Obama to lay out sober assessment, hopeful future

[mywickedshelby]

Funny! FoxNews and the right wing pundits have been saying for weeks that Obama has been way too somber and moving too fast.

 

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/...k_obama_speech/

 

So which is it guys!?!?! You want the serious, we need to pass something and move fast, work it as we go, or do you want the "feel good" we'll work it out Obama? Of does it really matter cause you'll all say you wanted the other anyway?

 

I happen to think he did both and if the Republican side of the chamber rising in applause as often as they did...I'd say he got the right balance there too.

 

As the President said:

 

"I know that we haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground.

 

And if we do — if we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis; if we put our people back to work and restart the engine of our prosperity; if we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, "something worthy to be remembered."

 

Thank you, God Bless you, and may God bless the United States of America."

 

 

I dont write for Fox News, so whatever they say has nothing to do with me.

I was simply stating my opinion.

I want action.

But since the majority is made of sheep, and speeches tell the sheep how to feel,

hence the 2 hours of drivel.

Heck, dogs herd sheep, Im not surprised lame speeches work!

Just not for me.

[mywickedshelby]

Technically, all websites are translated into IP Addresses which are numbers. Example: 112.102.56.12. My father was an old school programmer who could translate binary numbers, (01110000.01100110.00111010.00001100), into this format, and translate this format into binary on the fly. Although I doubt this is the case, Biden might have been referring to an IP Address.

 

 

But I doubt it, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

As far as Obama's mistake, it's not as bad as Al Gore claiming to have invented the Internet.

 

Although you did admit that you doubt it....

 

but are you serious?

[JeffIsHereToo]

I dont write for Fox News, so whatever they say has nothing to do with me.

I was simply stating my opinion.

I want action.

But since the majority is made of sheep, and speeches tell the sheep how to feel,

hence the 2 hours of drivel.

Heck, dogs herd sheep, Im not surprised lame speeches work!

Just not for me.

 

 

There's been tons of action these last 30 days!

 

[mywickedshelby]

There's been tons of action these last 30 days!

 

 

 

yes, I know,

 

the dow lost another 1000 plus points

 

500,000 more have lost their jobs,

 

another 100,000 homes have been foreclosed,

 

unemployment has now eclipsed 1980 levels,

 

Oh yeah and a stimulus package got passed that

 

that guarantees nothing other than every bs project

 

requested by a congressman in the last 10 years has become a reality.

 

you were saying?

[Boss Doctor]

Funny I thought same thing! Maybe when it was in beta it was the IP address and not a URL. Oh well...still better than Sen. Stevens and his "tubes" or President Bush and "the internets" or "the google".

 

Am I misunderstanding you? URL's are translated into IP Addresses, so I don't understand your "beta" comment.

[JeffIsHereToo]

Am I misunderstanding you? URL's are translated into IP Addresses, so I don't understand your "beta" comment.

 

 

That when the web site was in beta...internal only access, usually you access such a site through the server's IP address and not the final external URL.

[JeffIsHereToo]

yes, I know,

 

the dow lost another 1000 plus points

 

500,000 more have lost their jobs,

 

another 100,000 homes have been foreclosed,

 

unemployment has now eclipsed 1980 levels,

 

Oh yeah and a stimulus package got passed that

 

that guarantees nothing other than every bs project

 

requested by a congressman in the last 10 years has become a reality.

 

you were saying?

 

 

The fix isn't going to happen over night and none of the major bills etc. that have been passed, for example the stimulus package, or the housing plan, have taken effect yet.

 

You're still seeing the momentum from the Bush "do nothing" Presidency.

[JeffIsHereToo]

Outstanding!

 

Eighty percent of speech watchers approve of President Obama’s plans for dealing with the economic crisis. Before the speech, 63 percent approved. Seventy-five percent of speech watchers now say they were able to get a good understanding of President Obama’s economic plans, compared to 58 percent before the speech.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/24/po...ry4826615.shtml

 

:happy feet:

[Boss Doctor]

That when the web site was in beta...internal only access, usually you access such a site through the server's IP address and not the final external URL.

 

Got'cha!

[svttim]

The fix isn't going to happen over night and none of the major bills etc. that have been passed, for example the stimulus package, or the housing plan, have taken effect yet.

