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.
No. They got in late on the stupid GOP corruption...funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003, eh dupe?DO YOU SERIOUSLY NOT SEE 40-50% default rates in private market
I see them right there in your chart.
A 15% default rate is no big deal?
Every market participator lost money on real estate collapse, but by far the biggest loss was stemming from private market origination, not lending under CRA.
Absolutely. CRA was only one factor of many that contributed.
Well if you SEE THEM, and are not intellectually impaired, then I don't understand what is keeping you from concluding that they were clearly the main contributors, with considerably poorer standards of underwriting and much bigger losses than mortgages issued under CRA program.
Instead of accounting for the evidence you keep repeating same COUNTER-FACTUAL position that it was CRA mortgages and not clearly inferior quality private market subprime that took us under.
Well if you SEE THEM, and are not intellectually impaired, then I don't understand what is keeping you from concluding that they were clearly the main contributors, with considerably poorer standards of underwriting and much bigger losses than mortgages issued under CRA program.
It's true, the mandated demand for crappy mortgages by Fannie and Freddie was a much larger contributor than the mandated CRA crappy mortgages.
funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003
Anything to do with the Democrat accounting scandal at Fannie and Freddie? Moron.
Hey, lets buy a couple of hundred billion in crappy mortgages to get that share back up, eh?
What could go wrong?
B*******. Bailouts for Fannie and Freddie whereabout 1/4 of it, because they sold good subprime, many fewer toxic assets. It was all Countryside AIG and crony Bush regulators from 2003 to 2006. Try some real news sometime jackass.funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003, eh dupe?Well if you SEE THEM, and are not intellectually impaired, then I don't understand what is keeping you from concluding that they were clearly the main contributors, with considerably poorer standards of underwriting and much bigger losses than mortgages issued under CRA program.
Instead of accounting for the evidence you keep repeating same COUNTER-FACTUAL position that it was CRA mortgages and not clearly inferior quality private market subprime that took us under.
Well if you SEE THEM, and are not intellectually impaired, then I don't understand what is keeping you from concluding that they were clearly the main contributors, with considerably poorer standards of underwriting and much bigger losses than mortgages issued under CRA program.
It's true, the mandated demand for crappy mortgages by Fannie and Freddie was a much larger contributor than the mandated CRA crappy mortgages.
funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003
Anything to do with the Democrat accounting scandal at Fannie and Freddie? Moron.
Hey, lets buy a couple of hundred billion in crappy mortgages to get that share back up, eh?
What could go wrong?
Amazing how you just MAKE BULLSHIT UP on the fly. Totally clueless tool.
In 2003 Bush admin was prodding GSEs to "keep up with the private market" in buying up Alt-A and subprime backed securities. and while they were market participators they ALWAYS made up a clear minority on the buy in:
Amazing how you just MAKE BULLSHIT UP on the fly.
Really? What did I make up?
In 2003 Bush admin was prodding GSEs to "keep up with the private market" in buying up Alt-A and subprime backed securities.
Yup. Clinton and Bush pushed them to load up on crap.
His (Barney Frank) most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.
At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.
and while they were market participators they ALWAYS made up a clear minority on the buy in:
A minority that totaled over $1 trillion by 2002.
It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government.
Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis
B*******. Bailouts for Fannie and Freddie whereabout 1/4 of it, because they sold good subprime, many fewer toxic assets. It was all Countryside AIG and crony Bush regulators from 2003 to 2006. Try some real news sometime jackass.funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003, eh dupe?Well if you SEE THEM, and are not intellectually impaired, then I don't understand what is keeping you from concluding that they were clearly the main contributors, with considerably poorer standards of underwriting and much bigger losses than mortgages issued under CRA program.
It's true, the mandated demand for crappy mortgages by Fannie and Freddie was a much larger contributor than the mandated CRA crappy mortgages.
funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003
Anything to do with the Democrat accounting scandal at Fannie and Freddie? Moron.
Hey, lets buy a couple of hundred billion in crappy mortgages to get that share back up, eh?
What could go wrong?
Amazing how you just MAKE BULLSHIT UP on the fly. Totally clueless tool.
