Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
Not one of you can answer the civil question?
My guess is that nobody wants to answer you.
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.
Not one of you can answer the civil question?
Because they cant.
They have no idea what the economic impact of their wished actions would be
Because they cant.
They have no idea what the economic impact of their wished actions would be
It happened under your republican watch didnt it?
why didnt your party do something about it when they had all the control?
It happened under your republican watch didnt it?
why didnt your party do something about it when they had all the control?
cant answer the civil question can you?
what would result in the economy if what you proffered came to fruition?
It happened under your republican watch didnt it?
why didnt your party do something about it when they had all the control?
It happened under your republican watch didnt it?
why didnt your party do something about it when they had all the control?
cant answer the civil question can you?
what would result in the economy if what you proffered came to fruition?
It has alredy been answered. You simply refused to accept it as the answer.
As has ALWAYS been the case in a pure competition...the cream always rises to the top.
Years ago, the largest ad agencies on Madison avenue came up with a brilliant idea. Buy out the competition and become the largest and the greatest. The idea failed for reasons I wont get into now....but in a nutshell, people dont always want to be a small fish in a large pond.....
So the talk on the street was "all thos people losing their jobs...the industry is going to collapse. What do we do."
They did nothing. The cream rose to the top and the industry suuffered nothing but a small hic-cup.
Art directors started small boutique shops and they picked up the slack.
The president had both houses for years. He and they could have done anything they wanted wether Barney liked it or not.It happened under your republican watch didnt it?
why didnt your party do something about it when they had all the control?
Fannie collapsed while democrats were in the majority in the House and the Senate. Barney Frank was the chair(person) of the powerful House Banking Committee which had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae and he told Americans that Fannie was solvent. Meanwhile, what was the first issue democrats addressed when they gained the majority halfway into Bush's 2nd term? The economy? Nope, they wasted millions investigating steroid use in Baseball and ended up indicting a single Hall-of Famer. In a stunning burst of honesty Frank said he had "ideological blinders" on when he lied to America about Fannie's status. What does "ideological blinders" mean? The obvious answer is that Frank intended Fannie to collapse as the biggest October surprise in history during a republican presidency.
He had both house for until 2006. Why do you defend obama so much when he had a Democratic controlled congress almost as long as bush had a Republican controlled congress?The president had both houses for years. He and they could have dont anything they wanted wether Barney liuked it or not.It happened under your republican watch didnt it?
why didnt your party do something about it when they had all the control?
Fannie collapsed while democrats were in the majority in the House and the Senate. Barney Frank was the chair(person) of the powerful House Banking Committee which had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae and he told Americans that Fannie was solvent. Meanwhile, what was the first issue democrats addressed when they gained the majority halfway into Bush's 2nd term? The economy? Nope, they wasted millions investigating steroid use in Baseball and ended up indicting a single Hall-of Famer. In a stunning burst of honesty Frank said he had "ideological blinders" on when he lied to America about Fannie's status. What does "ideological blinders" mean? The obvious answer is that Frank intended Fannie to collapse as the biggest October surprise in history during a republican presidency.
That is not the question.
What would be the economic impact of letting freddy and fanny fail?
That is what is being suggested by the right in this thread.
If you think its the right decision you should be able to outline the impact of that decision.
cant answer the civil question can you?
what would result in the economy if what you proffered came to fruition?
It has alredy been answered. You simply refused to accept it as the answer.
As has ALWAYS been the case in a pure competition...the cream always rises to the top.
Years ago, the largest ad agencies on Madison avenue came up with a brilliant idea. Buy out the competition and become the largest and the greatest. The idea failed for reasons I wont get into now....but in a nutshell, people dont always want to be a small fish in a large pond.....
So the talk on the street was "all thos people losing their jobs...the industry is going to collapse. What do we do."
They did nothing. The cream rose to the top and the industry suuffered nothing but a small hic-cup.
Art directors started small boutique shops and they picked up the slack.
This is not an add agency.
This is about the banking industry.
Please outline what the impact on our economic system will be ?
The president had both houses for years. He and they could have done anything they wanted wether Barney liked it or not.It happened under your republican watch didnt it?
why didnt your party do something about it when they had all the control?
Fannie collapsed while democrats were in the majority in the House and the Senate. Barney Frank was the chair(person) of the powerful House Banking Committee which had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae and he told Americans that Fannie was solvent. Meanwhile, what was the first issue democrats addressed when they gained the majority halfway into Bush's 2nd term? The economy? Nope, they wasted millions investigating steroid use in Baseball and ended up indicting a single Hall-of Famer. In a stunning burst of honesty Frank said he had "ideological blinders" on when he lied to America about Fannie's status. What does "ideological blinders" mean? The obvious answer is that Frank intended Fannie to collapse as the biggest October surprise in history during a republican presidency.
That is not the question.
What would be the economic impact of letting freddy and fanny fail?
That is what is being suggested by the right in this thread.
If you think its the right decision you should be able to outline the impact of that decision.