Did Bush cause 2008 the Financial Crisis?

[depotoo]

And 17+ facts you forgot is when he realized they were in trouble he tried to get Congress to do their job and reel them in. Guess what, good ole Barney and Dodd and others all stated, "what problem? There is no problem!"

FACT: Liberal Public Policy caused the mortgage crisis by mandating eased requirements for lending, even to people who had no chance of ever paying the loan back. If banks and other lending institutions did not comply, their "score" from the SEC was too low to permit certain business transactions such as merges, etc. This is nothing less than a gun held to the head.

FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan.

FACT: HUD (Housing and Urban Development) under Andrew Cuomo, head of HUD) browbeat banks to make loans to folks who they knew couldn't pay them back.
FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan. IN FACT, BARACK OBAMA WAS INVOLVED IN AT LEAST ONE OF THESE LAWSUITS



FACT: Fannie Mae's sole purpose for being was to offer a Federal Guarantee of loans. So banks and other lending institutions didn't need to worry about thing. If a loan went bad, Fannie Mae was there to pick up the pieces (until there were too many pieces to pick up)

FACT: The Democrats stacked the operations of Fannie Mae with other Democrats who then cooked the books (FM had to pay MILLIONS in fines to the SEC over this) and took HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bonuses and funneled MILLIONS in campaign contributions to members of Congress. Franklin Raines (part of the Obama Administration) personally took 90 million dollars despite Fannie Mae's fines and fraud.

FACT: Bill Clinton turned a blind eye to all of this during most of the 90's. In fact, he worsened the situation in 1995 by making the CRA even more lopsided and requiring even MORE bad loans. One thing he did was to force lending institutions to accept up to 31% of one's income for a mortgage whereas previously it was only 25%

FACT: The Democrats who run Fannie Mae took hundreds of millions in bonuses while Congressional Dems provided cover, including Charlie Rangel , Chris Dodd , Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

FACT: Democrat Chris Dodd was #1 recipient with Democrat Barack Obama being #2 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac

FACT: The Democrats blocked every attempt by Republicans to investigate Fannie Mae and its business practices. In fact, the Bush Administration made over 30 attempts over his two terms in office only to have the Democrats block every one through parliamentary procedures as the Republicans, while controlling both Houses, NEVER had a super majority so the Dems could block anything they pleased (case in point - judicial nominees)





http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print


Quote:
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
Note the date


Quote:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine 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. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
http://www.bucksright.com/bush-propo...n-in-2003-1141


Quote:
A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.

Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine 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. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time.

In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it.

[...]

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities.

And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.

The 2003 New York Times article was unearthed by a Free Republic poster.

UPDATE: 2004 video posted to YouTube shows Republicans arguing for, and Democrats arguing against, regulations that would have saved us from the current crisis.
http://www.bucksright.com/congressma...ge-crisis-1451


Quote:
Congressman Sorry Democrats Dropped Ball On Mortgage Crisis
Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:55 am Posted by Steven in Economy

After being featured on Hannity & Colmes in a damning 2004 video showing Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail against greater Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, Democrat Congressman Artur Davis admits Democrats dropped the ball on reigning in the failed institutions and calls on fellow Democrats to do the same.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”

Along with President Clinton, I take issue with Davis’ contention that equal blame exists on both sides. President Bush requested greater oversight in 2003, Republicans are clearly seen in the video fighting for greater oversight in 2004, and John McCain led the charge for greater oversight in 2005. All efforts were rebuffed by Democrats, who demagogued the issue with racial politics that made reform impossible to accomplish. At least they tried. I see no evidence of any push toward greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac oversight since the short bus rolled onto Capitol Hill in January 2007.

That said, I appreciate Congressman Davis’ candor in admitting Democrats let their ideology get in the way of what was right for the country.

wow, sure are a lot of facts there ... heres one you forgot from 2002




close your eyes and listen

FACT

 

[Siete]

making it easy for 5 million minority owners to buy a home ... gee.