In 2003 Bush admin was prodding GSEs to "keep up with the private market" in buying up Alt-A and subprime backed securities. and while they were market participators they ALWAYS made up a clear minority on the buy in:
Amazing how you just MAKE BULLSHIT UP on the fly.
Really? What did I make up?
In 2003 Bush admin was prodding GSEs to "keep up with the private market" in buying up Alt-A and subprime backed securities.
Yup. Clinton and Bush pushed them to load up on crap.
His (Barney Frank) most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.
At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.
and while they were market participators they ALWAYS made up a clear minority on the buy in:
A minority that totaled over $1 trillion by 2002.
It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government.
Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis
Country-Wide was corrupt, Fannie and Freddie got in late and did much fewer bad Mortgages. In general the real problem was Bush Regulators were Pals with the corrupt. How can you know so much and still miss the point? Totally.B*******. Bailouts for Fannie and Freddie whereabout 1/4 of it, because they sold good subprime, many fewer toxic assets. It was all Countryside AIG and crony Bush regulators from 2003 to 2006. Try some real news sometime jackass.funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003, eh dupe?
funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003
Anything to do with the Democrat accounting scandal at Fannie and Freddie? Moron.
Hey, lets buy a couple of hundred billion in crappy mortgages to get that share back up, eh?
What could go wrong?
Amazing how you just MAKE BULLSHIT UP on the fly. Totally clueless tool.
In 2003 Bush admin was prodding GSEs to "keep up with the private market" in buying up Alt-A and subprime backed securities. and while they were market participators they ALWAYS made up a clear minority on the buy in:
Amazing how you just MAKE BULLSHIT UP on the fly.
Really? What did I make up?
In 2003 Bush admin was prodding GSEs to "keep up with the private market" in buying up Alt-A and subprime backed securities.
Yup. Clinton and Bush pushed them to load up on crap.
His (Barney Frank) most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.
At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.
and while they were market participators they ALWAYS made up a clear minority on the buy in:
A minority that totaled over $1 trillion by 2002.
It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government.
Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis
Bailouts for Fannie and Freddie whereabout 1/4 of it
Huh?
because they sold good subprime
They were buyers you twat. HUD required Fannie and Freddie to make up to 55% of their mortgage purchases from the "affordable" subprime side of the market.
It was all Countryside AIG and crony Bush regulators from 2003 to 2006.
Countrywide, you stupid knob. Fannie Mae was the largest buyer of Countrywide mortgages.
As this idiot is carrying around a racist avatar.View attachment 154354
To someone who has just overcome nature disasters: May these peaceful smiles lift you up in these black days! God bless you!
May these peaceful smiles lift you up in these black days!
Racist!
funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003, eh dupe?Well if you SEE THEM, and are not intellectually impaired, then I don't understand what is keeping you from concluding that they were clearly the main contributors, with considerably poorer standards of underwriting and much bigger losses than mortgages issued under CRA program.
Instead of accounting for the evidence you keep repeating same COUNTER-FACTUAL position that it was CRA mortgages and not clearly inferior quality private market subprime that took us under.
Well if you SEE THEM, and are not intellectually impaired, then I don't understand what is keeping you from concluding that they were clearly the main contributors, with considerably poorer standards of underwriting and much bigger losses than mortgages issued under CRA program.
It's true, the mandated demand for crappy mortgages by Fannie and Freddie was a much larger contributor than the mandated CRA crappy mortgages.
funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003
Anything to do with the Democrat accounting scandal at Fannie and Freddie? Moron.
Hey, lets buy a couple of hundred billion in crappy mortgages to get that share back up, eh?
What could go wrong?
Amazing how you just MAKE BULLSHIT UP on the fly. Totally clueless tool.
In 2003 Bush admin was prodding GSEs to "keep up with the private market" in buying up Alt-A and subprime backed securities. and while they were market participators they ALWAYS made up a clear minority on the buy in:
Amazing how you just MAKE BULLSHIT UP on the fly.
Really? What did I make up?
In 2003 Bush admin was prodding GSEs to "keep up with the private market" in buying up Alt-A and subprime backed securities.
Yup. Clinton and Bush pushed them to load up on crap.
His (Barney Frank) most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.
At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.
and while they were market participators they ALWAYS made up a clear minority on the buy in:
A minority that totaled over $1 trillion by 2002.
