Jesus Hussein Christ, Republicans are a bunch of hypersensitive Nancy boys. If I have to see Rep. Boner's puffy red eyes one more time whining about that mean ol' Pelosi lady, I'm gonna scream (but like a man, not like a little girl).

This has been another great demonstration of how quickly the rightwing zombies can do an about-face on an issue.

Just a few days ago, they were all whining (pundits, people and posters alike) about the commie-style bailout of those greedy wall Street/Congress bandits (all caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Democrats, of course, completely unrelated to the past 8 years of mostly Republican leadership, or 30 years of Reaganomics coming home to roost).

Today they'd turned around and were all crying that the Dems were unpatriotic for not supporting the bailout, completely blaming them for not using their majority to send the bill through. I did hear Hugh Hewitt on the way home from work say that he didn't hold the Republican reps. totally unaccountable, just before he went into a tirade about the Dems ruining the economy and losing the U.S. a trilion dollars while they destroyed old people's retirements.

This must kill the right reps. I think they were hoping to all vote against the bill for future bragging rights, while the Dems pushed it through to bail out the Republican "base". That didn't turn out like they wanted, eh? Har!

OK, it's not funny, I know something has to be done, I only hope this sends a little message to the GOP members of Congress that they can't use decades of their failures as an opportunity to grab more power.

If I have to see Rep. Boner's puffy red eyes one more time whining about that mean ol' Pelosi lady, I'm gonna scream (but like a man, not like a little girl).

Strange that Nancy Pelosi has the force to make those stalwart Republicans quake in their boots so much right now. Why hasn't this happened before? That must have been some kick ass speech she gave. How come all of a sudden she's now so all powerful and persuasive? Funny that. She must have sent in some people to persude them what to do like those mob guys that convinced Tommy Dorsey to let Sinatra out of his contract. Maybe a gun in their mouth or a dead horse's head in their bed? Okay, I'll stop now, I promise. I hope I haven't offended any Italian Americans. :-0) 

If the Republicans in the house are so intimidated and hurt by the words of a grandmother from San Francisco, they should resign their seats and let stronger men and women decide our future.

This must be what got 'em:

Now julia, it's doubtful that Nancy sent in people.  She gave a speech, but not just any speech, a partisan speech, unheard of in Washington.  It sent everyone into shock and paralysed the capitol as in "the Day the Earth Stood Still"

When the electricity came back on at last, the speech caused those nancy boy republicans to hold their breath and push their No button with manly pride.

nancy boy republicans

Hey nice play on words there, Mary ! :-0)

Since Grampy McHoover said in the debate "I will make them famous. You will know their names." maybe he'll tell us exactly who the "12 Nancy Boys" are.

Will there be a Republican Nancy Boy Caucus?

Andrea Mitchell (of all people) has just reported that Newt/Toad Gingrich was working behind the scenes and promised each of the 12 Republicans that they would be his Veep when he runs from President in 2012 if they switched their votes. Of course, after the vote was over, he made a statement that he supported the bailout.

The Republicans are really eating their own!

I hope I haven't offended any Italian Americans. :-0) 

Ehhh...fuggetabodit!   Dem Republicans is a bunch'a mamalukes anyways.  ;>)

I hope I haven't offended any Italian Americans. :-0) 

You could never offend this Italian-American darlin ;-)

Happy Birthday Miz Julia  :-) [39 again?]

Dang, and I was trying hard to offend you, J2! :-0)

And actually it's 29 again. Thanks for the greeting.

Did you get me at 10:45 am and 3:03 pm today?

"Today they'd turned around and were all crying that the Dems were unpatriotic for not supporting the bailout, completely blaming them for not using their majority to send the bill through."

Imagine their pompous smirks if the Dems countered with a 700 billion dollar bailout plan for homeowners in foreclosure, the unemployed and impoverished localities hardest hit by the sub-prime crash. Imagine if Dems wrote a bailout plan that made healthcare and education free for all U.S citizens. Can't you just hear those pussy motherfnckers shrieking socialism in the corridors of power, on the talk shows, on the radio and in the boardrooms?

Jesus Christ they can be such repugnant hypocrites, those conservative radio pigs. They would blithely hand Seven Hundred Billion Tax Payer Dollars, with no conditions,  to profligate liars and cheats who make Hundreds of Millions of Dollars a year, in to order to soothe their savage fear economic equality.

Let a single mother of three ask for a little help to get her kids to college and those punks will call her a welfare queen.

No, this bill was an idol of idiot worshippers. 

Which goes to prove that even in "times of crisis", politics triumphs over country.  There is plenty of blame to spread across the political spectrum on this issue, Dem, Rep, Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, Executive, Legislative, etc and yet our "leaders" must posture and point rather than be bipartisan and act.  Is the bailout a good idea?  In my opinion, not the best idea, but both sides need to work together to come up with something that will allow the global economy regain some confidence in our markets without awarding the "wrongdoers" at the top, be they politicians or leaders of financial institutions that made bad decisions.