 

[Vigilante]

FACT: Liberal Public Policy caused the mortgage crisis by mandating eased requirements for lending, even to people who had no chance of ever paying the loan back. If banks and other lending institutions did not comply, their "score" from the SEC was too low to permit certain business transactions such as merges, etc. This is nothing less than a gun held to the head.

FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan.

FACT: HUD (Housing and Urban Development) under Andrew Cuomo, head of HUD) browbeat banks to make loans to folks who they knew couldn't pay them back.
FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan. IN FACT, BARACK OBAMA WAS INVOLVED IN AT LEAST ONE OF THESE LAWSUITS



FACT: Fannie Mae's sole purpose for being was to offer a Federal Guarantee of loans. So banks and other lending institutions didn't need to worry about thing. If a loan went bad, Fannie Mae was there to pick up the pieces (until there were too many pieces to pick up)

FACT: The Democrats stacked the operations of Fannie Mae with other Democrats who then cooked the books (FM had to pay MILLIONS in fines to the SEC over this) and took HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bonuses and funneled MILLIONS in campaign contributions to members of Congress. Franklin Raines (part of the Obama Administration) personally took 90 million dollars despite Fannie Mae's fines and fraud.

FACT: Bill Clinton turned a blind eye to all of this during most of the 90's. In fact, he worsened the situation in 1995 by making the CRA even more lopsided and requiring even MORE bad loans. One thing he did was to force lending institutions to accept up to 31% of one's income for a mortgage whereas previously it was only 25%

FACT: The Democrats who run Fannie Mae took hundreds of millions in bonuses while Congressional Dems provided cover, including Charlie Rangel , Chris Dodd , Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

FACT: Democrat Chris Dodd was #1 recipient with Democrat Barack Obama being #2 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac

FACT: The Democrats blocked every attempt by Republicans to investigate Fannie Mae and its business practices. In fact, the Bush Administration made over 30 attempts over his two terms in office only to have the Democrats block every one through parliamentary procedures as the Republicans, while controlling both Houses, NEVER had a super majority so the Dems could block anything they pleased (case in point - judicial nominees)





http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print


Quote:
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
Note the date


Quote:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine 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. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
http://www.bucksright.com/bush-propo...n-in-2003-1141


Quote:
A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.

Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine 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. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time.

In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it.

[...]

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities.

And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.

The 2003 New York Times article was unearthed by a Free Republic poster.

UPDATE: 2004 video posted to YouTube shows Republicans arguing for, and Democrats arguing against, regulations that would have saved us from the current crisis.
http://www.bucksright.com/congressma...ge-crisis-1451


Quote:
Congressman Sorry Democrats Dropped Ball On Mortgage Crisis
Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:55 am Posted by Steven in Economy

After being featured on Hannity & Colmes in a damning 2004 video showing Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail against greater Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, Democrat Congressman Artur Davis admits Democrats dropped the ball on reigning in the failed institutions and calls on fellow Democrats to do the same.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”

Along with President Clinton, I take issue with Davis’ contention that equal blame exists on both sides. President Bush requested greater oversight in 2003, Republicans are clearly seen in the video fighting for greater oversight in 2004, and John McCain led the charge for greater oversight in 2005. All efforts were rebuffed by Democrats, who demagogued the issue with racial politics that made reform impossible to accomplish. At least they tried. I see no evidence of any push toward greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac oversight since the short bus rolled onto Capitol Hill in January 2007.

That said, I appreciate Congressman Davis’ candor in admitting Democrats let their ideology get in the way of what was right for the country.

wow, sure are a lot of facts there ... heres one you forgot from 2002




close your eyes and listen

FACT

Yes, he said that in 2002, he also warned in 2001 that there could be problems, and in 2003 RAISED the warnings of the risks as stated here at .52 of the video, As the administration could see things getting worse, it RAISED more concerns over it.... apparently you can't follow that LOGIC!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Vigilante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ&feature=related



making it easy for 5 million minority owners to buy a home ... gee.

What YOU wrote is NOT what he said...you said...

In the meanwhile, GW claimed on his interview with 60 Minutes last year that his push to have every American own a home was a runaway success and still is.
Just how retarded is he?

