Another "New Deal" needed?

by sodbuster Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:41 pm

http://wcbstv.com/politics/hillary.clinton.barack.2.823496.html

Well I hope people get serious and start paying attention to this mess the republicans have gotten us in to.

Foreign affairs, domestic economy, Constitutional protections for personal liberties are all at stake.

I hope people can put aside political partisanship, personal prejudice, and wedge issues like abortion and gay rights and put America first.

by **Stephanie** Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:31 pm

Well of course Hillary Clinton wants to lay all the blame at the feet of the GOP. How fortunate for her that she and her husband have had nearly 8 years for memories to fade making it easier for them to deflect blame when the root of the crisis is solidly planted in HIS administration.

It seems to me another New York Democrat made a number of seriously flawed decisions while director of HUD. This young man possessed no real experience in banking or real estate, yet Bill Clinton saw fit to appoint Andrew Cuomo director of HUD.

Cuomo slashed down payment requirements to 3%, and supported down payment and closing cost assistant programs that meant people could buy a home without investing any of their own money. He also raised the loan limit to an astounding $235,000. Remember this was over 8 years ago. In addition, it was Cuomo who issued the rule in 1999 that legalized yeild spread premiums. These YSP are nothing more than kickbacks to mortgage brokers, YSP's provided the motive for the sale of overpriced, unsupportable loans.

This all stems back to the disasterous Carter administration. The Community Reinvestment Act was well intentioned, but what it did was create a market for subprime loans. Bill Clinton, remember him, the man with the coattails Hillary's been riding on the past 20 years? He excelerated the CRA all the while his cronies, like Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines, looted Fannie Mae lined their pockets with tens of millions of dollars. Clinton pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more mortgages from low-income borrowers.

GWB shares in the blame, of which there is plenty to go around. He allowed this to continue. His administration followed through on these disasterous policies, his efforts were too little and far too late.

Hillary wants you to believe it was all that evil Booosh! She's banking on the irrational hatred of Bush will conceal the misdeeds of her husband and his administration. She's playing Americans for fools.

Shame on Hillary Clinton. Shame on her husband Bill. Shame on Andrew Cuomo and Franklin Raines and shame on George W. Bush and the power brokers in Congress for perpetuating this.

Shame on everyone who refuses to look at all of the facts and in doing so allowing the real culprits, those directly involved in the birth of this crisis, to get away scot free.

by sodbuster Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:48 pm

OIC. Amazing.

This whole banking/financial mess is Clinton's fault.

Even though Boosh has been in control for 8 years.?

Good luck selling that.

I can't believe you would even say that.

by **Stephanie** Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:52 pm

What, do you only read the first paragraph or two?

Stephanie wrote:GWB shares in the blame, of which there is plenty to go around. He allowed this to continue. His administration followed through on these disasterous policies, his efforts were too little and far too late.

....shame on George W. Bush and the power brokers in Congress for perpetuating this.

by sodbuster Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:34 am

Yes I read it all.

It all originated with Clinton and even Carter. (no mention of the two republicans in between)

And GW bush "allowed this to continue"?

lol and you say I am the one too partisan.... Razz

Sooner or later GW has to step up and grab yhis bull by the tail....

by sodbuster Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:38 am

Yes I read it all.

It all originated with Clinton and even Carter. (no mention of the two republicans in between)

And GW bush "allowed this to continue"?

lol and you say I am the one too partisan.... Razz

Sooner or later GW has to step up and grab this bull by the tail....

by **Stephanie** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:42 am

You don't believe me? Check out the facts. You go and dig up who slashed down payment requirements. You find out who demanded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy more mortgages from low-income households. You go prove that it was someone other than Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton's appointee, who issued the rule allowing YSP's and increased the loan limits to $235,000!

If I'm wrong about things, show me. Show us all.

Clinton and Cuomo created this nightmare. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

by sodbuster Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:01 am

"Clinton and Cuomo created this nightmare."

Well at least now we are making progress.

You now acknowledge the assertion in my original post....

by **Stephanie** Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:13 am

sodbuster wrote:http://wcbstv.com/politics/hillary.clinton.barack.2.823496.html

Well I hope people get serious and start paying attention to this mess the republicans have gotten us in to.

Foreign affairs, domestic economy, Constitutional protections for personal liberties are all at stake.

I hope people can put aside political partisanship, personal prejudice, and wedge issues like abortion and gay rights and put America first.