Hey, Oscar, I know there's enough blame to go around, I was venting a little over the "little picture" view I've been seeing in the media, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac as prime causes rather than symptoms, and the duplicity of the Republicans in trying to appear to be against the big government bail-out, then crying whan the Dems didn't take care of the dirty work while they kept their hands clean.

I also forgot to mention the caller to that Hugh Hewitt show I heard this evening, who suggested impeaching Pelosi, and even tossed out the word "Treason". Hewitt , to his credit, corrected her, explaining that "treason" had a real meaning, gently letting her know that she was a little too nutty to be a Hewitt caller.

Which is pretty nutty methinks.

I really hadn't planned my post as a reply to you.  When I logged on, there were no posts showing and I wanted to be first, but apparently you are a much faster typer than I.  Maybe I'll try again this evening just after 9 PM PDT to be the first on a Wednesday topic! 

You can certainly say that, oscar, but I only recall one candidate who's surrogates were telling us that his "campaign suspension" was directly responsible for achieving a bipartisan deal - an hour before that deal collapsed. McCain has gotta be eating crow right now...

Well, you can certainly say the defeat of the bill was a bipartisan effort.

Oh blah, bu blah, buh blah, blah, blah. "times of crisis." Plenty of blame...not the best idea...work together..."wrongdoers"

God, Oscar. How insipid, how vague. And how utterly typical of a vapid right-wing stooge, out of ideas, without vigor, trying to pin the blame on the donkey. You know the culprit is but one ideology. It's that Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan market fundamentalist ideology. Adam Smiths's magic hand and all that garbage that holds blame. It's that trickle down bullsh(t.

When was the last time a majority of Republicans worked together with the minority Democrats? Spare us the Kumbaya. Republicans have no intention of working together. Just look at the record breaking filibuster history of the radical minority in the 110th block and blame Congress. Honestly, man. Save it. 

No. You should expect more as an American.  More from your government and more from your economic royalists. Our economy, like our democracy, is always strongest when the power of ideas, innovation, competition and prosperity grows from the bottom up. It's this top down trickle, this scraps from the table mentality that pervades conservative ideology that is the opportunity killer.

No, if you had any ideas on how to solve real problems you would look into shoring up the homeowners in default by letting them write down the mortgages of their overvalued homes with bankruptcy reform, yeah, reform  that same bankruptcy rape that Biden championed. Foreclosure benefits nobody. I

F you had any ideas, you would think about staying competitive by putting people to work on rebuilding our infrastructure and taking a space race view of energy independence. You would consider universal healthcare and free college as a means to break the chains of debt and free up the entrepreneurial spirit of a free country. The success of our economy will depend on our ability to risk starting a business or making a living wage and we just can't do that with the crushing bills of the for profit medical insurance goliaths. 

You would tax the financial sector heavily and let them pay for their own mess and don't give me that voodoo that high tax rates dilutes job creation. Hell, we've nothing but low tax rates for those pricks and they still worship money so much that they search the globe for cheaper labor/higher profits.

People first is the American way. Not this wish washy we're all bad guys nonsense you want to spout. Just take responsibility for this crisis of conservative market fundamentalist economics and move on. I won't hate you for admitting it.

"This has been another great demonstration of how quickly the rightwing zombies can do an about-face on an issue." 

Right you are, Col.  If conservatism isn't a moral and ethical failure, it's clearly early onset Alzheimer's.

If conservatism isn't a moral and ethical failure, it's clearly early onset Alzheimer's.

Exactly.  Remember, Ronald Reagan and Charleton Heston both started off as Democrats - Reagan was the head of the actor's union, and Heston marched with Dr. King.  Later on, they both became conservative Republicans and eventually died from Alzheimer's disease.

So I view conservatism as an indicator of Alzheimer's...

You said it, COL., and OSCAR THE GROUCH.  I just sent an alert to MMFA about the NY Times continual misinformation about the reasons and the blame McCain is using to defame Obama and the Democrats.  The Times repeated McCain's claim that he "suspended his campaign" and "rushed back to the White House to ' save the day'", when, in fact his own party said his presence and minimal input was more a hinderance than a help.  McCain is trying to present himself as the knight in shining armor, charging to the rescue, and would have been successful if it were not those hateful Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular.  This is the kind of "man" who would lead the country? 

And what did Obama do?  Did he go back to DC?  NO.  Did he urge dems to pass the bill during the debate? NO.  Did he do anything to ensure that 95 dems did not defect from the party? NO.  McCain did what was necessary while Obama watched from the sideline, afaird to take a position. 

And Col, Frannie and Freddie were major causes of this problem, and a direct result of the Dems failure to step up to the plate.  They forced loans that never should have been made.  Even Bill Clinton admitted that in an interview.  Then Pelosi decided scoring points was more important than passing this bill. 

And dont ever forget, 95 dems voted no.  They had the numbers to pass it, and they FAILED.

If you want to blame Obama and the 60% of the Dems in the House who backed the bill and give a pass to McCain and the 67% of the Republicans who rejected the bill you go right ahead.  But I have a question: Did/do you support that bill?

Let's forget this push to give McCain credit for what he did.

The bottom line is that both McCain and Obama spoke by phone to the Secretary of the Treasury. Both tried to persuade their party's congressional delegation to vote for a bill from the Republican Administration.

