Obama's speech yesterday

[audtatious]

How soon people like to forget

http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/i....html

[AXracer25]

hes realized that Bush was a good commander in chief lolnow he just needs to realize a 3.6Trillion dollar budget WILL NOT get us out of this crisis. It will only make me pay more money when i am older

<Obama

[480sx]

Where to start..

Politically, this isnt really a big deal IMO. As senators, they didnt have nearly the kind of intel that a POTUS has available to them, so as senators, you could say they are playing p0ker without any aces or kings. They also are not at the peak of the chain of military command. With the situation they are now in, they hear reports from the top brass, hear planned strategies, and have day long meetings about them.

As senators, they are merely politicians. Who knows, their political stance could be nothing more than 'I wantz to be tha prez next year, lets play off teh americanz fear', well, actually, their dislike of the wars.

Now, they are leaders with a LOT more on their plate. We dont know what they know

hes realized that Bush was a good commander in chief lol

I just realized that you have no idea about much of anything that your trying to speak on in here.

now he just needs to realize a 3.6Trillion dollar budget WILL NOT get us out of this crisis. It will only make me pay more money when i am older

You are however right about your assessment of this situation. There is however no way to know whats going to happen when your older, and no way of knowing how deep this recession will go. What kind, if any, long term effects it may have are still being hotly debated. Honestly, its all speculation unless someone has a time machine. The world wasnt to optimistic in the 1930's either, but hey, worked out fine for most of them in the end.

[audtatious]

does not matter, IMO. Even after he had access to the daily details he has consistently refused to admit that the surge has worked.

[480sx]

Bull s*** politics IMO. I doubted the surge myself, but it worked. To what end? Well, thats a whole other issue.

[liquid_cool]

ok..big picture.....once congress votes for the war act..like they all did..they should stay out of it and let the military comanders on the ground kill people and break s***..thats there job..when polititions interfear for political gain in the defence of this country..i consider that "TREASON"...harry read..nancy pelosie all of them against our troops at a time of declared war..need to be in jail for there anti-American slander..this is the reason why we lost in Viet Nam..just ask Ho Chi Mhin..he said it himself..they were just about to give up but the americqan polititions helpd in there couse by congress trying to run the troops from half a world away...and now we are pulling out..just before a total victory...i dont think this president is going to last that long in office..i see a land slide republican i told ya so victory in the house and senate and a impeachment soon...not for just this one reason but for the many things that have been forced down our throuts in this last month.

[S13_love]

Pelosi is the root of all evil....god i hate her!

....But I would have to agree with ya that politicians should not interfere with military commanders and all that.

[audtatious]

Bull s*** politics IMO. I doubted the surge myself, but it worked. To what end? Well, thats a whole other issue.

The surge has worked? I still do not have proof via our President that it has worked. In fact, just the opposite. You call it bull s*** politics and that it is. What I see here is a person who sets a course and regardless of changes will not adjust according and simply adjusts the blinders. Bush was that way before he started listening to the commanders on the ground.

[AXracer25]

The world wasnt to optimistic in the 1930's either, but hey, worked out fine for most of them in the end.

they had good reason not to be optimistic. FDR, like Obama plans to do, expanded government in a FUTILE effort for government intervention in that depression. I want to point outa few facts

FDR's New Deal was passed within 100 days of his electionHOWEVERUnemployment remained in the double digits until 1941

Thats 9 years after he got elected and it had nothing to do with a new policy he enacted

unless you call WWII a policy...

I do want to point out a more recent president that was responsible for ending an economic downturn. His initials were RWR.

So whats my point? I'm not going to be more optimistic until Obama talks about giving me (or should i say letting me keep) MORE of my hard earned money on every paycheck.

Reaganomics

[AXracer25]

Pelosi is the root of all evil....god i hate her!

....But I would have to agree with ya that politicians should not interfere with military commanders and all that.

can i use that "pelosi is the root of all evil" in my sig? (even tho some adim thinks i suck at sigs lol)

[S13_love]

Uhhhhhh...go ahead i guess lol, i dont think you need to ask anyways.

