Quote:

---

Not enough to over rule their votes, but nice try. Read the articles, rue. Most of these attempts to regulate never even made it out of committee! So spare me the head count, I'm just telling you how it really is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
shows exactly what I say Bush did, in trying to set up regulations to rein in Fannie and Freddie.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm just telling you how it really is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Not enough to over rule their votes, but nice try. Read the articles, rue. Most of these attempts to regulate never even made it out of committee! So spare me the head count, I'm just telling you how it really is.

---

How did that happen? The committee chairs are drawn from the majority party. That means every single committee was headed by.... Republicans. Each committee had a majority Republican vote. The only way that this might have happened would be if the Dems threatened filibuster each and every time, in which case the Repubs would have needed 60 votes in the Senate to break the filibuster. (There are no filibusters in the House.)

Meanwhile, you have NEVER addressed the other other issues, which I've repeatedly tried to bring to your attention: Lehman. The SEC decision to allow higher leveraging. The inventory of bad loans outside of Fannie and Freddie. Depository institutions meddling with derivatives. The erosion of American buying power. The Federal deficit.

Really, Rap, you say you deal with "facts". But you only deal with facts selectively. If life were only as simple as the boxes you try to cram it into!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Most of these attempts to regulate never even made it out of committee!"

Committees run by --- who ? I'll give you a hint - the majority at the time.

Now --- who was that, again ?

***************************************************************

And Barney Frank was president, right Rap ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Bush tried, and the Dems blocked.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Bush tried, and the Dems blocked."


And the repubicans ? You know ... the majority ? What did THEY do ?

***************************************************************

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

There were enough Democrats to stall the process.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"There were enough Democrats to stall the process."

And HOW did they do that, again ? When the repubican committees could have simply voted their majorities and moved it forward

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


You're not even in the same ball park. Quit while you're too far behind.

---

Quote:

---

The Democrats killed this measure in Committee preventing the full Senate Vote.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Not enough majority to override the Dems."

Override WHERE Rap ? In committees that were RUN by repubicans ? In committees with repubican majorities ? In the House and Senate that both had repubican majorities ? Or do you mean enough to override a presidential veto (and why WOULD he veto his own proposal ?)

WHERE Rap ? At what step ? Be specific.

***************************************************************

---

Quote:

---

If it says there weren't enough votes to make it out of committe, what the hell do you think ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
it means there weren't enough REPUBLICANS willing to vote it out of committee.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

"UBS admits helping tax evaders"
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/18/news/companies/ubs/index.htm?postversi
on=2009021818

---

Quote:

---

"UBS admitted to conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding the IRS,"

---

Quote:

---

Also, the whole "economy on fire" fiasco (from your viewpoint).

---

Quote:

---

As for the U.N. resolutions,678, 687 and 1441 you have READ them,to know what they actually say. I posted, many times, the various quotes pertaining to the 3 main resolutions ,and how they were interconnected. But just as you're trying to rewrite history on the Iraq war

---

Quote:

---

[The economy being on fire]... wasn't a 'viewpoint'. It was a tangible, verifyable fact.

---

Quote:

---

Most of these attempts to regulate never even made it out of committee!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Ummm hmmm. So how did Bush's policies - which appeared to be so successful- suddenly turn into such an nightmare?

---

Quote:

---

Since the majority party has the majority vote in each committee, it means there weren't enough REPUBLICANS willing to vote it out of committee.


ETA: BTW- Oxley (R) was chair of the committee.

---

Quote:

---

It wasn't a 'viewpoint'. It was a tangible, verifyable fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Ummm hmmm. So how did Bush's policies - which appeared to be so successful- suddenly turn into such an nightmare?

---

Too much borrowing by the public and a banking system which was all but forced into accepting applications from unsuitable lendees because a bleeding heart policy which got its start w/ the Carter administration and only grew and grew over the years, because that's what happens in BIG GOVERNMENT ?



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people WILL understand.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Then why on Earth did you support Bush in his monumental expansion of that BIG GOVERNMENT?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Then why on Earth did you support Bush in his monumental expansion of that BIG GOVERNMENT?

---

This question raises two issues.

First, Bush was not supported by myself or strict conservatives in his efforts. He was able to push his legislation through using weak conservatives, moderates, and a few open minded liberals. It was a very centrist approach (at least to legislative coalition building).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Reeeeaaaalllly? You didn't suppport Bush, hmmm?

Funny, I can't recall a single incident over the past several years where you OPPOSED him on ANYTHING. You and AuLapdog both. Sure, now that he's long gone and destined to go down as one of the very worst Presidents in U.S. history, NOW you weren't a big fan of his, but that wasnt' the case just a few short months ago.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Too much borrowing by the public and a banking system which was all but forced into accepting applications from unsuitable lendees because a bleeding heart policy which got its start w/ the Carter administration and only grew and grew over the years, because that's what happens in BIG GOVERNMENT ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

More proof of you reading and acknowledging only that which suits your interest.

---

Quote:

---

I opposed Bush on many issues, and it's been well documented here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
It was predatory lending that was the problem, not government mandated lending.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

clearly shows Dems being narrowly focused idiots, like I said, no surprise here. I still ask why the Pubs didn't use their muscle like the did for the war- no way to address this, eh AULap? They were in the majority- that means there were MORE of them, btw.

Quote:

---

the GOP members are sounding the warning bells, over 4 yrs ago, about what was coming, if nothing was done.

---

Bells? That would be as in alarm? Pretty dinky alarm, I never heard it, and neither did you, having just dug this stuff up as you have.
(This is the part where you lie & said you heard it LONG ago, heh heh)

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Reeeeaaaalllly? You didn't suppport Bush, hmmm?

Funny, I can't recall a single incident over the past several years where you OPPOSED him on ANYTHING.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Actually, you're wrong. Groups like ACORN and other " commuinity activist " coerced / strong armed banks into making risky , Gov't backed loans so the poor and minorities could buy homes which they couldn't afford. And there were many in Congress on the side of ACORN and the likes, which vigorously fought any attempt to clamp down on Fannie and Freddie loaning practices.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Bells? That would be as in alarm? Pretty dinky alarm, I never heard it, and neither did you, having just dug this stuff up as you have.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You have no case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

A fair number of Republicans saw the problem and tried to do something. Nobody saw the scope of the problem until it fell on us last fall. Sure McCain warned about trouble...but nobody was out there saying 'next month it all falls down'.

The warning bells were more like cautionary notes. I find it hard to believe that if anybody saw this coming they would not have been on the Senate floor shouting about it every day trying to get somebody to pay attention before it was too late.

---

Quote:

---

It caught everybody by surprise...

---

Quote:

---

sure, its common sense now, you can't loan money to people who can't pay it back...but nobody was thinking in those terms as late as last August.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You have no case.

---

Like I said, unable to address the points. Nothing new here.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

---