Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Obama positives; for the anti-Obama crowd | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 7 2008, 03:40 PM (765 Views) | |
| yawnzzz | Nov 10 2008, 06:05 PM Post #61 |
|
Coach
|
I'd love to see it considering the Committee had a majority of Republicans (I believe 2 more to be precise) and you only need a majority to get out of committee.... |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Nov 10 2008, 06:52 PM Post #62 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-G-fDVnv0WN1pXdMWjXX43CjyeAD93TN70O0 Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it. In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress. The political backdrop to the debate "was like bizarre-o-world," said the second of three people familiar with the program. "The Republicans were pro-regulation and the Democrats were against it; it was upside down." |
| |
![]() |
|
| yawnzzz | Nov 10 2008, 06:59 PM Post #63 |
|
Coach
|
:rofl: Did you even read that article?
So it did get voted out of committee, but REPUBLICAN Bill Frist wouldn't allow a vote. That's just great. That whole article was about this:
Pretty funny that you use an article referencing Republicans being paid to kill the bill in your argument that Democrats kill it. Thanks for finding that for me. Both parties dropped the ball pretty equally, except for a few like I said. |
![]() |
|
| boilergrad01 | Nov 10 2008, 07:01 PM Post #64 |
|
Working on the last 5
|
The Repubs have not shown leadership for along time. |
| Nothing beats an Astronaut | |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Nov 10 2008, 07:33 PM Post #65 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Faithful, again you show your anti-conservative bias. I read the entire article, and included the center blurb that explains why Frist didn't bring it up for a vote. In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress. He didn't have the votes because he needed a few Dem votes, and didn't have them. Yes, there was an attempt to buy some Repub votes, but the Dems were ALREADY against the bill. So saying "Both parties dropped the ball pretty equally, except for a few like I said" is either ignorant, or intentionally misleading. Please reread the bolded sentence, and then try to make the case of equality here. |
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Nov 10 2008, 08:46 PM Post #66 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
I'm still confused. I thought you guys said this is because of the Clinton administration's changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. If that is the case, Bush could have changed it back when he became President. |
| |
![]() |
|
| boilergrad01 | Nov 10 2008, 08:56 PM Post #67 |
|
Working on the last 5
|
Dreach, Bush could have done alot of things. He didn't because he is not a leader. The state of the nation is due to lack of leadership by Leader Frist Speaker Hassert and pres Bush. The Republican party has paid for that lack of leadership in the last 2 elections. The Repubs must find some leadership in the next 24 months. The two party system is fucked up but when one party offers no leadership it really fucks the people |
| Nothing beats an Astronaut | |
![]() |
|
| yawnzzz | Nov 10 2008, 08:57 PM Post #68 |
|
Coach
|
This is your problem, you fail to realize that both sides are morons, so instead you blame it on my prejudice. The overwhelming majority vote with their party and likely don't even have a complete understanding of the bills they vote on. In this case, it was a Republican bill in a Republican majority. The only reason they needed Dems was because there was Republicans against it. If they got those Republicans to vote with them, the bill passes. Dems were going to vote with their party because that's what helps you get reelected. Most Republicans were going to vote with their party for the same reason. Those Republicans that got bought off were just as much to blame if not moreso to blame than the Dems. The Dems were just ignorantly voting with their party lines like the majority of politicians do. The Republicans that voted against it were doing so for their own financial benefit. I'll repeat again. Both sides are to blame. Republicans could've passed this bill without Dems if they didn't have corrupt members taking bribes, and Democrats are to blame because they voted with party lines just to oppose the Republican party even though the bill tended to be something that they all would've voted for if a Democrat proposed it. In my opinion, you're showing a lot more prejudice than myself. I'm not defending Dems as having nothing to do with this, yet you're saying Republicans that had members bought-off are off the hook because more voted for it then Dems when that's going to be the case on almost all bills that aren't cosponsored by both parties. Overall, you're just giving way too much credit to politicians by thinking that the majority of Republicans that voted for this bill weren't doing so just because it was a Republican bill. |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Nov 10 2008, 09:30 PM Post #69 |
![]()
Coach
|
Faithful, I have no idea why you consistently apologize for dems in this issue. Sure, there were Republicans who were asleep at the wheel, but the root of this problem has democrats all over it, and I'm sure you know that. Democrats had a goal of "100% home ownership" and have passed multiple platforms to attempt to achieve that goal, with no fear of repercussions. Who is at fault for the IU b-ball problems last year, Kelvin Sampson or the assistants that knew it was happening? |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| yawnzzz | Nov 10 2008, 09:58 PM Post #70 |
|
Coach
|
Well, you're now discussing two issues. The 100% home ownership I completely disagreed with, but it's not really here nor there on this issue. If the lenders treated these loans as high risk, then there would be no bailout and maybe a few lenders would've went under, which is what should've happened. The reason why you and Lars have trouble arguing with me is because you still view politics as Republicans and Democrats when both are essentially the same. This bill is a perfect example. If you didn't know who proposed this bill, you'd assume it was a Democrat. The principles definitely lean left with government regulation. The reason Democrats opposed it was because of the names attached to it followed by the letter R. The reason why Republicans supported it was because of that R. There's a ridiculous amount of sheep in Congress, which is what this bill shows. It's why I never support either party, and I think both are to blame. The 'Republicans' as a whole didn't see this coming. Hagel and his cosponsors did. Minus them, the rest of Congress is to blame. A better example would be whose at fault for letting Kelvin Sampson continue to coach. IU fans or Illinois fans? IU Fans supported Kelvin Sampson just because he was the IU coach. Illinois fans opposed Kelvin Sampson just because he was the IU coach. Some people knew that Sampson was cheating and spoke out against it. The IU fans still supported their coach because they're IU fans. It turns out Kelvin Sampson did cheat, so who deserves credit and who deserves blame? Do the IU fans deserve blame because they supported their school, and do the Illinois fans who opposed Kelvin Sampson just because he was their rival deserve credit? I don't think either does. The only people who deserve credit are the ones who spoke out. The rest just followed their own teams. |
![]() |
|
| Old_School | Nov 11 2008, 12:18 AM Post #71 |
|
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
|
Not just a mistake, but a failure of epic proportion. |
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
| |
![]() |
|
| Old_School | Nov 11 2008, 12:20 AM Post #72 |
|
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
|
Wilson's not in your top 3?! The Fed, the 16th and 17 Amendments, WWI, "making the world safe for democracy"........... |
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
| |
![]() |
|
| Old_School | Nov 11 2008, 12:38 AM Post #73 |
|
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
|
Dreach, Lincoln didn't give a shit about black people. The war wasn't about freeing slaves, it was about protectionist tariffs. You need to look no further than his own words on the issue.
Thomas DiLorenzo is one of the most outspoken critics of Lincoln, if you have some extra time check out what he has to say about him in this C-SPAN interview. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 |
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Nov 11 2008, 12:42 AM Post #74 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Every single Repub member of the committee voted for increasing the regulations for mortgages, and every single Dem voted against it. Allegedly some Repubs would have voted against it due to being bought, but that is pure conjecture. Maybe some of them were backed by developers, bankers, and Realtors who didn't want to risk damaging the home market. The fact of the matter is Repubs made a good effort to increase regulation, and the Dems obstructed that effort. I said the Repubs deserved about 20-30% of the blame, and would be interested in your take on the relative blame. Preferably something more intelligent than "I'm not defending Dems as having nothing to do with this." In an earlier thread, you said most people knew there was a problem, yet Dems voted against it, and accused the Repubs of being racist. (check out my signature videos) |
| |
![]() |
|
| troubleatiu | Nov 11 2008, 05:44 AM Post #75 |
![]()
Coach
|
"I'm still confused. I thought you guys said this is because of the Clinton administration's changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. If that is the case, Bush could have changed it back when he became President."-dreachon you're getting close. throw in glass-steagall being repealed in (99 i believe) and the seeds for this mess were sown. the repealing of glass-steagall led to the ability to run up the cds and derivative markets by betting on all the bad loans the community reinvestment act would ultimately make. bring the fed in with lower than needed interest rates and we get very close to ground zero of this problem. as you can see, everything was in place by late 2001. which, ironically, coincides with the housing bubble taking off. the current situation spans a decade and runs through 2 presidential administrations and both parties having control of congress. minus a few individuals, everybody in washington can share some blame. |
![]() "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger "What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler "Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:17 PM Jul 10
|













7:17 PM Jul 10