Democrats push back on bailout

Windows on Ford Ranger.

lol and they think terrorism is not home grown?

Gulf of Tonkin
USS Liberty
Oklahoma City
Rodney King
Sony Bono
John F Kennedy
Bobby Kennedy
Martin Luther King
Karen Silkwood
DC Madam

9/27/2008
We are furious.......
Today we fired off many emails to Sen., Reps., inc. Speaker Pelosi stating: DO NOT allow the ACORN provision to remain in ANY part of this bail out fiasco !!! Absolutely-- this is a dealbreaker!! Disgusting addition and an insult to all Americans.
NO bailout paid for by taxpayers...
Govt. backed insurance for wall street ONLY.
We are madder than hell at this entire mess !!!
Won't some elected official PLEASE:....Fight for us American taxpayers !!???

Bailout Letter to your Congress

http://www.rallycongress.com/stopthehousingba ...

Okie Lobbyist wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't agree with that other person characterizing Cindy McCain as a bimbo. That's inappropriate.
However, I am going to ask you where you get the impression that Obama believes he's better than other people. What do you have to back up that statement.
Also, have you ever wondered why teachers are "liberal?" Why do you think that is?
And what exactly is liberal "mumbo jumbo?"

this will sum why Obama is an elitist

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

I hear what my kids and others kids that come home from school and what there teachers tell them. Or should I say what point of view the teachers have that they try to force on the kids that have nothing to do with school work. Mumbo jumbo is just another word for propaganda....

FedUpAmerican wrote:

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible.
They and they alone, have the power. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

The premise that the president is not responsible for the budget is absurd.The President is the leader of our government and George W. Bush bullied his agenda through for six years. When republicans are called to account they blame Bill Clinton or the past two years of congress. Bill Clinton left office with a surplus and now we have record deficits.
Republicans controlled both houses of congress from 1994 to 2006 and the Bush has had an eight-year run. Since 2006 democrats control the House but the Senate is tied (49 D, 49 R, 2 I, Bernie Sanders and Joe Leiberman). Leiberman, a former democrat can now be seen protruding from McCain’s behind. It takes 60 votes to get a bill to the floor of the Senate, avoid a filibuster or override a veto. Republicans are on a record pace for filibusters (49 motions for cloture so far) supported by Bush veto threats they block anything the democrats try to do. The House has passed several bills only to have them shot down in the Senate.
Blaming democrats for the failings of republican controlled government is a joke. McCain hopes that voters are dumb enough to believe this garbage. While none of the 545 are blameless, the lions share of responsibility lies on Bush and republicans abuse of power. McCain's policies are more extreme than Bush, so we know what we will get. The premise that media, lobbyists, corporations and we the voters do not have meaningful culpability is hogwash. Get informed, get active and vote.
Living not far from the 35 W bridge collapse I tell you why taxes should be raised. Government provided and maintained infrastructure allows businesses to make money. Government provided military, police and legal system protects wealth and property. The wealthy and corporations should pay disproportionately more because they benefit disproportionately more from the government. America has never cut taxes in time of war because It is fiscally irresponsible. Bush has done so and now we have record deficits. With excessive wealth comes undue political and legal advantage as well (unless you believe O. J. was innocent on all counts and Enron executives were just doing their jobs). Unseating everyone sounds like a great idea until we wake up and realize that republicans again would control the house. WE have already lived through that nightmare.