[AXracer25]

i thought i would just to be nice

[Jacko3]

How soon people like to forget

http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/i....html

Sooner than later, republicans will be singing kumbaya and holding hands with Obama in attempts to make this country great. Right now, they are just throwing futile tantrums.

[audtatious]

The RINO's will eventually bow to him like others are. True Conservatives are having a WTF moment.

If it were just Obama I don't think there would be as much flack as there is now. The problem is that we have Obama, who believes in socialism, and a Dem controlled Congress that is headed up via Pelosi and gang, more socialists.

[Jacko3]

The RINO's will eventually bow to him like others are. True Conservatives are having a WTF moment.

If it were just Obama I don't think there would be as much flack as there is now. The problem is that we have Obama, who believes in socialism, and a Dem controlled Congress that is headed up via Pelosi and gang, more socialists.

Its called Charismatic Leadership. Obama has too much charm and charisma, and he is charming republicans to their knees. They won't even know when they start singing Halleluyah praises to Obama in the next few months.

As far as being socialist, Obama wanna pry open the money in the hands of the rich, which they failed to trickle down to the poor, as Bush had expected. We can't leave all that money int heir hands, can we? (LOL!)

We need that money NOW. The harder the republicans fight and attack Obama, the tighter the noose gets. Check out Mr. Fly struggling in the web created by Mrs. Spider---the greater the struggle, the stickier the web gets. Obama ain't called the Messiah for nothing.

[OriginalWheelman]

Sooner than later, republicans will be singing kumbaya and holding hands with Obama in attempts to make this country great. Right now, they are just throwing futile tantrums.

I doubt it. This is what I believe is happening, from the limited info we get.

Obama gets elected, and appoints his administration with the help of the party.The administration starts throwing all kinds of change around, and pushing the party's agenda. ( I question how much is at Obama's command at this point)The public sees business as usual out of the administration and start losing faith in Obama.Obama starts tightening his grip on his administration, trying to gain control of his presidency.The Democrats start turning on Obama.The Republicans take advantage of the divided Demoncrats to gain a foothold in Congress.

That's my prediction. We'll see how right or wrong I am.

[AXracer25]

Sooner than later, republicans will be singing kumbaya and holding hands with Obama in attempts to make this country great. Right now, they are just throwing futile tantrums.

uhh who's been throwing tantrums for the past 8 years. Liberals tend to be the whiny ones. see the difference is that the video he posted shows how WRONG you dems were on the surge. Obama had realized it (tho getting him to admit it is like pulling teeth) Now its your turn.

and when the economy is still in the crapper 4 years from now, the people will wise up (ho-ha for Romney 12' anyone?)

more quick facts:

After FDR who was the only democrat to get elected twice?

President Clinton

and what is the difference between Clinton and Obama?

Clinton was actually MODERATE (plus he kinda had a good economy to start with) so basically he sucseeded in not f***ing things up. (well at least during the term of his presidency, he is to blame for more recent events, tho)

and since i KNOW youre gunna be like 'oh yea well Bush...' and before you start that im going to say the reason he failed on the economy was a combination of government expansion (same as Obama is doing) and the other was, according to Phil Gramm of the Wall Street Journal, "The 1992 Housing Bill [that] set quotas or "targets" that Fannie and Freddie were to achieve in meeting the housing needs of low- and moderate-income Americans. In 1995 HUD raised the primary quota for low- and moderate-income housing loans from the 30% set by Congress in 1992 to 40% in 1996 and to 42% in 1997.

By the time the housing market collapsed, Fannie and Freddie faced three quotas. The first was for mortgages to individuals with below-average income, set at 56% of their overall mortgage holdings. The second targeted families with incomes at or below 60% of area median income, set at 27% of their holdings. The third targeted geographic areas deemed to be underserved, set at 35%.

The results? In 1994, 4.5% of the mortgage market was subprime and 31% of those subprime loans were securitized. By 2006, 20.1% of the entire mortgage market was subprime and 81% of those loans were securitized. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that GSE losses will cost $240 billion in fiscal year 2009."

