PDA

View Full Version : Elections Pelosi: Dems Bear No Responsibility For Economic Crisis


RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 04:25 PM
:shake:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-dems-bear-no-responsibility-for-economic-crisis-2008-09-16.html

MikeTheWildcat
09-16-2008, 04:53 PM
:shake:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-dems-bear-no-responsibility-for-economic-crisis-2008-09-16.html

Wow, just wow. What was Pelosi thinking????? What she just said is even though the Dem's have been running Congress for two years, they have done nothing.

Vet for McCAIN

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 05:02 PM
Wow, just wow. What was Pelosi thinking????? What she just said is even though the Dem's have been running Congress for two years, they have done nothing.

Vet for McCAIN

according to mccain there's no crisis

Mr. Laz
09-16-2008, 05:05 PM
i disagree with Pelosi .... but they sure don't bear AS MUCH responsibility about the economy.

the GOP had Carte Blanche for 6 years

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 05:06 PM
i disagree with Pelosi .... but they sure don't bear AS MUCH responsibility about the economy.

the GOP had Carte Blanche for 6 years

and I'll be the guy standing behind you yelling "tell it brother"

Friendo
09-16-2008, 05:11 PM
she was awful--eye's blinking and shifting constantly--if the dems should somehow win, it will certainly be in spite of her, not because of her.

RJ
09-16-2008, 05:16 PM
In fairness, if the economy were doing great I doubt the dems would be getting any credit for it from the republicans.

Silock
09-16-2008, 05:19 PM
i disagree with Pelosi .... but they sure don't bear AS MUCH responsibility about the economy.

the GOP had Carte Blanche for 6 years

What's happening now is much larger than the past 6 years. It's just a symptom of a larger problem.

There is no partisan responsibility or absolution from this. Everyone is to blame.

***SPRAYER
09-16-2008, 05:27 PM
On Monday’s Mark Levin Show: We keep hearing that Sarah Palin isn’t experienced enough, but do we really want her as experienced as the current people that are in Washington D.C., like Obama? The corrupt politicians are getting their own buybacks, while the rest of the country and taxpayers are paying for them? The reason the American people support Palin is because she isn’t your typical politician. Fannie May and Freddie Mac are in shambles, and Mark dissects what is the reasoning behind it. For years now, conservatives have been pushing for reforms to phase out both companies, and it was the Democrats with the likes of Schumer, Obama, and Hillary that wouldn’t allow it. Where are the trials on this? Byron York calls in and explains to the audience about how the books are cooked in institutions and how the Dems aren’t forthcoming with information.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/07/11/david-frum-on-the-demise-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.aspx

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 05:33 PM
On Monday’s Mark Levin Show: We keep hearing that Sarah Palin isn’t experienced enough, but do we really want her as experienced as the current people that are in Washington D.C., like Obama? The corrupt politicians are getting their own buybacks, while the rest of the country and taxpayers are paying for them? The reason the American people support Palin is because she isn’t your typical politician. Fannie May and Freddie Mac are in shambles, and Mark dissects what is the reasoning behind it. For years now, conservatives have been pushing for reforms to phase out both companies, and it was the Democrats with the likes of Schumer, Obama, and Hillary that wouldn’t allow it. Where are the trials on this? Byron York calls in and explains to the audience about how the books are cooked in institutions and how the Dems aren’t forthcoming with information.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/07/11/david-frum-on-the-demise-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.aspx



so now obama's been around for years


ROFL
who is this person?

Ultra Peanut
09-16-2008, 05:41 PM
De. Regu. Lation.

***SPRAYER
09-16-2008, 05:43 PM
so now obama's been around for years


ROFL
who is this person?


Long enough to get a half million dollars in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 05:44 PM
according to mccain there's no crisis

When did he say that? He says there's a problem in every speech and in every economic ad.

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 05:44 PM
Long enough to get a half million dollars in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

is that wrong?

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 05:44 PM
When did he say that? He says there's a problem in every speech and in every economic ad.

"the fundamentals of this economy are strong"

said that yesterday

RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 05:44 PM
In fairness, if the economy were doing great I doubt the dems would be getting any credit for it from the republicans.

Probably, but it is a stupid thing to say on her part politically.

eazyb81
09-16-2008, 05:44 PM
Pelosi was hysterically awful the other night on CNBC. She completely threw the GOP under the bus and blamed them for this economic meltdown. After stammering on for a bit, the interviewer then asked what she would have done differently and what should we do now. She fumbled through a few ums and errs until saying she didn't know, but Obama will know.

