Welcome to socialism, boys and girls...

Has already started...the campaign will no longer give interviews to the station that employs this interviewer, which they painted as unprofessional. (she spent years under Peter Jennigs, I believe).

I guess Biden should do like Osama, and just stick to giving those speeches, instead of fearing some tough questions from rogue reporters.
So now that she angered the campaign, does anyone doubt we'll soon find out about the interviewers credit limits, her gynecological history, her elementary school records...? Or perhaps the campaign will just sick the Justice Dept. on them, too. (media suppression gets to be an addiction, for socialist dictators)

YouTube - Biden Angered By Tough Questions

good video,

God dont let obama become president.

if spreading the wealth around is socialism (which it is NOT), then how are george bush or john mccain not socialist? they spread the wealth around to rich people and banks with tax cuts and outright socialist bank takeovers...under any republican president/congress, wealth is redistributed by federal social programs...under george bush, federal social program spending expanded by almost 20%!

according to the invalid republican definition of socialism, the usa has been a socialist country for decades...if that reporter was serious, she would have directed the same line of questioning at mccain/palin who plan to redistribute hundreds of billions of borrowed tax dollars (from future generations) to buy bad mortgages off low income home owners that are at risk of default...OMG! REPUBLICANS ARE SOCIALISTS!! if mccain wins, he will still oversee the state control of the means of production of capital via the federal government's ownership of banks...socialism has already arrived under that pinko republican george bush...the next socialist who moves into the white house will be a piker compared to the socialist who is moving out

There is difference between tax cuts and giving money.

And giving tax money to people who dont pay taxes is welfair.

God dont let obama become president.


But i really dont wanan get into this argument again, look at my old post and u can see where i stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoned88911

God dont let obama become president.

---

u know, "God" does not vote, nor is a US citizen, so I guess it's none of its/his/her business who gets elected, he got 6.3 Billion more people he gotta take care of along with a universe that our planet is not even a flake in comparison to it :D

But the people do vote and make the outcome, so u better appeal to them in some way

this socialism argument is so funny to me, I betcha 90% of people who claim Obama is a socialist can't even define socialism in an accurate manner! they just gurgle what they hear from their beloved brainwashers, like they are some kind of signal booster or somethin

here is what I think:

if u make less than $200'000 a year, u a fool if u vote McCain!!! But I give it to ya if u make more than that! just merely on basis of self-interest, forget country or world's interest (which i can argue why McCain/Palin won't be the better choice despite all of the pointed weaknesses that Obama may have)

Spreading wealth around has been done throughout the history, every single year in this country, u tax people and use that tax for different purposes and other people, aint that socialism? it just all of a sudden becomes socialism when Obama tries to merely change the balance of the spreading formula? it's been spreading the wealth, he just spreads it differently! get it?

-govt taxes ur money and spends it on things that u may totally be against (wars (including on drugs), welfare, and all sorts of programs u may not like)

-govt taxes ur money and gives tax break to others who may not pay taxes or not deserve the benefits given to them with your money

-US govt taxes ur money and sends it to israel every single year, aint that a global socialism!!! u know? kind of a welfare payment just for sake of being down with our best ally

-govt taxes people of all 50 states and then states get unfair and unequal amounts of it for themselves

-govt taxes u and pays it to Justice/prison/law enforcement people to come and bust u for weed, especially those DEA bastards... aint that socialism? a failing one too!!? I for one rather walk the streets than work and pay people under command of ONDCP their yearly salaries and raises and bonuses.