 

You're still seeing the momentum from the Bush "do nothing" Presidency.

 

 

You will see this same comment for years to come. It will always be Bush's Fault. When the depression hits, and it will with all this new spending and taxes, it will be Bush's fault, when Iran sends off its nuclear wepon, it will be Buish's fault. When an asteriod hits the earth, you got it, Bushes fault.

[svttim]

Outstanding!

 

Eighty percent of speech watchers approve of President Obama’s plans for dealing with the economic crisis. Before the speech, 63 percent approved. Seventy-five percent of speech watchers now say they were able to get a good understanding of President Obama’s economic plans, compared to 58 percent before the speech.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/24/po...ry4826615.shtml

 

:happy feet:

 

Oh, CBS news. Nice try Jeff. If Fox is no good, then dont quote CBS. They got caught red handed

[GT500FLYBOY]

You will see this same comment for years to come. It will always be Bush's Fault. When the depression hits, and it will with all this new spending and taxes, it will be Bush's fault, when Iran sends off its nuclear wepon, it will be Buish's fault. When an asteriod hits the earth, you got it, Bushes fault.

 

I think you're right - we have short term memories. Bush is simply the last Republican administration. Though the real start for all of this mess was with Reagan himself. And this was when I was a registered Republican and a true believer. I was all for his foreign policy and spending the Soviets into oblivion. And I was all for the trickle down theory. And I was all for deregulation of government. Though everyone needs to now recognize and accept that that philosophy, that policy is a failure and why we're in the situation we're in today.

 

Again - deregulation has led to the sub prime mortgage mess, the subsequent mortgage backed securities mess and the Madoff messes. This is lack of regulation and oversight across the board - letting the free market do as it will. The last time Bush practiced this philosophy was when he let Lehman Bros fail - and he came to regret that. He found the new religion that the Federal government does indeed need to step in and play a role in these crisis. Had he not let Lehman Bros fail - we may not be in the crisis of confidence that we now have. This is why we have frozen credit markets - banks don't want to lend for fear of further losses. Bush should have saved Lehman - that was the first domino to fall.

[mywickedshelby]

The fix isn't going to happen over night and none of the major bills etc. that have been passed, for example the stimulus package, or the housing plan, have taken effect yet.

 

You're still seeing the momentum from the Bush "do nothing" Presidency.

 

I know, I know, everything is Bushs fault.

The Democratic Congress was doing everything they

could to help.

You and I both know that if it were not for Bush,

 

 

our hood scoops would have

been perfect from day one.

Those damn Republicans!

[GT500FLYBOY]

I know, I know, everything is Bushs fault.

The Democratic Congress was doing everything they

could to help.

You and I both know that if it were not for Bush,

 

 

our hood scoops would have

been perfect from day one.

Those damn Republicans!

 

Well - at least we can agree here!

[hotrodric]

That is correct BUT an S corporation doesn’t pay federal or state income taxes. In an S-Corporation, only earnings paid to an owner as salary is subject to payroll taxes. Any money left in the business for reinvestment or distributed to the shareholder as a dividend is not subject to self-employment tax. With an S-Corp you have to file an 1120S. From that you get the K-1, which flows through to the 1040 personal return. The other thing about S-Corps is that you have to a “reasonable salary.” But what the hell is a “reasonable salary” for the owner, CEO, CFO, secretary, and lead plumber all rolled into one person? The IRS is so upside down right now, though, I’ve seen people get away with not even paying themselves a salary for years. Sigh…Also, reasonable salary has absolutely nothing to do with your profit for the year.

 

http://www.lawyerintl.com/law-articles/194...S%20Corporation

 

You miss the point, while the S-Corp does not directly pay the federal or state income tax, the owners of the S-corp do, (much like a sole propriator) pay tax on the earnings (dividends) through the 1120S. Those earnings are very rarely in the bank, they are turned over in operating capital. You can think what you like, but raising taxes on this type of earnings will have an impact on small bussness growth and new jobs.

[DDT]

I know, I know, everything is Bushs fault.

The Democratic Congress was doing everything they

could to help.

You and I both know that if it were not for Bush,

 

 

our hood scoops would have

been perfect from day one.

Those damn Republicans!