It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government.
Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis
Country-Wide was corrupt, Fannie and Freddie got in late and did much fewer bad Mortgages. In general the real problem was Bush Regulators were Pals with the corrupt. How can you know so much and still miss the point? Totally.B*******. Bailouts for Fannie and Freddie whereabout 1/4 of it, because they sold good subprime, many fewer toxic assets. It was all Countryside AIG and crony Bush regulators from 2003 to 2006. Try some real news sometime jackass.funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003
Anything to do with the Democrat accounting scandal at Fannie and Freddie? Moron.
Hey, lets buy a couple of hundred billion in crappy mortgages to get that share back up, eh?
What could go wrong?
Amazing how you just MAKE BULLSHIT UP on the fly. Totally clueless tool.
In 2003 Bush admin was prodding GSEs to "keep up with the private market" in buying up Alt-A and subprime backed securities. and while they were market participators they ALWAYS made up a clear minority on the buy in:
Amazing how you just MAKE BULLSHIT UP on the fly.
Really? What did I make up?
In 2003 Bush admin was prodding GSEs to "keep up with the private market" in buying up Alt-A and subprime backed securities.
Yup. Clinton and Bush pushed them to load up on crap.
His (Barney Frank) most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.
At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.
and while they were market participators they ALWAYS made up a clear minority on the buy in:
A minority that totaled over $1 trillion by 2002.
It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government.
Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis
Bailouts for Fannie and Freddie whereabout 1/4 of it
Huh?
because they sold good subprime
They were buyers you twat. HUD required Fannie and Freddie to make up to 55% of their mortgage purchases from the "affordable" subprime side of the market.
It was all Countryside AIG and crony Bush regulators from 2003 to 2006.
Countrywide, you stupid knob. Fannie Mae was the largest buyer of Countrywide mortgages.
funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003, eh dupe?Well if you SEE THEM, and are not intellectually impaired, then I don't understand what is keeping you from concluding that they were clearly the main contributors, with considerably poorer standards of underwriting and much bigger losses than mortgages issued under CRA program.
It's true, the mandated demand for crappy mortgages by Fannie and Freddie was a much larger contributor than the mandated CRA crappy mortgages.
funny how Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went down 60 70 per cent in 2003
Anything to do with the Democrat accounting scandal at Fannie and Freddie? Moron.
Hey, lets buy a couple of hundred billion in crappy mortgages to get that share back up, eh?
What could go wrong?
Amazing how you just MAKE BULLSHIT UP on the fly. Totally clueless tool.
In 2003 Bush admin was prodding GSEs to "keep up with the private market" in buying up Alt-A and subprime backed securities. and while they were market participators they ALWAYS made up a clear minority on the buy in:
Amazing how you just MAKE BULLSHIT UP on the fly.
Really? What did I make up?
In 2003 Bush admin was prodding GSEs to "keep up with the private market" in buying up Alt-A and subprime backed securities.
Yup. Clinton and Bush pushed them to load up on crap.
His (Barney Frank) most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.
At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.
and while they were market participators they ALWAYS made up a clear minority on the buy in:
A minority that totaled over $1 trillion by 2002.
It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government.
Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis
You consistently have trouble telling the drivers of the problems and mere market participators from straight forward data.
It’s not for bare stupidity, it’s for stupid politicking.
Economists are in a fairly common agreement - market crash was caused by widespread market exuberance and professional risk management failures. It wasn’t just some political bullshit you wingers always want to narrow every fucking problem to.
Just about everyone from consumers, to banks, to regulators, central bank and economists was operating under false assumptions that real estate is not going to cave in because in good and bad times it never has. We were wrong.
Oh please, you purposefully chose a name most likely associated with a black person as if black people are the only ones on government assistance.Well ain;'t you the racist fuck.maybe the liberals should stop blowing all their money on Shaniqua and her 13 kids, then maybe we wouldn't have so much fucking debt.
it's not racist just because i don't want to pay for shaniqua's kids.
Fuck you you racist POS. If you don't know that was a racist post then your racism is so inbred to yourevery being that you don;t even know how racist you are.
why you gotta be racist, just because her name is shaniqua doesn't mean she's black.
i see a lot of black ppl with white names, too.
