@okie,
okie wrote:
Exactly and 100% correct, ican, and the leftists on this forum cannot deny facts. Hitler was a leftist, absolutely no doubt, and absolutely undeniable, unless of course you are a leftist and you cannot face reality. I am starting to come to the conclusion that such people cannot be reasoned with. They simply must be defeated politically. The real question boils down to this, are there enough people left that can reason, that still understand the constitution, that will stand up and be counted and vote for freedom and liberty, and personal responsibility, that is the question?
No, Hitler was instead a fanatic who embraced intense beliefs surrounding the supposed cause of German political and economic setbacks during and after WWI, later assigning blame to a worldwide conspiracy of Jews. He was an authoritarian who created a cult of his person, and who cynically used both socialistic and capitalist ideas to advance his causes. Like most tyrants, of both the left and the right, he was skilled at diverting public resentments toward "enemy groups" and using socialist sounding rhetoric to foster public hopes ... all to create uncritical belief and acceptance of his tyranny.
You persistently confuse the spectrum social and economic theories of the left and right with that of freedom and tyranny. They are in fact orthogonal. There are and have been capitalist and socialist tyrannies in this world as well as capitalist and socialist democracies that preserve the freedoms of their citizens. Examples abound: you just refuse to see them.
@okie,
Shucks! And I thought this conversation demonstrated that you never had a course in history, government or logic.
@okie,
okie wrote:And it is you comparing Hitler to the Taliban
Nah, not really. That was just a reference to the last couple of times you shared your amazing political insights with us. Like
here:
okie wrote:And the Taliban clearly have socialist and fascist aspects to their philosophy, that should be obvious. Fascism and radical Islam do have some similarities
Or
here:
okie wrote:I would view the Taliban as socialistic in terms of collectivism of thought and religion, they do not allow individual expression, and so that is not conservative as viewed in a modern American context, no way.
@okie,
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, you don't remember the details, the name of the bank, or who the person was - but he told you what you wanted to hear, and that's good enough for you. If I were to link to an interview with bankers and financiers who had the opposite opinion, would you believe them?
I highly - highly - doubt it. I don't believe that any amount of evidence is what really matters to you; instead, confirming your suspicions that the Evil Democrats are behind every problem, is what matters.
Cycloptichorn
Quit making stuff up. I never said I did not remember the details, the name of the bank, or who the person was. But to stay ahead of you, I am not going to post the information here for you to twist and misrepresent, got that? Its enough for me to know, you don't have to, because you wouldn't believe it if it was God himself telling you.
'I got evidence that I'm right, but I can't tell you, because you'd
do something bad with it!'
Cycloptichorn
Quote:Gambling With the Economy
By ROGER LOWENSTEIN
Published: April 19, 2010
WHILE the Securities and Exchange Commission’s allegations that Goldman Sachs defrauded clients is certainly big news, the case also raises a far broader issue that goes to the heart of how Wall Street has strayed from its intended mission.
Wall Street’s purpose, you will recall, is to raise money for industry: to finance steel mills and technology companies and, yes, even mortgages. But the collateralized debt obligations involved in the Goldman trades, like billions of dollars of similar trades sponsored by most every Wall Street firm, raised nothing for nobody. In essence, they were simply a side bet " like those in a casino " that allowed speculators to increase society’s mortgage wager without financing a single house.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/opinion/20lowenstein.html?hp
Who else is it who has been saying for years that Wall Street is now exactly the same as Vegas??.............OH YA, Me......
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
PrezBO (rhymes with Sambo)
Only in your small mind is that acceptable.
Tax cuts work!
New Zealand eyes income tax cuts
By Anna Fifield in Washington
Published: April 19 2010 11:00 | Last updated: April 19 2010 11:00
New Zealand’s centre-right government is considering cutting income tax rates and increasing the goods and services tax when it releases its budget next month as part of its efforts to rebalance the economy and make the country more internationally competitive.
Thanks largely to rising commodity prices, New Zealand has emerged relatively quickly from its prolonged recession, which began with the bursting of a housing bubble before the global financial crisis took hold. But the domestic economy remains fragile.
@H2O MAN,
Well, you never have reported how you pronounce it?
How do you pronounce Prezbo?
Joe(hmmm?)Nation
What happened?