 

 

And they would also be "FUNCTIONAL"??????????? :happy feet:

[JeffIsHereToo]

You will see this same comment for years to come. It will always be Bush's Fault. When the depression hits, and it will with all this new spending and taxes, it will be Bush's fault, when Iran sends off its nuclear wepon, it will be Buish's fault. When an asteriod hits the earth, you got it, Bushes fault.

 

LOL...why not?!?!?

 

Want me to search and list all the messages you guys have posted blaming Clinton for just about everything at one time or another 8 years after he left office?

[Boss Doctor]

LOL...why not?!?!?

 

Want me to search and list all the messages you guys have posted blaming Clinton for just about everything at one time or another 8 years after he left office?

 

You mean like Clinton's failure to accept custody of Osama Bin Laden when he was offered to him several times?

 

 

Oh, wait! He was to blame for that one!

[JeffIsHereToo]

You miss the point, while the S-Corp does not directly pay the federal or state income tax, the owners of the S-corp do, (much like a sole propriator) pay tax on the earnings (dividends) through the 1120S. Those earnings are very rarely in the bank, they are turned over in operating capital. You can think what you like, but raising taxes on this type of earnings will have an impact on small bussness growth and new jobs.

 

No, I get the point, I just think it's exaggerated and there is nothing preventing the President from looking at the impact on that as he said in his speech how important small business is to the recovery.

 

Having said that, the average small business operates at a loss for the first three years of its existence which is carried over on their taxes as a suspended loss taken after that. According to the IRS the average small business makes a profit of $233,600.00 (2007) therefore even with no changes the average small business owner will NOT see an increase in their taxes and if you are correct, and I see no reason to doubt it, I am pretty confident this President will make needed adjustments to the tax code to minimize that through some sort of retained earnings like scenario or tax credit for job creation.

[JeffIsHereToo]

You mean like Clinton's failure to accept custody of Osama Bin Laden when he was offered to him several times?

 

Oh, wait! He was to blame for that one!

 

Gotta love Republican revisionist history!

 

In June 1995, Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 39, which stated that the United States "should deter, defeat and respond vigorously to all terrorist attacks on our territory and against our citizens." Furthermore, it called terrorism both a "matter of national security" and a crime. The implementation of his proposals led to a substantial increase in counter-terrorism funds for the FBI and CIA.

 

In 1996, the CIA established a special unit of officers to analyze intelligence received about bin Laden and plan operations against him, coined the "Bin Ladin unit." It was this unit that first realized bin Laden was more than just a terrorist financier, but a leader of a global network with operations based in Afghanistan. Given these findings, the NSC encouraged the Department of State to "pay more attention" to Afghanistan and its governing unit, the Taliban, which had received funding from bin Laden. The State Department requested the Taliban to expel bin Laden from the country, noting that he was a sponsor of terrorism and publicly urged Muslims to kill Americans. The Taliban responded that they did not know his whereabouts and, even if they did, he was "not a threat to the United States."

 

The CIA's counter-terrorism division quickly began drafting plans to capture and remove bin Laden from the country. However, Marine General Anthony Zinni and some in the State Department protested the move, saying that the United States should focus instead on ending the Afghan civil war and the Taliban's human rights abuses.

 

In 1998, Clinton appointed Richard Clarke—who until then served in a drugs and counter-terrorism division of the CIA—to lead an interagency comprehensive counter-terrorism operation, the Counter-terrorism Security Group (CSG). The goal of the CSG was to "detect, deter, and defend against" terrorist attacks. Additionally, Clinton appointed Clarke to sit on the cabinet-level Principals Committee when it met on terrorism issues.

 

Clinton’s Counter-terrorism Center began drafting a plan to ambush bin Laden’s compound in Kandahar. The CIA mapped the compound and identified the houses of bin Laden’s wives and the location where he most likely slept. The plan was relatively simple, at least on paper. Tribals would “subdue” the guards, enter the compound, take bin Laden to a desert outside Kandahar, and hand him over to another group of tribals. This second group would carry him to a desert landing strip—which had already been tested—where a CIA plane would take him to New York for arraignment. When they completed a draft plan, they ran through two rehearsals in the United States. Confident that the plan would work, the Counter-terrorism Center of the CIA sought the approval of the White House. While they acknowledged that the plan was risky, they stated that there was “a risk in not acting” because “sooner or later, bin Laden will attack U.S. interests, perhaps using WMD.”