So, u see, if u r actually firmly believe Obama is a socialist, u should count many of our other presidents as socialists as well. by the way, do yourself a favor and go find the definition of a socialist from a reliable source

FYI from Chicago 8 to bin laden people were labeled "terrorist", but who really deserves such a label, only the one who matches the definition. Labor union protesters in earlier decades of our recent history were labeled "anarchists" (which was the early term for a terrorist) so please don't plant your knowledge base on some biased information that will lose all credibility and color in face of cold facts... it only hurts u and ur credibility champ;)


this is just another type of thing like the ones I have seen before:
"muslim"
"arab"
"Hussein"
"elitist" (for sake of this term, to me anyone who states that I am eligible and able to run the greatest country and 300 million people, is considered an elitist, which will be all those nominees and candidates in the history)
and now the title of the last month:
"socialist"

hereby i guess the title of the next month ladies and gentlemen:
"Cheater"

and I guess his title for decades to come when u people talk about him
"that communist bastard"

the same way these uninformed and uneducated biased and emotional people talk about FDR or Kennedy or other "hated" ex-presidents

but this time around, ya betcha as of now u r in the desperate minority, resorting to any means including crying to maaaaaaybe avoid a president Obama

Wish ya luck and pray 4 u 2 get some charm and intellect


ps. I did not direct this post to any specific member, that is by no means my intent, the "u" is the generic u, just so we're clear!:)

Its not if u make 250k, its if i buisness makes 250k.

So lets say a buisnes makes 250

Boss is payed-50k

and have 5 employee making 40k

tax the buisness more and he cuts down to 3 employees

and u dont got a job now

Thats obamas idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoned88911

Its not if u make 250k, its if i buisness makes 250k.

So lets say a buisnes makes 250

Boss is payed-50k

and have 5 employee making 40k

tax the buisness more and he cuts down to 3 employees

and u dont got a job now

Thats obamas idea.

---

read your post again, individuals are apparently the ones at stake when u hear joe the plumber and socialist argument, not small businesses, there is a lot more about small business people in both candidates plans. u must see the whole picture, not talk against one part and go silent on the other parts

here is the fine print
BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN�S PLAN FOR SMALL BUSINESS

and here is another article that maybe explain it better
McCain vs. Obama: Who will cut small-business taxes? - Sep. 8, 2008

First of all, I've seen Biden get angry, and that was not him being angered by tough questions.. And honestly, asking if Barack Obama really wants to turn our nation into a socialist state like Sweeden is simply a ridiculous question. There is a fine line between wanting to give the middle class more tax cuts and being a Marxist..

if a business makes $250,000 in taxable income, that is what is left over AFTER deducting cost of goods sold, wages/benefits, property rent, equipment lease, vehicle lease, utilities, supplies, misc. overhead, and depreciation...to make $250k taxable income, a business would need to generate about $2.5 million in sales

i managed a business with $8 million in sales and we still managed to squeak under the $250k income limit by issuing fat director bonuses to the four family owners

So none of you can comment on what the premise of this post was...?
You know...the media manipulation and suppression?

Lets see...
Ignoring the issue at hand...check
Changing the subject to point out irrelevant and unsubstanciated talking points not related to the subject matter...check
Attempting to point out that lowering taxes to businesses as an incentive to hire more people, is the same as taxing those same businesses, and giving the money to those that pay no taxes to begin with...check

OMG...we have some liberal "free thinkers" here.

As this isn't the first time the obama campaign has attempted to manipulate and surpress, I believe that once you look into the upbring Osama has recieved via the Chicago liberal democratic machine, (Cook County Democratic Organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) his relationship with:
Ayers - indoctrinates schools to the benefits of a more socialistic/facist approach to education...oh...and he's a terrorist)
ACORN - voter fraud, vote rigging, mortgage terrorism Thank ACORN For Current Mortgage Crisis | Sweetness & Light) (trained them, defended their interests in court, handed monies to them and Ayers thru gov't handouts,...)
Rezco - camapaign donations deemed fraudlent and back-room deals to contribute to osama's wealth thru a fraudlent land deal (the only one we know about;))...now, a convicted felon.
and Wright - preaches black reformation "theology", and anti-(white) American sentiments, as a theological tool to manipulate the populace from the pulpit. (race baiting) But, at least Obama found his morals and threw his religion (and his "mentor", and his grandmother) under the bus when politically expedient to do so)...
...and now this latest incredulous indignation at relevent questions regarding Obidens own statements, and by the way...did you see Obiden's statement about 'them' not contributing to ACORN? My understanding was that the obama camp gave $832,000 during the primaries, to an ACORN affiliate for lighting and stage prep. (oops...that was for the "get out the vote" folks, as they were later forced to ammend)

Obama is not only a socialist, he's a marxist. Lying to the masses, attempting to re-write the history books as he goes, and using the press to manipulate the populace and ease this transition twords socialism. And now, banning a TV station from future interviews because the questions asked by a seasoned reporter ruffled poor unprepared/unprofessional Obiden's feathers? Hmmm. What do the mainstream reporters get when they ask the softball questions with no depth...a hand-job and a back-stage pass?

