Liberals Think We're Jerks For Wanting To Control Spending

[TyroneSlothrop]

Correct it doesn't matter at all 7 years later. The only reason why you are complaining is because it hasn't even been fixed yet 7 years later. Your beef is with the current President Obama, not Bush. FDR extended the depression and so is Obama.

Well when someone says something as ignorant as "Obama inherited Bush's economic mess" - you should immediately know their knowledge level is primary school at best.
If someone was to make a "Top 50 People Responsible for the 2008 Collapse" - President Bush would be somewhere towards the bottom, and would only be on the list because LIKE OBAMA, he was AWOL on economic issues.
Neither Obama or Bush involve themselves in economic matters. And for that, because of their position, deserve to be on the list.
But, as I am sure you know, the 2008 collapse began in the 80's.
And as far as Presidential blame - hands down Clinton, not Reagan.

Bush did more than most Republicans. Namely he warned about the disaster that loomed if Freddie and Fannie were not reformed. John McCain also attempted to reform the ill conceived subprime lending scheme. Given that most Republicans just went along to get along, I'd say Bush helped set the high end of the grading curve on GOP opposition. Still, in retrospect, he should have done more.

Bush's guilt is he did not actually DO anything to stop the onslaught.
Yes he certainly did predict the disaster, and said it was going to happen. But he didn't act, he didn't make it a priority....course there was that whole 9/11 thing.
But again as far as Presidential blame, Clinton gets most by far. Most of the policy changes that made the collapse at least occurred during his presidency, and others he had a direct hand in both implementation and design.

As you can clearly see, subprime didn't go nuts until 2004,

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Con replies prove that if they ever get control, they'll destroy SS, Medicare, healthcare, food stamps for children, and aid to the poor. And they'll be putting the elderly, the poor, the sick and children in ovens to clean them off their streets. Rots of ruck with your final solution.

Really? We would do all that? Do you Leftwats try to sound BSC or does it come naturally to you?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Correct it doesn't matter at all 7 years later. The only reason why you are complaining is because it hasn't even been fixed yet 7 years later. Your beef is with the current President Obama, not Bush. FDR extended the depression and so is Obama.

Well when someone says something as ignorant as "Obama inherited Bush's economic mess" - you should immediately know their knowledge level is primary school at best.
If someone was to make a "Top 50 People Responsible for the 2008 Collapse" - President Bush would be somewhere towards the bottom, and would only be on the list because LIKE OBAMA, he was AWOL on economic issues.
Neither Obama or Bush involve themselves in economic matters. And for that, because of their position, deserve to be on the list.
But, as I am sure you know, the 2008 collapse began in the 80's.
And as far as Presidential blame - hands down Clinton, not Reagan.

Bush did more than most Republicans. Namely he warned about the disaster that loomed if Freddie and Fannie were not reformed. John McCain also attempted to reform the ill conceived subprime lending scheme. Given that most Republicans just went along to get along, I'd say Bush helped set the high end of the grading curve on GOP opposition. Still, in retrospect, he should have done more.

Bush's guilt is he did not actually DO anything to stop the onslaught.
Yes he certainly did predict the disaster, and said it was going to happen. But he didn't act, he didn't make it a priority....course there was that whole 9/11 thing.
But again as far as Presidential blame, Clinton gets most by far. Most of the policy changes that made the collapse at least occurred during his presidency, and others he had a direct hand in both implementation and design.

As you can clearly see, subprime didn't go nuts until 2004,

It wasn't the subprime loans that caused the meltdown, it was the packaging and trading of these risky loans as financial instruments. It only delayed the inevitable.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Correct it doesn't matter at all 7 years later. The only reason why you are complaining is because it hasn't even been fixed yet 7 years later. Your beef is with the current President Obama, not Bush. FDR extended the depression and so is Obama.

Well when someone says something as ignorant as "Obama inherited Bush's economic mess" - you should immediately know their knowledge level is primary school at best.
If someone was to make a "Top 50 People Responsible for the 2008 Collapse" - President Bush would be somewhere towards the bottom, and would only be on the list because LIKE OBAMA, he was AWOL on economic issues.
Neither Obama or Bush involve themselves in economic matters. And for that, because of their position, deserve to be on the list.
But, as I am sure you know, the 2008 collapse began in the 80's.
And as far as Presidential blame - hands down Clinton, not Reagan.

