Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And when, exactly, did he haul anyone's ass before congress for cheating on his wife?
Who did that? When? I must have missed it.
Maybe you were comatose in the late 90's
Or maybe your being a smart ass by pointing out that it was perjury.
Either way newt gingrich is a hypocritical fat ass.
So you can't tell me either?
Funny stuff. You seriously don't remember Obama saying that? Liberal memories. You remember that which helps the Democrats even if it never happened, but you can't remember what doesn't serve the cause of Democrats even if it did.
I don't recall being alone with Monica. Seriously, when she was blowing you in the Oval office, you can't remember being alone with her? Nope, can't recall.
His economic team did say that. Of course, it was a projection. To beat him up over a missed projection is pretty ridiculous. The fact is, the stimulus helped. And I suspect that's why the GOP's got their collective panties in a wad over it.
To beat him up over a missed projection is pretty ridiculous.
A projection he used to waste $787 billion, yeah, we can beat him up over that.
Uh, no. Having an affair does not establish a pattern of conduct of sexual harassment. Try again.
It does when the person reports to you...
Any civilian employer would have fired Clinton for what he did, and the military would have brought him up on charges if he were in the service.
Bullshit. She didn't report to him, he didn't have authority over her, there was never any question that she was unwilling, and no, it you don't necessarily get fired for having an affair with someone who reports to you, and no, the military doesn't necessarily bring people up on charges.
It was a witch hunt. They tried the Travel Office, they tried Whitewater, they tried Paula Jones, they tried Vince Foster, all to get at any candidate who had the temerity to get elected against the will of the GOP. I don't know what happened with Paula Jones, but I do know that she did exactly the things that would get you in a knot, except she was accusing Clinton.
Unemployment never made it to 10% under President George W. Bush's watch, THAT didn't happen until after Obama took office.
The results of Federal Government spending to try and stimulate jobs below:
Yes im fully aware of how worse it got and the timeline of events.
Wanna know what i see from this graph? It took bush from 2002 until late 2005 to decrease the unemployment rate from 6% to 4.6%, or a decrease of 1.4%. Its taken obama 2 years to accomplish a similar drop.
So you have absolutely no argument on the unemployment rate. Obama has handled a severe recession better than bush handled his recession in 2001, and in a much harsher political climate.
Again, its like you think obama had something to do with the recession. The depth of the recession is the fault of bush. In fact, obama has by every statistical measure made the recession less severe.
And the republicans have fought it ever second.
What has the republicans jobs program ever been? Deregulation? This is one recession you cannot deregulate yourself out of. Tax cuts? Well thats simply growth at the expense budget deficits. Even if your going to use the conservatives ridiculous laffer curve, cutting taxes when theyre already this low is a bad idea.
WOW. Liberal just cited the laffer curve..
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?
According to one enforcement agency, "discrimination exists when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants." Note that these "arbitrary or outdated criteria" include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history--the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.
The Government Did It - Forbes.com
Fannie, Freddie and the CRA had almost nothing to do with the financial calamity that was wrought by the Bush administration. They did not make the bulk of the subprimes. That was done by predatory lenders backed by financial institutions like Goldman.
create an institutional framework that rewarded firms like Countrywide for abandoning past lending standards and making bad bets in the housing market. Countrywides success in this new framework was a signal to other market participants to lower their standards and make even bigger and riskier bets.
http://nrinstitute.org/lmotw/2011/11/10fannie-and-freddie-created-the-mortgage-crisis/
whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken.
The National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...to-oversee-freddie-mac-fannie-mae.html?rsc=pm
Fannie, Freddie and the CRA had almost nothing to do with the financial calamity that was wrought by the Bush administration. They did not make the bulk of the subprimes. That was done by predatory lenders backed by financial institutions like Goldman.
Yes they did. Let me break this down for you so you can follow it more clearly.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) under President Clinton placed regulations on banks forcing it to make loans to those who would not otherwise qualify for them [the poor]. These new regulations made it discriminatory for a bank to deny someone a home loan based areas such as on income level, income verification, credit history and savings history. Therefore, even though a lower income person or family could no longer be subject to a financial background check to prove they could repay the loan, the bank had to grant them the loan with no certainty of repayment.