And you were going to blame it on Bush... silly liberal

[AXracer25]

Its called Charismatic Leadership. Obama has too much charm and charisma, and he is charming republicans to their knees. They won't even know when they start singing Halleluyah praises to Obama in the next few months.

As far as being socialist, Obama wanna pry open the money in the hands of the rich, which they failed to trickle down to the poor, as Bush had expected. We can't leave all that money int heir hands, can we? (LOL!)

We need that money NOW. The harder the republicans fight and attack Obama, the tighter the noose gets. Check out Mr. Fly struggling in the web created by Mrs. Spider---the greater the struggle, the stickier the web gets. Obama ain't called the Messiah for nothing.

Ill answer these in order

Charm and Charisma- great for getting elected but a poor substitute for actual knowledge on fiscal policy. He goes back to FDR's policies daily. He must still be smoking some mary-j to actually believe that policy got us out of the Great Depression.

And YES so called Prying money out of the hands of rich people IS SOCIALISM. And it is class warefare. Fighting the rich of our country is the exact same as shooting yourself in the foot for not running fast enough.

because flows in a circular cycle. it goes from average people to rich people when you buy a big mac or that computer youre sitting at., and what do you think rich people will do when the government takes more money from them? Live in a fashion less than they are accustom to? or simply raise the prices of the goods they produce? Obviously they are going to raise the prices on US! That is the logic behind trickle down. because if the government takes less from these businesses, then one of the businesses will cut prices to get an edge on the competition and the others will follow suit to keep up.

But NOOOOOOO that is too complex for a liberal to understand, you want results NOW in the form of a stimulus check provided to you by the self proclaimed savior himself. And where is he getting the cash from? The owners of Companies. And what are they going to do to offset the increase in taxation? Raise the cost. And pretty soon all that money in the stimulus check (which most people use to pay off loans or put in savings accounts, and not spend it like it was ment to do) are soon gone and the prices are still high


Modified by AXracer25 at 9:50 AM 3/1/2009

[Jacko3]

uhh who's been throwing tantrums for the past 8 years. Liberals tend to be the whiny ones. see the difference is that the video he posted shows how WRONG you dems were on the surge. Obama had realized it (tho getting him to admit it is like pulling teeth) Now its your turn.

and when the economy is still in the crapper 4 years from now, the people will wise up (ho-ha for Romney 12' anyone?)

more quick facts:

After FDR who was the only democrat to get elected twice?

President Clinton

and what is the difference between Clinton and Obama?

Clinton was actually MODERATE (plus he kinda had a good economy to start with) so basically he sucseeded in not f***ing things up. (well at least during the term of his presidency, he is to blame for more recent events, tho)

and since i KNOW youre gunna be like 'oh yea well Bush...' and before you start that im going to say the reason he failed on the economy was a combination of government expansion (same as Obama is doing) and the other was, according to Phil Gramm of the Wall Street Journal, "The 1992 Housing Bill [that] set quotas or "targets" that Fannie and Freddie were to achieve in meeting the housing needs of low- and moderate-income Americans. In 1995 HUD raised the primary quota for low- and moderate-income housing loans from the 30% set by Congress in 1992 to 40% in 1996 and to 42% in 1997.

By the time the housing market collapsed, Fannie and Freddie faced three quotas. The first was for mortgages to individuals with below-average income, set at 56% of their overall mortgage holdings. The second targeted families with incomes at or below 60% of area median income, set at 27% of their holdings. The third targeted geographic areas deemed to be underserved, set at 35%.

The results? In 1994, 4.5% of the mortgage market was subprime and 31% of those subprime loans were securitized. By 2006, 20.1% of the entire mortgage market was subprime and 81% of those loans were securitized. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that GSE losses will cost $240 billion in fiscal year 2009."

And you were going to blame it on Bush... silly liberal

First of all, if you want to understand the war in Iraq in its entirety, you may need to watch this lengthy documentary that will feed you with the total truth. be prepared to watch the documentary online for 2 hours.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Your speculation that the economy will be in a crapper in the next 4 years is total conjecture. The same was said about Clinton's economic plan which raised taxes, and yet reduced unemployment from 7.8% down to 4.5%, and led to a budget surplus. How??????????????? And yet Bush reduced taxes only to raise unemployment from 4.5% to 7.3%, and cause the deficits to rise. http://www.cbo.gov. Please, explain!