Please give me a time quote when he said that! I just watch the whole 5 minutes of that and all he did was mention 5.5 million new home buyers, a VERY FAR CRY from having every American own a home & being a runaway success and still is!

 

[Indeependent]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ&feature=related



making it easy for 5 million minority owners to buy a home ... gee.

What YOU wrote is NOT what he said...you said...

In the meanwhile, GW claimed on his interview with 60 Minutes last year that his push to have every American own a home was a runaway success and still is.
Just how retarded is he?

Please give me a time quote when he said that! I just watch the whole 5 minutes of that and all he did was mention 5.5 million new home buyers, a VERY FAR CRY from having every American own a home & being a runaway success and still is!

Since when is a 60 Minutes segment only 5 minutes?
Perhaps 17-18 minutes to allow for commercials.
You're probably watching an edited version.
I watched it when it was on TV and it WASN'T only 5 minutes long.

 

[Siete]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ&feature=related



making it easy for 5 million minority owners to buy a home ... gee.

What YOU wrote is NOT what he said...you said...

In the meanwhile, GW claimed on his interview with 60 Minutes last year that his push to have every American own a home was a runaway success and still is.
Just how retarded is he?

Please give me a time quote when he said that! I just watch the whole 5 minutes of that and all he did was mention 5.5 million new home buyers, a VERY FAR CRY from having every American own a home & being a runaway success and still is!

first vid ... 5 million minority owners

2nd vid ... making it happen through federal government

 

[Vigilante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ&feature=related



making it easy for 5 million minority owners to buy a home ... gee.

What YOU wrote is NOT what he said...you said...

In the meanwhile, GW claimed on his interview with 60 Minutes last year that his push to have every American own a home was a runaway success and still is.
Just how retarded is he?

Please give me a time quote when he said that! I just watch the whole 5 minutes of that and all he did was mention 5.5 million new home buyers, a VERY FAR CRY from having every American own a home & being a runaway success and still is!

Since when is a 60 Minutes segment only 5 minutes?
Perhaps 17-18 minutes to allow for commercials.
You're probably watching an edited version.
I watched it when it was on TV and it WASN'T only 5 minutes long.

Well then FIND IT and post it up, do you think one would believe you without proof with a video, or a transcript?...You certainly wouldn't believe me!

 

[Vigilante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ&feature=related



making it easy for 5 million minority owners to buy a home ... gee.

What YOU wrote is NOT what he said...you said...

In the meanwhile, GW claimed on his interview with 60 Minutes last year that his push to have every American own a home was a runaway success and still is.
Just how retarded is he?

Please give me a time quote when he said that! I just watch the whole 5 minutes of that and all he did was mention 5.5 million new home buyers, a VERY FAR CRY from having every American own a home & being a runaway success and still is!

first vid ... 5 million minority owners

2nd vid ... making it happen through federal government

And THAT is NOT what you said, and is a FAR CRY from what YOU DID SAY! Where's the RUNAWAY SUCCESS, AND STILL IS?????

DID YOU LIE AND JUST MAKE THAT STATEMENT UP????

 

[Siete]

What YOU wrote is NOT what he said...you said...



Please give me a time quote when he said that! I just watch the whole 5 minutes of that and all he did was mention 5.5 million new home buyers, a VERY FAR CRY from having every American own a home & being a runaway success and still is!

Since when is a 60 Minutes segment only 5 minutes?
Perhaps 17-18 minutes to allow for commercials.
You're probably watching an edited version.
I watched it when it was on TV and it WASN'T only 5 minutes long.

Well then FIND IT and post it up, do you think one would believe you without proof with a video, or a transcript?...You certainly wouldn't believe me!

honestly, you're confusing at best... every American > did I say that?

quote me

 

[Indeependent]

What YOU wrote is NOT what he said...you said...



Please give me a time quote when he said that! I just watch the whole 5 minutes of that and all he did was mention 5.5 million new home buyers, a VERY FAR CRY from having every American own a home & being a runaway success and still is!

Since when is a 60 Minutes segment only 5 minutes?
Perhaps 17-18 minutes to allow for commercials.
You're probably watching an edited version.
I watched it when it was on TV and it WASN'T only 5 minutes long.