The issue and the vote had been framed as a country first vote. "Country First" just happens to be the McCain campaigns slogan.

Two thirds of the Democrats voted for a bill from the Republican Administration. One third of the Republicans decided to vote against the bill and seem to not only have put ideology before country, but also ideology before party.

So let's not be too hasty to add this as another McCain triumph. Neither candidate should be involved in this at this time. Both can try to persuade their party either for or against, but let's not heap praise on either side just yet.

Sometimes what's necessary is for people to allow those who understand the problem, to find solutions.

Actually, worrierking, 2/3 of Republicans voted against the bill, not 1/3.

Sorry, I got my math mixed up. Thanks for pointing that out to me and also for explaining in my other post that I meant net worth, not a loss of 10 % of my profits.

Wes knew what you meant.  He was just playing politics with the crisis.

Neither Obama or McCain want to deal with this right now. The issue helps Obama simply on political stereotypes, but I guarantee he wishes it to be relatively resolved by the time he takes office.

For someone who doesn't want to deal with this problem now, McCain's doing a pretty good job of acting like he's trying to deal with the problem.

Whoever is elected in November will have quite a few shocks when they take office and find out exactly what the current administration is going to dump in their lap.

I'm willing to bet that it's a hell of a lot worse than that pesky surplus and "vandalism" left by by those damned Clintons.

"Did he urge dems to pass the bill during the debate? NO."

And thank goodness too!!  If anything, this is another bit of proof that Obama has the judgement to lead..... he knew this was a bail out for billionaires.... was nothing more than a trick by the Repubs to try and blame the Dems for their part in destroying the economy.

This is such a joke... a group of corporatists the last 30 years demand gov't get out of their way (read: deregulation)... they get what they want and then some.... they fail with no supervision.... and then want the gov't to bail them out..... and the Repubs led the way and the Dems almost fell for it.

I say let them burn!! The hell with them all! This country can survive without them no matter what they whine into the camera!

I say take the $700 billion and reinvest it on Main St....

1) Give some for rebuilding our infrastructure...

2) Stop touching SocSec...

3) Universal Healthcare....for all

4) Invest in Solar, Wind, Geo, and other new forms of energy....

5) Education and the rebuilding of our schools....

6) Give small loans to those that want them for reopening up all those empty manufacturing plants scattered across our landscape

7) Temporarely expand Welfare and Unemployment (say -a max of 2 years) while the new investments in our country works it way throughout the country

8) Put back up all those regulations that greed (think Phil Gramm) helped tear down and make them stronger.... since Reaganomics and the trickle down theory DOES NOT work!!

9) Implement between a .25 and .75 percent tax on every single financial transaction that exists... from the sale/purchase of stocks/bonds/T-Bills/foreign currency, etc, etc that occur on WallStreet everyday.

10) Take back the media from the hands of corporate interests. Repeal the Telecommunication Act of 1996

11) Somehow... take 'human rights' away from the corporation.

12) Stop the damn occupation, close Gitmo, repeal the USAPATRIOT Act

13) Let the AG investigate all the things that need to be investigated and let the chips fall where they may!

Since none of this is likely to occur under the current regime.... I sent a very close version of this proposal to the Obama campaign... and since I have given the Obama campaign a few dollars and hold on to hope that someone there will listen.

  Those ideas are totally irrellivent. Nancy Pelosi says those billionaires NEED the money. And she decries anyone who votes against the bill. Mostly republicans and Bush/co. She is 3rd in line for the presidency and she is PISSED that those billionaires didn't get their money. She is the top liberal, at this moment, and speaks for all of you. Good job Nancy!!

"McCain did what was necessary while Obama watched from the sideline, afaird to take a position."

So let me get this straight.  Obama did nothing and Dems got more votes than they were supposed to.  McCain did what was necessary and Republicans bailed on him.

And this says what about McCain's leadership abilities?

I like the implication that Republicans have no responsiblities for voting at all, by the way.  Classic stuff.

POV wrote

>>They forced loans that never should have been made.  Even Bill Clinton admitted that in an interview.

And your proof of this is? I highy doubt that even comes close to accounting for the crisis.

eh, wasn't Obama at the same whitehouse meeting that McLame was? You know, that meeting where Obama laid out the plan as he understood it while McLame sat there saying nothing and then disagreed - but he couldn't say why? If I'm not mistaken, that would mean Obama was in DC...

Poor McLame, his campaign is now officially on life support.

McCain did what was necessary while Obama watched from the sideline, afaird to take a position. 

McCain was going to suspend his campaign until a deal was worked out. What's his campaign slogan...country first? There was not way he'd put his political career ahead of country. McCain wasn't going to the debate because the bailout passage was more important. He would not leave Washington, until the deal was done! Heck he couldn't even appear on David Letterman's show, he had to rush back to Washington.  

So what did McCain really do? NOTHING!

