You mean 16 years - Both Bush AND Clinton

• Greed may have disasterous results....sm - m
  • Woodstock 2008...LOL (sm) - Just the big bad
    • I guess Obama supporters......... sm - m
      • What a bunch of prudes. - Secuirty will be tighter than a drum, and....sm
        • You mean 16 years - Both Bush AND Clinton - ME
          • No, that's not what I mean. My most productive years - were under the Clintons. nm
        • Great, go party while it lasts. It wont last long. - REALITY of O will eventually hit people.nm
          • O rocks. When THATreality sinks in, what WILL - the gloom and doom gang do with themselves? nm
          • Reality of O? (sm) - Just the big bad
            • It is hard to believe that so many people - believe there is no god
              • And there is still no explanation..(sm) - Just the big bad
                • Not the OP who posted........sm - m
                  • No, the biggest charlatan has been the outgoing President and his administration.. - woofer
              • This was not a religious post, but..(sm) - Just the big bad
      • I don't think bar hours ...(sm) - Just the big bad
        • I agree..... - Chele
        • I agree.... Foolish people act foolish.........sm - m
          • I think that a presidential inauguration should be serious... - Kendra
            • Respect...........sm - m
              • The days of (sm) - Zville MT

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

As much as you want to blame Bill Clinton......don't forget who held the reins for the last 8 years......who let them run amuck? Why was nothing done?

Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.

Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.

We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)

All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.

Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.

THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
 

Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.

It's not just California -- it was bad everywhere during the Clinton years.  This country was living with a false economy.  Dumb Bill signed NAFTA so all of our manufacturing jobs, etc. could go overseas (free trade, they call it) -- free to everyone except U.S. citizens. 

Insofar as the terrorists, they may have started during the first George Bush's terms, but Clinton did nothing to stop them.  And after the towers, what were we suppose to do -- wait for the terrorists to come over here so we could fight on our ground?  I still think there were WMD --- they just removed them.  After all, everything is advertised on TV before we do it.  Do you not think the Iraqs knew in advance we were going to check for WMD -- and do you not think they had an ally somewhere that would help them remove them?  Wake up!  NAFTA has probably been our biggest downfall economically.

Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity.  I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected.  Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie.  Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.

Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity.  I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected.  Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie.  Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.

Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity DESPITE the opposition of the neocons throughout his administration.  Bush failed over and over again DESPITE having party control of both houses.  The leadership ability simply speaks for itself.  Looking forward to Hill and Bill in charge again. The neocon fanatics have destroyed themselves by their own hand. So be it.

Bill Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating.  George W. Bush has an approval rating of 28% and still falling.

Period! 

Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts, Clinton added. We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.

Clinton also discussed bringing world leaders together to combat the world's chronic problems — including extreme poverty, global warming and religious conflicts — as well as the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort and Hillary Clinton's political future.

The interview follows:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, good to see you again.

FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We're here on your initiative, and I want to talk about that, but let's begin with Katrina. President Bush has brought you into the recovery effort, but he's not taking all of your advice. You say roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. He says no tax increase of any kind. We're spending $5 billion a month in Iraq, probably $200 billion on Katrina. Something's got to give.

CLINTON: Well, that's what I think. I think this idea — I think it's very important that Americans understand, you know, tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts.

They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't. Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The president is not going to move. What do Democrats do?

CLINTON: They should continue to oppose it, and they should make it an issue in the 2006 election, and they should make it an issue in the 2008 election. And they should hope, to goodness, for the sake of our country, that the cows don't come home before we have time to rectify it.

I mean, sooner or later, just think what would happen if the Chinese — We're pressing the Chinese now, a country not nearly rich as America per capita, to keep loaning us money with low interest to cover my tax cut, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina and at the same time to raise the value of their currency so their imports into our country will become more expensive, and our exports to them will become less expensive. And by the way, we don't want to let them buy any oil companies or anything like that.

So what if they just got tired of buying our debt? What if the Japanese got tired of doing it? Japan's economy is beginning to grow again. Suppose they decided they wanted to keep some of their money at home and invest it in Japan, because they're starting to grow?

We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is there anything coming out of this initiative here that you can apply directly to Katrina and the poverty we saw revealed there?

CLINTON: Oh, yes, we have raised quite a bit of money for Katrina here. And former President Bush and I, you know, we were asked to raise money. We already have $90 million to $100 million. And what we're trying to do is make sure that our money goes directly to the poorest people who have been dislodged by working with church groups and others. We're working on some mechanisms now to do that, and we'll have some announcements in the next week or so.

