn't know what I was posting. I didn't ask for links. I just wanted your "opinion". You knew you were going to get hammered so you didn't answer. wise choice.

So let me type this real slow you. Cons make excuses for everything bush did. Cons hold President Obama responsible for everything starting Day1. By conservative standards, Bush is responsible for things that happened Day 2494. And you proved my point perfectly in spite of your dishonest honest attempts to deflect, whine and pretend not to understand the thread.

thanks MC. you've been very helpful.

Click to expand...

1. ummm...so if you ask me a question and I answer it with support from other sources, that's a bad thing? You just want my opinion without anything to back it up? Okay. I guess I can understand your mindset. After all, that's what you do when you avoid backing up YOUR claims. But Vern, as I said before, that's just not good enough. If you can't handle it...too bad.

2. ummm...do you think that if you type slowly your strawman will suddenly be acceptable? LOL!! Sounds kind of crazy to me, but hey...type as slow as you want. It won't help you.


I've got to say one thing for you, though...you certainly have a way with words. "deflecting word fort"..."dishonest honest attempts to deflect". Doesn't make much sense, but it sure is entertaining.