This was your initial post. In this post you join Hillary Clinton in blaming the Republicans for the mess her husband and his cronies created. I blame the Republicans, George Bush in particular, for not cleaning it up.

You know, you just keep proving over and over again that you are right about at least one thing.......

Lovin' eyes never see.

by sodbuster Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:32 am

My bad.

I should have said "earlier" post.

"OIC. Amazing.

This whole banking/financial mess is Clinton's fault.

Even though Boosh has been in control for 8 years.?

Good luck selling that.

I can't believe you would even say that."

I may have lovin' eyes about some things, but not about Clinton.

You are barking up the wrong tree there.

by **Stephanie** Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:02 am

Try again.

I criticize Bush all the time for his lousy leadership, his poor choices, and his aggressive foreign policy and all the empire building. You went from supporting Edwards to Clinton to now Obama. You'd no sooner sell your granchildren's souls to the devil than admit that Bill Clinton and his administration and the Democrats in Congress are largely responsible for this mess. You'll never willingly admit that the Democrats running Congress failed to keep their many campaign promises, have accomplished absolutely nothing of any value, instead choosing to do what you do......attack Bush and the GOP at every turn.

Clinton and Cuomo originated this mess.

PROVE me wrong. I dare you.

by **ohio county** Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:34 am

sherman, did you read what you typed?

Well I hope people get serious and start paying attention to this mess the republicans have gotten us in to...I hope people can put aside political partisanship, personal prejudice, and wedge issues like abortion and gay rights and put America first.

It doesn't look too promising to me.

by **ohio county** Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:41 am

In 2005 ENRON stock went to zero and sixty billion dollars in stockholder equity vanished. The House and Senate clamored for hearings to investigate. In 2006 it became clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had overstated their earnings and taken unearned bonuses totalling more than $60 billion, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank not only didn't hold hearings, they protected the miscreants and demanded they make more shaky mortgage loans.

by **ohio county** Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:48 am

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/9/23/newt-gingrich-kill-the-paulson-plan-hard.html

This is Bush's contribution. It would be nearly as effective as the New Deal, which prolonged the Depression by several years.

by Aaron Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:59 am

Both parties are at fault for their greed that not only created this situation but has allowed it to continue to this point. Anyone who fails to see that is just adding to the problem.

And whether you like Newt or not, he's the only true leader I've seen come out and speak clearly about the situation. Had he ran for President, this week would have won him the election.

by **ohio county** Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:02 am

I do not believe I do like him. But I think he's the smartest man to serve in Congress in the last twenty years.

by Aaron Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:12 am

I don't much care for him either Jimmy but he'd blow either of the two goombo's running now out of hte water in a debate and he would certainly do a better job of running this country.

by **ohio county** Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:15 am

I'm not disagreeing about his fitness for office or ability to run the country. Winning an election is another kettle of fish. Gingrich is one of those touchstones who makes liberals go crazy. They'll never forgive him for re-taking the Speakers chair. If he'd stayed on and followed through on the Contract, he'd be President right now.

by sodbuster Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:20 am

Steph I consider myself a pretty good democrat but have said many times I did not support Clinton or vote for him.

He was way too republican for me.

He colluded with the republicans to give us NAFTA and other legislation I dont like.

But when the bush gang and their supporters want to lay the blame on Clinton for things that happened long after Bush's watch started I take issue with that.

Heck I even hear lots on leftwing radio blame this current mess on Reagan.

That is also a stretch imo.

Also to OC I don't know if official IQ records are available but I have often heard that Clinton was the smartest.

I never did like Newt either, but that in itself would not keep me from voting for him.

I believe he is devious.

Far as Clinton I believe he really does have a heart but tries too hard to be accepted by the rightwing crowd.

(and you see what it got him).

by Aaron Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:23 am

But he was done in by his own and the only reason he wasn't voted out was because those plotting his removal from Congress choose Bill Paxon for the new speaker role instead of Dick Armey, who then warned Newt of the plan.

Considering how they treated him, I wouldn't blame him if he left the Republican party and started his own 3rd party movement.

It's going to take someone like him instead of the goof's running now to create a viable 3rd party. But I doubt he'll do it as this would have been the perfect year.

by sodbuster Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:44 am

"You don't believe me? Check out the facts. You go and dig up who slashed down payment requirements. You find out who demanded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy more mortgages from low-income households. You go prove that it was someone other than Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton's appointee, who issued the rule allowing YSP's and increased the loan limits to $235,000!"