Fannie Mae gave a very small firm, Countrywide Financial business in rewarding mortgages to borrowers who's credit ratings were more than questionable.
When Countrywide first partnered with Fannie Mae they had only $92 million in revenue. By 1996 those revenues rose to $860 billion, in 2000 that number jumped to $2 billion until by 2004 Countrywide became the nations largest mortgage lender.
Then following thos achievement in 2000, Countrywide was honored by the Fannie Mae Foundation with an Outstanding Achievement award Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria." Fannie Mae was purchasing these bad loans from mortgage lenders, as well as securities these lending agencies were bundling for themselves.
In 1992 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used their government position and monopoly government influence to:
create an institutional framework that rewarded firms like Countrywide for abandoning past lending standards and making bad bets in the housing market. Countrywides success in this new framework was a signal to other market participants to lower their standards and make even bigger and riskier bets.
http://nrinstitute.org/lmotw/2011/11/10fannie-and-freddie-created-the-mortgage-crisis/
With the push and incentives behind lowering mortgage standards, more and more people who wouldn't otherwise find themselves qualifying to afford a home, were receiving loans in dangerous numbers without the certainty or concern for repayment.
The Bush administration sought to create an agency within the Treasury Department to assume supervision and control over Fannie and Freddie, over concerns
whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken.
The National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...to-oversee-freddie-mac-fannie-mae.html?rsc=pm
The Bush administration pushed for a bailout of Fannie and Freddie in attempt to cover the bad loans that have already been circulating in attempt to save the housing market. Forclosures unfortuanatly were beginging to grow at an obstancial rate even after the housing economic collapse, which began with the collapsing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - What Is the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailout
Fannie & Freddie: The most expensive bailout - Jul. 22, 2009
Either one of them could win a debate, depending on how the cookie crumbles on a given day. Trying to be as objective as possible and putting my political leanings aside I think it would be a match between two of the most intellectually over-rated people ever. They both seems as mediocre as they come in this regard.
Fannie, Freddie and the CRA had almost nothing to do with the financial calamity that was wrought by the Bush administration. They did not make the bulk of the subprimes. That was done by predatory lenders backed by financial institutions like Goldman.
Yes they did. Let me break this down for you so you can follow it more clearly.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) under President Clinton placed regulations on banks forcing it to make loans to those who would not otherwise qualify for them [the poor]. These new regulations made it discriminatory for a bank to deny someone a home loan based areas such as on income level, income verification, credit history and savings history. Therefore, even though a lower income person or family could no longer be subject to a financial background check to prove they could repay the loan, the bank had to grant them the loan with no certainty of repayment.
Fannie Mae gave a very small firm, Countrywide Financial business in rewarding mortgages to borrowers who's credit ratings were more than questionable.
When Countrywide first partnered with Fannie Mae they had only $92 million in revenue. By 1996 those revenues rose to $860 billion, in 2000 that number jumped to $2 billion until by 2004 Countrywide became the nations largest mortgage lender.
Then following thos achievement in 2000, Countrywide was honored by the Fannie Mae Foundation with an Outstanding Achievement award Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria." Fannie Mae was purchasing these bad loans from mortgage lenders, as well as securities these lending agencies were bundling for themselves.
In 1992 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used their government position and monopoly government influence to:
With the push and incentives behind lowering mortgage standards, more and more people who wouldn't otherwise find themselves qualifying to afford a home, were receiving loans in dangerous numbers without the certainty or concern for repayment.
The Bush administration sought to create an agency within the Treasury Department to assume supervision and control over Fannie and Freddie, over concerns
whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken.
The National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...to-oversee-freddie-mac-fannie-mae.html?rsc=pm
The Bush administration pushed for a bailout of Fannie and Freddie in attempt to cover the bad loans that have already been circulating in attempt to save the housing market. Forclosures unfortuanatly were beginging to grow at an obstancial rate even after the housing economic collapse, which began with the collapsing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - What Is the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailout
Fannie & Freddie: The most expensive bailout - Jul. 22, 2009
Having a wife who is a settlement attorney and representing some of the largest mortgage lenders in the country, I have done my best to explain how the CRA coupled with the "pull" of FM and FM created the housing bubble...
