Re-Evaluating Newt..

[MiddleClass]

Newt is a convicted liar and cheat. He could never beat Obama.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Newt is a convicted liar and cheat. He could never beat Obama.

Barry's friends with a domestic terrorist and has lied his ass off his entire Presidency.. LOL If that's your standard, you better go bury your head in the sand and vote for no one.

 

[Synthaholic]

Newt is a convicted liar and cheat. He could never beat Obama.

Barry's friends with a domestic terrorist and has lied his ass off his entire Presidency.. LOL If that's your standard, you better go bury your head in the sand and vote for no one.

liar.

 

[BenNatuf]

Newt is a convicted liar and cheat. He could never beat Obama.

Convicted?

LOL... of what?

 

[Amelia]

Newt is a convicted liar and cheat. He could never beat Obama.

Convicted?

LOL... of what?

Maybe MC is talking about this? Otherwise I can't think of anything ....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/194340-newt-gingrichs-ethics-sanction.html

 

[BenNatuf]

Newt is a convicted liar and cheat. He could never beat Obama.

Convicted?

LOL... of what?

Maybe MC is talking about this? Otherwise I can't think of anything ....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/194340-newt-gingrichs-ethics-sanction.html

You mean the "fine" he paid when he readily admitted that his accountant had made a technical error in financial reports showing where he donated money too issued to the house? LOL. That would neither be a "conviction", unlawful, or any evedence of malfeasance.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Intellectual idiot - The Portland Freelancer: Newt Gingrich: An Intellectual Idiot

Serial adulterer - even while impeaching President Clinton - see below

Vietnam draft evader - graduate school deferment (Some deferment - Vietnam War lasted 11 years) - Draft Deferment: Vietnam

Congressional disgrace - Only Speaker of the House to have been disciplined for ethics violations - Newt Gingrich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newt Gingrich’s Second Wife Dishes Hard To Esquire: His Money Woes, His Philandering, His Meltdown | TPMMuckraker

Newt Gingrich - SERIAL ADULTERER - SEX ADDICT - Democratic Underground

Newt "Family Values / Rain Man" Gingrich

Why should I waste my time in trusting your opinions or offered research?

Thank you for showing that you do not give a shit about anything except your spoonfed rightwing media consumption. I'll add you to my ignore list.

..Who was this Guy.. and really, who cares?

Sooo if he disagrees with someone he turtles, puts his head in the sand, takes his ball and goes home to Mommy...what a puss..

 

[SAT]

I take it back. Maybe you are really that ignorant about Obama. And about Clinton, too. My apologies. Clinton worked with the Congress on welfare reform, and on balancing the budget.

I'm from Chicago. I've heard about Obama a long time before you did, snookums. He was a joke. He shows what happens when you trust the media. They can make Sanjiya president if you don't watch them.

Your post was ignorant. Maybe you knew better, maybe you didn't. But your post was ignorant.

As for Clinton. Clinton fought welfare reform tooth and nail, until the polling showed people were for it. He was going to go along with ending affirmative action, too, until Jesse Jackson threatened to run a third party ticket.

No. Clinton ran on welfare reform, it was part of his campaign. The disagreement was about the degree and type of reform.

The GOP doesn't offer a way to get unemployment down, or improve the performance of 401Ks, or get their mortgages out from under water, or reduce the deficit, or do anything of consequence.

Sure they do. Just not things you like.

They do not.

They don't offer a way forward on any of those issues.

The GOP has not passed any jobs bills, and their ideas for job creation are more tax cuts, which will not lead to job growth...it will just starve government even more, forcing layoffs in the public sector which will lead to further job losses in the private sector. Their other jobs idea is to cut regulation, which doesn't lead to job growth, it leads to a more polluted environment.

They've offered nothing to help anyone's 401K.

Romney said that foreclosures should happen more quickly.

The GOP is against any tax increases, and against the ACA, both of which could help the deficit.

The GOP has offered to get rid of social security, destroy Medicare, undo health care reform, let people go into foreclosure, stay unemployed and lose their unemployment checks, too, decrease taxes on the rich even further, repeal financial reforms that would keep us from another Wall Street led financial collapse, sink us further into debt, initiate more wars, disenfranchise more voters, and let our infrastructure crumble.

Squeal like a pig, boy!

You need to look elsewhere if that's what you're into. I'm not interested.

Your hope is that people will vote reflexively, without thinking. Your only hope, because Newt's ideas are about as popular as [borrowing from Esquire] the Affordable Cholera Act.

Right now, 64% disapprove of ObamskyCare, only 34% approve. Obama is toast.