McCain attended the debate on Friday even thought there was no agreement on the bailout plan. McCain spent Saturday night having dinner at a fancy restaurant with his pal Lieberman, while Republicans, Democrats and Paulson were eating pizza out of a box, trying to come up with a compromise on the bailout. McCain wasn't on the freaking banking committee! He requested a meeting with the Bush and then never said a word! He had no absolutely NO influence with the House Republicans, who were the holdouts on the bailout. McCain was useless. He simply tried to give oxygen to his dying campaign. Oh and he tried to get Sarah out of Thursday's debate. 

And Col, Frannie and Freddie were major causes of this problem, and a direct result of the Dems failure to step up to the plate.  They forced loans that never should have been made.  Even Bill Clinton admitted that in an interview.  Then Pelosi decided scoring points was more important than passing this bill.

Please, NOW YOU want to quote Bill Clinton? 

You might want to speak with Rick Davis about Frannie and Freddie. I believe he and his firm were on their payroll. 

Republicans have controlled every branch of government for 6 of the last 8 years! It wasn't until Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, that George Bush found his veto pin, and YOU want to blame the Democrats?

Pelosi? The Republicans couldn't vote because of hurt feeling? Pleaseeee, buy a set!

McCain did what was necessary while Obama watched from the sideline, afaird to take a position. 

McCain was going to suspend his campaign until a deal was worked out. What's his campaign slogan...country first? There was not way he'd put his political career ahead of country. McCain wasn't going to the debate because the bailout passage was more important. He would not leave Washington, until the deal was done! Heck he couldn't even appear on David Letterman's show, he had to rush back to Washington.  

So what did McCain really do? NOTHING!

McCain attended the debate on Friday even thought there was no agreement on the bailout plan. McCain spent Saturday night having dinner at a fancy restaurant with his pal Lieberman, while Republicans, Democrats and Paulson were eating pizza out of a box, trying to come up with a compromise on the bailout. McCain wasn't on the freaking banking committee! He requested a meeting with the Bush and then never said a word! He had no absolutely NO influence with the House Republicans, who were the holdouts on the bailout. McCain was useless. He simply tried to give oxygen to his dying campaign. Oh and he tried to get Sarah out of Thursday's debate. 

And Col, Frannie and Freddie were major causes of this problem, and a direct result of the Dems failure to step up to the plate.  They forced loans that never should have been made.  Even Bill Clinton admitted that in an interview.  Then Pelosi decided scoring points was more important than passing this bill.

Please, NOW YOU want to quote Bill Clinton? 

You might want to speak with Rick Davis about Frannie and Freddie. I believe he and his firm were on their payroll. 

Republicans have controlled every branch of government for 6 of the last 8 years! It wasn't until Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, that George Bush found his veto pin, and YOU want to blame the Democrats?

Pelosi? The Republicans couldn't vote because of hurt feeling? Pleaseeee, buy a set!

Pleaseeee, buy a set!

Wow, Pearlene, that was some frying pan over the head retort for POV. I think his wobbly bits may never recover. :-0)

Juliajayne, I could not believe Eric Cantor was holding a written copy of Pelosi's speech and whinning, "She was mean to me".

WHAT? THIS is their excuse?

"And dont ever forget, 95 dems voted no."

I will remember them as the heroes they are, you corporate socialist bastard. 

what an absurd contention. if you're for something, you're for it.   i suppose the republicans never made any partisan speeches?   there is enough blame to go around in this issue going back years, and this bill should be judged on the merits by both sides, but does anyone think the average citizen really knew about what pelosi said in that speech.  what the republican version of the bailout proposed  was the usual cure all for everthing, tax cuts.  they wanted the elimination of capital gains taxes to "stimulate the economy".   nothing that tax cuts can't cure, including dandruff and bad breath. 

Blame? Blame? How about the American voter taking a look at himself for electing these clowns and allowing them to operate without responsibility and accountability?

But to the argument at hand...can someone provide a cogent argument as to why this particular bill is critical and the only solution? I'll admit it's above my pay grade to fully understand the issue.

A 9/24 USA/Gallop poll found that this particular plan was only supported by 22%...with 56% supporting something different...11% take no action...11% unsure.

The herd rumbled ahead with the idea that a bailout is absolutely critical...inferring that it's the only solution...to save the economy. I'm immediately suspicious when something is performed as rashly as this bailout option...with little to no discussion about viable alternatives.

Are there other or better soulutions? I'd really like to know...but you can skip with the platitudes...anybody got anything specific?

Anybody got anything...?

I've got about 90 % of what I had yesterday.

And you've got 90% more than you had when you started the investment...but I guess you'd be happier if the federal taxpayers just gave you the 10%...no worries, mate.

He's most likely talking about the net worth, not just the gains...

Concentrating on gains alone (including dividends reinvested), as of yesterday I've managed a whopping 5% total return in 4 1/2 years on my mutual funds.  Whoot!  In other words, I could have put all my investments into a credit union savings account and done as well with less risk.

Just for comparison, I was over 30% at the beginning of summer.  For you math-impaired types, that's an 80% gains reduction in 4 months.  I'm not looking forward to retirement, just a second job to help pay my portion of the debt incurred bailing out the portfolios of those folks who risked imaginary money, but are too vital to the economy to be allowed to realize the down side of that risk.