Oh please, I love it when you racist fucks make a racist post &then try to run away when caught.
Funded? How were they funded?Lets not leave out the elephant in the room. We are still paying interest on the two unfunded wars from the Bush administration. Obama inherited that bill and now trump has inherited it.
the democrats in congress authorized and funded those fiascos, both parties are to blame. deal with reality and stop the partisan bullshit
The vote was the Iraq resolution which said Bush would use all other options prior to invasion. The majority of Democrats in the House voted no while nearly every Republican aid yes. Nearly all the no votes in the Senate were Democrat.
Furthermore their vote was based on the Bush Administration assessment which said the Iran could shortly have a nuke & sell it to terrorists. I think it was " The smoking gun might be in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Blaming Congress for believing the White House lies is chickenshit.
I know how you asswipes love brutal dictators as you worship Putin & Duterte, so you loved Khadafi especially as he slaughtered his own people.
I know how you asswipes love brutal dictators as you worship Putin & Duterte,
It's a good thing Obama was so flexible with Putin, eh?
Dummy, there is no context for "flexible" comment in 2012, but we KNOW that in 2014 Obama put a boot up Putin's ass and sent Russian economy into a recession as soon as he ventured into Ukraine.
Compare that to
80 times Trump talked about Putin
Here is a gem:
Sept. 13, 2013
Trump praises Putin for his criticism of the term “American exceptionalism:”
“You think of the term as being fine, but all of sudden you say, what if you’re in Germany or Japan or any one of 100 different countries? You’re not going to like that term,” Trump told CNN. “It’s very insulting and Putin really put it to him (Obama) about that.”
there is no context for "flexible" comment in 2012
So why did Obama laugh when Romney said Russia was a threat?
And what do you think Obama was going to be flexible about?
1. You are misrepresenting what Mitt said, because he did not say that Russia was merely a threat, but a TOP foe.
Actual quote: "This [Russia] is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe."
2. in 2014, 2 years after "flexible" comments, Russia took on a far more aggressive stance toward US after we smashed their economy for the Ukrainian mis-adventures.
he did not say that Russia was merely a threat, but a TOP foe.
They spent a couple on thousand dollars of Facebook ads to deny Hillary the Presidency.
That doesn't make them a top foe?
in 2014, 2 years after "flexible" comments, Russia took on a far more aggressive stance toward US after we smashed their economy for the Ukrainian mis-adventures.
Obama was so weak, Putin felt there was no risk in invading Ukraine.
Funded? How were they funded?Lets not leave out the elephant in the room. We are still paying interest on the two unfunded wars from the Bush administration. Obama inherited that bill and now trump has inherited it.
the democrats in congress authorized and funded those fiascos, both parties are to blame. deal with reality and stop the partisan bullshit
The vote was the Iraq resolution which said Bush would use all other options prior to invasion. The majority of Democrats in the House voted no while nearly every Republican aid yes. Nearly all the no votes in the Senate were Democrat.
Furthermore their vote was based on the Bush Administration assessment which said the Iran could shortly have a nuke & sell it to terrorists. I think it was " The smoking gun might be in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Blaming Congress for believing the White House lies is chickenshit.
Everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs, the UN, the UK, the EU, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany, France, Spain, Jordan, etc. It wasn't a Bush lie, it was a common belief started by the UN. It is very possible that those weapons did exist and were sent to Syria where Assad used the gas ones on his own people.
Congress did provide funding for the Iraq fiasco and both parties voted for it. It was a stupid waste of money and lives, but it wasn't just Bush, they all have blood on their hands.
Since you brought up white house lies, how about these?
If you like your plan you can keep it
the average family will save $2500 per year
it was caused by a video
I never sent any classified material on my private server
Did you believe those lies?
So I'm the bigot? If you are referring to my distaste & disdain for racist fucks, then yes. I am bigoted toward racists.Oh please, you purposefully chose a name most likely associated with a black person as if black people are the only ones on government assistance.Well ain;'t you the racist fuck.
it's not racist just because i don't want to pay for shaniqua's kids.
Fuck you you racist POS. If you don't know that was a racist post then your racism is so inbred to yourevery being that you don;t even know how racist you are.
why you gotta be racist, just because her name is shaniqua doesn't mean she's black.
i see a lot of black ppl with white names, too.