On every issue you listed, the GOP has screamed that they do not care. The general public is not oblivious to this reality. Your case for the GOP is toast.

 

[SAT]

The Bonddad Blog: About that GSE/CRA Causing the Bubble Argument ....

 

[BenNatuf]

More blogs? Too funny, sorry dipshit, but other peoples opinions do not lend veracity to your own, they are just opinions. You do know that appeals to authority are logical falacies don't you? "look! This guy agrees with me" is proof only that "this guy agrees with you", it doesn't prove either one of you is right.

 

[Greenbeard]

No. Clinton ran on welfare reform, it was part of his campaign. The disagreement was about the degree and type of reform.

Indeed. At the '92 convention, Clinton famously pledged himself to "An America where we end welfare as we know it. We will say to those on welfare: You will have, and you deserve, the opportunity, through training and education, through child care and medical coverage, to liberate yourself. But then, when you can, you must work, because welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life."

He ended up vetoing two iterations of the reform bill because they didn't provide sufficiently for the pillars he laid down at the beginning--namely, child care and medical coverage--and signed the legislation once those provisions (and a few others) were revised.

 

[SAT]

More blogs? Too funny, sorry dipshit, but other peoples opinions do not lend veracity to your own, they are just opinions. You do know that appeals to authority are logical falacies don't you? "look! This guy agrees with me" is proof only that "this guy agrees with you", it doesn't prove either one of you is right.

Your complaint is irrational. I'm linking to a graphic showing that other nations, nations without the CRA, are experiencing a financial downturn. That's not an opinion. It's a fact.

No. Clinton ran on welfare reform, it was part of his campaign. The disagreement was about the degree and type of reform.

Indeed. At the '92 convention, Clinton famously pledged himself to "An America where we end welfare as we know it. We will say to those on welfare: You will have, and you deserve, the opportunity, through training and education, through child care and medical coverage, to liberate yourself. But then, when you can, you must work, because welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life."

He ended up vetoing two iterations of the reform bill because they didn't provide sufficiently for the pillars he laid down at the beginning--namely, child care and medical coverage--and signed the legislation once those provisions (and a few others) were revised.

There you go.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Re-Evaluating Newt..

Why? He’s a rightist ideologue, and not fit to be president accordingly.

 

[Faun]

There once was a rep named Newt ...
Who wore a nice blue suit ...
Along came a whore,
and he chose a divorce ...
So now to the White House he's enroute.

 

[BenNatuf]

More blogs? Too funny, sorry dipshit, but other peoples opinions do not lend veracity to your own, they are just opinions. You do know that appeals to authority are logical falacies don't you? "look! This guy agrees with me" is proof only that "this guy agrees with you", it doesn't prove either one of you is right.

Your complaint is irrational. I'm linking to a graphic showing that other nations, nations without the CRA, are experiencing a financial downturn. That's not an opinion. It's a fact.

No. Clinton ran on welfare reform, it was part of his campaign. The disagreement was about the degree and type of reform.

Indeed. At the '92 convention, Clinton famously pledged himself to "An America where we end welfare as we know it. We will say to those on welfare: You will have, and you deserve, the opportunity, through training and education, through child care and medical coverage, to liberate yourself. But then, when you can, you must work, because welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life."

He ended up vetoing two iterations of the reform bill because they didn't provide sufficiently for the pillars he laid down at the beginning--namely, child care and medical coverage--and signed the legislation once those provisions (and a few others) were revised.

There you go.

and now your arguing that correlation is causation, another falacy. Why are other nations experiencing a financial dowturn? certainly not because US banks lent money to anyone, might have something to do with the deadbeats they loaned it to not paying back though. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will change this one fact. had the deadbeats paid thier mortgages, the securities they were bundled into would have matured just fine and paid out as they were designed to do. Does that exculpate banks for giving loans to deadbeats? No it doesn't, but if you don't recognize the power of government coersion in them doing it, you are either blind, or willfully blind. Why did bankers come up with no doc, liar loans, balloon payments, ZERO down, and ARM's to begin with except to comply with government policy for affordable housing? You do know that the banks fought those policies don't you? You do know that jesse jackson and his crew of entitlement pimps sued banks right? You do know that Obama and his crew of ACORN entitlement pimps did the same don't you? You are aware the banks had to find a way to comply with the government policy or be inundated with constant and never ending lawsuits right?

The banks did what they had to do, and then bought derivitives to protect their asses. Admittedly the whole securities rating scheme was a sham, and for that i will blame the rating agencies and the banks, but more so the rating agencies. However, who's responsibility is it if you buy a faulty instrument because you don't do your due dilligence? It'sd your own, and that's where F&F failed. So I'll ask again, why was a GSE investing in mortgage securities and risking our money, if not because it was government policy in favor of affordable housing driving them to do it and free up even more money to make even more bad loans?