GSE reform bill clears Senate Committee along party-line vote.
By Wisniowski, Charles
Publication: Mortgage Banking
Date: Thursday, September 1 2005
You are viewing page 1
BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC members of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee agreed about the need for a stronger, more powerful regulator for the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But when it came time to vote on the GSE reform bill, members split along party lines, as the committee voted 11 to nine to move the bill to the Senate floor.
The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S. 190) would create and establish the Federal Housing Finance Agency as an independent agency. The legislation would give the new agency broad power to issue regulations and guide-lines, strong authority to better define and enforce charter acts, and flexible authority to set capital requirements over Fannie and Freddie and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
Throughout the bill's mark-up in committee, members from both parties repeatedly expressed how "close" each side was in its desire to move the bill. However, the devil in the details was Fannie and Freddie's $1.5 trillion mortgage portfolio investment holdings.
The Republican-backed measure would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell portfolio assets unrelated to their mortgage securities businesses. A Democratic alternative would have permitted the regulator to reduce the GSEs' portfolio without requiring such cuts.
During deliberations, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) dismissed the alternative submitted by ranking member Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland), noting it did not give enough portfolio guidance to the regulator and had safety and soundness limits that were "not sufficient."
In opposing portfolio caps, Democrats expressed concern that such restrictions would harm Fannie and Freddie's ability to ensure the mortgage market liquidity needed to foster affordable housing.
"There seems to be an expectation on the part of some that if Fannie and Freddie stop holding the assets in their portfolios, that the rest of the market will somehow instantaneously fill the void and that prices will not be affected," said Sen. Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey). "I do not believe that is a reasonable expectation."
S. 190 co-sponsor Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) countered that the GSEs' portfolios are profitable for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders, but do little to advance their housing mission.
"Fannie and Freddie are public companies with shareholders, and their boards have a fiduciary responsibility to those shareholders. But Congress did not create GSEs to enrich share-holders and executives," said Hagel. "They were created to provide stability and capital in the secondary housing finance market."
The committee also rejected an amendment by Sen. Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) that would have directed the GSEs to contribute a percentage of their earnings to an affordable-housing trust fund. But the committee approved an amendment by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) to rewrite Fannie and Freddie's affordable-housing goals. Both measures were rejected and adopted, respectively, along party-line votes.
In a letter to Shelby, Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Chairman Michael Petrie, CMB, noted that MBA was pleased the bill that cleared committee included language that delineated a clear "bright line" between the primary and secondary markets.
"Your legislation represents a clear understanding of the need to improve oversight of the GSEs relative to safety and soundness, systemic risk and to ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not deviate from their congressionally chartered purposes," Petrie wrote to Shelby. "Your bill's product-approval and activity-review language is consistent with MBA's long-standing policy that the regulator ought to establish a 'bright line' to ensure the GSEs remain focused on their secondary-market purpose."
Despite having some "problems" with the portfolio language in the bill, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky) urged the committee members to move the bill to the floor, where it would hopefully be passed and the measure would move to conference where, in the process of reconciling S. 190 with its House counterpart, H.R. 1461, "we can craft a bill that does what needs to be done."
However, even before the vote, Bunning and other committee members both Republican and Democrat noted that S. 190's lack of bipartisan support will make the bill's movement an uphill battle.
"We came to this point last year, and we could not get a bipartisan consensus and no bill was put forward," said Bunning. "Unfortunately, I believe we will have the same result. I believe we will move a bill out of committee, but without bipartisan consensus the bill will again go nowhere, and we will not have the world-class regulator we need."--C.W.
The Republicans have been especially shameless in their opposition to the current financial reform bill. Usually they just highlight minor aspects of the bill and try to blow them up into a big deal, or point to pure ideological differences. This time, however, they are simply lying. 100% lying, about what is in the bill and the purpose of it. They are doing so according to a script written by Frank Luntz.
Quote:Political Animal
April 20, 2010
EVEN HALPERIN WON'T DEFEND GOP TACTICS.... It was a lively discussion on "Morning Joe" this morning, when White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee appeared to discuss Wall Street reform. In particular, he explained why GOP talking points about "bailouts" aren't just wrong, but are in fact the opposite of reality.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Goolsbee also did a nice job highlighting the GOP's motivations for repeating obvious nonsense: "Everybody knows a consultant just handed them that line and they're just reading it. It doesn't matter what's in the bill. It could be a bill about breakfast cereal and they're going to say this is a bailout bill."