As an aside, my best performing mutual fund currently is a world bond fund.  Huh.  Go figure.  The communists and the socialists are keeping me in the black...

Off Topic Alert!

Hey Wes, I haven't seen you post any updated polls from Real Clear Politics lately.  What's up?

"I'm immediately suspicious when something is performed as rashly as this bailout option...with little to no discussion about viable alternatives."

That's why you were at the head of the class in resisting the invasion of Iraq, no doubt. And your suspicion of rash decisions was probably alright with the administration's wait and see approach to Katrina.

Amazing how far you people can stick your heads into the ground and sing "lalalala"... There were over 90 Dem's that voted against it- at leat 15 from Barney Frank's own comittee structures. Put that in the context of Pilosi having told the Dem's who were in tight races for Nov 4 to vote against it, and I think you know what this is all about. It comes down to pure political orchestration. Her little "speech" was probably the most bone-headed thing anyone could do under the circumstances, but the fact is that more than a third of the dems voted against the bill. You can try to twist the truth, but you can't bury the facts, and it's obvious that Pilosi and Frank are covering their own butts politically while trying to make hay out of an extreme crisis. Or maybe they're worried that if the bill really passes the bodies from the Fannie and Freddy debacle will start risign to the surface, where it's hard for the Dem's to deny their culpibility in favoritism, blocked regulation legislation and outright bribery in many cases. Maybe even Obama's ties to that criminally subversive ACORN organization might get an airing in the process as well. Dem's like Frank, Dodd, Obama et al. better start armor plating their their butts in the future. It will all come out at some point, I'm sure.

"Maybe even Obama's ties to that criminally subversive ACORN organization might get an airing in the process as well."

   You mean the same ACORN group that continually sued to force home loans to low income/unqualified people? Hmmm, forcing loans to unqualified people could not have caused this problem, it has to be the republicans fault. It was the republicans who signed into law the the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 and the republicans who forged an even looser version in 1995. None of those loans to unqualified people could have caused any kind of financial mess. It was all Bush's fault for not trying hard enough in 2002 to improve regulation. He had to have forseen that the democrats would stall all his efforts at regulation of the financial system! What an idiot he is. And, that Frank guy(?), just because he is in controll of the very system that is having the problems doesn't mean anything. His simple 'everything is fine' quotes are mearly a way of distracting all the blame from Bush. What a nice guy for doing that.

Then Phil comes in and tops the nuttiness! Yeah!

  Nuttiness? What part of my statement is false? Oh...none of it. You just claim it's nuttiness. How warm is the sand you have your head stuck in?

Phil,

If it's true, then provide just one reference to back up any one of your claims.  Just one, that's all I ask.

  I think you are lying to me. I think you will not be happy with one link. But, we'll try and see what you think. Hope you don't mind a simplified wiki version.

"The CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community."

 "In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities." 

 "As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent."

"In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency put new regulations into effect September of 2005. The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act 

Okay Phil,

So which one of your nutty claims does that support.

I don't see anything about ACORN lawsuits.

Let's see, Congress in 1977 was controlled by Democrats, so your claim about the legislation being signed by Repubs is false.

1995, Clinton pushed it not Repubs.

No support for your statement about the loans to "unqualified" people casuing the problem.

Nothing to support Bush pushing for regulation.

Frank is in control of what?

So, nothing you stated is supported by your reference.  Nice try though.

"Let's see, Congress in 1977 was controlled by Democrats, so your claim about the legislation being signed by Repubs is false." --- BINGO!!

"1995, Clinton pushed it not Repubs." --- BINGO, again!!!

"Frank is in control of what?" --- Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee

  So, now you agree Dems caused this problem, since you showed that republicans did not push this legislation.

Okay Phil,

Now for the $64,000 question, how is that legislation responsible for the current problem?

Let me give you a hint, it isn't.  It is a known fact that the loans at the base of the crisis are not CRA related.

So, next time you spout a stupid, nutty, rightwing talking point, check the facts!

  I take it you have a reading comprehension problem. So, I won't waste my $64K on you. Do some research on what freddie mac did with those loans.

  So before you go denying facts check your own! I agree you would think they are stupid, but you are a liberal, right? That would explain it.

Okay Phil,

You can't prove your point, so you resort to the favorite right wing tactic, tell the person questioning your comments to prove they are wrong.

Unfortunately for you, I already did.

Skeptical -

You're wasting your time trying to reason with Philib.  He's beyond hope - just like Miss Dee, Shoes, POV, PC, and AA.

At least there are a few people around here like Tommy and Jeter who come to issues from the conservative side but with an open mind.

I know what you mean. Tommy, Jeter, Oscar, Bruce, Wesley and a few others seem to be able to concede a point now and then and have an actual dialogue. The others you mentioned are ideologues with nothing but talking points.

I've made myself a promise that I won't play Pee Wee to an ideologue's Francis.

You know Worrier,

I try hard to do that also, but every once in awhile (too often most likely) I just can't stand by and let someone post something so idiotic and devoid of logic, facts and truthfulness.

It's one of my many weaknesses. 

I have to admit, I don't always follow my advice. But then after I break that promise to myself and try arguing with one of these posters, my head hurts. Then I make myself another promise never to do it again.

