Heard This One Yet? That reminds me of a funny joke! What's the difference between the Speaker of the House and a scapegoat? ...lipstick.
I just watched Pelosi's speach at http://www.foxnews.com/ Pelosi neglected to include Congress' responsibility for the budgets they have created during the Bush administration. Bush is going to be on at 8:45. Fox News will have it live on their site.
So it's official. You believe the United States is a country of Children that needs to be protected by Daddy government. Pretty much typical liberal beliefs there, bunkie. Now how about this for a thought... The "children" are the ones who put the congress in charge in the first place. Or are you suggesting that the intelligent people in states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Illinois know better then us dumb hicks?
I know that she gave a partisan speech, I just don't believe the Republicans would have changed their minds based on that if they thought it was the best thing for the country. I agree with what you (or somebody) said a few posts back, they need to stop finger-pointing and placing blame, and get to work solving the problem. It is a complex issue, and those who voted against it, as well as those who voted for it, had their reasons. They need to get together and work out a compromise that addresses the concerns of all sides. Easier said than done, I know, but that's what we elect them for. If it was easy, you and I could do it.
Do we elect our representatives to use their judgment, or to take polls and always do exactly what their constituents want? I personally believe it is the former.
We elect our representatives to do what the group that elects them wants. Let me ask you, have you ever called your representative to tell them how you felt about a bill that was coming up for a vote? Presuming you have, why? Don't you believe that the representative will use their fine judgement and know better than you what's best for you? I really thought you were smarter than that.
No, I believe a protion of the country is no more knowlegable on this subject than children, which is a difference. I suppose that lack of knowledge is why the founding fathers set up the electoral college system. By definition the intellignet people anywhere would know better than dumb hicks anywhere, so what point were you trying to make?
I often contact my representatives, and give my reasons for how I would prefer they vote on pending legislation. I always hope it will influence their decision. But I expect their positions on issues to be consistent with their political philosophy, which we try to learn as much as possible about during campaigns, before we decide which candidate to vote for. I have never seen nor heard a candidate running for election promise to survey his or her constituents before casting a vote on legislation; I usually hear them laying out their vision, and asking for votes based on what they will do.
Why? Don't you trust their judgement? As do I. Then, occasionally, one sneaks through claiming to be one thing then demonstrating he is something else. Mr. Bush, for example. So if you believe they will do what they say, why call them and suggest how to vote on a bill?
This particular bail-out bill would have been a real bad deal for us taxpayers. Thank goodness there were enough people in the Congress cesspool that voted it down. The taxpayers would have taken on the very worst parts of those financial institutions and then, once again, the fat cats and their ignorant stockholders would have been whistling all the way to the bank. I believe that the Feds should provide credit guarantees to the financial institutions, let them give new mortgages (fixed rates) to responsible borrowers, and then deal with re-structuring those bad mortgages and other bad loans. If they can't do that, then let them go under. Any stockholder of any company should pay better attention to what the CEO is being paid, and demand that the compensation be tied to performance. I was at the local branch of First Citizens yesterday. I asked a loan officer how the banking was going. He replied that it was going very well and they were looking to loan money. Just another case of one bank, among many, which is doing things right. Banks do have money to loan; I guess that Wachovia did not. This mess is not all the fault of George Bush, Republicans, Democrats, banks, mortgage companies, etc. We bear some of the blame by our use of credit cards, auto loans, mortgages etc., and trying to live beyond our means. I am just as guilty as others. All of this credit is like more crack to a cocaine addict. We would all be better off if we could just get out of debt and stay out! But, what about that $10,000,000,000,000 national debt?
Now you're catching on! We need them to outlaw homebirthing, we need them to educate our kindergarteners on sex-ed, and we need to outlaw a parent's rights to not vax their children.
This is interesting - if its already been posted, I apologize. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
DANG-IT! First they take away my 3-liter cokes and now they want to risk my retirement! What's next... a ban on long hair and muscle cars? Geez... I would find a window to jump out of but I live in a single-wide with the wheels removed so I'd probably just end up injuring a couple of cats. Goodbye Economy... hello Jewish holiday. :nopity:
This is how this whole mess started, thanks Bill! Published: September 30, 1999 In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer (and current Obama advisor). ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called sub prime market.''
Yup, and when Republicans sounded the trumpet... the libs called it "the political lynching of Franklin Raines"... (as stated by Congressman William Lacy Clay of Missouri) http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/memory_lane_lynching_franklin.html
There's plenty of blame to go around. Fannie and Freddie are part of the problem, but by no means the whole problem. Deregulation is an important piece of the puzzle. Over the last decade or so, rules about reserves, about combining commercial banking activities and investment banking activities in the same institution, about limits on leveraging stock purchases, all have been eroded away. It's time to stop placing blame and figure out how extensive the problem really is, and what it takes to fix it and prevent it from happening again.
Couldn't agree more... I just wish Pelosi and Obama :allears: would take your advice rather than skew the facts and throw the republicans under the bus in the midst of a crisis.