Insidious Hogwash wrote:

<quoted text>
The premise that the president is not responsible for the budget is absurd.The President is the leader of our government and George W. Bush bullied his agenda through for six years. When republicans are called to account they blame Bill Clinton or the past two years of congress. Bill Clinton left office with a surplus and now we have record deficits.
Republicans controlled both houses of congress from 1994 to 2006 and the Bush has had an eight-year run. Since 2006 democrats control the House but the Senate is tied (49 D, 49 R, 2 I, Bernie Sanders and Joe Leiberman). Leiberman, a former democrat can now be seen protruding from McCain’s behind. It takes 60 votes to get a bill to the floor of the Senate, avoid a filibuster or override a veto. Republicans are on a record pace for filibusters (49 motions for cloture so far) supported by Bush veto threats they block anything the democrats try to do. The House has passed several bills only to have them shot down in the Senate.
Blaming democrats for the failings of republican controlled government is a joke. McCain hopes that voters are dumb enough to believe this garbage. While none of the 545 are blameless, the lions share of responsibility lies on Bush and republicans abuse of power. McCain's policies are more extreme than Bush, so we know what we will get. The premise that media, lobbyists, corporations and we the voters do not have meaningful culpability is hogwash. Get informed, get active and vote.
Living not far from the 35 W bridge collapse I tell you why taxes should be raised. Government provided and maintained infrastructure allows businesses to make money. Government provided military, police and legal system protects wealth and property. The wealthy and corporations should pay disproportionately more because they benefit disproportionately more from the government. America has never cut taxes in time of war because It is fiscally irresponsible. Bush has done so and now we have record deficits. With excessive wealth comes undue political and legal advantage as well (unless you believe O. J. was innocent on all counts and Enron executives were just doing their jobs). Unseating everyone sounds like a great idea until we wake up and realize that republicans again would control the house. WE have already lived through that nightmare.

You're more than welcome to pay more taxes. If you believe it's your duty, tell the gov't you want to pay more. Please pay some of mine too. Answer this. If a Democratic Congress is so good, how did the Repubs gain control in 94 during a Democratic Presidency? Because the Dems s*ck even worse. What's they're approval rating? Approval of Congress has dipped below 20% for only the fourth time in Gallup history, tying the record low of 18%. The last time it was that low was.....drum roll.....1992 when the Democrats were in charge. Bush has a higher rating of 29%.
Want to brag some more?

YOOPER wrote:

<quoted text>
You're more than welcome to pay more taxes. If you believe it's your duty, tell the gov't you want to pay more. Please pay some of mine too. Answer this. If a Democratic Congress is so good, how did the Repubs gain control in 94 during a Democratic Presidency? Because the Dems s*ck even worse. What's they're approval rating? Approval of Congress has dipped below 20% for only the fourth time in Gallup history, tying the record low of 18%. The last time it was that low was.....drum roll.....1992 when the Democrats were in charge. Bush has a higher rating of 29%.
Want to brag some more?

Bush's approval rating is at 22%, the lowest in history. This election is over and Obama is going to be the President so get used to it. Dubgrapes out.

doublegrapes wrote:

<quoted text>
Bush's approval rating is at 22%, the lowest in history. This election is over and Obama is going to be the President so get used to it. Dubgrapes out.

too bad THEY can't BAIL to canada because THIER BOY got U.S. trapped w/o a PASSPORT..........

doublegrapes wrote:

<quoted text>
Bush's approval rating is at 22%, the lowest in history. This election is over and Obama is going to be the President so get used to it. Dubgrapes out.

Should they cancel the election and annoint The Messiah the king now?

YOOPER wrote:

<quoted text>
Should they cancel the election and annoint The Messiah the king now?

No, you and your boy McNutt will just have to take your beat down.

YOOPER wrote:

<quoted text>
Should they cancel the election and annoint The Messiah the king now?

Funny how only the McInsane supporters call Obama the messiah.

Why is that? Can't stand that a Democratic candidate could be so popular?

In 1977, Congress passed a law, signed by Pres. Jimmy Carter, requiring banks etc. to lend more money to people who were less likely to pay it back. Under the liberal Carter administration, the idea that housing was a "right", was becoming more important than mundane details such as whether the buyer could pay for it. The title, "Community Reinvestment Act", concealed the riskiness of the lending it required.

In 1986, a bill was introduced in Congress to reform this. Republicans voted for it, Democrats against, it failed.