I need a 12 step program and a sponsor to stop myself from replying to the trolls.

It's alright fellas, I'm here for you. I have enough gravel in my guts and spit in my eye for the both of you.

   You can read this article and see if it helps you understand what happened. I can't tell if it's a liberal site or conservative site, it has anti-both-sides articles present. But has direct links to liberal talk/media outlets. Either way, it's just another of a million sources that show the link between CRA and the mortage failure.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Root-cause-to-the-financia-by-Bobby-Hawk-080928-421.html

   Let me ask one last question of you.... if the light at the intersection turns red, does that mean go faster? Are you able to tell the difference between the red light and the green light? If so, HOW?

A million?  Yet you can only cite one, from a person no one has ever heard of before writing on a blog?  Yeah, great source!  Nice Job Phil!

"Now for the $64,000 question, how is that legislation responsible for the current problem?"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Root-cause-to-the-financia-by-Bobby-Hawk-080928-421.html

   You liberals need the $64K more than I do, just ask Pelosi. So, there's an article that explains a lot of it.

Hey Phil,

Your nothing if not determined.  I prefer to listen to the experts though not some no-name author from a blog.

Maybe if you find somebody that actually works in the lending or financial industry that blamed the CRA, I might take notice.

And Phil,

He doesn't actually explain why a Bill from 1977 caused a problem in 2008, we are just supposed to take his word for it.  Unfortunately for you and him, CRA loans are a small percentage of the problem loans (like less than 10%).

Also, maybe he or possibly you could explain how a bill that requires banks to offer services can be construed as to forcing them to make bad loans.  Nothing in the Bill forces anyone to give out bad loans to people that can't afford it.  The CRA loans are actually monitored quite closely to prevent bad things from happening.

If you had a clue, you would understand that it was the mortgage brokers not covered by the CRA that created this problem and the deregulation that allowed companies other than banks (that were covered by the CRA) to get into the buying and selling of mortgage backed securities.

Good work skeptical. Don't let phil and his insane con posse try to shift the blame to anti-discriminatory lending laws. Not when the banking industry is out of control.

It's really quite simple. Finance companies knowingly sold sub-prime mortgages to people that couldn't possibly repay them and they did it because the money was too good and nobody told them to stop the risky behavior.

  Oh, BTW I was right. You did lie, you aren't happy with ONE link that you asked for. You'll have to do the rest of the research yourself. I get tired of showing liberals they are continually wrong and then having to do the research for them that proves it. Take some personal responsibility and look up this stuff yourself. Why should I bother? You wouldn't believe it anyway...no matter how true it is. The sad fact is that it is all true, and you still won't believe it. You will be one of the many minions who do what they are told and blame Bush/co for this mess because it's simpler than actually investigating for the truth. You know the old saying; you can't handle the truth!

Hey Phil,

Your reference didn't back up what you said.  So,I know in rightwing world, up is down and right is wrong, but here in reality you were wrong.

Nice try again though.

   I guess when you told me that democrats ruled in 77 and Clinton changed the law in 95, you didn't see what you were saying. And your sudden silence about Frank's position in this mess tells me you live close to the city of denial.

No Phil,

I knew exactly what I was saying.  I was proving that you have no idea what you are talking about.  You made a bunch of statements that you can't support.

You still haven't provided a single reference to back up your statements.

How did the CRA cause this crisis?  How is Barney Frank involved?  Do you even know what his committee does?

Phil, you need to stop making claims that you can't support.  Otherwise people will start to think that you are just a trolling, rightwing dittohead.

Phil, you need to stop making claims that you can't support.  Otherwise people will start to think that you are just a trolling, rightwing dittohead.

Too late - we already think that.

Skeptical, here's your problem;

You need to turn on your am radio, and leave it on all day as the right wing screech monkeys rattle off all of these unrelated vague accusations and make all sorts of flimsy connections.

Then, when you get home at night, turn on Fox News, where journalist Karl Rove will condense the days worth of nonsense (for which he was the original source) into a few minutes of comforting fantasy.

After that, everythng falls into place, and you'll find yourself in complete agreement with Philib and MissDeePoint.You'll notice an increase in drool production, but you'll get used to it.

Can I just take a stupid pill instead?  I don't have time to listen to all of that!

Can I just take a stupid pill instead? 

And here's the poster boy for stupid pills......

Oh, BTW I was right.

Philib, you're NEVER right.

   I am ALWAYS right.

Phil,

You haven't been so far!

   And, you still haven't addressed Barny Franks responsibility in all of this. Oh, that's right, you're a liberal...you don't believe in responsibility. Unless you pawn it off onto someone else. Like Pelosi did, while whining about Bush/co ruining the country for 8 years and blocking her efforts to pay billions to her rich friends. She whined about replicans blocking 'her' money, yet she was earily silent when 95 democrats wouldn't support her. Did you catch that? 95 democrats!!! And she lays the entire blame on republicans, when she only needed 12 more votes.

  Your liberal friends are proud of the way you lied and sqweeled when answering (not) my questions. I'm sure that goes a long way in your world.

