A country in shambles, under GOP rule

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

A country in shambles, under GOP rule

The GOP has dominated in all 3 branches of government for the better part of the last decade...something the Right Wing pundits seem to overlook when dishing out the blame.

care to explain the total train wreck in the last two years with a democratic controlled congress?

trains don't wreck unless they've been speeding before wrecking. Blaming the last two miles out of eight is a bit 'tarded.

i can do without the digs. the fact remains that the dems controlled congress in the past two years and things have gotten significantly worse. and this from a party claiming a new direction and so on ad nauseam.

[HAL 9000 96]

A country in shambles, under GOP rule

The GOP has dominated in all 3 branches of government for the better part of the last decade...something the Right Wing pundits seem to overlook when dishing out the blame.

care to explain the total train wreck in the last two years with a democratic controlled congress?

trains don't wreck unless they've been speeding before wrecking. Blaming the last two miles out of eight is a bit 'tarded.

i can do without the digs. the fact remains that the dems controlled congress in the past two years and things have gotten significantly worse. and this from a party claiming a new direction and so on ad nauseam.

Let us know when the last two years' vetoes disappear. Then we'll see.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

A country in shambles, under GOP rule

The GOP has dominated in all 3 branches of government for the better part of the last decade...something the Right Wing pundits seem to overlook when dishing out the blame.

care to explain the total train wreck in the last two years with a democratic controlled congress?

trains don't wreck unless they've been speeding before wrecking. Blaming the last two miles out of eight is a bit 'tarded.

i can do without the digs. the fact remains that the dems controlled congress in the past two years and things have gotten significantly worse. and this from a party claiming a new direction and so on ad nauseam.

Let us know when the last two years' vetoes disappear. Then we'll see.

so what are you saying, the democratic congress is impotent?

[HAL 9000 96]

A country in shambles, under GOP rule

The GOP has dominated in all 3 branches of government for the better part of the last decade...something the Right Wing pundits seem to overlook when dishing out the blame.

care to explain the total train wreck in the last two years with a democratic controlled congress?

trains don't wreck unless they've been speeding before wrecking. Blaming the last two miles out of eight is a bit 'tarded.

i can do without the digs. the fact remains that the dems controlled congress in the past two years and things have gotten significantly worse. and this from a party claiming a new direction and so on ad nauseam.

Let us know when the last two years' vetoes disappear. Then we'll see.

so what are you saying, the democratic congress is impotent?

This one is apparently more interested in being a counterbalance to the current President in office.

Even with that there aren't enough sitting members to override a veto.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

A country in shambles, under GOP rule

The GOP has dominated in all 3 branches of government for the better part of the last decade...something the Right Wing pundits seem to overlook when dishing out the blame.

care to explain the total train wreck in the last two years with a democratic controlled congress?

trains don't wreck unless they've been speeding before wrecking. Blaming the last two miles out of eight is a bit 'tarded.

i can do without the digs. the fact remains that the dems controlled congress in the past two years and things have gotten significantly worse. and this from a party claiming a new direction and so on ad nauseam.

Let us know when the last two years' vetoes disappear. Then we'll see.

so what are you saying, the democratic congress is impotent?

This one is apparently more interested in being a counterbalance to the current President in office.

Even with that there aren't enough sitting members to override a veto.

so our friend pelosi has been emasculated.

[IAMX 3,055]

This one is apparently more interested in being a counterbalance to the current President in office.

Even with that there aren't enough sitting members to override a veto.

It should also be said how much Bush's executive cabinet loves cooperating with oversight and subpoenas.

Tack on Pelosi's asinine comment about no impeachment of Bush et al and voila, you have yourself a treasonous President, Vice President, Sec. of State, Deputy Secretary of Defense and so on who are unaccountable for their actions.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I remember when the talk first started about "Change" when the Socialists took the majority in congress and senate. Everyone was so giddy and we all heard how things would change. Even told how we will be out of Iraq and health care and on and on. What change has there been?