Sadly, no one wants to look at those facts.
They prefer the rhetoric of "Bush created the mess"
It is easier to say and makes them feel so much better about themselves.
to answer the question of an Obama/Newt debate...
Obama will spin his record and blame the "do nothing congress" for his inability to get things done.
And then Newt will say "so you admit you are not a qualified leader"
And that will be that.
Yes they did. Let me break this down for you so you can follow it more clearly.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) under President Clinton placed regulations on banks forcing it to make loans to those who would not otherwise qualify for them [the poor]. These new regulations made it discriminatory for a bank to deny someone a home loan based areas such as on income level, income verification, credit history and savings history. Therefore, even though a lower income person or family could no longer be subject to a financial background check to prove they could repay the loan, the bank had to grant them the loan with no certainty of repayment.
Fannie Mae gave a very small firm, Countrywide Financial business in rewarding mortgages to borrowers who's credit ratings were more than questionable.
When Countrywide first partnered with Fannie Mae they had only $92 million in revenue. By 1996 those revenues rose to $860 billion, in 2000 that number jumped to $2 billion until by 2004 Countrywide became the nations largest mortgage lender.
Then following thos achievement in 2000, Countrywide was honored by the Fannie Mae Foundation with an Outstanding Achievement award Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria." Fannie Mae was purchasing these bad loans from mortgage lenders, as well as securities these lending agencies were bundling for themselves.
In 1992 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used their government position and monopoly government influence to:
With the push and incentives behind lowering mortgage standards, more and more people who wouldn't otherwise find themselves qualifying to afford a home, were receiving loans in dangerous numbers without the certainty or concern for repayment.
The Bush administration sought to create an agency within the Treasury Department to assume supervision and control over Fannie and Freddie, over concerns
The Bush administration pushed for a bailout of Fannie and Freddie in attempt to cover the bad loans that have already been circulating in attempt to save the housing market. Forclosures unfortuanatly were beginging to grow at an obstancial rate even after the housing economic collapse, which began with the collapsing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - What Is the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailout
Fannie & Freddie: The most expensive bailout - Jul. 22, 2009
Having a wife who is a settlement attorney and representing some of the largest mortgage lenders in the country, I have done my best to explain how the CRA coupled with the "pull" of FM and FM created the housing bubble...
Sadly, no one wants to look at those facts.
They prefer the rhetoric of "Bush created the mess"
It is easier to say and makes them feel so much better about themselves.
Ever see this? Something tells me you'll appreciate it.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA]Democrats Fighting Regulation of Freddie & Fannie - YouTube[/ame]
Fannie, Freddie and the CRA had almost nothing to do with the financial calamity that was wrought by the Bush administration. They did not make the bulk of the subprimes. That was done by predatory lenders backed by financial institutions like Goldman.
to answer the question of an Obama/Newt debate...
Obama will spin his record and blame the "do nothing congress" for his inability to get things done.
And then Newt will say "so you admit you are not a qualified leader"
And that will be that.
Newt will spout "You are not a qualified leader" in every other sentence. The same thing Republicans have been babbling for four years
Obama is more than capable of handling it
Fannie, Freddie and the CRA had almost nothing to do with the financial calamity that was wrought by the Bush administration. They did not make the bulk of the subprimes. That was done by predatory lenders backed by financial institutions like Goldman.
Putting aside for the moment what Fannie and Freddie really do and who made the most subprime loans etc, no lender and I mean NO lender wants loans to defualt and go in to foreclosure and the politically expedient argument that they do is just out and out false. Anybody who thinks they do knows nothing about the banking / lending business. Sure a lender has security in the property to fall back on but its the last thing they want to do. Thats a failure for them plain and simple. They want their loans to perform as planned and that is their business. Making a loan for say 500k and then being able to foreclose on a ouse worth say 350k isnt exactly a good business model and typically doesnt get the guy who made it the key to the executive washroom.