In 1988, after Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, more laws were passed, making it easier for people to sue landlords and lenders if they felt they had been discriminated against in housing. Many lenders started making even more loans to low-income and other credit risks, based on their race or ancestry, to avoid expensive lawsuits.

In 1993, Congress mandated that government-sponsored companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.

In 1995, Bill Clinton ordered the Treasury Dept to rewrite its rules for making CRA loans, increasing quotas of blacks and other minorities getting loans. Since many of those groups who had previously failed to qualify, were still high-risk borrowers, F&F began buying more and more such high-risk mortgages from banks. Other rules changes between 1997 and 2001 by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo allowed F&F to hold a huge number of such mortgages in their portfolios, with a minimum amount of cash on hand to back them up, greatly increasing the risk if mortgages started defaulting .

Freddie and Fannie began buying up huge numbers of these risky loans, essentially guaranteeing to lenders that they could make all the risky loans they wanted, and be able to unload them to those two companies. So banks began pouring billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no documentation" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income. Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines received huge salary bonuses after employees faked some profit numbers to make it look like Fannie Mae had achieved various target goals. Raines later became a financial adviser to the Barack Obama campaign.

In 2001, George W. Bush's first proposed budget stated that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were becoming so large, and cornering so much of the mortgage market, that any problem with these companies could have huge impacts on the entire U.S. economy; and that their lending practices were pushing them toward just such problems.

In 2003, House Finance Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) insisted that Freddie and Fannie were "not facing any kind of financial crisis", and that people were exaggerating the problems seen by the govt-sponsored companies. One month later, Fannie Mae disclosed a $1.2 billion accounting error. Still, Democrat Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refused to acknowledge any necessity for reform.

In 2005, The Bush budget again expressed grave concerns over the explosive growth of Freddie and Fannie, stating flatly that they could no longer meet their financial responsibilities. Barney Frank (D-MA) ignored the warnings, and accused the Bush administration of creating an "artificial issue". Senate Republicans introduced a strong reform bill designed to reduce the loans to high-risk borrowers. All Republicans voted for it, but Democrats filibustered and voted against bringing the bill to the Senate floor. Republicans were unable to get the 60% needed to get the bill voted on and passed, so it died in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced "We cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes." It was the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, co-sponsored by John McCain.

By 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned or guaranteed nearly half of the entire U.S. mortgage market. President Bush called emphatically for legislation to reform Freddie and Fannie, insisting that "Congress needs to get them reformed, and then I will consider other options." Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) ignored the warnings and called on Bush to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.

As late as September 2007, legislators including Barack Obama maintained that these high-risk loans were sound financial policy.

Finally, in July 2008, Congress heeded Republicans' call for reform, and passed reform legislation for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But the companies were already crashing. Democrats forgot their previous almost-solid opposition to reforms, and Senator Dodd questioned, "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."

In 1977, Congress passed a law, signed by Pres. Jimmy Carter, requiring banks etc. to lend more money to people who were less likely to pay it back. Under the liberal Carter administration, the idea that housing was a "right", was becoming more important than mundane details such as whether the buyer could pay for it. The title, "Community Reinvestment Act", concealed the riskiness of the lending it required.

In 1986, a bill was introduced in Congress to reform this. Republicans voted for it, Democrats against, it failed.

In 1988, after Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, more laws were passed, making it easier for people to sue landlords and lenders if they felt they had been discriminated against in housing. Many lenders started making even more loans to low-income and other credit risks, based on their race or ancestry, to avoid expensive lawsuits.

In 1993, Congress mandated that government-sponsored companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.

In 1995, Bill Clinton ordered the Treasury Dept to rewrite its rules for making CRA loans, increasing quotas of blacks and other minorities getting loans. Since many of those groups who had previously failed to qualify, were still high-risk borrowers, F&F began buying more and more such high-risk mortgages from banks. Other rules changes between 1997 and 2001 by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo allowed F&F to hold a huge number of such mortgages in their portfolios, with a minimum amount of cash on hand to back them up, greatly increasing the risk if mortgages started defaulting .

