I do agree with you about financial irresponsibility
Posted By: definitely on 2008-09-30
In Reply to: To those who are in foreclosure.... - weekendwarrior
they need to find some sort of middle ground ......
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I agree. I am helping the victims with all the financial support I can spare BUT
if we don't ask the question what happened to the levees, what can we do to make sure this doesn't happen again, where did the funding go? then we will find ourselves in the same position again. We can not afford to be policing other countries when the funding is bankrupt for our own needs. That's just the truth.
I know everyone's focus is on the financial...sm
news of the last several days just heard about a special on CNN tomorrow night and Sunday where Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker and Warren Christopher engage in a forum and talk about foreign policy. I heard a few sound bites and it sounds very interesting. I am glad to see a forum where respected people from both parties with experience get together and express their views, agree or disagree respectfully. I will definitely be watching.
A financial attack?
Tell that to the thousands who lost their lives or their loved ones that day. Wow, how cold can you be?
Financial bonuses
Two days ago on C-Span they seemed to congratulate the bigwigs of the financial companies who got BILLIONS in BONUSES. They ran down the list of those that were being questioned and how much they received. It's absolutely sickening. I had to turn it off.
I think most know that Air America has had financial woes.
Once it was learned that they had misappropriated monies which were supposed to have been used for charity, they lost some good backers. I would think it most probably is financial. There is not a plot behind every business dealing.
mcCain blames financial
crisis on Obama. Get that man a posey and some Aricept.
We have had our financial plan in order
for quite some time for just such a thing. We haven't spent foolishly or lived above our means. New toys and technology don't impress us much. We have been fortunate and blessed.
Well....buck up little soldier. I think the financial...
well being of the country trumps your party. Oh wait...what am I thinking.
looked at her financial records lately?
she is definitely not a poor girl in my opinion. I think she could afford to buy her own clothes...
Financial crisis meeting;
November 14, 2008
World leaders dine in style as they discuss financial crisis
(CNN) – The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.
After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.
According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as "Fruitwood-smoked Quail," "Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb," and "Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus."
To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com.
The exceedingly pricey wine may seem a bit peculiar given leaders are in Washington to discuss a possible world financial meltdown, but Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for Laura Bush, said it "was the most appropriate wine that we had in the White House wine cellar for such a gathering.
McDonough also said the White House purchased the wine at a "significantly lower price" than what it is listed at.
"Of course the White House gets its wine at wholesale prices," she said. "Given the intimate size of the group, it was an appropriate time for The White House to use this stock."
The leaders of the U.K., France, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and 11 developing economies have all come to Washington at the behest of President Bush in an effort to express confidence in the fundamental underpinnings of the world's economy.
– CNN's Becky Brittain contributed to this report
With the looming financial situation...... sm
I don't think Obama's current "plan" will hold much water. A plan is just that....a plan, and we know what John Steinbeck had to say about that. Even if he could tax the upper crust enough to cover the financial crisis, his redistribution of wealth would be moot point because there would likely be nothing left to distribute.
Whether Obama or McCain were elected would make no appreciabe difference in our tax situation because this huge bailout has to be recouped in some fashion and it will be off the backs of ALL Americans.....at least the ones who pay taxes.
No, unions DO put them in a financial hole.
nm
Right back at ya...with the addition of financial ruin...
if Obama and Biden are "hired."
Financial crisis a democratic scandal....sm
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/financial-crisis-a-democrat-scandal/
Read all the comments underneath this, if you have time.
financial disaster, war, health care
You decide what is most important to think about.
How The Democrats Created The Financial Crisis....sm
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Actually, McCain was in financial meetings all morning....sm
and what I read on CNN is that McCain wasn't told of the content of Obama's first call. I can't find the link to it now, because their news keeps changing.
I believe McCain decided this on his own, without any input from Obama, or even knowing about the call.
I'm willing to bet that he won't give a darn if he loses the debate if he doesn't show up, as it sounds as if Obama refuses to cancel the debate to another time.
Just proves to me that McCain does, indeed, put the country first. He's acting like a true leader.
Okay....let's see...McCain picked the financial meltdown...
as the #1 issue. OBama picked his run for the Presidency. Meaning he is always going to put Barack first. McCain put his country first. End of story.