Phillib wrote:

>>But, we'll try and see what you think. Hope you don't mind a simplified wiki version

Yes, we do mind, becaue right at the very top of that wiki article it states: "The neutralit of this article is disputed."

In the page linking to disputes over the article, here is just one cricism of the original article:

This section is balanced but not thorough. What is needed is a full disclosure of statistics that show which sector of the market actually caused the crisis. It is very clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were set up for and biased towards lenders who eliminated redlining and favored race and class-based criteria. And it is clear that a significant number of mortgage companies were not under the CRA criteria. These facts are not debatable nor are they the complete picture of the crisis

---

And then further down:

Over the past year and a half, Wikipedia has allowed this entry to be hijacked by Republicans and allowed them to turn it into propaganda. It is a blatant attempt to rewrite history. Check the history, there is a two year dry spell and then a flurry of activity accusing the article of having a liberal bias and then rewriting it. Here is an article from an economist on the CRA:

If there is any justice in the system at all, they'll make accomodations for Frank, Dodd and possiby Obama right next to Randy Cunningham in Club Fed- they all have sold out this country for personal interest- and Nancy Pilosi should find a home in some nice women's penitentiary for being their Madam/Pimp... The problem is that the monumental dunderheads on here want to reward them all for their abysmal incompetence, greed, deception and lack of moral integrity.

And as an aside- remember- Community Reinvestment Act Programs, when made an acronym, spell CRAP.

  Sorry MissDee. Justice is blind. We will end up seeing Frank, Dodd, Pelosi and O'bama placed on mantles as figures of worship instead of the examples of despair that they are.

Phil and MissinglinkDee,

How much more nuttiness are you going to subject us to?  Please come to the real world for once and deal in facts, not stupid, "NUTTY" talking points!

If there is any justice in the system at all, they'll make accomodations for Frank, Dodd and possiby Obama right next to Randy Cunningham in Club Fed...

And if things turn out the way they trult should, Miss Dee Truth, you and Philib will be able to find a competent mental health professional to help you get over your delusional views of the world.

  I won't be able to if O'bama wins. If that happens the only medical care I'll be able to get is government health care. And, we see the quality of work with examples in DMV and the Post Office. So, while I will be able to see a psych, I won't be able to get the competent ones. That is only allowed to you and your rich friends, similar to Pelosi. However, if McCain wins, I'll have a choice. Hmmm, imagine that...in America I get a choice. Thank GOD we're still a democratic society and not liberal-land like you and your ilk want to make it.

MissDee,

Another great Nutty Rightwing rant.  Thanks for the laugh!

It's always so reassuring that people like you can  mock and laugh at the truth. Of course, anything stated by MMFA and its ranting adherents here is about as distant from the truth as the outer reaches of the universe are from the core of the earth, so it's not a surpirse that you would mock what you can't recognize.

Okay MissDee, Like I said to your buddy Phil.  Provide some references to your nutty claims.

And I am not referring to the votes counts, I know whoi did and didn't vote for the Bill.  The question is to your assignment of motives.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that Philib and MissDee come to MMFA, spout nutty rightwing ditto points that they can't back up with a single solitary fact and then accuse me of not understanding the situation.

I am totally stunned that these two fine, upstanding, stellar examples of Right Wing, Conservative Republicans would just make crazy accusations without the benefit of even a smidgeon of truth.

How shocking! 

Skeptical, you give them too much credit (I know you're being sarcastic...), but to me, they're both lying sacks of gorilla manure.

It's always so reassuring that people like you can  mock and laugh at the truth.

You've spent you life so far from the truth, Miss Dee Boat, that you wouldn't recognize the truth if it was carrying a great big sign that said "THE TRUTH".

Don't you have somewhere else to go on the Internet and be stupid?

Who causes a crisis of lack of regulation?

The Democrats consistently press for regulation and oversight of businesses, to prevent corruption and greedy practices which may harm this nation.

The Republicans consistently, IDEOLOGICALLY, oppose government, oppose government regulation or oversight of business, and have for decades have been DEREGULATORS whenever given the power to pass policy.

The Republicans ran this nation with a Republican President for SIX YEARS, from 2001 to 2007. In that time, ANY program or law with which they disagreed could have been eliminated, modified, restructured, or defunded. They had the POWER, to write and pass the laws, with a President of their party to sign it into law.

Thus, if any "problem" has been festering for over two years (the time Dems have had a "majority", useful only to block GOP plans, with the majority being small enough for the GOP to block all Democratic proposals ... a virtual stalemate), then the question becomes: WHY DIDN"T THE GOP DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

So, given all this, it is NUTTY to blame Democrats for this crisis of DeRegulation of business and financial institutions.

The last time Republicans deregulated financial institutions, the Savings and Loan crisis resulted, and THAT one cost American Taxpayers over $300 Billion dollars. Obviously, the GOP has learned: They can loot and grub undeserved profits, and when it causes an economic crisis, they can then hit up the American Taxpayers for the amount of their theft, and maybe even MORE.

