Govt. giveaways

Judged:

1

1

1

OhC-Mon wrote:

Did you actually write this tripe or cut and paste from some right wing screed?
The Health care plans are deficit neutral (see the CBO), Bill Clinton posted a budget surplus, and Obama put the costs of the wars 'on the books' unlike Bush who hid them as supplemental appropriations.
Yeah, it's true that the home buyer program was run shoddy, but it could have been paid for completely if not for the borrow and spend Republicans give aways to millionaires! Where were your Deficit Hawk credentials then?

Judged:

1

1

1

idontagree wrote:

<quoted text>
Just because the congressional repubs were irresponsible in their fiduciary responsibility is not a Carte Blanche for the dems to follow suit. We should be looking for officials who understand the need to balance the budget. By the way it was a republican congress that balanced the budget along with Bill Clinton.
And it isn't just the Home Buyers program that was a mistake. The Cash for Clunkers cost about $25,000 for every extra car that was sold. And the give away to millionaires raised federal tax revenues to record levels under Bush. Just too much spending, undisciplined. It also doesn't appear that Obama's stimulus was the best way to go. And don't hide behind the CBO's current evaluation( I don't think they have even evaluated the current bill). What government program has ever come under the estimate? I believe Medicare was 10 times the original estimate 20 years later.

Judged:

1

1

1

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice try. It wasn't the "Repubs"..that bill was signed by Bill Clinton. When "Repubs" like Sununu tried to fix the mess Barney Frank stonewalled the efforts.
Ever see the tape of Barney (Democrat) and Maxine Waters (Democrat) talking about how reform wasn't needed because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in such great shape? It is now quite funny and a huge internet hit.

Judged:

1

1

1

idontagree wrote:

<quoted text>
What bill?
And yes the Barney Frank tape is hilarious. He has great culpability for the mess we are in. Since it was Dems amking the money---Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick, he was OK with robbing Fannie and Freddie.

Judged:

1

1

1

Stanley wrote:

<quoted text>
There were 2.
The 1 that got us into the mess in the first place. This Bill was S.900 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z... :@@@L&summ2=m&). This was written by Republicans in Congress and concentrated on things such as Privacy Act (privacy notices that you get from banks all the time)along with other things. It was designed to seperate banks, brokerage companies, and insurance companies and was actually great legislation until it got to Clinton's desk. He insisted that there be provisions added for Underserved Communities so that it's easier for them to buy homes. This is the part of the legislation that forced banks to give loans to people that clearly couldn't afford them. The proof is in the economy. Now that they can't pay them back, the mortgage industry is tanking and resulting in the current Economic Crisis.
With that said, there is a second piece of legislation that was sponsored by Republicans but never made it through a Committee that was chaired by Chris Dodd and is actually still chaired by him to this day. That legislation is S.190 Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd... ). In fact, McCain was a Co-Sponsor on this one. This was legislation that would have regulated Fannie and Freddie, the mortgage giants that were recently bailed out with our tax money. Had this not been blocked by that committee, it would have helped us avert the current crisis.
But, due to the greed of those receiving 100's of thousands of Lobbyist Dollars, it didn't pass the committee chaired by Chris Dodd. Coincidence? I doubt it! Chris Dodd was the highest recipient of Fannie and Freddie Lobbyist money seconded by the 1 and only Barrack Obama.
Here is the breakdown of Fannie and Freddie Lobbyist Money recipients:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/updat...
The videos plastered all over the Internet prove Barney Frank's culpability in the whole mess beyond any shadow of a doubt and just take a look at the economy, it didn't start to crash until the Democrats took the majority in Congress in 2007. I used to vote Democrat almost 100% of the time. I have my doubts that I will ever consider it again. I have lost all faith in their judgement and abilities. Someone amazing is going to have to come along for that to happen ever again.

Open your Eyes wrote:

You are one tweaked out individual who blames everything on whoever is convenient for you to do so. What were you doing when all the issues you keep pointing your finger at were taking place? I am willing to bet you don’t even vote in all the elections, because you are too busy.
Your Obama is following the spending ways in a Big Way, and finishing the Bush Family, the Clinton Family and all the other Butt Holes dream of a New Global Order, by finishing bankrupting this country. Gorby sold out the U.S.S.R. because of a financial collapse while cutting a sweet deal for himself in the U.S.A. and don’t be surprised if Obamma does the same with Red China who now owns a Huge piece of what was once our country.
Grow up, this is not about left or right, but about saving Our Country!
Soon, there will be nothing left to give away.
What was it the Margret Thatcher the former Prime Minister said about Socialists, "the problem with Socialists is sooner or later they run out of other peoples money for them to give."

Judged:

1

Telmark wrote:

In 2003, when the Bush administration proposed creating a new agency to assume supervision of Fannie and Freddie, Frank’s response was that Fannie and Freddie “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.”
Frank went of to say;
"The more people, in my judgment, 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 and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."
Affordable housing? What the heck was he talking about?
I'm not sure what planet Barney Frank was living on in 2003 but the fact is that housing prices on this planet were about 200-300 percent higher than before the Dems started this whole "pump and dump" housing scam back in the mid and late '90s.

Judged:

1

1

1

OhC-Mon wrote:

Did you actually write this tripe or cut and paste from some right wing screed?
The Health care plans are deficit neutral (see the CBO), Bill Clinton posted a budget surplus, and Obama put the costs of the wars 'on the books' unlike Bush who hid them as supplemental appropriations.
Yeah, it's true that the home buyer program was run shoddy, but it could have been paid for completely if not for the borrow and spend Republicans give aways to millionaires! Where were your Deficit Hawk credentials then?

Judged:

1

1

Kestrel wrote:

Many of you are still stuck in the Left – Right paradigm.

Powell wrote:

They made a major mistake in this editorial. It's not $869 billion, but $829 billion, but more importantly:
The CBO has said the bill would REDUCE the deficit over the next ten years because of certain cost-cutting measures it would take, such as cracking down on hospitals that keep Medicare patients longer than necessary,(like MGH has done with my father on multiple occasions).
Just because a bill costs X to implement doesn't mean it will add X to the deficit. It depends on what its provisions are.
Piss poor job by the Sun here.

Judged:

1

1

1

Powell wrote:

They made a major mistake in this editorial. It's not $869 billion, but $829 billion, but more importantly:
The CBO has said the bill would REDUCE the deficit over the next ten years because of certain cost-cutting measures it would take, such as cracking down on hospitals that keep Medicare patients longer than necessary,(like MGH has done with my father on multiple occasions).
Just because a bill costs X to implement doesn't mean it will add X to the deficit. It depends on what its provisions are.
**** poor job by the Sun here.

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Your view of the U.S., the girl represents the country:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
We need more like you. You can hold that posters feet to the fire but what have you done for the contry recently?