I am not in favor of the financial institution bailout either..... sm
I think it was just the first in a long line of folks parading to the White House with their hands out. I think we have opened a huge can of worms by bailing them out and there does not seem to be an end in sight.
I'd sure like to know when MTs are going to get their bailout! I'd probably get in line for that one! LOL
25 people to blame for the financial crisis
You can vote on each of these.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/
I'm sorry, you are aware of what caused the financial crisis aren't you?
or you will just blame BUSH BUSH BUSH/CHENEY.
Please, do some research.
If my memory serves me, it started going downhill when a democratic congress took over.
Not only that, this MORTGAGE crisis was set into effect by the CLINTON administration and helped by a DEMOCRATIC congress.
Now let me be clear, I do not think Bush was a great president and he made mistakes, but DO NOT tell me that this financial crisis was his doing. I know you are going to flame me, but don't ignore the facts! Actually, that's what liberals do so nevermind, go ahead anyway.
Best friend to Hillary, a democratic supporter and financial contributer,
a member of the DNC's (Democrat) platform committee has decided to endorse John McCain. Lynn DE Rothchild is best friends of Hillary and gave her 100,000 for Hillary compaign. She had not even spoke to Hillary yet about her news, but Lynn announced on CNN today that she was resigning the DNC and voting for McCain. Lynn stated that our country is divided due to the Democrats and Congress. She also stated that we need to vote only for the president who will get us through what is going on with our country (which is a lot of things currently) and she stated the only one would be McCain and Palin. She stated, "I care more about my country right now than I do my democratic party." Wolf Blitzer stated to Lynn "You know you are are going to get a lot of flack from this?" Lynn stated that she knew this and just cares more about our country. Even Joe Lieberman endorses McCain who used to be AL Gore's running mate. I am sorry, but I agree that our country is divided.
war, depression, recession, collapse of financial system, people losing
homes, natural disasters unattended to, collapsing bridges, earmark bridges. Address those first, save flag for later.
who could possibly care? War, financial ruin, health care needs.
nm
I agree, that goes for both sides. I don't agree with those starting trouble over...sm
on your board either, but then some of you come and take it out on the people who only post here and we have nothing to do with the fights over there.
I enjoy communicating with liberals and occasionally do learn something from conservative posters, so I refuse to let the driveby, no moniker, one-sided finger pointers, self-indulging posters drive me off.
Rush is right. I agree. Somebody's gotta agree.
....in many of his policies in his attempt to completely socialize America.
I hope he fails.
I hope he succeeds, however, in the office of president, and doing the right thing, and moves to the center.
However, it's not looking good. He's left of left so far, isn't he. Showing who he truly is, in his first acts as president.
I sure don't agree with
the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel. I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts. (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC. I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)
And I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.
I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor. (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)
But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder. And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)
I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion. One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.
But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member? That sick stuff DOES happen in this country. What if she knows she wants an abortion? Should she be forced to have the baby? I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know. I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion. That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.
As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it. I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they? I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country. As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay. (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray. )
With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker." That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.
I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."
NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.
Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.
We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.
First, it's freedom of speech. Next, it will be freedom of religion. What about freedom of "thought."
I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them. 
I AGREE
I agree with a few of your points..maybe this govt will push us liberals and conservatives together..how great that would be. I agree with eminent domain, I dont know about the abortion issue for a young person, however, I feel empathy for them. Regarding gay marriage. I feel there is not enough love in this word and if two people find love and want to be married, let them. I personally do not believe in marriage..dont want the govt or anyone else keeping tabs on my personal life. I have lived with my male friend for 11 years and dont want anyone telling me what choices to make in my adult life.
agree
I agree with you..why, a lot of my friends are conservative (smile), they really are. We agree on a lot and disagree on a bit but do it in a friendly manner. My dream..that both ideologies can live together peacefully..
I agree!!!
These people on here are pretty nasty to conservatives. They are definitely not living up to their standards of tolerance and peace. They seem very angry even enraged. I don't think we should rip each other apart. It serves not useful purpose whatsoever.
I agree with most of what you said.
