That there are still people who keep falling for the bizarre right-wing platform that claims to be about shrinking government, but really is about shrinking the parts of government that get in the way of their desires, is the real problem we have currently.

 

If you want success for the nation you have to accept that success means changing away from the things you want to believe are correct and accepting the reality that big government is needed in a big way for the problems we currently face.

This is funny stuff. 

 

The United States has clearly been a complete failure that requires a good push toward socialism to fix, right?  Up until the messiah became president, we were a nation lost.  He has saved us by setting us on the right track.  Things are really on the upswing since 0bama took control as our ruler. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Big government was originally a response to big corporations. The reason certain people want big government gone is because it's the last entity still capable of resisting big corporations effectively. 

 

We have the largest government in the history of this country.  You think they're doing anything to "resist big corporations effectively?"

 

Gimme a break. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

This is funny stuff. 

 

The United States has clearly been a complete failure that requires a good push toward socialism to fix, right?  Up until the messiah became president, we were a nation lost.  He has saved us by setting us on the right track.  Things are really on the upswing since 0bama took control as our ruler. 

 

It's as if GW Bush's economic crash never happened for you, isn't it?

---

Big government was originally a response to big corporations. The reason certain people want big government gone is because it's the last entity still capable of resisting big corporations effectively. 

 

Exactly. Government is the people, corporation is a legal shield in front of the malicious.

 

The idea that GOVERNMENT is the problem shows just how far the nation has fallen.

---

It's as if GW Bush's economic crash never happened for you, isn't it?

You mean the crash that actually started because of the dot com bubble bursting under Bill Clinton? 

 

I've never said I endorsed Bush as a great conservative. He wasn't.  He's just as much to blame as your messiah for the disaster we're living in today.  Bush wasn't a small government republican.  So, to try to portray him in that light shows that you're either blinded by your agenda, too stupid to recognize the reality, or a flat out liar. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You mean the crash that actually started because of the dot com bubble bursting under Bill Clinton?

 

LOL!

 

That was some eight year time bomb!

---

LOL!

 

That was some eight year time bomb!

The Bush recession was a direct result of the dot com bust.  The meltdown that happened in 2008 was the result of things like pieces of Glass Steagall being repealed in order to loosen requirements for loaning money, and a complete lack of oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all of which was directly attributed to Bill Clinton, and guys like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.  When the Bush administration continued to pound away that the lenders needed more oversight and regulation, they were regularly rebuffed by your icons of liberalism in the house and senate, and they were told there was nothing to worry about.  When the whole thing fell apart, Bush got blamed and he deserves part of the accountability, but your idols were far more influential. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

The Bush recession was a direct result of the dot com bust.  The meltdown that happened in 2008 was the result of things like pieces of Glass Steagall being repealed in order to loosen requirements for loaning money, and a complete lack of oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all of which was directly attributed to Bill Clinton, and guys like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.  When the Bush administration continued to pound away that the lenders needed more oversight and regulation, they were regularly rebuffed by your icons of liberalism in the house and senate, and they were told there was nothing to worry about.  When the whole thing fell apart, Bush got blamed and he deserves part of the accountability, but your idols were far more influential. 

 

Junior, you've been listening to too much limbaugh.

---

Junior, you've been listening to too much limbaugh.

Hate to break it to you, but I don't listen to Limbaugh, but apparently you do. 

 

I know I've struck a nerve with the tissue think skinned liberal when he starts using a meaningless moniker. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Junior, you've been listening to too much limbaugh.

It really is beyond the pale.

---

Hate to break it to you, but I don't listen to Limbaugh, but apparently you do. 

 

I know I've struck a nerve with the tissue think skinned liberal when he starts using a meaningless moniker. 

 

Limbaugh, the loud mouth down the street, some other right-wing spin artist or website.

 

Doesn't matter where you got your wrong ideas (and I've heard the same talking points many times) it's enough that you're way off from the realities of what caused the housing bubble which led to the Bush recession. Here's a hint, though, it wasn't an excess of government regulation.

---

The idea that the Bush administration asked permission from **anyone for anything** is almost as hysterical as the idea that they would ask Barney friggin Frank for -and I quote- "more oversight and regulation."


That's absolutely ridiculous.

---

Limbaugh, the loud mouth down the street, some other right-wing spin artist or website.

 

Doesn't matter where you got your wrong ideas (and I've heard the same talking points many times) it's enough that you're way off from the realities of what caused the housing bubble which led to the Bush recession. Here's a hint, though, it wasn't an excess of government regulation.

 

It's good to see you libs still find time to bury your heads in the sand when reality starts to creep in.  It's okay.  Your messiah is fixing everything. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

The idea that the Bush administration asked permission from **anyone for anything** is almost as hysterical as the idea that they would ask Barney friggin Frank for -and I quote- "more oversight and regulation."


That's absolutely ridiculous.

I didn't say they were asking for permission.  They were asking those who were in authority to mandate more regulation do their jobs.  Congress balked.  It's not ridiculous at all.  It's fact. 