And isnt it ironic that the same people who said we have to stop these irresponsible loans are now screaming -- why arent the banks lending to people? They cant have it both ways.
to answer the question of an Obama/Newt debate...
Obama will spin his record and blame the "do nothing congress" for his inability to get things done.
And then Newt will say "so you admit you are not a qualified leader"
And that will be that.
Newt will spout "You are not a qualified leader" in every other sentence. The same thing Republicans have been babbling for four years
Obama is more than capable of handling it
Read what I said.
Obama, as with any incumbant, will be forced to defend his...er....record.
And as his people have been doing for him for the last several months, he will blame congress.
And Newt will simply say...."a good leader can get congress to work with him....a child can get things done when everyone agrees with what he wants....but it takes a great leader to get different minds working together"
And as I said.....
that will be that.
Either one of them could win a debate, depending on how the cookie crumbles on a given day. Trying to be as objective as possible and putting my political leanings aside I think it would be a match between two of the most intellectually over-rated people ever. They both seems as mediocre as they come in this regard.
They both are intelligent...yes.
But Newt has forgotten more about politics than Obama will ever know.
Newt has a knack for off the cuff sarcasm
Obama needs the answers prepared for him.
I am losing interest in Newt real fast.....but a debate between Newt and Obama will be a slaughter in my opinion.
Unemployment never made it to 10% under President George W. Bush's watch, THAT didn't happen until after Obama took office.
The results of Federal Government spending to try and stimulate jobs below:
Yes im fully aware of how worse it got and the timeline of events.
Wanna know what i see from this graph? It took bush from 2002 until late 2005 to decrease the unemployment rate from 6% to 4.6%, or a decrease of 1.4%. Its taken obama 2 years to accomplish a similar drop.
So you have absolutely no argument on the unemployment rate. Obama has handled a severe recession better than bush handled his recession in 2001, and in a much harsher political climate.
Again, its like you think obama had something to do with the recession. The depth of the recession is the fault of bush. In fact, obama has by every statistical measure made the recession less severe.
And the republicans have fought it ever second.
What has the republicans jobs program ever been? Deregulation? This is one recession you cannot deregulate yourself out of. Tax cuts? Well thats simply growth at the expense budget deficits. Even if your going to use the conservatives ridiculous laffer curve, cutting taxes when theyre already this low is a bad idea.
WOW. Liberal just cited the laffer curve..
Actually, if you looked at the graph unemployment skyrocketed after 2009 under President Obama. Underemployment also nearly doubled what we saw under President Bush. Show me a graph a with side by side comparison of both administrations that says otherwise. Also take note how the stimulus of 2009 didn't reverse the climb in both these numbers. Why did unemployment go up? In the first two years of Obama's term, Democrats held both houses of Congress. With that Democrats were able to pass Stimulus Bill which didn't create any permanent jobs, Obamacare, his Financial reform bill giving bureaucrats more control of the financial sector (which tightened bank loans to small businesses) without touching Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae the real culprits within the mortgage crisis.
Sources:
Tightening of bank loans
Credit card lending standards keep tightening, Fed report says
Banks tighten credit standards to ward off rise in loan defaults | Inquirer Business
Banks tighten loan standards - Dayton Business Journal
So dispite the drastic increase in unemployment since 2008, you want to focus on the current small percent drop in unemployment around a seasonal holiday, is that it? We couldn't possibly be seeing a drop now because of the drastic influx of temporary imployment, that has never happened in out nation's history I'm sure
It's also interesting how you tout deregulation when throughout President George W. Bush's administration, Democrats opposed . . . yes opposed any restaraints on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You do recall how the housing market that involved these two government giants started this economic domino effect. A result, mind you, from the CRA Act under President Clinton that sited banks investigating into the credit history of a somone's financial background discriminatory, if it was done to a minority group.
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities by Howard Husock, City Journal Winter 2000The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?
According to one enforcement agency, "discrimination exists when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants." Note that these "arbitrary or outdated criteria" include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history--the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.
The Government Did It - Forbes.com
The entire time line surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Democrats refusal for government oversight, is found through this link below.
Archived-Articles: Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened
