Obama is lying again!

[BeAChooser]

Care to cite the day that there was a cloture vote? In order to filibuster something, it has to be introduced onto the floor for debate. Care to cite when that happened?

As you well know, politicos in Congress often don't force votes they know they will lose. You lose political capital when you do that. Just look at all the shenanigans with respect to the current stimulus bill. Democrats didn't submit the bill for a vote until they knew they could beat a threatened filibuster. Well republicans knew back then they lacked the votes to beat a filibuster on S.190 and S.1100. So it wasn't brought to the floor. But sure as the sun rises in the east, the reason is that democrats threatened to filibuster it. A filibuster that republicans back then had no way of breaking.

The actual legislative history of S.190 is slightly more complicated than BAC believes. If you're interested, I can provide more info.

By all means, let's see what you present as the history. You certainly had opportunity to do that in the past when this issue has been discussed but didn't.

if they had wanted it, they could have gotten it, although they may have had to compromise and accept a Democratic version of the same bill, that provided the same restraints on Fannie and Freddie.

You claim that. Prove it.

And indicate what was in the bill that republicans didn't like. That might be informative.

 

[BeAChooser]

Perhaps we should start a new thread: "Why is BAC lying about the severity of the worldwide recession?"

Of course, I never said we didn't have a serious problem IN JANUARY. Only that the recession was no worse than the 1981-1982 one back when everyone first began whining that we needed a massive government takeover of everything under the sun.

And a better question than asking how we were going to recapitalize the banks under my assertion, is where the $20 TRILLION dollars that Obama is now going to steal from taxpayers over the next 10 years is going to come from ... without utterly crippling the economy. Oh that's right. The government can make money. It certainly doesn't produce much else. Not like a free market.

 

[gdnp]

Of course, I never said we didn't have a serious problem IN JANUARY. Only that the recession was no worse than the 1981-1982 one back when everyone first began whining that we needed a massive government takeover of everything under the sun.

Yes, it was worse, as evidenced by the continued deterioration despite government intervention worldwide to prevent complete collapse. Did you miss the parts about "worst ever" and "worst in 50 years?" did you miss that the 6.2% fall in GDP was not January, but the 4th quarter of 2008? That is October, November, and December that the US economy contracted at at 6.2% rate.

And a better question than asking how we were going to recapitalize the banks under my assertion, is where the $20 TRILLION dollars that Obama is now going to steal from taxpayers over the next 10 years is going to come from ... without utterly crippling the economy. Oh that's right. The government can make money. It certainly doesn't produce much else. Not like a free market.

No, I like my question better. How are you going to recapitalize the banks without government intervention, BAC? Request #7.

 

[Hindmost]

Care to cite the day that there was a cloture vote? In order to filibuster something, it has to be introduced onto the floor for debate. Care to cite when that happened?

Hindmost,

The actual legislative history of S.190 is slightly more complicated than BAC believes. If you're interested, I can provide more info. Bottom line: if they had wanted it, they could have gotten it, although they may have had to compromise and accept a Democratic version of the same bill, that provided the same restraints on Fannie and Freddie. That bill made it out of the House committee, and it failed 9-11 (Democrats for, Republicans against) in the Senate committee. I have read reports that the Secretary of the Treasury urged Bush to get behind the Democratic bill, but Bush refused. I don't know how credible those reports are.

Thanks...I did check the congressional record on s.190 and did not see and filibuster...just a presentation on the floor. I found a bunch of conflicting info on numerous websites.

I do think pointing to one particular bill or one particular person is silly in this whole mess. It was a confluence of events and poor oversite...overall, I believe it was the free market that created this nightmare.

What was the democratic bill number? Now I have to get the energy to respond to BAC

glenn

 

[Meadmaker]

As you well know, politicos in Congress often don't force votes they know they will lose.

They also prevent votes that they know they will win.


It's odd. Never in my adult life has there been a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and yet, bills get passed. Bills get passed on party line votes. Bills get passed when 50 Senators are against them, with the Vice President casting the winning vote. Meanwhile, other bills get defeated. Why do their sponsors bother? Not only do they get filibustered, sometimes they come up for votes even though they don't have enough votes to pass. What's up with that?

 

[Meadmaker]

What was the democratic bill number? Now I have to get the energy to respond to BAC

As I recall, it didn't have a bill number in the Senate. S. 190 was introduced in committee, and the Democrats offered an "ammendment in the form of a substitute" if I recall the proper phrasing. The Democrats all voted for the substitute ammendment. The Republicans all opposed it.