 

The Bush administration actually tried to start a new agency that was tasked specifically with monitoring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they saw a potential problem developing over the sub-prime mortgage situation.  They were trying as early on as 2003 to create this agency to take the responsibility away from Congress. 

 

A simple Google search would show that your dismissive response would be incorrect, but I never expect libs to actually do any leg work. 

 

They were widely rejected BY democrats in congress. 

 

Barney Frank was one of the ranking members in congress during this time period.  You dismissed his rejection that more oversight was needed  Once again, you libs have an aversion to facts:

 

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

 

There are numerous other prominent democrats who stood with Barney Frank on this issue.  They were all proven wrong.  The Bush administration gets blamed for the meltdown, but this one article written 5 years before the actual collapse happened shows they were concerned about what they saw coming, and they were trying to act to address the situation before it blew up.  In typical fashion, democrats sat on their hands because they were supporting the idea of doling out mortgages to people who should never have been qualified for homes because they portray themselves as the champions for the poor.

 

There were Bush policies that contributed to the recession, including a massive expansion of government, and a war that was suspect, but the economic policies most attributed to the meltdown?  Yeah, democrats. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I didn't say they were asking for permission.  They were asking those who were in authority to mandate more regulation do their jobs.  Congress balked.  It's not ridiculous at all.  It's fact. 

 

The Bush administration actually tried to start a new agency that was tasked specifically with monitoring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they saw a potential problem developing over the sub-prime mortgage situation.  They were trying as early on as 2003 to create this agency to take the responsibility away from Congress. 

 

A simple Google search would show that your dismissive response would be incorrect, but I never expect libs to actually do any leg work. 

 

They were widely rejected BY democrats in congress. 

 

Barney Frank was one of the ranking members in congress during this time period.  You dismissed his rejection that more oversight was needed  Once again, you libs have an aversion to facts:

 

 

 

There are numerous other prominent democrats who stood with Barney Frank on this issue.  They were all proven wrong.  The Bush administration gets blamed for the meltdown, but this one article written 5 years before the actual collapse happened shows they were concerned about what they saw coming, and they were trying to act to address the situation before it blew up.  In typical fashion, democrats sat on their hands because they were supporting the idea of doling out mortgages to people who should never have been qualified for homes because they portray themselves as the champions for the poor.

 

There were Bush policies that contributed to the recession, including a massive expansion of government, and a war that was suspect, but the economic policies most attributed to the meltdown?  Yeah, democrats. 

 

LOL!!!!

 

YES, THAT LEFT-WING LIBERAL BLEEDING HEART CONGRE-

 

Wait, actually the house and senate were both under republican control through all of Bush's time in office up until 2007.

 

That's another swing and a miss, Junior. Try again.

---

The idea that GOVERNMENT is the problem shows just how far the nation has fallen.

 

Have you ever read anything, anything at all,  written by the guys who wrote that Constitution? They were the original guys who said government is the problem. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

LOL!!!!

 

YES, THAT LEFT-WING LIBERAL BLEEDING HEART CONGRE-

 

Wait, actually the house and senate were both under republican control through all of Bush's time in office up until 2007.

 

That's another swing and a miss, Junior. Try again.

 

Do a little research and see what actually happened there, Mr. Translucent.  Unlike your messiah, the previous administration didn't have some imperial delusions thinking they could force things through congress, or if that didn't work, change the rules, and if that failed, flat out go the royal mandate route.  Democrats killed it.  But hey, why bother looking at facts, right? 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Here's the timeline directly from the White House website for what the Bush administration attempted to do over a period of 7 years to get a handle reforming GSE's. 

 

 

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)
  

2004

• February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls 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)
  
• February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted."  Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
  
• April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."  At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages.  I don't think we are in any remote danger here.  This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."  ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
  
• June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.  Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."  (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
  

2005

• April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."  (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
  
• July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
  

2007

• August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options."  (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
  
• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.  (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
  
• December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly.  So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."  (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)
  

2008

• February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully."  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
  
• March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
  
• April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
  
• May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
  <ul><li>"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes.  Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
  
• "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes.  And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
  
• "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
  

</li>
[*]June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
[*]July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
[*]September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."  (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
</ul>

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Have you ever read anything, anything at all,  written by the guys who wrote that Constitution? They were the original guys who said government is the problem. 

 

Go ahead and cite that here for us. Just a link will do, and I mean a link to an actual document, not a link to a libertarian website where they talk about how much they believe the framers of the constitution said that "government is the problem."

---

Here's the timeline for what the Bush administration attempted to do over a period of 7 years to get a handle reforming GSE's. 

 

FBT, your biggest problem is that you believe that Fannie and Freddie were the problem at all.

 

Fannie and Freddy just buy mortgages from originators. It was the unregulated practices of the private market and the bizarre unregulated derivatives market that lead to the housing bubble and the 2008 banking crash.

 

The banking crash was directly related to the lack of derivatives regulation. DIRECTLY.

 

It's not the democrats that insist on "get(ting) rid of all the job killing regulations"

---