AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Bush didn't have to 'warn' anyone. All he had to do was direct the SEC, who were completely under his control, to do it's job instead of ignoring problems.

My antenna sure went up when Geithner said he would entertain China's idea of a global currency. Our market tanked 200 points within minutes of that statement too

FALSE!

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bush didn't have to 'warn' anyone. All he had to do was direct the SEC, who were completely under his control, to do it's job instead of ignoring problems.

The SEC is the Securities Exchange Commission. It had no jurisdiction over bank loans and their granting bad mortgages. But the CRA, created by Congress, did have that jurisdiction. In 1977, President Carter signed into law the CRA--the Community Investment Act. Carter mandated banks invest in poor urban areas. Fannie May, and Freddie Mac were the principle means established by Congress for granting those bad mortgages and their contribution to the financial collapse.

For you, Cycloptichorn, to claim that Bush was primarily responsible for this failure is quite typical of you and the Obama-crats. You and they, who go on and on about personal responsibility, yet never seek to hold youself, their advocate, and your party leaders personally responsible for their mistakes--Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, and Reid--is irresponsible. They, not Bush, are the principle culprits responsible for this mess. No amount of denial and effort on your part to shift blame away from the Democrats is going to change their true guilt.

Bush pleaded repeatedly with them to fix the problem by changing the rules they wrote that caused the problem. They responded by repeatedly denying there was a problem.

Bush's contributed to the problem created by the Democrats, when he tried to solve it by signing TARP into law. That was dumb as hell. He should have vetoed it.

Now the stupid Obama-crats are emulating and magnifying Bush's error by throwing more government expenditures at the problem. This is not going to work. This approach has never worked. It didn't work with Hoover in 1932 trying to avoid the depression. It only aggrevated it. It didn't work with Roosevelt to end the depression. It didn't work with Carter to solve his recession. We know what works. Do not increase government spending. Reduce it instead. Do not increase taxes. Reduce them instead.

It's hard to believe that the Obama-crats are actually as dumb as they act. It is easier to believe they're objective is to nationalize our economy just like Stalin did and failed his own people as a result--just like Castro and Chavez are doing and failing their own people as a result. They all appear greedy for power no matter the hardship they heap upon their people to satisfy their greed.

For that matter, the President has little authority over the SEC. He appoints the commissioners for five years terms as terms expire and is required to maintain a balance of three of one party and two of the other and, if I remember right, he does name who will be the chair each year, but otherwise I'm pretty sure that it operates pretty much independently as does the Federal Reserve. The can make its own rules about this and that but has to operate within the framework of laws passed by Congress; thus Congress has as much oversight over the SEC as the President does.

No nor do you have any evidence that he did not. I do know that all Presidents pretty much are hands off when it comes to the SEC as most consider meddling with the SEC similar to meddling with the Federal Reserve. The SEC has no jurisdiction over banks or currency or lending practices, etc. but is responsible to overlook the way stocks, bonds, securities, etc. are regulated and ensure that the law is followed.

I do know that President Bush requested Congress to tighten the law under which the SEC operates numerous times over the last two years of his administration and was repeatedly told there was no need.

Can you link to Bush's requests to Congress to tighten the laws under which the SEC operates?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Can you link to Bush's requests to Congress to tighten the laws under which the SEC operates?

It is you who alleged Bush did not do his job by just pleading with Congress to fix the relevant rules established by Congress. Can you link to evidence that Bush had the power without Congressional authorization to overide the 2FMs, the CRA, and the SEC to make them change their rules established by Congress? Of course, you cannot. All you can do is proclaim such, or quote some dumb Blog that proclaims such, or demand we prove your allegations are false!

Like it or not, it's your obligation to prove, or at least provide credible evidence, your allegations are true.

The fact is the Obama-crats are well on their way to destroying the US economy out of stupidity and/or greed for power. They must be stopped. A start would be a motion and its second in the House of Representatives to impeach Obama.

Time's a'waistin'!

I do not care about Bush's powers over either Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA; they are not very important to the crisis and had little to do with it. I do care about his negligence when it comes to the SEC.

I have no obligation to prove anything at all to you, Ican. The truth is that the collapse happened on the watch of the Republican president who did nothing to stop it.

The primary serious question you are dodging, Cycloptichorn, is whether or not what Osama-crats are doing to allegedly reverse the recession/depression will make America better for the American people.

A second serious question you are dodging is whether or not what the Obama-crats are doing to allegedly reverse the recession/depression is legal: that is, is permitted by the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Thank you, Foxfyre. C.I.'s comments are very illuminating. Nice of you to put them all together.