And then there's the Fairness Doctrine democrats are trying to push thru. Why The Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair


I really felt good this election cycle. Searching the facts, sorting thru the details of both their upbringings (childhood, theological and professional) and exposure to the ideals and circumstances that make-up the parts of their whole. It helped me make a decision based on facts, not popularity. Facts, not a bloggers 'opinion'. Facts, not revised facts as the candidates wish to twist and spin them.

There was such a terrific feeling washing over me as I tapped the "push here to cast vote" button. "Actually, I felt this thrill going up my leg." (to quote a liberal media hack)

"So none of you can comment on what the premise of this post was...?"

- usually the premise of the post has something to do with the title, which in this case was "Welcome to socialism, boys and girls..."



"You know...the media manipulation and suppression? "

- what does that have to do with the socialism premise in your title? i watched the video you linked and i didn't see any suppression...the only manipulation i saw was the reporter falsely trying to link obama-biden with socialism-marxism because of a single sentence obama used weeks ago (while ignoring the current trillion dollar expansion of *real* socialism pimped by the current republican president)

WFTV-Channel 9 is a single channel serving a small chunk of florida...cancelling biden's wife's interview with that station isn't media suppression...cutting off all media contact with sarah palin earlier in the campaign was real media suppression

Ahhh...you seem to be viewing the interview through those Osama-tinted glasses. The validity of her questions goes way beyond what the questions actually were. Could have acused him of campaign fraud, rape or murder...whatever. The answers were equally insignificant, as he is a lying sack of liberal dogshit. (altho he did lie in the interview about obama's campaign supporting the ACORN fictitious name drive, that's not the point) The point is the campaigns reaction to the interview, which was to revoke the stations 'privilages'.

Guess ol Bush should have given Helen Thomas the boot too, 'eh?

Tell me one single station that has been banned by the republicans here. Perhaps you would rather her come out of the box sounding like Joe Obiden...confused and unsure why he was chosen to deliver the messiah's message of false hope?
I for one am certainly glad that it only took a few days to instruct Palin on policy, presence and strategy. Since then...as far as I know, open access to all media forms, including Saturday Night Live, CNN, Fox....Altho CNN seems a bit retarded with it's research prior to doing an interview. Since they are in a much larger market share, shouldn't they have really understood the subject matter prior to the interview...? Or is this all you expect from the liberal media now a days? Perhaps there is an apology by the idiot interviewer forthcoming, but none as of yet.
How's this for incompetent and unprofessional:
Griffin Misquotes National Review Column During Palin Interview - Sarah Palin
(also available on UTube)

Regardless of whether or not you agree with Obama's policies I don't understand how anybody could watch that interview and not realize what a complete moron that woman is. Those questions were absolutely ridiculous and I cant believe that Biden was able to keep his cool the way he did. Its like the woman had not any research about Obama's policies "ever" and just took the talking points from the McCain campaign and acted like they were the truth. How many times is Obama/Biden gonna have to explain themselves over the same attacks that they have answered over and over again.

WFTV-Channel 9 doesn't have any 'priviledges'...they got their interview with the next vice-president of the united states and they botched it by asking invalid questions about marxism and socialism (WTF?)...WFTV serves orlando which has a population of less than 190,000 (not including guests at disneyworld)...it's a backwater tv station in the middle of a town that wouldn't exist if walt disney hadn't bought 47 square miles of swamp for his resort theme park...most tv stations in real cities four times that size won't enjoy as much priviledge as WFTV had so there goes your theory about media suppression

BTW: helen thomas didn't pester george bush with idiotic questions about him being a socialist (before he became a REAL socialist and nationalized half of wall street)...at least i can thank george bush for one thing: he rendered useless the republican use of the word 'socialism' as it applies to normal government social programs that benefit people instead of corporations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Obama is not only a socialist, he's a marxist. Lying to the masses, attempting to re-write the history books as he goes, and using the press to manipulate the populace and ease this transition twords socialism. And now, banning a TV station from future interviews because the questions asked by a seasoned reporter ruffled poor unprepared/unprofessional Obiden's feathers? Hmmm. What do the mainstream reporters get when they ask the softball questions with no depth...a hand-job and a back-stage pass?