Your inane meme that it's all the banksters fault is... well, inane.

 

[SAT]

and now your arguing that correlation is causation, another falacy. Why are other nations experiencing a financial dowturn? certainly not because US banks lent money to anyone, might have something to do with the deadbeats they loaned it to not paying back though. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will change this one fact. had the deadbeats paid thier mortgages, the securities they were bundled into would have matured just fine and paid out as they were designed to do. Does that exculpate banks for giving loans to deadbeats? No it doesn't, but if you don't recognize the power of government coersion in them doing it, you are either blind, or willfully blind. Why did bankers come up with no doc, liar loans, balloon payments, ZERO down, and ARM's to begin with except to comply with government policy for affordable housing? You do know that the banks fought those policies don't you? You do know that jesse jackson and his crew of entitlement pimps sued banks right? You do know that Obama and his crew of ACORN entitlement pimps did the same don't you? You are aware the banks had to find a way to comply with the government policy or be inundated with constant and never ending lawsuits right?

You are mistaken.

The bankers came up with those no doc, liar loans, balloon payments, zero down, and ARMs to make money. Not because the government made them make those loans.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393072231]Amazon.com: The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine (9780393072235): Michael Lewis: Books[/ame]

The banks did what they had to do, and then bought derivitives to protect their asses. Admittedly the whole securities rating scheme was a sham, and for that i will blame the rating agencies and the banks, but more so the rating agencies. However, who's responsibility is it if you buy a faulty instrument because you don't do your due dilligence? It'sd your own, and that's where F&F failed. So I'll ask again, why was a GSE investing in mortgage securities and risking our money, if not because it was government policy in favor of affordable housing driving them to do it and free up even more money to make even more bad loans?

Your inane meme that it's all the banksters fault is... well, inane.

The government did not coerce the banks into making loans to people without the ability to pay back those loans.

The banksters made these loans, and then bet against them.

Another Frightening Show About the Economy | This American Life

Credit default swap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BenNatuf]

and now your arguing that correlation is causation, another falacy. Why are other nations experiencing a financial dowturn? certainly not because US banks lent money to anyone, might have something to do with the deadbeats they loaned it to not paying back though. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will change this one fact. had the deadbeats paid thier mortgages, the securities they were bundled into would have matured just fine and paid out as they were designed to do. Does that exculpate banks for giving loans to deadbeats? No it doesn't, but if you don't recognize the power of government coersion in them doing it, you are either blind, or willfully blind. Why did bankers come up with no doc, liar loans, balloon payments, ZERO down, and ARM's to begin with except to comply with government policy for affordable housing? You do know that the banks fought those policies don't you? You do know that jesse jackson and his crew of entitlement pimps sued banks right? You do know that Obama and his crew of ACORN entitlement pimps did the same don't you? You are aware the banks had to find a way to comply with the government policy or be inundated with constant and never ending lawsuits right?

You are mistaken.

The bankers came up with those no doc, liar loans, balloon payments, zero down, and ARMs to make money. Not because the government made them make those loans.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393072231]Amazon.com: The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine (9780393072235): Michael Lewis: Books[/ame]

The banks did what they had to do, and then bought derivitives to protect their asses. Admittedly the whole securities rating scheme was a sham, and for that i will blame the rating agencies and the banks, but more so the rating agencies. However, who's responsibility is it if you buy a faulty instrument because you don't do your due dilligence? It'sd your own, and that's where F&F failed. So I'll ask again, why was a GSE investing in mortgage securities and risking our money, if not because it was government policy in favor of affordable housing driving them to do it and free up even more money to make even more bad loans?

Your inane meme that it's all the banksters fault is... well, inane.

The government did not coerce the banks into making loans to people without the ability to pay back those loans.

The banksters made these loans, and then bet against them.

Another Frightening Show About the Economy | This American Life

Credit default swap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and you still think your silly appeals to authority mean anything? LOL.

that fact that other idiots agree with you does not make you less of an idiot.

I guess you just choose to be willfully blind. Go on with you myopic view and scapegoat the entire mess onto your 21st century version of Jews. The end result won't be much different than it was in the 20th century... just different "jews".