Bush did more than most Republicans. Namely he warned about the disaster that loomed if Freddie and Fannie were not reformed. John McCain also attempted to reform the ill conceived subprime lending scheme. Given that most Republicans just went along to get along, I'd say Bush helped set the high end of the grading curve on GOP opposition. Still, in retrospect, he should have done more.

Bush's guilt is he did not actually DO anything to stop the onslaught.
Yes he certainly did predict the disaster, and said it was going to happen. But he didn't act, he didn't make it a priority....course there was that whole 9/11 thing.
But again as far as Presidential blame, Clinton gets most by far. Most of the policy changes that made the collapse at least occurred during his presidency, and others he had a direct hand in both implementation and design.

As you can clearly see, subprime didn't go nuts until 2004,

Wow - I had no idea Bush bought so many houses.
Hilarious.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders Partner in Crime

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Correct it doesn't matter at all 7 years later. The only reason why you are complaining is because it hasn't even been fixed yet 7 years later. Your beef is with the current President Obama, not Bush. FDR extended the depression and so is Obama.

Well when someone says something as ignorant as "Obama inherited Bush's economic mess" - you should immediately know their knowledge level is primary school at best.
If someone was to make a "Top 50 People Responsible for the 2008 Collapse" - President Bush would be somewhere towards the bottom, and would only be on the list because LIKE OBAMA, he was AWOL on economic issues.
Neither Obama or Bush involve themselves in economic matters. And for that, because of their position, deserve to be on the list.
But, as I am sure you know, the 2008 collapse began in the 80's.
And as far as Presidential blame - hands down Clinton, not Reagan.

Bush did more than most Republicans. Namely he warned about the disaster that loomed if Freddie and Fannie were not reformed. John McCain also attempted to reform the ill conceived subprime lending scheme. Given that most Republicans just went along to get along, I'd say Bush helped set the high end of the grading curve on GOP opposition. Still, in retrospect, he should have done more.

Bush's guilt is he did not actually DO anything to stop the onslaught.
Yes he certainly did predict the disaster, and said it was going to happen. But he didn't act, he didn't make it a priority....course there was that whole 9/11 thing.
But again as far as Presidential blame, Clinton gets most by far. Most of the policy changes that made the collapse at least occurred during his presidency, and others he had a direct hand in both implementation and design.

As you can clearly see, subprime didn't go nuts until 2004,

Wow - I had no idea Bush bought so many houses.
Hilarious.

Bush

Derangement

Syndrome

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Correct it doesn't matter at all 7 years later. The only reason why you are complaining is because it hasn't even been fixed yet 7 years later. Your beef is with the current President Obama, not Bush. FDR extended the depression and so is Obama.

Well when someone says something as ignorant as "Obama inherited Bush's economic mess" - you should immediately know their knowledge level is primary school at best.
If someone was to make a "Top 50 People Responsible for the 2008 Collapse" - President Bush would be somewhere towards the bottom, and would only be on the list because LIKE OBAMA, he was AWOL on economic issues.
Neither Obama or Bush involve themselves in economic matters. And for that, because of their position, deserve to be on the list.
But, as I am sure you know, the 2008 collapse began in the 80's.
And as far as Presidential blame - hands down Clinton, not Reagan.

Bush did more than most Republicans. Namely he warned about the disaster that loomed if Freddie and Fannie were not reformed. John McCain also attempted to reform the ill conceived subprime lending scheme. Given that most Republicans just went along to get along, I'd say Bush helped set the high end of the grading curve on GOP opposition. Still, in retrospect, he should have done more.

Bush's guilt is he did not actually DO anything to stop the onslaught.
Yes he certainly did predict the disaster, and said it was going to happen. But he didn't act, he didn't make it a priority....course there was that whole 9/11 thing.
But again as far as Presidential blame, Clinton gets most by far. Most of the policy changes that made the collapse at least occurred during his presidency, and others he had a direct hand in both implementation and design.