Meanwhile, over in the House, a bill very similar to the Democratic alternative passed out of committee on a near unanimous vote. Maybe even unanimous. I don't remember.

Here's what it looked like to me. (This isn't based on thorough research. It could all be wrong. The above sections are correct, but this is speculative.) Fannie and Freddie were buying up mortgages that were risky. This caused a lot of people to get nervous, because they saw the danger to the system this practice was causing. Unfortunately, there were lots of people making a whole bunch of money on the practice. This included the mortgage industry, generally Republican supporters, selling these loans, and generally Democratic supporters who were getting loans they might not otherwise be able to get. Someone initiated legislation to put a stop to the bad practices. The Democrats said ok, but if you want to do that, we want a new program that will help our constituents get the loans without causing the systemic risk.

The House Republicans, House Democrats, and Senate Democrats all backed the alternative plan. The Senate Republicans didn't. They voted on the bill BAC is talking about, but never brought it to the floor. Had they brought it to the floor, it likely would have passed, which would have resulted in a conference committee, which likely would have voted out something similar to the Democratic alternative.

 

[Hindmost]

Yes. I have complained (on this forum) about many of Bush's spending programs. I am consistent in supporting the view that government does not provide the answer when it comes to economics and prosperity. That lies in the free market and EMPOWERING people to create wealth ... rather than stealing it from those who do and giving it to those who don't.



Oh please. You name one example of a conservative controlling a news outlet (of course there are examples) and think that negates all the other evidence suggesting liberals/democrats control the bulk of what the vast majority of people read, see, hear and think?

Just look at what source after source concludes:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc



http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx




http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-n...ubt-about-it-all-fox-news-tipping-obama-s-way



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...a/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news



http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569



Or go back to earlier elections. (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/4/1/6/1/p41615_index.html ) and http://www.springerlink.com/content/w1325254419467q3/ describe studies showing a bias for Al Gore. Here's even the top editor of Newsweek showing that bias: http://newsbusters.org/node/7884 Here are other examples noting a clear bias toward Gore in the mainstream media: http://www.caglepost.com/column/Linda+Chavez/3028/Media+Bias+Cuts+Gore+a+lot+of+Slack.html and http://www.suite101.com/external_li...m/news/col/horo/2000/09/18/miracle/index.html

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp



http://web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/Critical Review offprint.pdf



http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY4YWMxYjVmYzNhMjdjYmJjMWQ3NGIwN2ZhMWFiOGI=



The bottom line is that you'd have to have been living in a cave to still think the media isn't biased to the left ... or perhaps you've just been listening to the mainstream media deny it so much you believe them. But all I need to show that bias is to list one news item after another that the majority of the mainstream outlets either ignored completely or distorted.

I tell you what. Let's take turns naming newsworthy stories that the bulk of the media ignored, distorted or minimized. I bet they will invariably be stories on something that would have shed a bad light on liberals or their agenda. Especially where social issues are concerned.

I tell you what. Let's take turns naming mainstream news sources that are biased. You name the ones you think are conservative and I'll name ones that are liberally dominated. And we'll go back and forth. You will run out of names long before I do.



Banks were not threatened? Forty banks collapsed in just one year during that recession. Hundreds and hundreds of banks failed during the 1980s and we didn't panic. We let the market and bankruptcy courts, for the most part, handle the problem.



Well they sure are spending a hell of a lot of someone else's money on something they don't know will work. Aren't they? Sometimes in situations like that, the best thing to do is nothing. It's like going to your doctor. If your doctor doesn't know what he's doing, you're better off if you keep the doctor from digging around your insides. Often that only leads to more problems.



But you are putting "stock" in it ... or at least money you could have invested in stock. They are spending a lot of money on it, money they are taking or going to take from you.



You have if you put your faith in government control.



They tried. S.190 would have substantially increased oversight of and changes in Fannie and Freddie. It made it out of committee on a straight party line vote (11-9) with all the democrats voting against it and all the republicans voting for it. Democrats killed it in the senate using the filibuster. It was never allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote because Schumer, Dodd and other democrats were on the record saying Fannie and Freddie are just fine. Republicans reintroduced it the next year as S.1100 where it remained stalled again, despite appeals by McCain to force a floor vote. Democrats were then in control of both Houses.



True, but those types of loans were never prevalent until ACORN and democrats forced banks and financial institutions to make them available to large numbers of low income people first. Once that happened then lots of others climbed on board.



I made it clear that I don't. For example, I fault Bush for not continuing to fight for reform of the mortgage industry but instead appeasing liberals by supporting later low income loan legislation (the "American Dream Downpayment Act").