FDR was elected three times and not two times. He served three terms in office---last president to serve that long in office---never made it to the end fo the third term.

Freddie and Fannie are only a part of the mortgage industry. All they do is back up part of the mortgages in the US system. They are not the only underwriters of mortgages in the US system. But they are the largest. The mortgage industry was partly propped up by CDOs and CDSs. The mortgage market went bust when the value of properties fell and could not support the price of the CDOs in the securities market, and that crisis was further fueled by the insurance called CDS which could not support the insured losses coming from the falling values of CDOs. You may want to get your facts straight. And so, the mortage crisis depends on raising the value of homes. Once that occurs, the values of CDOs will rise to stem losses, as well as reduce demand for redeeming insured losesses using CDSs.

And also, you may want to research Glass-Stegall Act of 1933 which was repealed by Senator Phill Gramm, and his republican friends in 1999, which allowed commercial banks and investment banks to have unrestricted access to each other's markets, and which subseqyently increased the level of risky (competitive) behavior in the credit markets. That law was created in 1933 to address the unusual risky behavior that could put retirement funds in jeopardy. But somehow, the ownership society touted by Bush and his friends, felt that regulation was unimportant as a tool to modify behavior.

Or, do you plan to deny that the recession was officially noted during Bush's tenure as President?

http://content.usatoday.com/co...y&p=2

And would you take a peek at the video below to see how Bush was busy selling the snake oil of home ownership in this country?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

Is this the same Bush who was working so hard to prevent the mortgage crisis? LOL!

[Jacko3]

Ill answer these in order

Charm and Charisma- great for getting elected but a poor substitute for actual knowledge on fiscal policy. He goes back to FDR's policies daily. He must still be smoking some mary-j to actually believe that policy got us out of the Great Depression.

And YES so called Prying money out of the hands of rich people IS SOCIALISM. And it is class warefare. Fighting the rich of our country is the exact same as shooting yourself in the foot for not running fast enough.

because flows in a circular cycle. it goes from average people to rich people when you buy a big mac or that computer youre sitting at., and what do you think rich people will do when the government takes more money from them? Live in a fashion less than they are accustom to? or simply raise the prices of the goods they produce? Obviously they are going to raise the prices on US! That is the logic behind trickle down. because if the government takes less from these businesses, then one of the businesses will cut prices to get an edge on the competition and the others will follow suit to keep up.

But NOOOOOOO that is too complex for a liberal to understand, you want results NOW in the form of a stimulus check provided to you by the self proclaimed savior himself. And where is he getting the cash from? The owners of Companies. And what are they going to do to offset the increase in taxation? Raise the cost. And pretty soon all that money in the stimulus check (which most people use to pay off loans or put in savings accounts, and not spend it like it was ment to do) are soon gone and the prices are still high



Modified by AXracer25 at 9:50 AM 3/1/2009

And who said charisma was ever a suubstitute for knowledge of any sort?????? Do you even understand what fiscal policy is all about? what about monetary policy????

And if you are apt to discuss socialism, then perhaps, Bush's effort to bail out the auto companies, wallstreet, etc, also rises to the level of socialism. Afterall, Obama was not the first person to put a bail out into practice, is he? What about Bush I policy to bail out the savings and loans banks, does that resemble a capitalist ideal in any form or fashion? And i beleive mccain took a hit to hius reputation in his keating Five scandal, as a result of that saving and loans debacle.

And do you even have a clue why prices rise at all, and the different sources of inflation? I am not goin tto go into that or lecture anyone on that subject. Your hypothetical comment about prices rising, isn't supported by any argument that you have made.

The rich will find ways to adjust to the new paradigm, after they get over the tantrum of knowing that they will be taxed, at a rate similar to that during the clinton era.