 

Clarke reviewed the plans for Sandy Berger, the National Security Director, and told him that it was in the “very early stages of development” and stressed the importance of only targeting bin Laden, not the entire compound. The NSC told the CIA to begin preparing the necessary legal documents to execute the raid.

 

The senior management of the CIA was skeptical of the plan, and despite objections, canceled the operation, fearing that the risk to their operatives and financial costs were too high. It is unclear whether or not Clinton was aware of the plan.

 

As the Counter-terrorism Center continued to track bin Laden, they learned in 1998 that the Saudi government had bin Laden cells within the country that were planning attacks on U.S. forces. CIA Director George Tenet, encouraged by the Saudi’s show of force against bin Laden, asked them to assist in the fight against bin Laden. Clinton named Tenet as his informal “personal representative” to work with Saudi Arabia on terrorism. The Saudis promised Tenet that they would do everything they could to convince the Taliban to release bin Laden for trial in America or elsewhere. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, hold various meetings with Taliban chief Mullah Omar and other leaders and received assurance that bin Laden would be removed. Omar, however, reneged on that promise.

 

On August 7, 1998, bin Laden struck again, this time with simultaneous bombings on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. (see above) The CIA, having confirmed bin Laden was behind the attack, informed Clinton that terrorist leaders were planning to meet at a camp near Khowst, to plan future attacks. According to Tenet, “several hundred,” including bin Laden, would attend. On August 20, Clinton ordered the military to fire cruise missiles at the camp and a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, where bin Laden was suspected of manufacturing biological weapons. While the military hit their targets, bin Laden was not killed. The CIA estimated that they had missed bin Laden by “a few hours.”

 

At the time of the attacks, Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal. This led many Republicans in Congress to accuse the president of “wagging the dog”—launching a military attack simply to distract the public from his personal problems. Clinton and his principals, however, insist that the decision was made solely on the basis of national security.

 

After the attacks failed, Clinton moved his focus to diplomatic pressure. On the advice of the State Department, Clinton encouraged Pakistan, whose military intelligence agency was a patron of the Taliban, to pressure the Taliban to remove bin Laden. After numerous meetings with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani’s would still not cooperate. Sharif eventually agreed to allow the Unites States to train Pakistani special forces to find bin Laden. When Sharif was ousted by Pervez Musharraf, the plan was abandoned.

 

After encouragement by Richard Clarke, Clinton issued an executive order in July 1999 declaring the Taliban regime as a state sponsor of terrorism. This was followed in October 1999 by a UN resolution sponsored by the United States placing economic and travel sanctions on the Taliban. The Taliban, however, stood by bin Laden, and the United States proposed yet another UN resolution, this time imposing an embargo an arms shipments to the Taliban. The move was meant to weaken the Taliban in their fight against the Northern Alliance in their civil strife. However, the resolution did little to limit the illegal flow of arms from Pakistan.

 

In August 1999, Clinton signed a Memorandum of Notification ordering the CIA to develop another plan to capture bin Laden, and giving the CIA the authority to order bin Laden be killed.

 

Near the end of 1999, the Clinton administration, working with the government of Jordan, detected and thwarted a planned terrorist attack to detonate bombs at various New Year millennium celebrations around the world. The CIA confirmed that bin Laden was behind the plot, which was disrupted just days before the New Year. While many credited Clinton’s new CSG for playing a role in the foiling of these plots, critics claim it was “mostly luck.”

 

The CIA informed Clinton that they feared the thwarted attacks were just part of a larger series of attacks planned for the new year. Clinton asked Clarke and the CSG to draft plans to “deter and disrupt” al Qaeda attacks.

 

On October 12, 2000, terrorists attacked U.S. Navy Destroyer, the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen. There was no clear indication during the last months of Clinton’s term of who was responsible. The CIA reported that they had “no definitive answer on [the] crucial question of outside direction of the attack—how and by whom. Clinton did not think it would be wise to launch an attack based on a “preliminary judgment,” stating that he would have taken further action had he received definitive intelligence. The CIA was eventually able to confirm bin Laden’s involvement with certainty a week after the Bush administration took office.