And as a bonus, all this corruption and theivery has the result of DEFUNDING the government, so only the very wealthiest make money, while scooping out all the money which might be used to help America's poor, its infrastructure, its health care, whatever.  Oh, and the idea is to BLAME THE DEMOCRATS, absent any evidence, and hope people are fooled into forgetting that the GOP has had the power to do whatever they wanted, and THIS is the result. Just like the S&L debacle. 

MissDee: "There were over 90 Dem's that voted against it"

How many of them went in front of the cameras and said that Pelosi's speech was the reason?

Expanding Homeownership.

The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush's initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:

American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;

Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;

Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and

Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

Because:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

that was in answer to skep's What's up, Wes?

You do have to wonder if CBS is in the tank for the Republicans. Why did McCain and Palin get a "do over?" There was nothing unfair about Couric's original interview of Palin. (BTW, I have had the impression that Couric was a strong Hillary supporter who is still bitter about Clinton's loss to Obama.) I do think Couric is sometimes a problem. For example, did you hear her characterization of the Justice Department/Attorney General firng scandal. "Critics say" the states attorneys general were fired for political reasons. No, the just-released official report says that! I wish I had recorded last night's newscast.

CRA applied ONLY to banks and thrifts, who made less than 7% of the sub-prime loans.

Ugh. The reply wouldn't work to this post. I had to respond.

"... a group of corporatists the last 30 years demand gov't get out of their way (read: deregulation)... they get what they want and then some.... they fail with no supervision.... and then want the gov't to bail them out..... and the Repubs led the way and the Dems almost fell for it."

What deregulation specifically occurred that led to the FM/FM meltdown? We had the chance in 2004 but Barney Frank saw no evidence of an accounting issue and the other legislators were pretty sure the concerns were just racism aimed at Raines.

I say take the $700 billion and reinvest it on Main St....

I say, don't take it from them in the first place.

1) Give some for rebuilding our infrastructure...

Ok...

2) Stop touching SocSec...

Well, it needs to be touched. I actually support putting a bunch of money into it so you can at least guarantee I'm going to get my contributions back.

3) Universal Healthcare....for all\

I don't really see where in the Constitution that its the federal government's role. And it's so off topic to this matter.

4) Invest in Solar, Wind, Geo, and other new forms of energy....

Again, ok? What does that have to do with anything? You Dems are quite fond of saying how long drilling will take to get more gas on the market..timeline for your little plan here?

5) Education and the rebuilding of our schools....

All the schools are falling down? Schools are the state's issue; NCLB is atrociously unconstitutional.

6) Give small loans to those that want them for reopening up all those empty manufacturing plants scattered across our landscape

That's a fantastic idea. More bad loans. There's a reason those plants are empty, incl. they didn't make enough money to maintain the property cost.

7) Temporarely expand Welfare and Unemployment (say -a max of 2 years) while the new investments in our country works it way throughout the country

Force receipients to enter retraining programs and work part-time jobs. Assign them "Welfare Officers" to make sure they are living only on the essentials.

8) Put back up all those regulations that greed (think Phil Gramm) helped tear down and make them stronger.... since Reaganomics and the trickle down theory DOES NOT work!!

Better regulation, not more. And no regulation (or lack thereof) based on politics, Barney Frank.

9) Implement between a .25 and .75 percent tax on every single financial transaction that exists... from the sale/purchase of stocks/bonds/T-Bills/foreign currency, etc, etc that occur on WallStreet everyday.

Do you think the stock market will go up when it costs more money to trade? You will destroy expansion with a policy like that.

11) Somehow... take 'human rights' away from the corporation.

I wholeheartedly agree with this one...you meant take away "individual" status under the tax law, I think. I agree that business should be separate as an entity.

12) Stop the damn occupation, close Gitmo, repeal the USAPATRIOT Act

Off topic again. Stay focused.

13) Let the AG investigate all the things that need to be investigated and let the chips fall where they may!

Agreed!!!

"6) Give small loans to those that want them for reopening up all those empty manufacturing plants scattered across our landscape

That's a fantastic idea. More bad loans. There's a reason those plants are empty, incl. they didn't make enough money to maintain the property cost."  ---------------

Schweinerei!

Plants are empty because they fired their workers here in the U.S. to move the plants overseas where they could pay workers pennies on the dollar.  Again, you're full of sh!t.

So reopening them will change that? LOL!

Let's see how big an LOL you give when they ship your job overseas.

It pisses me off whenever I hear an American worker laugh about this. The powers that be drone on and on about the "global economy". That means that we're all competing on a global scale for jobs. Eventually American wages will be closer to the wages paid in third world countries.

Has anyone else considered the fact that conservatives like to talk about how Obama only has rhetoric, he can make a speech but that's it, etc?

Well, if Republicans in Congress are this easily manipulated by a "partisan speech", then Obama can make them do whatever the hell he wants them to do, just by pushing their buttons.  The power of speech just went up exponentially.

brabantio, that was actually pretty good.

I also find it hilarious that 'free market' types are advocating for this (which is obviously a left of center approach to the economy).  Check out this commercial that somebody sent me:  http://www.clicktobroadcast.tv/videos/66

I wonder if there's a 'free market' type who posts here who supported passage of yesterday's bill...  Anyone?</