---

define socialism and marxism and cite your sources. I would like to find out why Obama is compared to people like Lenin or Marx or any of the Bolsheviks.

the definitions I find may only at best marginally make him a weak socialist in one very very specific way. Socialism is a very broad subject that is a way of life to my understanding.

as a reminder, not every social program is a "socialist thing". u got SOCIAL SECURITY since 1930s that without it our elderly and disabled would have had to face many more and harder challenges.

I will count YOUR(their=right wing) argument null, unless YOU provide me with YOUR thinking and reasoning, not buncha loyalist propaganda and attacks/defenses for sake of proving your loyalty or pressing the other side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Ahhh...you seem to be viewing the interview through those Osama-tinted glasses.

---

Stopped reading after this. You can't be serious about it, why should we?

i'm sure he meant to type obama-tinted glasses, the same way that the conservative woman from 'the view' accused her critic of drinking obama kool aid

YouTube - The View Elisabeth Hasselbeck Saying barack obama KOOL-AID

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNugget

Stopped reading after this. You can't be serious about it, why should we?

---

It's not like I take the secular progressive liberal agenda seriously either.
Doesn't surprise me at all either, that you see something you don't immediately agree with, so you stop reading. There's a lot of that going around...
:jointsmile:

does that mean you meant to type "osama-tinted glasses"?

its time for change in the US we the hard working class (under50,000) a yr
are not going too do it anymore! we want food/housing/medical/schools thats affordable enough of breaking our backs making the rich fucking assholes richer !! were already paying almost 50% tax and get no benifits fuck that!!
the Daines pay 50% tax but their government takes care of them! schools/housing/food/medical their is'nt one Daine thats stressed out homeless sick & dieing on the streets we could learn alot from them.
we definately pay more taxes than they do so why don't we have better social programs,because it goes too the fucking filthy stinking rich corporations its time too end this they outta be ashamed of their actions:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

does that mean you meant to type "osama-tinted glasses"?

---

Quite often I say exactly what I mean. :jointsmile:

I have no problem bashing a candidate that has been bought, paid for, packaged and marketed under a false-hope prophecy.

Is there anyone out there that really believes that the three horsemen of the appocalyse (Reid, Pelosi and Osama) are going to lower your taxes...? You really think they'll uphold our constitution...? The son of a bitch can't even keep his campaign promise of accepting public funds, and have tried their best to:
Restrict free trade. (a Clinton creation)
Restrict gun ownership.
Restrict child rights via the botched partial-birth abortion bills.
Restrict womens rights via the Hillary and Palin-bashing that still goes on to this day.
Restrict free and open access to the media, now that the president has been set.

So since the name calling is ongoing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramulux

... I don't understand how anybody could watch that interview and not realize what a complete moron that woman is.

---

You mean the "complete moron" (Barbara West - Barbara West - WFTV News Story - WFTV Orlando that was was assistant to one of the more well-known reporters, Peter Jennings (World News Tonight anchor) for over a decade. Since she showed that not all of the media has been bought, (or cowed) it makes her a complete moron...? That, my friend is a moronic statement itself. She asked some tough questions about Obiden campaigns recent statements, not taken out of context...not embellished upon...but words from the candidates mouths that needed further explaining.
Exactly along the Osama playbook...Defend the messiah by bashing those that dare to stand opposed.
Just this year, Y'all have done it to Hillary, Palin, West, and every woman that has the brains and balls enough to speak her mind...

