Anyone who says either Dem's or Repub's hold the entire blame for the current financial crisis, isn't interested in truth. It's really a silly proposition to blame the current situation on one party or one President.
The truth is that Presidents of both political parties played a role by pursuing and advocating for less regulation in belief that a free market is only inhibited by regulations.
Members of both parties have advocated for more middle to low income families to have access to home loans that, in many cases, they didn't have the means to pay for.
Liberals and Conservatives are all responsible for this mess. As most things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It certainly can't be blamed on one party alone.
That is true.....It's the evil, greedy, ignorant, men of both parties. Why does the lunatics are taking over the asylum come to mind?...For those who say, it was overregulation or underregulation that brought this on. Some say it was underregulation of the overregulation.
Has anyone noticed that everytime government gets bigger so do our problems?
Anyone who says either Dem's or Repub's hold the entire blame for the current financial crisis, isn't interested in truth. It's really a silly proposition to blame the current situation on one party or one President.
The truth is that Presidents of both political parties played a role by pursuing and advocating for less regulation in belief that a free market is only inhibited by regulations.
Members of both parties have advocated for more middle to low income families to have access to home loans that, in many cases, they didn't have the means to pay for.
Liberals and Conservatives are all responsible for this mess. As most things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It certainly can't be blamed on one party alone.
Less regulation is better. Some regulation is good. The principles of rejecting people with poor credit histories is great for the free market. When government encouraged risky lending practices (i.e. "we won't regulate that") Wall Street is going to do what it does: find ways to make a profit. Unfortunately the profits to be made were never going to last for very long because of the violation of sound economic principles. So in the end Wall Street looks bad for being "greedy", but the reality is government abdicated its role on fiscal policy by asserting a social agenda that undermines solid financial structure.
I don't have any qualms for placing a large part of the blame of this whole mess at the feet of the Clintons and the Democratic Party. The timing is bad for the GOP b/c the consequences came to fruition on their watch, but would've never happened had conservatives been in power in the 90's. I will concede Bush and GOP squandered opportunities in the first six years of his presidency, but the dye was cast before he arrived.
The fiscal policies of today do not produce the results until years later. Clinton's joy ride through the 90's came as a result of the sound fiscal practices of Reagan setting the stage for a prosperous decade. Clinton lucked out that the computer age came into existence while in office and in spite of the largest tax increase in history, the economy kept growing at breakneck speed. His policies didn't produce that, it happened in spite of him.
We are paying the price of the 1990's and all of the faulty experimentation with economic policies. Bush and the GOP Congress didn't help with their expansion of gov't and their spending spree. I have always been critical of Bush in this regard. He portrayed himself as a true conservative, but we now know that "compasionate conservative" meant "moderate-liberal Republican" on the role of government and on fiscal policies.
A true conservative could right this ship. McCain is no true conservative but he will at least lean more this way than the socialist Obama ever would. You mark it down: you vote for Obama and you will live to regret it the rest of your life should he win.
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
Referring to the Bush administration's "Wall Street bailout bill", Alexandrovna warns that a fascist coup is in it's closing stages, describing the proposed legislation as "treachery being conducted in the light of day."
She writes:
"Now, if you do not yet understand that the Wall Street crisis is a man-made disaster done through intentional deregulation and corruption, I have a bridge in Alaska to sell to you (or Sara Palin does anyway). This manufactured crisis is now to be remedied, if the fiscal fascists get their way, with the total transfer of Congressional powers (the few that still remain) to the Executive Branch and the total transfer of public funds into corporate (via government as intermediary) hands.
[...] we already now have in writing, formally as presented to Congress, the intentions of this administration to nullify Congressional powers permanently, to alter Judicial powers permanently, and to openly steal public funds using as blackmail the total collapse of the US economy if these powers are not handed over. You do see how this is blackmail, do you not? You do see how this is a manufactured crisis precisely designed to be used as blackmail, do you not?"
Have you read the internet stuff about black helocopters, the Illuminati, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Brandenbergs, the Masons and Opus Dei?
If only America would wake up to what is REALLY going on!!!!!!
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
A true conservative could right this ship. McCain is no true conservative but he will at least lean more this way than the socialist Obama ever would. You mark it down: you vote for Obama and you will live to regret it the rest of your life should he win.