As you can clearly see, subprime didn't go nuts until 2004,

It wasn't the subprime loans that caused the meltdown, it was the packaging and trading of these risky loans as financial instruments. It only delayed the inevitable.

Aye, of course the

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders Partner in Crime

Elliot Spitzer????
Holy hell......you want to put him down as a source???

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Elliot Spitzer????
Holy hell......you want to put him down as a source???

What specific thing that he said are you denying is true ..?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Elliot Spitzer????
Holy hell......you want to put him down as a source???

What specific thing that he said are you denying is true ..?

Don't matter. I didn't read it.
There is absolutely no intelligent reason to expect you will get an accurate and FULL informative account from a politician. None.
I would not read one from, say Newt Gingrich either.
Not to mention Spitzer is not known for his trustworthiness.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Republicans don't want to cut spending. They want to shift spending out of social programs and into defense.

Yes, Americans want to cut spending irrelevant to viable governance and provide for spending only where it serves the objective interests of everyone, as reason requires.

Ya see scamp, what you call 'social justice' is what in reality, is known as BRIBERY AND GRAFT. We know such to be such, due to the negative consequences... wherein your 'social justice' has taken the black family and nearly erased it from the US Culture.

And absent the spending which you call 'social justice', the Ideological Left, thus the Democrat Party would not exist.

LOL! But remember back when obama was lamenting the 150 billion dollars a year Bush was spending in deficit, calling that IMMORAL and UNPATRIOTIC. Then once in office he comes out spending 1500 BILLION in deficit... and the NEXT YEAR he spends 1600 BILLION IN DEFICIT and the YEAR AFTER THAT AND THE YEAR AFTER THAT. Until the Republicans took control of the Legislature and managed to cut him down to a 1300 Billion, then 650 Billion... and all of it, EVERY CENT was spent ON SOCIAL INJUSTICE.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Elliot Spitzer????
Holy hell......you want to put him down as a source???

What specific thing that he said are you denying is true ..?

Don't matter. I didn't read it.
There is absolutely no intelligent reason to expect you will get an accurate and FULL informative account from a politician. None.
I would not read one from, say Newt Gingrich either.
Not to mention Spitzer is not known for his trustworthiness.

really is that so...OK so what you are saying is you don';t know what the Fk you are talking about because you did not read the information Spitzer provided but you want to comment on it anyway.....

here is an excerpt ...it should take a minute to read: My question is do you think Spitzer made all of this up ?

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC [ Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

 

[HenryBHough]

Why is big spending a problem when all you have to do is push a button and print tons more money?

Oh, you don't have such a button?

Now that's unfair.

Better do some burning and looting to make that inequality crystal clear!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Republicans don't want to cut spending. They want to shift spending out of social programs and into defense.

Yes, Americans want to cut spending irrelevant to viable governance and provide for spending only where it serves the objective interests of everyone, as reason requires.

Ya see scamp, what you call 'social justice' is what in reality, is known as BRIBERY AND GRAFT. We know such to be such, due to the negative consequences... wherein your 'social justice' has taken the black family and nearly erased it from the US Culture.

And absent the spending which you call 'social justice', the Ideological Left, thus the Democrat Party would not exist.

LOL! But remember back when obama was lamenting the 150 billion dollars a year Bush was spending in deficit, calling that IMMORAL and UNPATRIOTIC. Then once in office he comes out spending 1500 BILLION in deficit... and the NEXT YEAR he spends 1600 BILLION IN DEFICIT and the YEAR AFTER THAT AND THE YEAR AFTER THAT. Until the Republicans took control of the Legislature and managed to cut him down to a 1300 Billion, then 650 Billion... and all of it, EVERY CENT was spent ON SOCIAL INJUSTICE.

That's a fascinating bucket of horseshit.

 

[boedicca]

Mention spending cuts or even controlling spending and it's like holding up a cross in front of a vampire. They react violently at times. Most of the time they claim that spending cuts will bring this country down.