 

As Clinton’s second term drew to a close, the CSG drafted a comprehensive policy paper entitled

 

“Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects.”

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB...0attachment.pdf

 

The paper outlined a method to “roll back” al Qaeda over “a period of three to five years.” Clarke stated that while “continued anti-al Qida operations at the current level will prevent some attacks, [it] will not seriously attrit their ability to plan and conduct attacks." This policy paper was forwarded to the incoming Bush administration where it wasn't even read until AFTER 9/11.

[AstroDan]

Hang on, I am not anti-Obama. Heck the man hasn't been in office long enough to honestly be hated for his decisions yet. I think the majority of the problem was sitting immediately behind and to his left. Charismatic as he may be when prepared, I do believe he is inept and not qualified to lead the USA, especially right now. One would think the great orator would check what he says when he is going to be under such scrunity but maybe his writers also cut and pasted his speech. As I said which you seem to have overlooked, the car comment was trivial; trifling to the conversation. One can not nor should they overlook the generalalities and hyperboles he expounded upon to build himself up which seems to be the very core of politics itself, as the link I pasted pointed out.

As far as me "cutting and pasting" you have done you fair share as well. I am not a political analyst nor do I follow politics - in fact I am probably one of the most anti-political, anti-drama people you will ever meet except for specific issues - but like most of America I do depend upon news reporting agencies to decipher the pomp and circumstance.

You can choose to ignore, you can belt insults and snyde remarks and you can also choose to wait on the rainbow stew, free rent and million dollar checks in the mail which seems to be what a large majority of his following expect. Me? I'm going to bed early tonight so I can wake up refreshed and go to work - so my tax dollars can go to fund all this crap as I sit here with absolutely no say-so in the matter.

 

 

Good post Stump

[Boss Doctor]

Gotta love liberal drivel!

 

How about citing your revisionist source, because this looks like it was written by some clown on a blog.

 

I was talking about the Sudan; not Afghanistan: http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prio...t_bin_laden.htm

 

The CIA's counter-terrorism division quickly began drafting plans to capture and remove bin Laden from the country. However, Marine General Anthony Zinni and some in the State Department protested the move, saying that the United States should focus instead on ending the Afghan civil war and the Taliban's human rights abuses. Who's the Commander in Chief? A guy attempts the first trade center demolition, and that's not as important as a civil war and human rights abuses in a third world country?

 

The senior management of the CIA was skeptical of the plan, and despite objections, canceled the operation, fearing that the risk to their operatives and financial costs were too high. It is unclear whether or not Clinton was aware of the plan. Unclear whether or not the Commander in Chief was aware of the plan? WTF? He's either incompetent or stupid. Kind of like not having sexual relations with that woman, huh?

 

On August 20, Clinton ordered the military to fire cruise missiles at the camp and a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, where bin Laden was suspected of manufacturing biological weapons. While the military hit their targets, bin Laden was not killed. The CIA estimated that they had missed bin Laden by “a few hours.”

 

At the time of the attacks, Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal. This led many Republicans in Congress to accuse the president of “wagging the dog”—launching a military attack simply to distract the public from his personal problems. Clinton and his principals, however, insist that the decision was made solely on the basis of national security. Substantiates what I just said above, huh?

 

 

I expected a better debate from you.

[GT500FLYBOY]

And Jeff - remember - SD is not a Republican - he's a centrist.

[Boss Doctor]

And Jeff - remember - SD is not a Republican - he's a centrist.

 

Assessments have shown that I'm indeed left of center. News flash: that's were most Americans are. I do not belong to any party, but I do vote for the lessor of two evils. I'd be saying the same thing of Bush if he'd done the same thing as Clinton. I was incredibly pissed about Carter's failings during the hostage crisis, and I was pissed at Reagan for his lack of response for the Beirut Bombing in 1983, (I was a young Marine at the time).

 

I think the government's # 1 responsibility is to protect its people. That means from all enemies both foreign and domestic. That means protecting its people from corporations as well as criminals and terrorists.

 

I believe in "We the People" which I interpret as the majority rules; not the minority that happens to be in power whether it be left or right. The thing with Democrats is that they lie to your face trying to tell you that they care about everyone, when the reality is that they only care about themselves, and will do or say whatever is necessary to get your vote. They'll tell you the check is in the mail when there is no check; the Republicans say there is no check.