Well then FIND IT and post it up, do you think one would believe you without proof with a video, or a transcript?...You certainly wouldn't believe me!

1...During the interview GW claims his book includes everything discussed in the 60 Minutes interview; I don't know if the video you saw has that statement.

2...I would believe you because NOT EVERYTHING IS ON THE WEB.
I've been surfing since 1996 and I fully realize that some server owners have chosen, and still do choose, along the way, NOT to retain certain material.

In fact, I don't think I've ever asked ANYBODY in my last three years of posting here and on another site to link to anything.
If someone is a big enough jerk to say something that's false, I have no desire to converse with that person.

Interpreting a statement is one thing, conjuring up an artifact is a whole another level of phony.

 

[Vigilante]

Since when is a 60 Minutes segment only 5 minutes?
Perhaps 17-18 minutes to allow for commercials.
You're probably watching an edited version.
I watched it when it was on TV and it WASN'T only 5 minutes long.

Well then FIND IT and post it up, do you think one would believe you without proof with a video, or a transcript?...You certainly wouldn't believe me!

honestly, you're confusing at best... every American > did I say that?

quote me

It was what Independent said, I mistook his quote for yours, it happens!

 

[Siete]

Well then FIND IT and post it up, do you think one would believe you without proof with a video, or a transcript?...You certainly wouldn't believe me!

honestly, you're confusing at best... every American > did I say that?

quote me

It was what Independent said, I mistook his quote for yours, it happens!

don't it though ?

 

[Vigilante]

Since when is a 60 Minutes segment only 5 minutes?
Perhaps 17-18 minutes to allow for commercials.
You're probably watching an edited version.
I watched it when it was on TV and it WASN'T only 5 minutes long.

Well then FIND IT and post it up, do you think one would believe you without proof with a video, or a transcript?...You certainly wouldn't believe me!

1...During the interview GW claims his book includes everything discussed in the 60 Minutes interview; I don't know if the video you saw has that statement.

2...I would believe you because NOT EVERYTHING IS ON THE WEB.
I've been surfing since 1996 and I fully realize that some server owners have chosen, and still do choose, along the way, NOT to retain certain material.

In fact, I don't think I've ever asked ANYBODY in my last three years of posting here and on another site to link to anything.
If someone is a big enough jerk to say something that's false, I have no desire to converse with that person.

Interpreting a statement is one thing, conjuring up an artifact is a whole another level of phony.

I've been asked several times to LINK to my proof, and I ALWAYS check to see that there is a link or video, or, it simply doesn't exist as far as debating a subject goes! I take NO ONE word. Too many liars on the web!

 

[Indeependent]

Well then FIND IT and post it up, do you think one would believe you without proof with a video, or a transcript?...You certainly wouldn't believe me!

1...During the interview GW claims his book includes everything discussed in the 60 Minutes interview; I don't know if the video you saw has that statement.

2...I would believe you because NOT EVERYTHING IS ON THE WEB.
I've been surfing since 1996 and I fully realize that some server owners have chosen, and still do choose, along the way, NOT to retain certain material.

In fact, I don't think I've ever asked ANYBODY in my last three years of posting here and on another site to link to anything.
If someone is a big enough jerk to say something that's false, I have no desire to converse with that person.

Interpreting a statement is one thing, conjuring up an artifact is a whole another level of phony.

I've been asked several times to LINK to my proof, and I ALWAYS check to see that there is a link or video, or, it simply doesn't exist as far as debating a subject goes! I take NO ONE word. Too many liars on the web!

I haven't because I don't think you would lie to prove a point.
For those whom I DO think would lie to prove a point, I ignore their nonsense.

 

[Vigilante]

1...During the interview GW claims his book includes everything discussed in the 60 Minutes interview; I don't know if the video you saw has that statement.

2...I would believe you because NOT EVERYTHING IS ON THE WEB.
I've been surfing since 1996 and I fully realize that some server owners have chosen, and still do choose, along the way, NOT to retain certain material.

In fact, I don't think I've ever asked ANYBODY in my last three years of posting here and on another site to link to anything.
If someone is a big enough jerk to say something that's false, I have no desire to converse with that person.