But what was especially interesting this morning was the moment when host Joe Scarborough turned to Time's Mark Halperin, and urged him to "defend the Republican position" on the legislation. Halperin, who often seems more than sympathetic to the GOP line, couldn't bring himself to support the Republican arguments.
"I cannot defend what they're doing," Halperin said. "They are willfully misreading the bill or they are engaged in a cynical attempt to keep the president from achieving something."
Note to Republicans: when even Mark Halperin is calling you out for lying, the conventional wisdom is turning against you.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Democrats had the chance to pass a real financial bill in 2005 and they didn't do it, they filibustered and killed the bill.
Frank, Dodd and Kerry did this to American. Democrats are to blame for the mortgage collapse.
@H2O MAN,
Quote:Democrats had the chance to pass a real financial bill in 2005 and they didn't do it, they filibustered and killed the bill.
Could you cite the bill that you think was filibustered?
Here is a good place to start where it is pointed out there is NO evidence of any Dem filibuster in 2005.
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/18/republican-congress-talked-about-financial-reform-but-did-nothing.htm
If you have that evidence squirt, please tell us.
@parados,
Of course, you are correct - no bill was brought forth by the Republican Congress, let alone filibustered. The whole tactic of blaming it on the Democrats is a transparent lie and an attempt to duck the personal responsibility the party in control failed to have on this issue - like so many others.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Of course, you are correct
I know that I am correct and I also knew you would attempt to deflect the blame by twisting facts or just by ignoring them.
You failed.
@parados,
Please do your own research.
@okie,
okie wrote:Exactly and 100% correct, ican, and the leftists on this forum cannot deny facts. Hitler was a leftist, absolutely no doubt, and absolutely undeniable, unless of course you are a leftist and you cannot face reality. I am starting to come to the conclusion that such people cannot be reasoned with. They simply must be defeated politically. The real question boils down to this, are there enough people left that can reason, that still understand the constitution, that will stand up and be counted and vote for freedom and liberty, and personal responsibility, that is the question?
Okie I have only recently come to the conclusion that the Obamademocrats--liberals--actually believe the falsities they preach. Before, I believed these people were liars and were too smart to actually believe their statements were true.
My reason for my previously thinking them liars, is their falsities were so stupid that that they could not actually believe such bunk. Clearly, I was wrong. As stupid as their falsities actually are, they actually are stupid enough to believe them true.
Their most frequently stated falsity is white conservatives are racists. By thinking and repeatedly stating that, they convict themselves of racisms against those white people with whom they disagree.
A bill was brought forth by the Republican Congress in 2005 to prevent the damage threatened to be done to the economy by Fannie & Freddie. Unfortunately, the Republicans had only 55 votes in the Senate, and were subject to unanimous Democrat opposition--including Barack Obama's. Republicans required 60 votes to end the Democrat's threat to filibuster the bill.
Blaming this failure to correct Fannie & Freddie on the Democrats is true and correct and observes the truth that the Democrats were personally responsible for the failure of Congress to rectify Fannie & Freddie as President Bush repeatedly recommended.
The failure to ever rectify Fannie & Freddie caused America's present recession, and continues to cause its continuation!
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
A bill was brought forth by the Republican Congress in 2005 to prevent the damage threatened to be done to the economy by Fannie & Freddie. Unfortunately, the Republicans had only 55 votes in the Senate, and were subject to unanimous Democrat opposition--including Barack Obama's. Republicans required 60 votes to end the Democrat's threat to filibuster the bill.
Blaming this failure to correct Fannie & Freddie on the Democrats is true and correct and observes the truth that the Democrats were personally responsible for the failure of Congress to rectify Fannie & Freddie as President Bush repeatedly recommended.
The failure to ever rectify Fannie & Freddie caused America's present recession, and continues to cause its continuation!
What a joke. The bill was
never reported out of committee. There was no threat to filibuster; the Dems were never even GIVEN the opportunity to filibuster.
Cycloptichorn
The bill to fix Fanny & Freddie was reported out of committee. There was a threat by the Democrats to filibuster.