I for one have a problem with the fact Osama will sit-down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad, but will block media access to the administration because of a couple of embarrasing hardball questions. What kind of a convoluted policy is that? (socialist)

And fyi, Helen Thomas often asked socialist questions of Bush, not whether or not he was one. (being a socialist herself, she already knew the answer to that one) but that wasn't the point either. Regardless of her moronic questions, she was never refused entry or access.

if you think obama is the equivalent of osama, then anyone who supports obama is supporting osama, which means the majority of americans support terrorism

do you believe that? i don't

helen thomas asks socialist questions? what is a socialist question?

george bush (a real socialist who nationalized half of wall street) doesn't even answer questions anymore...in the middle of a once-in-a-century global crisis, he makes the occasional two minute speech telling everyone to stop complaining and suck his socialism up and then dashes away before the reporters can ask him anything

Actually, since the liberal nuts continue to openly bash Palin, Hillary, Joe the Plumber, and any that don't fit their mold...I'll continue to reciprocate in an equally childish way.

Nice spin about Bush, too. But it doesn't even come close, and he isn't even running for office. Back to the candidate, tho...Do you doubt McCains tendencies to cross the aisle to get meaningful legislation passed? Do you recall any single piece of legislation that B. Hussein Obama has authored. (or even voted on, lol) How many presidents, when faced with a significant crisis like the mortgage meltdown, would choose to sit by the phone in the hopes that someone uses him as a phone-a-friend? (hint: not the responsible one)

Why not tell us which candidate called for tighter govt. control of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac in 2006...back when something less drastic would be needed to avoid a mortgage meltdown? The osama media darlings are still trying to play this one down, as a couple of his advisors (Raines, Johnson...) were umong the early CEO's reaping hundreds of millions in combined bonuses, and salaries, on a failed mortgage system the democrats refused to regulate.

McCain called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in May, 2006, video of Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and Dems family «

i read your link - mccain was calling for *accounting* reforms for fannie and freddie...that wouldn't have done anything to stop the subprime crisis...george bush personally leaned on fannie and freddie to issue more subprime loans AFTER mccain's sponsored those reforms...mccain was nowhere to be seen then (except for his shoes poking out of george bush's ass)

bush isn't running for office...he IS in office and he owes the american people and the rest of the world a lot more face time to answer questions about what he is doing about the global crisis he helped cause

Fun Stuff Rusty!
Yes, usually socialist regimes use censorship, media manipulation, etc... in conjunction with "secret police".
I bet you have a reference handy about Osama's hopes for that as well.:jointsmile:
You are right.
Good for you for trying to talk sense, but they can't hear anything over all the baa baaa baaa, if you know what I mean.:D

Awww..... Sorry guys. Ignorance, unsubstantiated rumors and unfounded fear isn't working this time. What else have ya' got? :what:

It seems the Republican party has this guy as it's cheerleader nowadays.

The hate is really spewing forth from these posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

i read your link - mccain was calling for *accounting* reforms for fannie and freddie...that wouldn't have done anything to stop the subprime crisis...george bush personally leaned on fannie and freddie to issue more subprime loans AFTER mccain's sponsored those reforms...mccain was nowhere to be seen then (except for his shoes poking out of george bush's ass)

bush isn't running for office...he IS in office and he owes the american people and the rest of the world a lot more face time to answer questions about what he is doing about the global crisis he helped cause

---

Again...no mention about the dems shooting-down the bill McCain co-sponsored. (by not bringing it to the floor for a vote) You don't seem interested in accuracy, so here's a recap of the bill:
The overview of S. 190 (109th):
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)
1/26/2005--Introduced.
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.
Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.
Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.
S. 190 [109th] - Summary: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)
Accounting reforms, huh...? Sorry...I don't just roll-over and play stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allrollsin21

It seems the Republican party has this guy as it's cheerleader nowadays.

The hate is really spewing forth from these posts.

---

I'd rather cheerlead for those policies I deem important, than blindly follow a false prophet to the edges of Chicago. Parroting the blogs, avoiding intelligent discourse with blind attacks, inuendo and as you put it...hate.

"Again...no mention about the dems shooting-down the bill McCain co-sponsored."