Interpreting a statement is one thing, conjuring up an artifact is a whole another level of phony.

I've been asked several times to LINK to my proof, and I ALWAYS check to see that there is a link or video, or, it simply doesn't exist as far as debating a subject goes! I take NO ONE word. Too many liars on the web!

I haven't because I don't think you would lie to prove a point.
For those whom I DO think would lie to prove a point, I ignore their nonsense.

I appreciate your faith in my veracity. I, on the other hand have found that the left LIES more than they tell the truth!

 

[GWV5903]

Let's be clear, CRA, FHA DPA and Sub Prime Lending all were created under Democrat Admins...

All three are toxic and were initiated to give minority borrowers a door to home ownership...

However well intentioned you try to paint Carter and Clinton for these creations, no one benefited from these home loans, no one...

Washington and Wall Street have their fingerprint's all over this...

Everyone in the industry knew these were bad products...

The Equal Housing Act was the umbrella everyone used for cover and Washington knew dam well it would keep everyone from speaking up...

The Savings and Loan Crisis was less than a decade old and yet Sub Prime Mortgage Lending was born in '93, granted you paid a premium rate and had to have a 80% LTV or less...

Sub Prime eventually became a staple for the commercial banks to feed on, Zero Down with a 3% bump above par became the tonic that drove millions into ZERO RISK HOME OWNERSHIP, MILLIONS...

Everyone in the industry knew in late '96 & early '97 that Zero Down FHA DPA was a disaster waiting to happen. This product was around for a decade before it was banished from the line of loan products...

Can you imagine owning a $150K asset for as little as a $500 investment? Pretty easy to sell (in this case give away) too the apartment dweller...

I hate partisan politics, but make no mistake the Liberal Left owns this one lock, stock and barrel...

This is RealClearMarkets - How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong? one of the best summary's of the Mortgage Meltdown...

And today every tax paying US citizen is financing ZERO DOWN USDA LOANS for millions of Americans, how in the world does this crap continue based on the recent past? They were saying the same thing in 1993...

 

[Indeependent]

I've been asked several times to LINK to my proof, and I ALWAYS check to see that there is a link or video, or, it simply doesn't exist as far as debating a subject goes! I take NO ONE word. Too many liars on the web!

I haven't because I don't think you would lie to prove a point.
For those whom I DO think would lie to prove a point, I ignore their nonsense.

I appreciate your faith in my veracity. I, on the other hand have found that the left LIES more than they tell the truth!

Liberals don't lie so much as conflate.
I find that ideologues in general do not clearly define the relationship between an event and the desired Target result.

 

[Indeependent]

I hate partisan politics, but make no mistake the Liberal Left owns this one lock, stock and barrel...

This is RealClearMarkets - How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong? one of the best summary's of the Mortgage Meltdown...

And today every tax paying US citizen is financing ZERO DOWN USDA LOANS for millions of Americans, how in the world does this crap continue based on the recent past? They were saying the same thing in 1993...

And that's where I call bullshit.
Both parties knew what was going on and both looked the other way.

 

[edthecynic]

I've been asked several times to LINK to my proof, and I ALWAYS check to see that there is a link or video, or, it simply doesn't exist as far as debating a subject goes! I take NO ONE word. Too many liars on the web!

I haven't because I don't think you would lie to prove a point.
For those whom I DO think would lie to prove a point, I ignore their nonsense.

I appreciate your faith in my veracity. I, on the other hand have found that the left LIES more than they tell the truth!

That is a lie!

 

[GWV5903]

I hate partisan politics, but make no mistake the Liberal Left owns this one lock, stock and barrel...

This is RealClearMarkets - How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong? one of the best summary's of the Mortgage Meltdown...

And today every tax paying US citizen is financing ZERO DOWN USDA LOANS for millions of Americans, how in the world does this crap continue based on the recent past? They were saying the same thing in 1993...

And that's where I call bullshit.
Both parties knew what was going on and both looked the other way.

There in no BS to it, all three elements where born under Democrat Admins, can you prove something different?