[AXracer25]

And if you are apt to discuss socialism, then perhaps, Bush's effort to bail out the auto companies, wallstreet, etc, also rises to the level of socialism. Afterall, Obama was not the first person to put a bail out into practice, is he?.

he would be the first person to succeed, just ask japan about the 90snuff said

[AXracer25]

Fiscal policy is changes in the taxing and spending of the federal government for purposes of expanding or contracting the level of aggregate demand. In recession, an expansionary fiscal policy involves lowering taxes and increasing government spending. In an overheated expansion, a contractionary fiscal policy requires higher taxes and reduced spending.

monetary policy is up to the fed and in a recession like this isnt enough to change it.

and I said it was his substitute because he is not doing what we need to do with the economy

and like i said, the complexities of a trickle down system (proven in the 80s) just proves again and again too difficult for liberals..

and as for fdr, my point was except for clinton , the people have had buyers remorse on every democrat

and i do have my facts straight, everyone thought that mortgages were safe because of the government backing the mortgages. if it hadn't been for f+f backing those ridiculous mortgages, the banks wouldnt have given them out. without banks giving them out, demand would have been lower, the cost of homes would have been lower, and if the bubble did burst anyway, it wouldnt have been as bad.

and i NEVER said bush played NO role in it. but he was not the main player. it was the dems in congress that worked soooo hard to get people in homes they couldnt afford.

and btw you might want to spell check your big long posts so to correct any more of these "hit to hius reputation in his keating "

and the economy was not a lot better then than it is now.

[intermilanrox]

I doubt it. This is what I believe is happening, from the limited info we get.

Obama gets elected, and appoints his administration with the help of the party.The administration starts throwing all kinds of change around, and pushing the party's agenda. ( I question how much is at Obama's command at this point)The public sees business as usual out of the administration and start losing faith in Obama.Obama starts tightening his grip on his administration, trying to gain control of his presidency.The Democrats start turning on Obama.The Republicans take advantage of the divided Demoncrats to gain a foothold in Congress.

That's my prediction. We'll see how right or wrong I am.

I agree completely. Once people start to release that Obama has been spending alot of money for stuff that wont fix the state of the economy or help them in anyway. I think some started to realize when he picked his cabinet (what a joke). But what annoys me is that Obama is putting all the blame on the previous administartion, stop pointing fingers and get the job done. Also, everybody is entranced with the idea of tax cuts for everyone under like 200k, but he's raising taxes on everything else: gas, cigarettes, everything digital (a.k.a. cable, wirless internet, etc.), and a ridiculous amount of other things. Also, wasn't his whole campaign based around helping those in need. Well now he wants to lower the amount you can detuct from your taxes for giving to charity. That is just going to make people give less to charities, right? Anyway, America is in for alot more $#!T than we bargained for during the next years of this administration.

[Jacko3]

Fiscal policy is changes in the taxing and spending of the federal government for purposes of expanding or contracting the level of aggregate demand. In recession, an expansionary fiscal policy involves lowering taxes and increasing government spending. In an overheated expansion, a contractionary fiscal policy requires higher taxes and reduced spending.

monetary policy is up to the fed and in a recession like this isnt enough to change it.

and I said it was his substitute because he is not doing what we need to do with the economy

and like i said, the complexities of a trickle down system (proven in the 80s) just proves again and again too difficult for liberals..

and as for fdr, my point was except for clinton , the people have had buyers remorse on every democrat

and i do have my facts straight, everyone thought that mortgages were safe because of the government backing the mortgages. if it hadn't been for f+f backing those ridiculous mortgages, the banks wouldnt have given them out. without banks giving them out, demand would have been lower, the cost of homes would have been lower, and if the bubble did burst anyway, it wouldnt have been as bad.

and i NEVER said bush played NO role in it. but he was not the main player. it was the dems in congress that worked soooo hard to get people in homes they couldnt afford.

and btw you might want to spell check your big long posts so to correct any more of these "hit to hius reputation in his keating "

and the economy was not a lot better then than it is now.

I am pleased to observe a more reflective and somewhat realistic commentary. Good job!

Fiscal policy may not necessarily be changes. They can also be slight adjustments. Adjustments are not necessarily changes. Secondly, fiscal policy can be a tool for social engineering or eugenics. And what do you mean by aggregate demand???? Is it aggregate demand for sex or aggregate demand for goods and services??? What about aggregate supply of funds flowing in the economy? And do you think fiscal policy is implemented without an equivalent and balancing action from the monetary policy side of government??? Do you know why the fed Chairman must show up every quarter to report to and answer questions before Congress????