 

[SAT]

and now your arguing that correlation is causation, another falacy. Why are other nations experiencing a financial dowturn? certainly not because US banks lent money to anyone, might have something to do with the deadbeats they loaned it to not paying back though. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will change this one fact. had the deadbeats paid thier mortgages, the securities they were bundled into would have matured just fine and paid out as they were designed to do. Does that exculpate banks for giving loans to deadbeats? No it doesn't, but if you don't recognize the power of government coersion in them doing it, you are either blind, or willfully blind. Why did bankers come up with no doc, liar loans, balloon payments, ZERO down, and ARM's to begin with except to comply with government policy for affordable housing? You do know that the banks fought those policies don't you? You do know that jesse jackson and his crew of entitlement pimps sued banks right? You do know that Obama and his crew of ACORN entitlement pimps did the same don't you? You are aware the banks had to find a way to comply with the government policy or be inundated with constant and never ending lawsuits right?

You are mistaken.

The bankers came up with those no doc, liar loans, balloon payments, zero down, and ARMs to make money. Not because the government made them make those loans.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393072231]Amazon.com: The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine (9780393072235): Michael Lewis: Books[/ame]

The banks did what they had to do, and then bought derivitives to protect their asses. Admittedly the whole securities rating scheme was a sham, and for that i will blame the rating agencies and the banks, but more so the rating agencies. However, who's responsibility is it if you buy a faulty instrument because you don't do your due dilligence? It'sd your own, and that's where F&F failed. So I'll ask again, why was a GSE investing in mortgage securities and risking our money, if not because it was government policy in favor of affordable housing driving them to do it and free up even more money to make even more bad loans?

Your inane meme that it's all the banksters fault is... well, inane.

The government did not coerce the banks into making loans to people without the ability to pay back those loans.

The banksters made these loans, and then bet against them.

Another Frightening Show About the Economy | This American Life

Credit default swap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and you still think your silly appeals to authority mean anything? LOL.

that fact that other idiots agree with you does not make you less of an idiot.

I guess you just choose to be willfully blind. Go on with you myopic view and scapegoat the entire mess onto your 21st century version of Jews. The end result won't be much different than it was in the 20th century... just different "jews".

I'm citing sources to back up what I'm explaining to you.

Read the article on credit default swaps. You're trying to figure out who is at fault, but you're looking the wrong direction.

 

[BenNatuf]

You are mistaken.

The bankers came up with those no doc, liar loans, balloon payments, zero down, and ARMs to make money. Not because the government made them make those loans.

Amazon.com: The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine (9780393072235): Michael Lewis: Books



The government did not coerce the banks into making loans to people without the ability to pay back those loans.

The banksters made these loans, and then bet against them.

Another Frightening Show About the Economy | This American Life

Credit default swap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and you still think your silly appeals to authority mean anything? LOL.

that fact that other idiots agree with you does not make you less of an idiot.

I guess you just choose to be willfully blind. Go on with you myopic view and scapegoat the entire mess onto your 21st century version of Jews. The end result won't be much different than it was in the 20th century... just different "jews".

I'm citing sources to back up what I'm explaining to you.

No, you're citing the opinions of people you agree with to back up your opinion. That they agree with you does not make either one of you right.

Read the article on credit default swaps. You're trying to figure out who is at fault, but you're looking the wrong direction.

read my post about derivitives... you might find out that I do put some blame there. but the problem with the derivitive market is more one of the fact that you don't have to actually hold the security to own the derivitive. I believe this is insane to allow, as it makes the derivitive market less of an insurance market and more of a casino. Suppose for a second the deadbeat borrowers had actually paid the mortgages instead of defaulting? Of what use would owning a derivitive be then? It would just be money spent to insure the security. Change one simple regulation and make it the law that if you hold the derivitive of the security, you must also hold the security. The meme that they "bet" against the loans is a canard, what they did was insure the securities to mitigate thier risk. Are people who buy homeowners insurance betting thier house will burn down?

 

[SAT]

read my post about derivitives... you might find out that I do put some blame there. but the problem with the derivitive market is more one of the fact that you don't have to actually hold the security to own the derivitive. I believe this is insane to allow, as it makes the derivitive market less of an insurance market and more of a casino. Suppose for a second the deadbeat borrowers had actually paid the mortgages instead of defaulting? Of what use would owning a derivitive be then? It would just be money spent to insure the security. Change one simple regulation and make it the law that if you hold the derivitive of the security, you must also hold the security. The meme that they "bet" against the loans is a canard, what they did was insure the securities to mitigate thier risk. Are people who buy homeowners insurance betting thier house will burn down?

You're dodging the point. The people with no jobs and no income and no assets could not pay back the loans. Both parties knew it-so why are you blaming the people with the least power in the situation?

Your description of burning the house down is apt. We both know that yes, sometimes people buy insurance and then burn their house down. That's what the banksters did. There are people involved who have admitted that they were instructed to seek out bad risks, for exactly that reason.