But I think there will be a lot of money coming forward from the federal government. A lot of it will be necessary, you know, to build the infrastructure, rebuild the fabric of life and not simply in New Orleans but along the Gulf Coast.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The Gulf Coast.

CLINTON: Yes; you know, keep in mind, Mississippi was devastated. Everything from a mile in Mississippi was blown down, and Alabama, but we've got to do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me; the problems of race that were tied to poverty here, and I know you don't think there's any conscious racism at play in the response, but we saw one more time blacks and whites looked at this event through very different eyes. What can President Bush do about that, and looking back, do you think there was anything more you could have done as president?

CLINTON: Well, I think we did a good job of disaster management.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the racial divide.

CLINTON: Well, I think we did a good job of that. For example, we had the lowest African-American unemployment, the lowest African-American poverty rate ever recorded. We had the highest homeownership, highest business ownership, and we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty in eight years as had been moved out in the previous 12 years.

This is a matter of public policy, and whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the '80s; that's what they've done in this decade.

I watch Olbermann.  Sometimes I agree with him.  Sometimes I don't.

However, last night he hit it into the park with his attempt to review what Bush did in the last eight years into eight minutes; he ran over time a little bit because there was so much to say.

I would strongly urge anyone who is not too busy whining, moaning, groaning, hating and raging about Obama -- anyone who is truly interested in the future of America -- to watch this, from beginning to end -- especially at the end (since this is done chronologically, not by matter of importance).

THESE are the reasons people voted for Obama.  THESE are the reasons that Obama supporters cannot understand why Bush worshippers still support him and reject the man who might undo the wreckage of Bush.

BUSH is the man who claimed to have a direct line to GOD.  Obama never claimed anything of the sort; if he had, I probably would not have voted for him for that very reason -- because it creeped me out so much when Bush did it.  So the assertion that Obama supporters are "worshippers" is ridiculous, when, in fact, it seems that those who still support Bush (the closest thing to the Anti-Christ that I'VE ever seen) are the ones who seem to think Bush is some sort of god.

Please watch every single SECOND of this video.  It will give you just a taste of the grueling task ahead of Obama in trying to correct all the damage that Bush has done.  We may, in fact, never know the full extent of the damage because Bush (as is mentioned in the video) has "exempted" himself from the Presidential Records Act.

THIS is why every truly honest, patriotic, honorable American who voted for Obama is so relieved he won.  Not so much "happy" -- but RELIEVED -- hoping (yes, HOPING) that our country may once again resemble the USA that once held respect throughout the world, the USA where hard work was once rewarded, the USA where families could afford to feed their children, and the USA where one's ability to obtain something as basic as healthcare wasn't only limited to the wealthy.  I'm not naive enough to believe this can all be fixed in four (or even eight) years, because Bush has been like a four-year-old sociopath that was armed with Daddy's credit card, an AXE and an arrogant giggle, each of which he used to its full capacity, and that's a LOT to clean up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28699663

How many more lies before everyone wakes up?

Editorial Toledo Blade:  Another lie on Iraq

WHEN President Bush declared last week that nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a large segment of the American public must have been very surprised.

They would be the die-hard supporters of the war in Iraq, the one-quarter to one-third of Americans who, according to opinion polls, believe to this day that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11.

No one likes to think that their President is lying, but for Mr. Bush to casually reverse five years of rhetoric is like Bill Clinton claiming I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

No, there is no DNA evidence that we know of to indict Mr. Bush for perjury. But the public record includes repeated statements by the President, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials that linked responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, both directly and indirectly.

The alleged connection was the administration's strongest selling point for the war, slaking the American people's thirst for revenge for the 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.

As Mr. Bush put it on Oct. 7, 2002, We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. … We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

Here he is again, in his 2003 State of the Union address: And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.

And in his Mission Accomplished photo op, May 1, 2003: In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front.

Mr. Cheney was even more specific: In 2003, the vice president claimed that the government was learning more and more about links, before 9/11, between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This came even after the CIA had debunked any such claims. In 2004, the veep said flatly that Saddam had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.

Now, you can argue all day about whether faulty U.S. intelligence misled Mr. Bush, or about what the meaning of suggested is, but this much is clear: The administration relentlessly blurred what was a clear distinction between the militantly secular regime of Saddam and Islamic extremists like the 9/11 hijackers so as to create a laser-beam connection in the public mind that they were one and the same.

So for Mr. Bush to now claim that nobody has ever suggested that the Sept. 11 attacks were ordered by Iraq, as he did last week, is yet another lie in the chain of mendacity that shackles the Bush presidency.