Oh please, I love it when you racist fucks make a racist post &then try to run away when caught.
Screw you you bigot.
Funded? How were they funded?Lets not leave out the elephant in the room. We are still paying interest on the two unfunded wars from the Bush administration. Obama inherited that bill and now trump has inherited it.
the democrats in congress authorized and funded those fiascos, both parties are to blame. deal with reality and stop the partisan bullshit
The vote was the Iraq resolution which said Bush would use all other options prior to invasion. The majority of Democrats in the House voted no while nearly every Republican aid yes. Nearly all the no votes in the Senate were Democrat.
Furthermore their vote was based on the Bush Administration assessment which said the Iran could shortly have a nuke & sell it to terrorists. I think it was " The smoking gun might be in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Blaming Congress for believing the White House lies is chickenshit.
Everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs, the UN, the UK, the EU, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany, France, Spain, Jordan, etc. It wasn't a Bush lie, it was a common belief started by the UN. It is very possible that those weapons did exist and were sent to Syria where Assad used the gas ones on his own people.
Congress did provide funding for the Iraq fiasco and both parties voted for it. It was a stupid waste of money and lives, but it wasn't just Bush, they all have blood on their hands.
Since you brought up white house lies, how about these?
If you like your plan you can keep it
the average family will save $2500 per year
it was caused by a video
I never sent any classified material on my private server
Did you believe those lies?
Lets take a look.
There is a grandfather clause in the ACA that said any policy in effect at the bill's signing can continue. So the plan did allow for people to keep their plan except the insurance companies opted not to continue to offer them. Blame the insurance companies.
The plan to which Obama said about the $2500 was the plan he had during the campaign. It was not the plan passed by congress. That said, the ACA did save many families that $2500 & more not just through the exchanges but through lowering the rate pf premium increases. My family saved almost $11K the first year alone.
The video had been just translated & broadcast on an Arab network & did cause rioting in several Muslim cities the same day as the Benghazi attacks. Any reporting to the video being the cause was clarified with statements that this was preliminary & the investigation continued. If this video caused rioting other places, maybe you can tell us why Benghazi was immune?
Hillary said she never sent any properly marked classified material & Comey said she didn't.
See, they weren't lies but merely indications of just how duped you are.
So I'm the bigot? If you are referring to my distaste & disdain for racist fucks, then yes. I am bigoted toward racists.Oh please, you purposefully chose a name most likely associated with a black person as if black people are the only ones on government assistance.it's not racist just because i don't want to pay for shaniqua's kids.
Fuck you you racist POS. If you don't know that was a racist post then your racism is so inbred to yourevery being that you don;t even know how racist you are.
why you gotta be racist, just because her name is shaniqua doesn't mean she's black.
i see a lot of black ppl with white names, too.
Oh please, I love it when you racist fucks make a racist post &then try to run away when caught.
Screw you you bigot.
Why aren't you?
Funded? How were they funded?Lets not leave out the elephant in the room. We are still paying interest on the two unfunded wars from the Bush administration. Obama inherited that bill and now trump has inherited it.
the democrats in congress authorized and funded those fiascos, both parties are to blame. deal with reality and stop the partisan bullshit
The vote was the Iraq resolution which said Bush would use all other options prior to invasion. The majority of Democrats in the House voted no while nearly every Republican aid yes. Nearly all the no votes in the Senate were Democrat.
Furthermore their vote was based on the Bush Administration assessment which said the Iran could shortly have a nuke & sell it to terrorists. I think it was " The smoking gun might be in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Blaming Congress for believing the White House lies is chickenshit.
Everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs, the UN, the UK, the EU, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany, France, Spain, Jordan, etc. It wasn't a Bush lie, it was a common belief started by the UN. It is very possible that those weapons did exist and were sent to Syria where Assad used the gas ones on his own people.
Congress did provide funding for the Iraq fiasco and both parties voted for it. It was a stupid waste of money and lives, but it wasn't just Bush, they all have blood on their hands.
Since you brought up white house lies, how about these?
If you like your plan you can keep it
the average family will save $2500 per year
it was caused by a video
I never sent any classified material on my private server
Did you believe those lies?