You are funny! How complex is trickle down economics? Can you elaborate for us? Just becasue money is handed out to the rich, does not mean the rich will spend that money, which partly underlies the assumptions behind trickle down economics.

It was important to straighten out the FDR facts before it is erroneously accepted as truth.

who are the everyone who thought the mortgages were safe? Are you aware that Fannie Mae has been issuing mortgages since 1938 or 1937 (not sure about exact date) and Freddie, created as a competition to fannie, has been issuing mortgage backed securities since either 1968 or 1972??? Why did they not fail all this while, and well before Dodd and Frank ever thought they would find careers in politics????? So, again, your Dodd and Frank theory does not hold up.

Sorry for the poor spellings. I happen to be the worst typist and secretary in the office.

[audtatious]

First of all, if you want to understand the war in Iraq in its entirety, you may need to watch this lengthy documentary

No thanks. I'd rather come to my own conclusions instead of the preordained conclusion of the documentary producers. I have seen plenty on PBS and other channels (History, etc) that I don't agree with and which have gone against scientific facts as reported (yet not covered via the mainstream media).

Your speculation that the economy will be in a crapper in the next 4 years is total conjecture. The same was said about Clinton's economic plan which raised taxes, and yet reduced unemployment from 7.8% down to 4.5%, and led to a budget surplus. How??????????????? And yet Bush reduced taxes only to raise unemployment from 4.5% to 7.3%, and cause the deficits to rise. http://www.cbo.gov. Please, explain!

DOT COM bubble. I'm in the industry and companies were buying TONS of equipment, building huge infrastructures (buildings, remote sites, delivery systems, etc) and hiring lots of employees. That's what lead to economic success during Clinton's time in office, not something he did directly. Bush came in during a recession once the bubble had burst which was followed in short order by 9/11.

Freddie and Fannie are only a part of the mortgage industry. All they do is back up part of the mortgages in the US system.

Yep....and which mortgage types are they primarily backing?

Is this the same Bush who was working so hard to prevent the mortgage crisis? LOL!

He made a 1/4-hearted attempt to initiate regulation and was turned down each time. He was a wuss as he should have put his foot down. Should we post the video of Barney Frank and gang saying that F+F were sound and not in trouble?

[Jacko3]

No thanks. I'd rather come to my own conclusions instead of the preordained conclusion of the documentary producers. I have seen plenty on PBS and other channels (History, etc) that I don't agree with and which have gone against scientific facts as reported (yet not covered via the mainstream media).

DOT COM bubble. I'm in the industry and companies were buying TONS of equipment, building huge infrastructures (buildings, remote sites, delivery systems, etc) and hiring lots of employees. That's what lead to economic success during Clinton's time in office, not something he did directly. Bush came in during a recession once the bubble had burst which was followed in short order by 9/11.

Yep....and which mortgage types are they primarily backing?

He made a 1/4-hearted attempt to initiate regulation and was turned down each time. He was a wuss as he should have put his foot down. Should we post the video of Barney Frank and gang saying that F+F were sound and not in trouble?

Frontline documentaries are a Peabody award winning documentary. Peabody award is like the Oscars of journalism. So, whether you agree with PBS or not, is immaterial. We cannot choose our own facts. And by the way, PBS has the resources to gather longtitudinal data and information, and organize it in a credible manner. Individuals like you and I cannot do so in a credible and coordinated manner, no matter how hard we try. Can you show us which PBS show has gone against scientific facts as you claim? We would love to hear this. And PBS documentaries are designed to produce information that has largely gone unnoticed or unreported by the main stream media, who are driven by profits. PBS is a non-proft organization (not driven by profits), which adds to and not reduce, their credibility.

