Originally Posted By dshyates Thanks for those links, Douglas. They are very interesting. Regardless of ones leanings, it is best to be well informed.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Many Republicans have been trying for years to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to prevent what ended up happening. >> So let me get this straight, they had a healthy Republican majority in Congress for nearly 10 years and a Republican President for 6 of those years. They wanted to do this so badly, but never passed a single piece of legislation to do what they wanted? Wow! That really is ineffective leadership. They can't even accomplish the things they want to do when they have a majority vote. Under what different circumstances would they have accomplished their goal of regulating Freddie and Fannie? They couldn't have had a better set up to do just about anything they wanted to do from 1994-2006. What was the problem with Republican leadership that it was so grossly ineffective?
Originally Posted By Mr X Amazing commentary, Sport Goofy. Douglas...reply? (I'm sure he'll try to blame it on those nefarious democrats....SOMEHOW)
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy It's also no secret that the "reforms" most Republicans sought with Fannie and Freddie were merely a play to move that mortgage business to the private sector. You see, after they learned how to package up mortgages into "investment vehicles" to sell on the open market, the corporate banks had to invent a million way to get access to the conventional mortgage business that was dominated by the GSEs. Of course, they didn't crack into the conventional mortgage business and ended up inventing all sorts of unconventional products that ultimately sunk the housing market and mortgage industry. What Congress needed to do was regulate the entire mortgage industry, not just the GSEs. The banking lobbyists weren't paying the Republican Congress for those sorts of reforms, though.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The banking lobbyists weren't paying the Republican Congress for those sorts of reforms, though.*** Douglas? Douglas? Oh, Douglas? Got a reply here? I think you have met your match, honestly. You might just have to write in to FOX news for rebuttal points before trying to engage Sport Goofy (you got burned by someone calling themselves "Sport Goofy"...that, in itself, is enough to turn in your lifetime membership card in abject shame lol).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Maybe you should try reading the articles I linked to, Mr X. The answers are there.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They couldn't have had a better set up to do just about anything they wanted to do from 1994-2006. What was the problem with Republican leadership that it was so grossly ineffective?<< Hey, now. It's those powerful liberals that somehow are able to thwart the GOP's ability to make real sweeping changes and do the fiscally prudent thing. It is a folk tale that the GOP is any more fiscally prudent than the Democrats are, though some people still cling to that notion. They had 6 years of unobstructed ability to do pretty much whatever they wanted, and they spent, spent, spent. Vote GOP if you like. But don't base it on being "fiscally responsible" because that has been proven to be a total joke.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They had 6 years of unobstructed ability to do pretty much whatever they wanted, and they spent, spent, spent.> That's just not true. They had a bare majority in the Senate in 2001, which then flipped to Democrat control. They've never had 60 votes in the Senate, so Democrats could filibuster anything they wanted to obstruct. Plus there is a wide spectrum of political views among Republicans, maybe even more so than Democrats. So there's often a minority of Republicans who don't agree with the majority. It's the same reason that the Democrat leadership have failed to advance much of their agenda in the last few years. A minority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats can get federal spending increased, even if both houses of Congress and the President is Republican. It's not like the Democrats were calling for less spending. I really don't understand the argument of saying we should elect more Democrats because the Republicans spent too much. The evidence is the Democrats will be worse, if they get more power.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No, that is not the evidence. The worst spending spree we've seen lately was when we had the all Republican period of 2000-2006. So it's not "evidence" that says Democrats will be worse, it's your ideology. As so often before, you confuse the two.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh What have the Democrats proposed to slow the growth of spending on entitlements? What was the position of the majority of them on the Farm Bill? How much have they slashed earmarks since they gain control of Congress? Please provide some evidence that Democrats will slow spending. At least the Republicans pay it lip service, and some actually vote that way. I don't see very many Democrats doing that. Instead of calling me an ideologue and confused, why don't you provide some evidence that Democrats would be better on spending?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Let's see, the last time we had a budget surplus . . . . Oh yeah, a Democrat was President. And it was a Deomcratic President and Congressional majority that passed the tax policy to make that surplus possible. Your memory that short?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And it was a Deomcratic President and Congressional majority that passed the tax policy to make that surplus possible.> It was a Republican Congressional majority that passed the spending cuts necessary to make that surplus possible. The Democrats' tax hikes just slowed the economic recovery begun under the first President Bush.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Are you talking about the same Republican majority that is costing us $250M a day in Iraq that we can't pay for? Or the Republican majority that passed a Medicare prescription drug benefit that ensures the bankruptcy of that entitlement program?