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mortgages/20040819a2.asp

Well Steph sorry this took so long.

I had heard this on Sirius the other day about Bush making a big to do in 2005 about cutting the down pmt. to zero and even letting them include the closing cost.

But I couldn't remember the source so had to do a google search.

This article was written in 2004 and clearly warned bush and gang what they were doing and even predicted the foreclosure rate.

In case you dont want to read the whole article, here is the specific quote you challenged me to come up with:

"That's the position of the Bush administration, which conceived the zero-down program primarily as a way to promote homeownership among minorities and immigrants."

Now who do you think the immigrants were that they are talking about?

That is the next question.

(please note there is no mention of Clinton or Carter.)

Hope this helps....

by **Stephanie** Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:02 am

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=080811_2333,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml

Recently Congress passed the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act., also known as the Housing Bill. Its passage was lauded by many who are legitimately concerned about foreclosures and the housing market in our country's economy. I was asked how I could vote against a bill to help American homeowners, but I found this bill to have more to do with helping big banks than helping average Americans.

The answer is that there is more to any bill than its name or the headlines surrounding it. If one only paid attention to bill titles, one could happily vote for almost any bill put to a vote on the floor. Titles do not tell the complete story of a bill's provisions, and many titles are downright deceptive and come close to emotional blackmail of legislators. But we cannot afford to be fooled by fancy titles. The housing bill could perhaps be more aptly named The Big Banking Bailout at Taxpayer Expense Act as large sections of it were written by big banking lobbyists according to Evans and Novak reporter Tim Carney's Capitol Hill sources. At least that title would be honest.

Also, many of these magnanimous sounding foreign aid bills and so-called human rights resolutions have counterproductive and hypocritical language tucked into the fine print. The recent bill on China was a good example. This resolution calls on China to hold meetings with the Dalai Lama without preconditions, when that is something our own government will not do with Iran. How our government has the authority to tell China what to do it beyond me, especially when we demand something so hypocritical. On foreign aid bills and legislation that on the surface seems very charitable, upon closer examination we find strings attached and a lot of manipulation of the marketplace. Many times, these bills purport to help the destitute, but actually help multinational corporations or prop up dictators that might otherwise be deposed by their people.

The other point to take into consideration on legislation and House resolutions is that intentions are not enough. It is not enough to want to solve a problem with legislation, and name a bill to that effect. The crafters of the legislation need to demonstrate a clear and honest understanding of the problem, in order to put forward a realistic strategy to solving it. Too many times, I just don't see that. Instead I see more taxes, more restrictions, more violations of the Constitution, and more unintended consequences.

One shouldn't judge legislation based on titles, good intentions, or what someone says the bill will do. Imagine if all the legislation in the history of this country actually did what the title of the bills proclaimed they would do. How very different this country would be! There would be no poverty, no drugs, no crime. In fact if it was that easy, Congress by now would have probably repealed the law of gravity, and supply and demand as well, and replaced them with unlimited wealth and given all Americans the power of flight. What a fanciful world our legislators live in at times!

Though I am at times accused of being mean-spirited regarding the many bills I vote against, I don't so much think of my vote as against the legislation, as much as FOR the Constitution, according to my duties as a Congressman.

by sodbuster Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:14 am

Well good for ron Paul.

But no one said he was the culprit.

"That's the position of the Bush administration, which conceived the zero-down program primarily as a way to promote homeownership among minorities and immigrants."

But the question now is how to extricate ourselves from this mess.

Or should be.

Not how to blame it on the previous administration.

This zero down deal was incorporated when the rep's had control of all three branches of gvt.

(although no doubt with dem. collution admittedly)

by Aaron Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:25 am

The way to get us out of this mess is for the government to NOT bail banks out to the tune of $700,000,000,000.00.
That's a lot of zeros.

by **ohio county** Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:57 am

JImmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act. Don't stroll in her this morning knowing all about it. I been posting this stuff for two weeks now. I thought I was being pretty decent about calling it a bipartisan thing because it's pretty easy to make the case the democrats caused this. And, no, I don't like the republican bailout and I cannot see any sense in demanding oversight from a democrat Congress that caused the problem to begin with.

by Sponsored content

Another "New Deal" needed?

Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?

Re: Another "New Deal" needed?