Congress hands the president the budget to sign or veto and still we got huge deficits, erosion of civil rights and so on.

[mawilson 2,133]

This is has been failure of bad policy - deregulation.

Nothing wrong with deregulation. The mortgage companies were NOT deregulated;

in fact, they were given security guarantees by the government. The crisis is a

direct result of government intervention in the housing market.

It's not "deregulation" when the government intervenes in the market to push a

specific social goal (Community Reinvestment Act).

One could argue that deregulation enabled investment banks to get in on the real

estate action, and that much is true. However, government intervention in what

otherwise would have been a free market is what encouraged financial institutions

to play outside the bounds of market discipline and eventually run amok.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is has been failure of bad policy - deregulation.

Nothing wrong with deregulation. The mortgage companies were NOT deregulated;

in fact, they were given security guarantees by the government. The crisis is a

direct result of government intervention in the housing market.

It's not "deregulation" when the government intervenes in the market to push a

specific social goal (Community Reinvestment Act).

One could argue that deregulation enabled investment banks to get in on the real

estate action, and that much is true. However, government intervention in what

otherwise would have been a free market is what encouraged financial institutions

to play outside the bounds of market discipline and eventually run amok.

Not true. Federal regulations on financial institutions has diminished and the rules were relaxed to even allow predatory lending practices to take place. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were originally Federal programs that would buy up mortgages so that the banks could free up capital to then loan to more people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were then privatized and publicly traded. In 2005, they began agressively buying up subprime mortgages (high risk loans). Although the Fed does not guarantee those mortgages, if the Fed Gov't. allowed those insitutions to crumble, it would set off a huge financial crisis. Some Right Wing pundits are blaming the Democratic controlled Congress for letting this happen. Although it appears that many in Congress failed to see this crisis, had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remained government programs, they would not have aggressively gone after subprime mortgages. Had there been tighter regulations on which financial institutions could be created and regulations to prevent predatory lending practices, we would not be in this mess.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in essence, became socialism for the rich. They were public traded corporations who basically had the backing of the Federal Government without actually being Federal programs. Who wouldn't want to create a financial institution and offer subprime mortgages when you could easily sell them off to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Housing prices would not have continued to skyrocket without the existence of subprime mortgages coupled with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's backing. What a f##king mess this is.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[mawilson 2,133]

had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remained government programs, they would not have aggressively gone after subprime mortgages.

Says you.

[IAMX 3,055]

This is has been failure of bad policy - deregulation.

Nothing wrong with deregulation. The mortgage companies were NOT deregulated;

in fact, they were given security guarantees by the government. The crisis is a

direct result of government intervention in the housing market.

It's not "deregulation" when the government intervenes in the market to push a

specific social goal (Community Reinvestment Act).

One could argue that deregulation enabled investment banks to get in on the real

estate action, and that much is true. However, government intervention in what

otherwise would have been a free market is what encouraged financial institutions

to play outside the bounds of market discipline and eventually run amok.

Firstly, yes, the government did deregulate the financial industry to oversee it's own practices regarding who they loan money to.

If there WERE regulations in place that were before, they would have never succeeded in giving ARMs to people who never had the credit nor the income to justify it.

Secondly, government intervention has always been necessary to keep the market within the realms of a desired outcome for capital, because the desired outcome for capital is to serve the people. When it stops becoming a service and becomes more of a restriction or goes outside the bounds of limitations that capital must have, it needs to be regulated.

[mawilson 2,133]

government intervention has always been necessary to keep the market within the realms of a desired outcome for capital, because the desired outcome for capital is to serve the people.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I agree Mawlison. It seems many are clueless.

We still have a Constitution right?

[IAMX 3,055]

I agree Mawlison. It seems many are clueless.

We still have a Constitution right?

Indeed, which does say for the people, as in best interests for the people, not the corporation/business.