Whether DOT COM bubble or housing bubble, companies, as you put it, will always be "buying TONS of equipment, building huge infrastructures (buildings, remote sites, delivery systems, etc) and hiring lots of employees", except in an economic down turn. So, I am unsure what point you are attempting to make here. And this was NOT the basis for Clinton's success. Clinton was able to cooordinate both fiscal and monetary policy goals required for success. This was where Bush failed woefully. While interest rates kept going lower, inflation was kept in check, while the value of the dollar stayed high, and oil prices stayed low. This spurred a spending binge and optimism for the future. In taking advantage of successful monetary policies, Congress decided to "profit-take" from the record profits being generated by US corporations, on the fiscal policy side, by raising taxes which was used to pay off deficits, which in turn bolstered global investor confidence in the direction and state of the financial affairs of the United States government and its balance sheet, which further spurred the excessive exuberance in the financial markets, and consequently, unhealthy risk-taking. So, simply suggesting that one or two events led to Clintons success, is false. One has to take into account the cascade of events that ultimately led to his success.

Freddie and Fannie Mae back up lots of different types of mortgages depending on the state of the economy. They can partly do this, because they are considered a government sponsored enterprise. When the eocnomy is great, they do back-up a little more risky mortgages than usual, and when the economy is bad, they back off from backing up risky mortgages. So, while they are a government entity, they do behave in as flexible a manner as any other private business enterprise out there. So, whether you display the video of Frank and Dodd, makes no difference, since there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that both men had any significant impact on the behavior and future of Freddie and Fannie Mae, given that both organizations, since their inception, have backed up mortgages across the united States, well before Frank and Dodd themselves, ever even thought they would have a career in government.

So, I wonder what point you are trying to make?
Modified by Jacko3 at 6:34 AM 3/2/2009

[audtatious]

Frontline documentaries are a Peabody award winning documentary.

And Gore won a Nobel Peace prize, what of it?

Whether DOT COM bubble or housing bubble, companies, as you put it, will always be "buying TONS of equipment, building huge infrastructures (buildings, remote sites, delivery systems, etc) and hiring lots of employees", except in an economic down turn. So, I am unsure what point you are attempting to make here. And this was NOT the basis for Clinton's success. Clinton was able to cooordinate both fiscal and monetary policy goals required for success. This was where Bush failed woefully. While interest rates kept going lower, inflation was kept in check, while the value of the dollar stayed high, and oil prices stayed low. This spurred a spending binge and optimism for the future. In taking advantage of successful monetary policies, Congress decided to "profit-take" from the record profits being generated by US corporations, on the fiscal policy side, by raising taxes which was used to pay off deficits, which in turn bolstered global investor confidence in the direction and state of the financial affairs of the United States government and its balance sheet, which further spurred the excessive exuberance in the financial markets, and consequently, unhealthy risk-taking. So, simply suggesting that one or two events led to Clintons success, is false. One has to take into account the cascade of events that ultimately led to his success.

Can't you simply say "I loved Bill Clinton and he farted gold"? That would be much better than some long-winded viewpoint.

Freddie and Fannie Mae back up lots of different types of mortgages depending on the state of the economy. They can partly do this, because they are considered a government sponsored enterprise. When the eocnomy is great, they do back-up a little more risky mortgages than usual, and when the economy is bad, they back off from backing up risky mortgages. So, while they are a government entity, they do behave in as flexible a manner as any other private business enterprise out there. So, whether you display the video of Frank and Dodd, makes no difference, since there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that both men had any significant impact on the behavior and future of Freddie and Fannie Mae, given that both organizations, since their inception, have backed up mortgages across the united States, well before Frank and Dodd themselves, ever even thought they would have a career in government.

Christ.

So, I wonder what point you are trying to make?

Obviously none and I really don't give a damn right now. You've simply been added to my ignore list

[heliochrome85]

You've simply been added to my ignore list

Looks like Jacko is winning a bunch of friends.

[Jacko3]

And Gore won a Nobel Peace prize, what of it?

Can't you simply say "I loved Bill Clinton and he farted gold"? That would be much better than some long-winded viewpoint.

Christ.

Obviously none and I really don't give a damn right now. You've simply been added to my ignore list

Dear Audtatious:

You are gonna be my friend whether you like it or not. You have no choice in this matter. If you ignore me, I am gonna cry you a really huge river.