On Monday, President Obama released his 2016 budget, which calls for increased spending and raising taxes, and on MSNBC’s The Cycle, so-called conservative co-host Abby Huntsman did her best to scold the GOP for opposing the tax-and-spend Obama budget. ​

Speaking to Lauren Fox of National Journal, Huntsman proclaimed that Republicans’ “big thing is we’ve got to cut spending, this is not something we’re going to approve and that’s often why they are considered the jerks here, because they aren’t talking about entitlements, they are talking about cuts.” ​

Think of it. In only a few years since Obama has become president, we've gone from clamoring for spending reform to you're a terrorist for wanting to control government spending.

Anyone with half a brain can see one of the biggest problems in government isn't that we don't have any money, it's that we spend too much. So Democrats invented a word for it to demonize the practice. Austerity. Anyone who starts talking about Austerity and recommending new investment is just pumping us for more tax increases. That's really all Democrats do. They try to think of new ways of taking our cash. Spending is now investment. Controlling spending is evil austerity. Anyone who falls for this line of bs can't be thinking. The answer to everything in Washington is always throwing more money at it, yet the problems never get solved. Obama wants to give the IRS $30 billion more to become more and more inefficient. Seems the more money he throws at a problem the worse it becomes. The IRS has massively increase their budget, hired thousands of new agents, yet if you have a question about your taxes, forget getting an answer. They warn about holding up refunds this year because they claim they need more money.

Notice how everything Obama touches turns to shit?




Remember this?

June 2013

Still mired in scandal for its mishandling of nonprofit political groups, the Internal Revenue Service is prepping for a new role: chief enforcement arm of the Affordable Care Act.

That task will require new agents — 6,700, the IRS figures — and more money — about $1 billion more than the current budget.

Confronted with the tax agency’s 9-percent increase in its 2014 budget, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., blasted Deputy IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel at a meeting of the House Committee on Ways and Means Thursday morning.

After reading off a long list of instances of waste, fraud, excess and abuse at the agency over the past several years, Ryan demanded to know how the IRS felt it had the “moral authority” to ask for more money. He actually sounded almost hurt by the request.​

Links

IRS requests thousands of new agents to enforce Obamacare Watchdog.org
Abby Huntsman GOP Considered the Jerks For Wanting Spending Cuts
D j vu Budget Obama Asks for Tax Hike on Evil Capitalists - Michael Schaus - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1
Obama Asks For 5 100 More IRS Agents Sweetness Light
IRS Does Not Follow Federal Requirements Asks For Money The Daily Caller

Republicans don't want to cut spending. They want to shift spending out of social programs and into defense.

Nope. But thanks for playing.

Provide a link for that and we'll discuss.

Provide a link to the Republicans in the last election who ran on cutting defense.

that makes no sense at all. Why would anyone in their right mind cut defense with all of the new threats we have today.

ISIS taking Northern Iraq
Russian aggression
Chinese expansion
Al Qaeda is growing again
Talliban is growing

Such cuts would be in the "right mind" of someone who had an agenda to destroy America.

Just sayin'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mention spending cuts or even controlling spending and it's like holding up a cross in front of a vampire. They react violently at times. Most of the time they claim that spending cuts will bring this country down.

On Monday, President Obama released his 2016 budget, which calls for increased spending and raising taxes, and on MSNBC’s The Cycle, so-called conservative co-host Abby Huntsman did her best to scold the GOP for opposing the tax-and-spend Obama budget. ​

Speaking to Lauren Fox of National Journal, Huntsman proclaimed that Republicans’ “big thing is we’ve got to cut spending, this is not something we’re going to approve and that’s often why they are considered the jerks here, because they aren’t talking about entitlements, they are talking about cuts.” ​

Think of it. In only a few years since Obama has become president, we've gone from clamoring for spending reform to you're a terrorist for wanting to control government spending.

Anyone with half a brain can see one of the biggest problems in government isn't that we don't have any money, it's that we spend too much. So Democrats invented a word for it to demonize the practice. Austerity. Anyone who starts talking about Austerity and recommending new investment is just pumping us for more tax increases. That's really all Democrats do. They try to think of new ways of taking our cash. Spending is now investment. Controlling spending is evil austerity. Anyone who falls for this line of bs can't be thinking. The answer to everything in Washington is always throwing more money at it, yet the problems never get solved. Obama wants to give the IRS $30 billion more to become more and more inefficient. Seems the more money he throws at a problem the worse it becomes. The IRS has massively increase their budget, hired thousands of new agents, yet if you have a question about your taxes, forget getting an answer. They warn about holding up refunds this year because they claim they need more money.