- i have blamed the dems for their role in the subprime crisis on this forum...why would i bring it up again when replying to false claims that john mccain tried to prevent the subprime crisis? check out this nov/07 interview in which mccain states that laissez faire capitalism leads to corruption, he doesn't know much about economics, and that nobody on his staff including him anticipated the subprime crisis:

"Iâ??d like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not."
- John McCain, last few seconds of the following interview
John McCain - Sentinel Interview 11/4/07 NHElects.com



"Accounting reforms, huh...? Sorry...I don't just roll-over and play stupid."

- fine...then explain why john mccain would state his support for the bill by saying:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion ACCOUNTING scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and INTENTIONALLY MANIPULATED FINANCIAL REPORTS to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's ACCOUNTING PROBLEMS. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and RESTATED LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REPORTS from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

mccain's speech here:
GovTrack: Senate Record: FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM... (109-s20060525-16)




the reality is that john mccain is an economic dunce who didn't see any of this coming, and his call to reform fannie and freddie was based on their accounting fraud

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

---

Are you reading the same documents you present here? Altho accounting practices were among the problems noted, this bill was aimed to regulate the structure that governs FM and FM, not just their accounting defeciencies/fraud. Sounds to me like he hit the bullseye. A far cry from the socialist dunce the dems are shoving down our throats.

if mccain hit the bullseye in 2005, why did he say that he missed the bullseye by not anticipating the subprime crisis in 2007? mccain got involved because of the $10.6 billion accounting scandal


but that is besides the point: even if mccain had hit the fannie and freddie bullseye, the proposed reforms would not have stopped the subprime crisis...over 80% of the subprime mortgages were issued by the private banks outside of fannie and freddie...george bush leaned on fannie and freddie in 2005 to issue more loans to low income homebuyers to catch up with the private banks...fannie and freddie didn't cause this crisis - read all about it:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

Did Fannie and Freddie Cause Mortgage Crisis - Fannie Mae Freddie Mac and Government Bailout Bill

Econbrowser: CRA and Fannie and Freddie as betes noire




in early 2005, the bush administration HUD chief and treasury secretary pressured fannie and freddie to issue more loans to low income homebuyers:

HUD Testimony - Statement of HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, 4/13/05


as for your complaint about the socialist dunce, what do you think of mccain's socialist plan to use taxpayers money to buy up bad mortgages from people who can't afford the homes they bought? he's skipping the banker-middleman and directly nationalizing the mortgages!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

i read your link - mccain was calling for *accounting* reforms for fannie and freddie...that wouldn't have done anything to stop the subprime crisis...george bush personally leaned on fannie and freddie to issue more subprime loans AFTER mccain's sponsored those reforms...mccain was nowhere to be seen then (except for his shoes poking out of george bush's ass)

bush isn't running for office...he IS in office and he owes the american people and the rest of the world a lot more face time to answer questions about what he is doing about the global crisis he helped cause

---

You blame Bush????:wtf: Blame Moody's. Blame S&P. They are the ones who broke the law. Blame government regultion that bottle necked all paper throgh only two analysts... That is why government regulation should only go so far. They just seem never to get it right.

i do blame bush, but not only bush, or only republicans...as i have stated previously, i place most of the blame on the institutions that issued risky loans and repackaged them into mortgage backed securities

allan greenspan just finished testifying that he was wrong to think financial institutions could regulate themselves...the reason gov't regulation failed is because it was too weak and it wasn't enforced...if you need proof of that, i read somewhere on the internets that all the government regulatory papers were bottlenecked through only two analysts

one of the main reasons canada didn't have a subprime crisis is because the canadian banking system is regulated more stringently...no matter who is president next year, i bet the US banking system will be more heavily regulated than the canadian system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

i do blame bush, but not only bush, or only republicans...as i have stated previously, i place most of the blame on the institutions that issued risky loans and repackaged them into mortgage backed securities

allan greenspan just finished testifying that he was wrong to think financial institutions could regulate themselves...the reason gov't regulation failed is because it was too weak and it wasn't enforced...if you need proof of that, i read somewhere on the internets that all the government regulatory papers were bottlenecked through only two analysts

one of the main reasons canada didn't have a subprime crisis is because the canadian banking system is regulated more stringently...no matter who is president next year, i bet the US banking system will be more heavily regulated than the canadian system

---

Competition was bypassed in favor of regulation, which resulted in government failure. Giving AAA ratings to SPMBS that were more than undeserving will not keep you in business long if........ firms are present to compete and expose. Now how many analysits will we have 5? Why not 7, or 9? Government oversite cannot nor will not predict with any accuracy what the market calls for to reach a specific equalibrium...