Silock
09-16-2008, 05:45 PM
"the fundamentals of this economy are strong"

said that yesterday

Better than "Everybody panic. Sell it all!"

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 05:46 PM
Probably, but it is a stupid thing to say on her part politically.

the truth of it is none of em know shit

the question is who's gonna get out of the way and let the one's who do make some decisions

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 05:47 PM
Better than "Everybody panic. Sell it all!"

well you can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig

not to mention who takes financial advice from mccain, someone who admitted, then later retracted, that he don't know dick

the only thing financial i want to hear about mccain is "marry rich"

RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 05:48 PM
"the fundamentals of this economy are strong"

said that yesterday

Actually he said "People are frightened by these events. The fundamentals of our economy are still strong but these are very, very difficult times. I promise you we will never put America in this position again."

Kind of like when the Dems kept editing off the end of his 100 year war remark.

Not saying that it wasn't stupid for McCain to say politically, but he isn't going around pretending there isn't a problem.

***SPRAYER
09-16-2008, 05:48 PM
is that wrong?


You should try coming up for air in between posts.

In July of this year it was announced that Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation), America’s largest mortgage companies, are now the property of the United States government.


Along with that ownership comes some $5 trillion (with a tr) in mortgage debt. The nationalization of the two biggest mortgage companies in America occurred because it ‘was required to help millions of struggling mortgage holders and shore up the U.S. housing market.’


As a result, every American taxpayer will be forced to pay through the nose for the rest of his lifetime in order to bail out wealthy, well-connected people who committed fraud. In effect, every American taxpayer has been forced to purchase stock in two insolvent companies.


Ben Bernanke was not elected by the American people, and he is not accountable to them. Henry Paulsen was not elected by the American people, and he is not accountable to them. And the people in the corporate offices of FM and FM were not elected by the American people, and they were not accountable to them. And they were committing fraud.


In addition to the gargantuan personal debt that you and I have been forced to assume, the U.S. dollar will suffer as a result of this bailout. Inflation will increase. And the recession will worsen.


This is just the beginning of the ‘let's-make-the-U.S.-taxpayer-pay-the-price-for-the-financier/government-blunders’ roller coaster. The bailouts are going to start coming fast and furious. The big question is: How long will it take before the powers that be recognize that the boat is sinking faster as a result, and the people who are doing the bailing are going to (1) weaken to the point where they can no longer lift their bucket, or (2) mutiny. I'm betting on (1) because the American public is too clueless to contemplate (2).


The democrat party, and Barack Obama in particular, are forever crucifying big business and the financial world, while purporting to champion ‘the little people’. The democrat party, and Barack Obama in particular, are forever accusing John McCain of being in the pocket of both.


When the federal government announced two months ago that it was taking over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, The Center for Responsive Politics decided to take a close look at the amount of political contributions the two largest mortgage companies in America have made to our Washington leadership.


If you have been in the practice of swallowing leftist media swill, you should be very surprised at the results of their study: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers.


In the list of 354 lawmakers who have received contributions from the two mortgage giants since 1989, Barack Obama has collected the second highest dollar figure – behind only fellow leftist Christopher Dodd (D-CT). Recall, also, that Senator Obama has been in Washington for only three-plus years. So, despite the fact that this list includes the total of all of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac’s contributions to these 354 lawmakers since 1989 (for the last nineteen years), Barack Obama has managed to eclipse all but one of his fellow senators/congressmen, some of whom have been on the Hill six times as long as he.


And democrats in total collected the large majority (57%) of those monies.


The mainstream media, and most of our leadership in Washington, would have us believe that this mortgage crisis (eventually scheduled to blossom into a full-fledge economic earthquake) occurred as the result of a combination of greed on the part of the banking/mortgage industry and ignorance on the part of prospective low-income homeowners.


That, however, is not the case. The mortgage crisis is the result of a purposeful, newly required relaxing of underwriting standards, largely foisted by our government on the banking/mortgage industry in the name of ‘ending discrimination’, and in spite of warnings from respected economists that such underwriting relaxations could lead to unprecedented defaults.


It was the regulators, not the banks, who relaxed these standards - at the behest of 'community organizers' and 'progressive' political activists.


Byron York wrote in a recent National Review article:



Perhaps the simplest way to describe community organizing is to say it is the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population, say unemployed steelworkers, or itinerant fruit-pickers, or residents of a particularly bad neighborhood, and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem, often by giving the affected group money.
In the 1980s and 1990s, groups such as the activists at ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), of which Barack Obama has been an active member (see National Review’s Inside Obama’s Acorn), began claiming that banks were engaging in discriminatory practices against minorities.