Maybe you've seen this bumper sticker:
Better an Imperfect Conservative than a Perfect Socialist
__________________
Master of Science in Applied Disgruntled Religious Theorist Wrangling
PhD in Petulant Tantrum Quelling
Dean of the School of Hard Knocks
Less regulation is better. Some regulation is good. The principles of rejecting people with poor credit histories is great for the free market. When government encouraged risky lending practices (i.e. "we won't regulate that") Wall Street is going to do what it does: find ways to make a profit. Unfortunately the profits to be made were never going to last for very long because of the violation of sound economic principles. So in the end Wall Street looks bad for being "greedy", but the reality is government abdicated its role on fiscal policy by asserting a social agenda that undermines solid financial structure.
I don't have any qualms for placing a large part of the blame of this whole mess at the feet of the Clintons and the Democratic Party. The timing is bad for the GOP b/c the consequences came to fruition on their watch, but would've never happened had conservatives been in power in the 90's. I will concede Bush and GOP squandered opportunities in the first six years of his presidency, but the dye was cast before he arrived.
The fiscal policies of today do not produce the results until years later. Clinton's joy ride through the 90's came as a result of the sound fiscal practices of Reagan setting the stage for a prosperous decade. Clinton lucked out that the computer age came into existence while in office and in spite of the largest tax increase in history, the economy kept growing at breakneck speed. His policies didn't produce that, it happened in spite of him.
We are paying the price of the 1990's and all of the faulty experimentation with economic policies. Bush and the GOP Congress didn't help with their expansion of gov't and their spending spree. I have always been critical of Bush in this regard. He portrayed himself as a true conservative, but we now know that "compasionate conservative" meant "moderate-liberal Republican" on the role of government and on fiscal policies.
A true conservative could right this ship. McCain is no true conservative but he will at least lean more this way than the socialist Obama ever would. You mark it down: you vote for Obama and you will live to regret it the rest of your life should he win.
1. Revisionism
2. Fear
If one reads this you would forget that conservatives held Congress for the bulk of the time in Congress .... You'd forget that Clinton moved center to implement most of Gingrich's Contract with America ...
You'd forget that Congress controls purse string ... and in this period a Republican Congress ...
Or that measures like the one I've provided by Senator Gramm (R) laid a lot of the groundwork for the banking crisis ....
There is no willingness to accept the mutual blame here ... Deac ... just rationalizations.
Interesting enough you admit ... McCain is no conservative ... and we know he's voted w/ Bush 90% of the time ... so it doesn't take much that we are in for much of the same ... under a McCain presidency. McWaffle is Ted Kennedy in comparison to the Bushes.
And the fear ... what I can I say .... it permeates in evey one of your post ....
YOU WILL REGRET IT THE REST OF YOUR LIFE ... is usually the conclusion.
Your politics reflect a trend that may mean the end of real conservatism ... and it's marginalization ... of the conservativie view .... if we continue to put a party before our worldview.
Less regulation is better. Some regulation is good. The principles of rejecting people with poor credit histories is great for the free market. When government encouraged risky lending practices (i.e. "we won't regulate that") Wall Street is going to do what it does: find ways to make a profit. Unfortunately the profits to be made were never going to last for very long because of the violation of sound economic principles. So in the end Wall Street looks bad for being "greedy", but the reality is government abdicated its role on fiscal policy by asserting a social agenda that undermines solid financial structure.
I don't have any qualms for placing a large part of the blame of this whole mess at the feet of the Clintons and the Democratic Party. The timing is bad for the GOP b/c the consequences came to fruition on their watch, but would've never happened had conservatives been in power in the 90's. I will concede Bush and GOP squandered opportunities in the first six years of his presidency, but the dye was cast before he arrived.
The fiscal policies of today do not produce the results until years later. Clinton's joy ride through the 90's came as a result of the sound fiscal practices of Reagan setting the stage for a prosperous decade. Clinton lucked out that the computer age came into existence while in office and in spite of the largest tax increase in history, the economy kept growing at breakneck speed. His policies didn't produce that, it happened in spite of him.
We are paying the price of the 1990's and all of the faulty experimentation with economic policies. Bush and the GOP Congress didn't help with their expansion of gov't and their spending spree. I have always been critical of Bush in this regard. He portrayed himself as a true conservative, but we now know that "compasionate conservative" meant "moderate-liberal Republican" on the role of government and on fiscal policies.
A true conservative could right this ship. McCain is no true conservative but he will at least lean more this way than the socialist Obama ever would. You mark it down: you vote for Obama and you will live to regret it the rest of your life should he win.
when you get to the core of this thing, it was REGULATION set up in the 1990's under clinton that began the snowball, and it was Democrats and Republicans in the '00s ACTING LIKE DEMOCRATS that let that snowball grow.
GWB certainly played a part. He encurraged these bad loans.
bottom line, more regulation not less was a major player here.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I am still trying to figure out how repealing Glass-Steagall caused this mess?