Yes, both sides are at fault but make no mistake, the bulk of the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of democrats. To deny THAT is irrational. They were the ones who first forced banks and agencies like Fannie and Freddie to make available massive amounts of unsound loans (ones that would default if we hit a recession) to low income people. They were the ones who pushed through legislation (like CRA) that gave groups like ACORN the means to apply that pressure on banks and those financial agencies. They were ones who ran Fannie and Freddie throughout that period. Franklin Raines. Jim Johnson. Jamie Gorelick. And democrats were the ones who fought attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie when there might still have been time to avoid a complete collapse.

Yes, Bush supported the "American Dream Downpayment Act" but it was small potatoes compared to the sort of programs instigated and defended by democrats for over a decade. The Act authorized up to $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 - 2007. Barely half a billion dollars over 4 years. Meanwhile, corrupt democrats like Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick stole almost $100 million out of the system at Fannie Mae while cooking the books and selling hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages that would never have been sold had the democrats gone along with the various bills that republicans submitted calling for increased oversight and regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Furthermore, this Act didn't authorize the giveaway of houses to poor and minorities with zero down payment, which is essentially what the democrats were routinely doing to buy votes. Nor was it intended to help greedy people who were buying multiple homes or flipping houses in risky get-rich quick schemes. It was designed to help first-time homebuyers with amounts not to exceed $10,000 or six percent of the purchase price of the home. The Act actually sounds like admirable legislation ... not a *gotcha* (which is why it passed unanimously in both houses). But I still fault Bush for spending time on it when Fannie, Freddie and the democrats were leading us towards a clear and present disaster.

I don't have the energy to respond point by point...I have wine to drink...

First, studies related to media bias are inherently flawed as it is a subjective issue. I believe we can guarantee that Murdoch's empire is conservative bias and Turner's is more liberal. Also, linking to the National Review which is just reactionary biased.

On s.190, the congresssional record does not reflect what you posted.

ACORN had been around a long time without issue until rampant abuse of mortgages by wallstreet and the associated derivatives. Coupled with the Commodity Futures Modernization act, the stage was set for abuse. If you watch CNBC and david faber's report on this problem, you might find it interesting.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28892719?__source=vty|houseofcards|&par=vty

I remember the bank failures in the 80s...here is a good summary

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/history/3_85.pdf

The government had to back all the deposits of federally insured banks...similar to what is happening now. However, the largest banks and brokers were in bad shape, but not insolvent. If you read the link I provided from a previous post, you could see the cost of the issue.

You keep saying the free market will solve everything...please provide and example...and not Reagan's world in the early 80s...where it has worked to benefit everyone. His policy was corporate stimulus through defense spending.

glenn

 

[Hindmost]

As I recall, it didn't have a bill number in the Senate. S. 190 was introduced in committee, and the Democrats offered an "ammendment in the form of a substitute" if I recall the proper phrasing. The Democrats all voted for the substitute ammendment. The Republicans all opposed it.

Meanwhile, over in the House, a bill very similar to the Democratic alternative passed out of committee on a near unanimous vote. Maybe even unanimous. I don't remember.

Here's what it looked like to me. (This isn't based on thorough research. It could all be wrong. The above sections are correct, but this is speculative.) Fannie and Freddie were buying up mortgages that were risky. This caused a lot of people to get nervous, because they saw the danger to the system this practice was causing. Unfortunately, there were lots of people making a whole bunch of money on the practice. This included the mortgage industry, generally Republican supporters, selling these loans, and generally Democratic supporters who were getting loans they might not otherwise be able to get. Someone initiated legislation to put a stop to the bad practices. The Democrats said ok, but if you want to do that, we want a new program that will help our constituents get the loans without causing the systemic risk.

The House Republicans, House Democrats, and Senate Democrats all backed the alternative plan. The Senate Republicans didn't. They voted on the bill BAC is talking about, but never brought it to the floor. Had they brought it to the floor, it likely would have passed, which would have resulted in a conference committee, which likely would have voted out something similar to the Democratic alternative.

This is what I mean about a confluence of events..this issue, the commodities futures regulation change...derivatives..hedge funds etc....if you get CNBC, take a look at Faber's report on this...it seems to be a good synopsis of the mortgage/derivative issue and the real problem with very lax regulation of lending. Lax lending has a history of causing problems.

thanks,

glenn

 

[Meadmaker]

This is what I mean about a confluence of events..this issue, the commodities futures regulation change...derivatives..hedge funds etc

thanks,

glenn

My pleasure, and you are exactly right. It's not like one vote on one committee defined the whole decade's regulatory policies