See also: The Acorn Obama Knows and Getting Paid to Watch: The Link Between Obama, the Woods Fund, Earmarks and the Mortgage Crisis.


Acorn approached sympathetic members of congress who managed to amend the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, forcing banks to collect racial data on their mortgage applicants. The predictable result was that it was ‘discovered’ that banks were indeed discriminating against minorities (the fact that those minorities were generally less financially capable of assuming a mortgage received minimal consideration in every study).


What resulted was an increase in the power of the Community Reinvestment Act, and banks were now required to relax the criteria for low income mortgage applicants. Another new, more insidious, stipulation in the revamped Community Reinvestment Act allowed for 'community organizers' to take an active part in annual bank reviews. Intimidation was the name of the game.


Banks that received poor reviews were fined. Some were denied merger requests. Others faced Justice Department action if their ‘quotas’ of minority acceptances were not met.


As if ACORN’s complicity in the entire financial meltdown weren’t enough, the organization for which Barack Obama worked both before and after attending law school, and with which he still maintains close ties, is currently being accused of committing massive voter fraud, presumably in order to get their man elected. ‘Their man’ … the one who looks out for ‘the little guy’ and who repudiates big money and the power of special interests.


I will leave you all with a few simple questions:


(1) Why is it that Barack Obama rarely, if ever, lists his ‘accomplishments’ as a ‘community organizer’?


(2) Why did Barack Obama receive more total political money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than all but one of his fellow senators/congressmen? And how did he accomplish that amazing feat in just three short years, when many of his fellow 'leaders' have been on the job for six times as long?


(3) How difficult should it be for the American citizenry to accept Barack Obama’s pious repudiation of capitalism and the ‘greed’ of big business?


(4) If John McCain or Sarah Palin had such skeletons in their closets, would those skeletons find themselves revealed in glaring headlines from now until election day? And would congress be clamoring for hearings ... or worse?


(4) Where are the mainstream media?


Nuff said.

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 05:51 PM
You should try coming up for air in between posts.

In July of this year it was announced that Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation), America’s largest mortgage companies, are now the property of the United States government.


Along with that ownership comes some $5 trillion (with a tr) in mortgage debt. The nationalization of the two biggest mortgage companies in America occurred because it ‘was required to help millions of struggling mortgage holders and shore up the U.S. housing market.’


As a result, every American taxpayer will be forced to pay through the nose for the rest of his lifetime in order to bail out wealthy, well-connected people who committed fraud. In effect, every American taxpayer has been forced to purchase stock in two insolvent companies.


Ben Bernanke was not elected by the American people, and he is not accountable to them. Henry Paulsen was not elected by the American people, and he is not accountable to them. And the people in the corporate offices of FM and FM were not elected by the American people, and they were not accountable to them. And they were committing fraud.


In addition to the gargantuan personal debt that you and I have been forced to assume, the U.S. dollar will suffer as a result of this bailout. Inflation will increase. And the recession will worsen.


This is just the beginning of the ‘let's-make-the-U.S.-taxpayer-pay-the-price-for-the-financier/government-blunders’ roller coaster. The bailouts are going to start coming fast and furious. The big question is: How long will it take before the powers that be recognize that the boat is sinking faster as a result, and the people who are doing the bailing are going to (1) weaken to the point where they can no longer lift their bucket, or (2) mutiny. I'm betting on (1) because the American public is too clueless to contemplate (2).


The democrat party, and Barack Obama in particular, are forever crucifying big business and the financial world, while purporting to champion ‘the little people’. The democrat party, and Barack Obama in particular, are forever accusing John McCain of being in the pocket of both.


When the federal government announced two months ago that it was taking over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, The Center for Responsive Politics decided to take a close look at the amount of political contributions the two largest mortgage companies in America have made to our Washington leadership.


If you have been in the practice of swallowing leftist media swill, you should be very surprised at the results of their study: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers.


In the list of 354 lawmakers who have received contributions from the two mortgage giants since 1989, Barack Obama has collected the second highest dollar figure – behind only fellow leftist Christopher Dodd (D-CT). Recall, also, that Senator Obama has been in Washington for only three-plus years. So, despite the fact that this list includes the total of all of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac’s contributions to these 354 lawmakers since 1989 (for the last nineteen years), Barack Obama has managed to eclipse all but one of his fellow senators/congressmen, some of whom have been on the Hill six times as long as he.


And democrats in total collected the large majority (57%) of those monies.