However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it. And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.
Agree with everything you said
I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.
I so agree with you. Even one is way too
many.
I agree. I think they're ill.
It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.
I almost feel for some of these people. A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor. Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7. I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them. All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.
Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries. They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods. About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.
I agree.
The only way to do it is to DO IT, increase our troops, speed up training their troops, and GET OUT. We've created such an unnecessary mess over there, I think it would be very immoral to just invade, turn their country upside and leave without fixing what we broke.
I agree with you
I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.
Let's hope he really is a "good guy" with a heart and a brain.
I agree.
With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope. I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.
I agree with you.
And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today. The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."
I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made. But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy. Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.
I agree
Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned. I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT. If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters. Am I painting that picture correctly GT?
I agree with you.
What you said is so profoundly true and so profoundly sad. I think over time Bush will be viewed as a pawn or a stooge. Who or what do you think may be the controlling force behind Bush? I have read articles on the "Vulcans" but have read little about this recently.
I agree.
It keeps promising to leave (yet another lie). Maybe if we ignore it, it will go away.
I agree.....
I am a moderate conservative, and a Republican, although I'd consider a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman or somebody reasonable, however, the Democrats won't nomiate anybody like that, so my vote stays Republican.
As for hand outs and hand ups... There's a big difference between somebody who is unable to work and somebody who is unwilling to work. The individual who is physically or mentally unable to work, or the hard working family who falls on hard times for whatever reason that is out of their control, those people deserve some help. Hands outs/hands up, whatever you want to call it should be viewed as a stepping stone to self sufficiency.
I feel for the innocent victims (children) of those who embrace a lifestyle of just taking free money from those of us in society who work hard, but I havn't much compassion for able bodied young people who refuse to work. If an uneducated person is working hard but not making enough to sustain themselves they can avail themselves of food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and I don't a problem with that. But, drive through a poor neighborhood and watch the young healthy people sitting on stoops and standing on corners doing nothing all day instead of working. Whether it be pursuing their GED, or taking vocational classes, they should be at least thinking of bettering themselves instead of just resigning to a life of free hand outs.
agree!
I hear ya and yes I agree we should stay away..There are a lof of other political boards through the net, where we can discourse/debate with conservatives over ideas and America without being attacked like mad dogs (I hate to use the analogy as mad dogs as my dogs are much kinder than the conservatives who post here..smile)..
I agree with you.
I think O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine and was about to lose it. I roared when Phil called him Billy, and Phil in no way denigrated Bill's nephew, but Phil had asked if any of O'Reilly's kids are serving in Iraq. O'Reilly tried to use his nephew's service to detract from the fact that NONE of his own children are there. I think that's what made O'Reilly the angriest: The fact that Phil zapped him on that point.
I agree with you both.
And now that Libby (yuck! I should change my moniker) and Rove are both implicated in the Plame scandal, it will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald's findings are, and they should be coming soon.
I also agree about Cheney. He's very scary. There is definitely a very shrewd, conniving network at work in this administration, and Bush simply isn't bright enough to do this on his own. And there are no standards of decency left on any level in this administration, which is incredible for the CONs, considering all they ever babble about is their superior *decency*. For example, they blatantly lie without blinking an eye, as do some of their more dedicated followers. If anyone dares to disagree with this president, the response it to DESTROY the opponent (not unlike what happens on these boards, only to a more dangerous degree, such as exposing Valerie Plame, for example). Nothing is out of bounds any more.
I'm eagerly awaiting the results of Fitzgerald's investigation. 
I agree with you as far as
the definition. But to read some posts on these boards, you'd think it WAS communism. It's a part of their mantra that you're worse than a traitor if you have anything GOOD to say about it, so it looks like McCarthyism is still alive in well in today's CONservative party!
I agree
I agree with you..I have always believed there was a **supreme being** who was creating evolution.
Agree 100%
with your post Freethinker..its a scary world out there, like the Twilight Zone or something.
I agree with that, too.
Schools are for teaching science, and churches are for teaching religion, except in the cases where there are private religious schools, which are certainly there for the purpose to teach both, which is great!
I have to agree. nm
x
Actually I agree with you.
|