[mywickedshelby]

Assessments have shown that I'm indeed left of center. News flash: that's were most Americans are. I do not belong to any party, but I do vote for the lessor of two evils. I'd be saying the same thing of Bush if he'd done the same thing as Clinton. I was incredibly pissed about Carter's failings during the hostage crisis, and I was pissed at Reagan for his lack of response for the Beirut Bombing in 1983, (I was a young Marine at the time).

 

I think the government's # 1 responsibility is to protect its people. That means from all enemies both foreign and domestic. That means protecting its people from corporations as well as criminals and terrorists.

 

I believe in "We the People" which I interpret as the majority rules; not the minority that happens to be in power whether it be left or right. The thing with Democrats is that they lie to your face trying to tell you that they care about everyone, when the reality is that they only care about themselves, and will do or say whatever is necessary to get your vote. They'll tell you the check is in the mail when there is no check; the Republicans say there is no check.

 

well said Doc!

[Boss Doctor]

We heard a lot of outrage from JeffIsHere, et al, over the Rebuplicans stalling the stimulus bill, but where's their outrage over this stall?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29412325

[AstroDan]

The fix isn't going to happen over night and none of the major bills etc. that have been passed, for example the stimulus package, or the housing plan, have taken effect yet.

 

You're still seeing the momentum from the Bush "do nothing" Presidency.

 

And we're off...

 

 

 

I think you're right - we have short term memories. Bush is simply the last Republican administration. Though the real start for all of this mess was with Reagan himself. And this was when I was a registered Republican and a true believer. I was all for his foreign policy and spending the Soviets into oblivion. And I was all for the trickle down theory. And I was all for deregulation of government. Though everyone needs to now recognize and accept that that philosophy, that policy is a failure and why we're in the situation we're in today.

 

Again - deregulation has led to the sub prime mortgage mess, the subsequent mortgage backed securities mess and the Madoff messes. This is lack of regulation and oversight across the board - letting the free market do as it will. The last time Bush practiced this philosophy was when he let Lehman Bros fail - and he came to regret that. He found the new religion that the Federal government does indeed need to step in and play a role in these crisis. Had he not let Lehman Bros fail - we may not be in the crisis of confidence that we now have. This is why we have frozen credit markets - banks don't want to lend for fear of further losses. Bush should have saved Lehman - that was the first domino to fall.

 

 

So if I don't accept that, I guess the debate is over?

[svttim]

We heard a lot of outrage from JeffIsHere, et al, over the Rebuplicans stalling the stimulus bill, but where's their outrage over this stall?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29412325

 

There should be no outrage, here is a group of Dem's doing the right thing

 

 

And flyboy, Clinton is the one that deserves the credit for the housing crunch, regulating banks to make them loan money to people who dont have the money to pay has a lot more to do with it that any deregulation. And your buddies in congress were warned and ignored the facts.

 

Most of the Democrats are out of touch right now. Like shumers little "the American people dont care about pork" comment

[AstroDan]

There should be no outrage, here is a group of Dem's doing the right thing

 

 

And flyboy, Clinton is the one that deserves the credit for the housing crunch, regulating banks to make them loan money to people who dont have the money to pay has a lot more to do with it that any deregulation. And your buddies in congress were warned and ignored the facts.

 

Most of the Democrats are out of touch right now. Like shumers little "the American people dont care about pork" comment

 

In, I think it was 2005, Bush tried to add banking regulation to stop this practice, but Sens Frank and Dodd stopped him!

I'm at work, or I'd add links.

 

Good point Tim. We need to be careful and not confuse perception with reality!

[DDT]

There should be no outrage, here is a group of Dem's doing the right thing

 

 

And flyboy, Clinton is the one that deserves the credit for the housing crunch, regulating banks to make them loan money to people who dont have the money to pay has a lot more to do with it that any deregulation. And your buddies in congress were warned and ignored the facts.

 

Most of the Democrats are out of touch right now. Like shumers little "the American people dont care about pork" comment

 

Please Define "PORK"??????????

 

All Gov. Expenditures can be considered "PORK" by those not directly benefitting from it?????????

 

Maybe blame Clinton for those high "ADM"s we were forced to pay for our cars???????????????