Notice how everything Obama touches turns to shit?




Remember this?

June 2013

Still mired in scandal for its mishandling of nonprofit political groups, the Internal Revenue Service is prepping for a new role: chief enforcement arm of the Affordable Care Act.

That task will require new agents — 6,700, the IRS figures — and more money — about $1 billion more than the current budget.

Confronted with the tax agency’s 9-percent increase in its 2014 budget, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., blasted Deputy IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel at a meeting of the House Committee on Ways and Means Thursday morning.

After reading off a long list of instances of waste, fraud, excess and abuse at the agency over the past several years, Ryan demanded to know how the IRS felt it had the “moral authority” to ask for more money. He actually sounded almost hurt by the request.​

Links

IRS requests thousands of new agents to enforce Obamacare Watchdog.org
Abby Huntsman GOP Considered the Jerks For Wanting Spending Cuts
D j vu Budget Obama Asks for Tax Hike on Evil Capitalists - Michael Schaus - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1
Obama Asks For 5 100 More IRS Agents Sweetness Light
IRS Does Not Follow Federal Requirements Asks For Money The Daily Caller

Republicans don't want to cut spending. They want to shift spending out of social programs and into defense.

Nope. But thanks for playing.

Provide a link for that and we'll discuss.

Provide a link to the Republicans in the last election who ran on cutting defense.

that makes no sense at all. Why would anyone in their right mind cut defense with all of the new threats we have today.

ISIS taking Northern Iraq
Russian aggression
Chinese expansion
Al Qaeda is growing again
Talliban is growing

Such cuts would be in the "right mind" of someone who had an agenda to destroy America.

Just sayin'.

What cuts are you willing to support, in the interests of the greater good, that would in fact represent a sacrifice in regard to your own agenda?

 

[Wry Catcher]

OMG - just have to mention, Obama on TV now talking about how one of the most important things to do for the economy is to invest in infrastructure.
Can you believe this?????
This is EXACTLY what he said 6 years ago..and spent $billions that was already supposed to go to infrastructure but was instead deferred to pet programs.
Unbelievable.

You make an allegation based on your biases. Why not simply post, "SOLYNDRA" and pretend this one program was the be all end all of the effort to bring America back from the Great Bush Recession of 2007 to 2009.

Our nation's infrastructure is rusting, out electrical grid is vulnerable to attack and 100 years old, our levees leak and our railroad system is a laughing stock when compared to those in Europe and Asia.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Elliot Spitzer????
Holy hell......you want to put him down as a source???

What specific thing that he said are you denying is true ..?

He has no idea, his only reference is Fox News and the Character Assassination in which their talking heads thrive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Republicans don't want to cut spending. They want to shift spending out of social programs and into defense.

Yes, Americans want to cut spending irrelevant to viable governance and provide for spending only where it serves the objective interests of everyone, as reason requires.

Ya see scamp, what you call 'social justice' is what in reality, is known as BRIBERY AND GRAFT. We know such to be such, due to the negative consequences... wherein your 'social justice' has taken the black family and nearly erased it from the US Culture.

And absent the spending which you call 'social justice', the Ideological Left, thus the Democrat Party would not exist.

LOL! But remember back when obama was lamenting the 150 billion dollars a year Bush was spending in deficit, calling that IMMORAL and UNPATRIOTIC. Then once in office he comes out spending 1500 BILLION in deficit... and the NEXT YEAR he spends 1600 BILLION IN DEFICIT and the YEAR AFTER THAT AND THE YEAR AFTER THAT. Until the Republicans took control of the Legislature and managed to cut him down to a 1300 Billion, then 650 Billion... and all of it, EVERY CENT was spent ON SOCIAL INJUSTICE.

SOCIAL JUSTICE, is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities. It's that simple, and yet a phrase that must be parsed to fit the ideology of the Callous Conservatives.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

delete ...........