Freddie and Fannie began buying up huge numbers of these risky loans, essentially guaranteeing to lenders that they could make all the risky loans they wanted, and be able to unload them to those two companies. So banks began pouring billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no documentation" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income. Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines received huge salary bonuses after employees faked some profit numbers to make it look like Fannie Mae had achieved various target goals. Raines later became a financial adviser to the Barack Obama campaign.

In 2001, George W. Bush's first proposed budget stated that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were becoming so large, and cornering so much of the mortgage market, that any problem with these companies could have huge impacts on the entire U.S. economy; and that their lending practices were pushing them toward just such problems.

FedUpAmerican wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny how only the McInsane supporters call Obama the messiah.
Why is that? Can't stand that a Democratic candidate could be so popular?

It's because the media said he was not only going to save America, he was going to save the world.
Then there's these little tid bits. Rather ammusing.

http://bearingdrift.com/2008/09/11/even-democ...

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008...

YOOPER wrote:

<quoted text>
It's because the media said he was not only going to save America, he was going to save the world.
Then there's these little tid bits. Rather ammusing.
http://bearingdrift.com/2008/09/11/even-democ...
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008...

IF he pulls it OFF then WHAT?ya gonna say??????????

PRESIDENT OBAMMA wrote:

<quoted text>
IF he pulls it OFF then WHAT?ya gonna say??????????

Um, you don't exactly "pull off" being a Messiah.

Little Acorn wrote:

In 2003, House Finance Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) insisted that Freddie and Fannie were "not facing any kind of financial crisis", and that people were exaggerating the problems seen by the govt-sponsored companies. One month later, Fannie Mae disclosed a $1.2 billion accounting error. Still, Democrat Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refused to acknowledge any necessity for reform.
In 2005, The Bush budget again expressed grave concerns over the explosive growth of Freddie and Fannie, stating flatly that they could no longer meet their financial responsibilities. Barney Frank (D-MA) ignored the warnings, and accused the Bush administration of creating an "artificial issue". Senate Republicans introduced a strong reform bill designed to reduce the loans to high-risk borrowers. All Republicans voted for it, but Democrats filibustered and voted against bringing the bill to the Senate floor. Republicans were unable to get the 60% needed to get the bill voted on and passed, so it died in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced "We cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes." It was the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, co-sponsored by John McCain.
By 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned or guaranteed nearly half of the entire U.S. mortgage market. President Bush called emphatically for legislation to reform Freddie and Fannie, insisting that "Congress needs to get them reformed, and then I will consider other options." Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) ignored the warnings and called on Bush to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.
As late as September 2007, legislators including Barack Obama maintained that these high-risk loans were sound financial policy.
Finally, in July 2008, Congress heeded Republicans' call for reform, and passed reform legislation for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But the companies were already crashing. Democrats forgot their previous almost-solid opposition to reforms, and Senator Dodd questioned, "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."

I hate to inform you that Barney Frank was not the House Finance Committee chairman in 2003, because the Democrats did not gain control of the House until 2007. Once I hit the LIE in the first paragraph, I didn't even bother to waste my time to read the rest of what I am sure is a full of crap posting.

Boooshit trips again; will be never learn. bgates

doublegrapes wrote:

<quoted text>
I hate to inform you that Barney Frank was not the House Finance Committee chairman in 2003, because the Democrats did not gain control of the House until 2007. Once I hit the LIE in the first paragraph, I didn't even bother to waste my time to read the rest of what I am sure is a full of crap posting.

He was the ranking Democrat on the Committee and was able to rally Democrats to prevent Bush's proposed bill from getting to the Senate floor for a vote. Democrats voted along party lines to stop it. So the bill stalled and the rest is history. Same thing happened with a bill introduced by Republicans in 2005, which McCain supported.