I think it would be more accurate to characterize it as the consequence of the "enslavement" brought about during the course the Bush years. Is it the right thing to do? Who knows. But it is certainly a consequence of the Bush administration's aftermath.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
An Injection of Jeffersonian Brilliance Versus Governmental Insanity On This Sad Day
- Thread starter ByLoSellHi
- Start date
Quote from Thunderdog:
I think it would be more accurate to characterize it as the consequence of the "enslavement" brought about during the course the Bush years. Is it the right thing to do? Who knows. But it is certainly a consequence of the Bush administration's aftermath.
Oh give it a rest. Bush was a SHIT for sure... but he didn't do anything the others before him didn't do... Bush was worse for sure... but he isn't the "root" of all this mess.
It was actually the 1999 DemoCRAPS who unleashed all of this current crapola onto the world...
I'm not in favor of Bush.. .I'm sure as Hell not in favor of NObama...Just calling BULLSHIT where it is!!
Quote from dcvtss:
The problems that led us here started long before the Bush administration.
CORRECTAMUNDO.. they started in earnest with FDR.
Both parties are culpable.
I'd like to see BOTH parties tossed out on their collective asses. Especially President Pelosi... she's one SCARY bitch!
Really? Then, rather than nixing it when they came into power, why did the Republicans let it compound to the nth degree? Rather than steer it down its originally intended path, why did they allow it to become a monster under their watch? And speaking of which, what about "The Commodity Modernization Act of 2000," created by Republicans?Quote from gnome:
...It was actually the 1999 DemoCRAPS who unleashed all of this crapola onto the world...
"The act has been cited as a public-policy decision significantly contributing to Enron's bankruptcy in 2001 and the much broader liquidity crisis of September 2008 that led to the bankruptcy filing of Lehman Brothers and emergency Federal Reserve Bank loans to American International Group[1] and to the creation of the U.S. Emergency Economic Stabilization fund."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
Quote from Thunderdog:
Really? Then, rather than nixing it when they came into power, why did the Republicans let it compound to the nth degree? Rather than steer it down its originally intended path, why did they allow it to become a monster under their watch? And speaking of which, what about "The Commodity Modernization Act of 2000," created by Republicans?
"The act has been cited as a public-policy decision significantly contributing to Enron's bankruptcy in 2001 and the much broader liquidity crisis of September 2008 that led to the bankruptcy filing of Lehman Brothers and emergency Federal Reserve Bank loans to American International Group[1] and to the creation of the U.S. Emergency Economic Stabilization fund."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
I don't know for sure... but the "Commodity Act" is a different issue. I believe the Republicans attempted to reign-in the Affirmative Action Lending, but didn't get anywhere with their opposition. So, I suspect, they decided, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"....
The Affirmative Action Lending in 1999 was initiated by the DemoCraps, any efforts to reign-in its magnitude or regulate execution was VEHEMENTLY opposed AS RACIST-MOTIVATED...
Regardless of "how it played out since".. it was the DEMOCRAPS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BEGINNING OF FORCING BANKS TO LEND TO NON-QUALIFIED BORROWERS...
Lots of wrong-doing and evil followed by others... but we have to imagine that NONE of this might have ever happened had not the GREEDY, SELF-SERVING, RACIST DEMOCRAPS not started all of this.
The argument about Democrat versus Republican is semantical.
Both answer to the same people, as all of politics is merely a theater, and those in control will control the theater and ensure that they own both.
Both support the notion of a central bank, large debts (Reagan economists went so far as to declare that 'the national debt doesn't matter'), and slave labor via the integration of a global economy (Clinton oversaw the passage of both NAFTA and Most Favored Nation Trade Status being bestowed upon China).
There is no difference. Really. The sooner we can all agree that interjecting the idea that there is a difference, the better, as it's just a distraction.
I am not a conspiracist. I am a realist. Who really calls the shots? Those that control the money and/or the military.
This is true in any nation throughout history.
In modern times, there has been a closer and deeper nexus between commerce and military, but the nexus has always existed.
Despots, Dictators, Czars, Kings and freely elected leaders all realize that controlling military power and the means of commerce (money supply, means of production, essential goods and services) are the most powerful levers available to men. You can enslave entire populations by exercising a firm grip over these things.
So, who really does control these things in modern day America?
Both answer to the same people, as all of politics is merely a theater, and those in control will control the theater and ensure that they own both.
Both support the notion of a central bank, large debts (Reagan economists went so far as to declare that 'the national debt doesn't matter'), and slave labor via the integration of a global economy (Clinton oversaw the passage of both NAFTA and Most Favored Nation Trade Status being bestowed upon China).
There is no difference. Really. The sooner we can all agree that interjecting the idea that there is a difference, the better, as it's just a distraction.
I am not a conspiracist. I am a realist. Who really calls the shots? Those that control the money and/or the military.
This is true in any nation throughout history.
In modern times, there has been a closer and deeper nexus between commerce and military, but the nexus has always existed.
Despots, Dictators, Czars, Kings and freely elected leaders all realize that controlling military power and the means of commerce (money supply, means of production, essential goods and services) are the most powerful levers available to men. You can enslave entire populations by exercising a firm grip over these things.
So, who really does control these things in modern day America?
Sorry, gnome, but you're being disingenuous. The Republicans didn't have to inject the program with steroids. I would think that The Commodity Modernization Act of 2000 is not a "different issue." It played an integral role in the current financial crisis. It's where the nth degree and the steroids come in. Unless I am mistaken, it is what escalated the securitization of mortgages which, together with the misguided confidence in newly deregulated credit default swaps, contributed to the complete suspension of lending standards as everyone played high-stakes hot potato. Courtesy of your friendly neighborhood Republicans. At least give credit where credit is due.Quote from gnome:
...Regardless of "how it played out since".. it was the DEMOCRAPS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FORCING BANKS TO LEND TO NON-QUALIFIED BORROWERS...
Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is not my area of expertise.