The mainstream media, and most of our leadership in Washington, would have us believe that this mortgage crisis (eventually scheduled to blossom into a full-fledge economic earthquake) occurred as the result of a combination of greed on the part of the banking/mortgage industry and ignorance on the part of prospective low-income homeowners.


That, however, is not the case. The mortgage crisis is the result of a purposeful, newly required relaxing of underwriting standards, largely foisted by our government on the banking/mortgage industry in the name of ‘ending discrimination’, and in spite of warnings from respected economists that such underwriting relaxations could lead to unprecedented defaults.


It was the regulators, not the banks, who relaxed these standards - at the behest of 'community organizers' and 'progressive' political activists.


Byron York wrote in a recent National Review article:



Perhaps the simplest way to describe community organizing is to say it is the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population, say unemployed steelworkers, or itinerant fruit-pickers, or residents of a particularly bad neighborhood, and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem, often by giving the affected group money.
In the 1980s and 1990s, groups such as the activists at ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), of which Barack Obama has been an active member (see National Review’s Inside Obama’s Acorn), began claiming that banks were engaging in discriminatory practices against minorities.

See also: The Acorn Obama Knows and Getting Paid to Watch: The Link Between Obama, the Woods Fund, Earmarks and the Mortgage Crisis.


Acorn approached sympathetic members of congress who managed to amend the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, forcing banks to collect racial data on their mortgage applicants. The predictable result was that it was ‘discovered’ that banks were indeed discriminating against minorities (the fact that those minorities were generally less financially capable of assuming a mortgage received minimal consideration in every study).


What resulted was an increase in the power of the Community Reinvestment Act, and banks were now required to relax the criteria for low income mortgage applicants. Another new, more insidious, stipulation in the revamped Community Reinvestment Act allowed for 'community organizers' to take an active part in annual bank reviews. Intimidation was the name of the game.


Banks that received poor reviews were fined. Some were denied merger requests. Others faced Justice Department action if their ‘quotas’ of minority acceptances were not met.


As if ACORN’s complicity in the entire financial meltdown weren’t enough, the organization for which Barack Obama worked both before and after attending law school, and with which he still maintains close ties, is currently being accused of committing massive voter fraud, presumably in order to get their man elected. ‘Their man’ … the one who looks out for ‘the little guy’ and who repudiates big money and the power of special interests.


I will leave you all with a few simple questions:


(1) Why is it that Barack Obama rarely, if ever, lists his ‘accomplishments’ as a ‘community organizer’?


(2) Why did Barack Obama receive more total political money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than all but one of his fellow senators/congressmen? And how did he accomplish that amazing feat in just three short years, when many of his fellow 'leaders' have been on the job for six times as long?


(3) How difficult should it be for the American citizenry to accept Barack Obama’s pious repudiation of capitalism and the ‘greed’ of big business?


(4) If John McCain or Sarah Palin had such skeletons in their closets, would those skeletons find themselves revealed in glaring headlines from now until election day? And would congress be clamoring for hearings ... or worse?


(4) Where are the mainstream media?


Nuff said.

actually my point was mccain took money too

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 05:54 PM
Actually he said "People are frightened by these events. The fundamentals of our economy are still strong but these are very, very difficult times. I promise you we will never put America in this position again."

Kind of like when the Dems kept editing off the end of his 100 year war remark.

Not saying that it wasn't stupid for McCain to say politically, but he isn't going around pretending there isn't a problem.

I can't tell when he's serious or he's pandering which is it? Are the fundamentals strong, if that be the case then only time is needed to repair. However, if they are weak we probably need to step in.

Calcountry
09-16-2008, 05:54 PM
she was awful--eye's blinking and shifting constantly--if the dems should somehow win, it will certainly be in spite of her, not because of her.Botox, it does a body good.

***SPRAYER
09-16-2008, 05:55 PM
actually my point was mccain took money too


OK. So they both suck, right?

Calcountry
09-16-2008, 05:56 PM
Pelosi was hysterically awful the other night on CNBC. She completely threw the GOP under the bus and blamed them for this economic meltdown. After stammering on for a bit, the interviewer then asked what she would have done differently and what should we do now. She fumbled through a few ums and errs until saying she didn't know, but Obama will know.
You want to talk about a woman that is way out of her league.... If you inject a pig with botox, it is still a pig.

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 05:56 PM
OK. So they both suck, right?

pretty much yeah

if taking money from them was wrong neither should have done it

If Mccain took $1 he sure as shit would've taken a million
Same with Obama

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 05:57 PM
You want to talk about a woman that is way out of her league.... If you inject a pig with botox, it is still a pig.