Good quotes on Ben Franklin
sounds good



Socialism is no worse off than Americas

poor capitalism SO CALLED WAY


Yes I blame Washington for 9-11!

They shoulda been watching!

may they all RIP +

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812

You blame Bush????:wtf: Blame Moody's. Blame S&P. They are the ones who broke the law. Blame government regultion that bottle necked all paper throgh only two analysts... That is why government regulation should only go so far. They just seem never to get it right.

---

Maybe a certain corrupt power in government organized that structure for that exact reason?

I have trouble understanding this. Government doesn't know how to regulate properly...so...they should regulate less?

Greenspan himself said the markets won't regulate themselves last week (or, at least, that they didn't and that's why we're where we are).

I'm confused.

Quote:

---

Greenspan himself

---

I heard his wife is like 24!!
Hes like 98!

wtf! yeah spend some tax payers money
on Victorias Secret

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeMartinez

Maybe a certain corrupt power in government organized that structure for that exact reason?

I have trouble understanding this. Government doesn't know how to regulate properly...so...they should regulate less?

Greenspan himself said the markets won't regulate themselves last week (or, at least, that they didn't and that's why we're where we are).

I'm confused.

---

In bold you will find a universal truth.

You basically sum it up in the middle of your statement. Law's are all we really need, laws that punish fraud/theft/cohesion. Make laws that call for certain standards, and allow open competition to analyze. If further analysis reveals levels of fraud etc..., then proper action can take course. Moody's and S&P gave AAA ratings to what was actually high yield junk. That is fraud in my book. If firms were legally allowed to enter the market of investment analysis, then just maybe one might have called the bluff. Regulation basically gave away a monopoly, which is why over regulation is unnecessary.

Greenspan is right in saying firms will not regulate themselves. It would cost too much in light of the money they are already paying government (taxes) to regulate for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeMartinez

I have trouble understanding this. Government doesn't know how to regulate properly...so...they should regulate less?
I'm confused.

---

Ohh...they knew exactly what they were doing...And it seems they all have connections to B. Hussein Obama, and the democratic party. "They (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) were started by Democrats, protected by Democrats, funded by Democrats, and absorbed into the government proper at the behest of their paid hacks in the Democrat party. Conservatives have advocated the demolition of these twin towers of corruption, fraud, and bribery for decades. But Democrats blocked every attempt to even hold hearings on corruption in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

Acorn, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barack Obamaâ??s Finance Chair-Penny Pritzker, All Tied To The Sub-Prime Meltdown | Right Voices

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812

In bold you will find a universal truth.

You basically sum it up in the middle of your statement. Law's are all we really need, laws that punish fraud/theft/cohesion. Make laws that call for certain standards, and allow open competition to analyze. If further analysis reveals levels of fraud etc..., then proper action can take course. Moody's and S&P gave AAA ratings to what was actually high yield junk. That is fraud in my book. If firms were legally allowed to enter the market of investment analysis, then just maybe one might have called the bluff. Regulation basically gave away a monopoly, which is why over regulation is unnecessary.

Greenspan is right in saying firms will not regulate themselves. It would cost too much in light of the money they are already paying government (taxes) to regulate for them.

---

LAWS ONLY EXIST TO PROTECT MONEY!!!



MONEY ONLY EXISTS TO PROTECT AUTHORITY!!!



AUTHORITY ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE PEOPLE NEGLECT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEMSELVES!!!





Laws arent going to help people unless those people happen to be rich!


FFS! get with the picture already folks!