Bank of America took advantage of this act and is one of the few strong financial institutions in America. had it not been for the Graham bill, BOA wouldnt have been able to purchase Merrill Lynch.
Leahman Brothers failed in some measure because it didnt take advantage of the Graham bill that would have allowed greater diversification.
Beyond that, American financial institutions were at that time at a great disadvantage because major international concerns were able to mix banking/insurance/investment brokerages in a single company. G-L-B Act actually caught us up with the rest of the world.
and while it is technically correct to say that the senate passed G-L-B Act by partisian lines, it is in fact incorrrect to say that congress did. the House vote was very bypartisian. AND when the bill went to commettee to iron out the differences between the two bills, what came out WAS voted on by both houses and the senate voted for this final bill by 90-8 vote. THAT final vote is the one that matters. Had the senate democrats decided they still didnt like the bill, all they had to do was take a stand and not let it reach the floor. They didnt because they liked what came out of commettee. period.
the vote in the senate was 90-8 on the passage of G-L-B Act. that is the bottom line fact.
beyond that, It should be pointed out that while Graham was very much the author of the bill, Rober Rubin the tresurey secretary had a HUGE roll in this, at the direction of Bill Clinton.
if G-L-B had anything to do with this mess, it was far less than what could have been the outcome of us living with Glass-Steagall.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I am still trying to figure out how repealing Glass-Steagall caused this mess?
Bank of America took advantage of this act and is one of the few strong financial institutions in America. had it not been for the Graham bill, BOA wouldnt have been able to purchase Merrill Lynch.
Leahman Brothers failed in some measure because it didnt take advantage of the Graham bill that would have allowed greater diversification.
Beyond that, American financial institutions were at that time at a great disadvantage because major international concerns were able to mix banking/insurance/investment brokerages in a single company. G-L-B Act actually caught us up with the rest of the world.
and while it is technically correct to say that the senate passed G-L-B Act by partisian lines, it is in fact incorrrect to say that congress did. the House vote was very bypartisian. AND when the bill went to commettee to iron out the differences between the two bills, what came out WAS voted on by both houses and the senate voted for this final bill by 90-8 vote. THAT final vote is the one that matters. Had the senate democrats decided they still didnt like the bill, all they had to do was take a stand and not let it reach the floor. They didnt because they liked what came out of commettee. period.
the vote in the senate was 90-8 on the passage of G-L-B Act. that is the bottom line fact.
beyond that, It should be pointed out that while Graham was very much the author of the bill, Rober Rubin the tresurey secretary had a HUGE roll in this, at the direction of Bill Clinton.
if G-L-B had anything to do with this mess, it was far less than what could have been the outcome of us living with Glass-Steagall.
Thank you, Ferd. I thought my findings were saying what you said, but I failed to post. Good job!
If one reads this you would forget that conservatives held Congress for the bulk of the time in Congress .... You'd forget that Clinton moved center to implement most of Gingrich's Contract with America ...
You'd forget that Congress controls purse string ... and in this period a Republican Congress ...
Or that measures like the one I've provided by Senator Gramm (R) laid a lot of the groundwork for the banking crisis ....
There is no willingness to accept the mutual blame here ... Deac ... just rationalizations.
Interesting enough you admit ... McCain is no conservative ... and we know he's voted w/ Bush 90% of the time ... so it doesn't take much that we are in for much of the same ... under a McCain presidency. McWaffle is Ted Kennedy in comparison to the Bushes.
And the fear ... what I can I say .... it permeates in evey one of your post ....
YOU WILL REGRET IT THE REST OF YOUR LIFE ... is usually the conclusion.
Your politics reflect a trend that may mean the end of real conservatism ... and it's marginalization ... of the conservativie view .... if we continue to put a party before our worldview.
WAITING ON THOSE COMPELLING REASONS.....................................
Call it what you want DA, but Obama is SCCCCAAAARRRYYYYY! There are sooooo many reasons to believe that this man is dangerous to our way of life. You can listen now or my words will echo in your nightmares later. Either way I know I'm spot on right.
You'll live a few more decades and your worldview will mature. As far as party line politics is concerned, I am a conservative first, Republican second. I vote for McCain b/c he is conservative enough for me, although not as much as I would like.
As far as mutual blame there is enough to go around. But I lay the root cause at the feet of the Clinton Administration experimenting with Freddie and Fannie.
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
Thought I WOULD BUMP THIS JUST SO WE CAN BE REMiNDED of some important facts before 11/4.
(SORRY I keep bumping my caps on my mobile)
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
Linear Mode