ROFL

jiveturkey
09-16-2008, 06:10 PM
This is another great example of why term limits are a great idea. People like this become powerful. The dem leadership has been a toilet bowl of assorted turds for as long as I've been an adult.

The longer you're in the dumber you get and the more powerful you become.

tiptap
09-16-2008, 06:22 PM
Pelosi was hysterically awful the other night on CNBC. She completely threw the GOP under the bus and blamed them for this economic meltdown. After stammering on for a bit, the interviewer then asked what she would have done differently and what should we do now. She fumbled through a few ums and errs until saying she didn't know, but Obama will know.

How about transparency as a start.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2008, 06:27 PM
Sorry Dems but this goes back to 1999 and both parties are responsible as well as Greenspan and Bernanke.

jidar
09-16-2008, 06:32 PM
Sorry Dems but this goes back to 1999 and both parties are responsible as well as Greenspan and Bernanke.

Yes but do you want the people directly responsible for this to be in charge of the economy?

***SPRAYER
09-16-2008, 06:53 PM
Yes but do you want the people directly responsible for this to be in charge of the economy?


Barney Frank will be in charge of the economy if McCain wins?

Chief Faithful
09-16-2008, 07:01 PM
Too bad Congress doesn't control the purse strings,...wait,...the House controls,...never mind.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2008, 07:10 PM
Yes but do you want the people directly responsible for this to be in charge of the economy?

I don't think anyone in govt should be in charge of the economy. I think it should be free of them.
See the mess they made. It wasn't a private operation ever at all.

ROYC75
09-17-2008, 12:31 AM
Sorry Dems but this goes back to 1999 and both parties are responsible as well as Greenspan and Bernanke.

Hello, Bingo, we have a winner .

Nancy is a hack, she would serve best if she just shut up .

SBK
09-17-2008, 01:34 AM
The government created this problem, well, except for the greed part. To claim "it's the other side" makes you look stupid.

banyon
09-17-2008, 06:36 PM
I don't know if I've said this enough, but Pelosi is and was a disastrous choice to be Speaker. She needs to be removed ASAP in the next Congress, hopefully replaced by Rahm Emanuel.

banyon
09-17-2008, 06:36 PM
This is another great example of why term limits are a great idea. People like this become powerful. The dem leadership has been a toilet bowl of assorted turds for as long as I've been an adult.

The longer you're in the dumber you get and the more powerful you become.

What do you think Nancy Pelosi would be doing if she weren't in Congress?

Soupnazi
09-17-2008, 08:06 PM
De. Regu. Lation.

Far less at fault than consolidation. If congress hadn't approved merger after merger after sale after sale, then there might be more than a handful of firms out there sharing this risk that has brought them all to their knees.

banyon
09-17-2008, 08:13 PM
Far less at fault than consolidation. If congress hadn't approved merger after merger after sale after sale, then there might be more than a handful of firms out there sharing this risk that has brought them all to their knees.

That's another form of deregulation.

Bootlegged
09-17-2008, 08:15 PM
What do you think Nancy Pelosi would be doing if she weren't in Congress?

Fluffer.

Soupnazi
09-17-2008, 08:36 PM
That's another form of deregulation.

Um, not really, but whatever.

banyon
09-17-2008, 08:53 PM
Um, not really, but whatever.

Sure, the Sherman Antitrust act and the associated Justice department regs are really just Bizarro-regs. That is, for every regulation that they enact, everyone else has to subtract two. Is that what you're angling for?

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 08:59 PM
Pelosi is worthless

HonestChieffan
09-17-2008, 10:52 PM
Pelosi is killing democrats daily

Velvet_Jones
09-18-2008, 12:13 AM
Harry Reid – he was saying today on the floor of the house that this is Bush’s fault. Last time I check, the oversight of finance is the job of the congress. Too bad the American citizens are too stupid to tell him to STFU.

SBK
09-18-2008, 03:39 AM
Pelosi is worthless

I don't know the ins and outs of the political power struggles in Washington, but one has to think that the Democrats have far better people in the party that could be their leaders.....Her and Reid are morons, which is a shame.

Guru
09-18-2008, 03:58 AM
I would love to clean House. All of them.

KCJohnny
09-18-2008, 05:54 AM
Hey Madame Speaker, how's that 14% approval rating for Congress working for you?

PhillyChiefFan
09-18-2008, 07:42 AM
What's happening now is much larger than the past 6 years. It's just a symptom of a larger problem.

There is no partisan responsibility or absolution from this. Everyone is to blame.

A beacon of truth.

This has been coming for many many years, and is a result of mismanagement on many levels.