frazierdog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shripathi Kamath :
>
> Nothing about Barney Frank's Bankrupt Ideas By
> INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY.
>
> Evidently you can't counter any of that.

I lack the intellectual dishonesty, or the desire to restate what I did in first post.



>
> "An unnecessary war in Iraq costing thousands of
> lives and $10 billion a month "
>
> If that war was so unnecessary, why did 99% of the
> dems vote FOR it?

Whether they voted for it or not, it was an unnecessary war. And it was not 99% in any case. more importantly, MORE Republicans voted for it, which places the brunt of the blame on the Republicans.

I also see your confusion. You seem to have confused me for a Democrat.

> Were those poor little unable to
> think for themselves little darlings so mislead by
> that evil genius George W. Bush?

I do not know, and it isn't relevant.

> Wait a minute, is Bush a genius, or is he stupid?
> You dems just can't seem to get that straight.
>

And you cannot get it right that I am not a Democrat.

> "An economy in shambles "
>
> It is now thanks to the dems and their stupid
> social engineering.
>

Worth repeating my initial post:

Yup!

Since the mid nineties, the Republicans has complete control of both houses of Congress for about eight years, the White House for eight years, and generally a majority in the House or Senate for all but the last two.

And it is the Democrats' fault.

Makes sense. Probably for those same people that think that Palin is intellectual.



> By the way, there was positive growth in the
> economy for every year of the Bush Admin.
> True or Not?
>

Define what you mean by "positive growth in the economy", and which year, if any you want to exclude, and I'll respond.



> "The national debt nearly doubling from 5.5
> trillion. "
>
> 9/11 was costly, and that war the dems voted for,
> and now can't wait to surrender, was/is also
> costly.
>

No basis or relevance for the national debt doubling from 5.5 trillion to 11 trillion. Please try again.


> "...you can pick up some more talking points from
> FOX News."
>
> As opposed to your moveon.org talking points?

No, as opposed to my rational refutation of your talking points.

Oh yeah:

"But I will tell you that Clinton eventually managed a budget surplus without having that or even a simple majority in the HoR for the last six years of his term. Not to mention that largest period of peace time growth. "

Yes, after the Republicans took control of the House and Senate. Thank you Newt Gingrich!

frazierdog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh Shripathi Kamath, can you tell me the years
> that Republicans had a 60 vote control of the
> senate

None. I am not intellectually dishonest to tell you otherwise.

But I will tell you that Clinton eventually managed a budget surplus without having that or even a simple majority in the HoR for the last six years of his term. Not to mention that largest period of peace time growth.

I will also tell you that Reagan managed to get his agenda passed and introduce an economic boom without having the 60 vote majority or even a favorable congress for most of his term.

It is this W administration and the Republicans in Congress that have been the failures. So before you look at the last two years and parrot FOX News talking points, think about it.

> , so that they could pass the regulations
> they tried to impose, and therefore could not have
> been blocked by the dems?
>

As opposed to the Democrats who clearly had that? LOL.

Again, from 2000 on:

Control of the WH

Control of the HoR where you *do not* need anything but a simple majority, for the first six years (and that was simply continuing from the mid nineties)

Control of the Senate for about as much as the Democrats.

Results:

An unnecessary war in Iraq costing thousands of lives and $10 billion a month
An economy in shambles
Highest ever annual budget shortfall
The national debt nearly doubling from 5.5 trillion.

> Didn't think so.

Didn't think that you thought that through at all. Perhaps you should have.


> So much for honesty.

Thanks, I hope you'll come to appreciate it in due time. In the meantime you can pick up some more talking points from FOX News.

From : Barney Frank's Bankrupt Ideas By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

The Community Reinvestment Act, first passed in 1977 under Jimmy Carter, was intended to increase minority homeownership. It grew out of charges that banks were "redlining" entire inner-city neighborhoods as bad credit risks. Banks now were forced to perform outreach to these areas.

In the '70s and '80s, banks could show that they were trying to do that by advertising in minority newspapers and having representatives sit on the boards of local groups. In other words, they were rated on the effort made and not on the results achieved. Creditworthiness still mattered.

In 1995, as Howard Husock pointed out eight years ago in City Journal, "the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance."

Creditworthiness and due diligence no longer mattered. As a 1999 New York Times editorial observed: "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Bill Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and felt pressure to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

On Frank's and Clinton's watch, the Community Reinvestment Act was changed to force the issuance of bad loans. Banks would be rated on the number of loans, not on their soundness. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were then encouraged to buy them up. It was all about affordable housing, even if the housing was unaffordable.

Also:
On Sept. 11, 2003, the Bush administration proposed to Congress a new agency under the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie and Freddie. The new agency would have had the authority to set capital-reserve requirements, veto new lines of business and determine whether the two quasi-government lenders were adequately managing the risk of their ballooning portfolios.

When former Treasury Secretary John Snow pleaded for Frank to support Fannie and Freddie reform, Frank responded: "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."

Democrats believe in affordable housing even if it's at the expense of the vast majority who watch their credit, work hard and pay their mortgages on time. But for the deadbeats, particularly Democratic constituencies, they have ways to make affordable the housing you couldn't afford. So first, they forced them into housing they couldn't afford, and now they give them a financial mulligan.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Social engineering by democrats so plain that only the most ardent koolaid drinkers can't see to whom the blame belongs.

frazierdog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Absolutely correct Mr. Lawson.
>
> Hey Shripathi Kamath, and Dave77.
>
> From the article:
> " Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all
> Bush's attempts to put a rein on Raines. During
> the House Financial Services Committee hearing
> following Bush's initiative, Frank declared: "The
> more people exaggerate a threat of safety and
> soundness , the more people conjure up the
> possibility of serious financial losses to the
> Treasury which I do not see. I think we see
> entities that are fundamentally sound
> financially." His colleague on the committee, the
> California Democrat Maxine Walters, said: "There
> were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying
> to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr Chairman,
> we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and
> particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding
> leadership of Mr Franklin Raines."
>
> Can either of you refute this? I didn't think so.
>

You mean actually have a quote and then ask whether he did not say it? No. I am not intellectually bankrupt to do so.

Just like I cannot refute that McCain claimed "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" just before the next big one hit.

But of course we know that "fundamentals of our economy" = "workers who work hard"!



> The Republicans were absolutely guilty of backing
> down to the likes of Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd,
> and Barney Frank.

Not mention the simple facts I pointed out earlier:

"Since the mid nineties, the Republicans has complete control of both houses of Congress for about eight years, the White House for eight years, and generally a majority in the House or Senate for all but the last two."

So all you can do is place the blame on Barney Frank being out of touch in the last two years at most, for a catastrophe that was set in motion much earlier.

Or is it your contention that Freddie and Fannie were absolutely fine toll 2007? Remember the HoR was ruled from the mid-nineties to 2007 by the Republicans.

> Anybody that tried to stand up
> to these DEMOCRATS on this issue were painted as
> hard hearted, and/or racists.
>


Nope, Barbara Lee and Darrell Isa are just two Californians, for example, who did and they have never been painted as such.

Of course Barbara Lee was called unpatriotic for voting against the Patriot Act.

> Nice party you try to defend.

Hardly. I am merely pointing out that given the constitution of the WH and Congress for the last dozen years, if anyone should bear the brunt of the blame, it is NOT the Democrats.

Why are Frank and Dodd even allowed to step foot in DC...let alone the architects for this bailout package? Is that not like asking the hungry fox how to design a hen house?

Mr. Dominic Lawson also does not believe in climate change and global warming.

He is rumored to be an informant for MI6.

Did they ask him to write this article for the republicans?