XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

Bush caused the crash.

Bush caused nothing. The crash was alllll the Democrats' fault, starting when Clinton was in office.

Sub-prime mortgages?

Bahney Fwank's insistence minorities get loans whether they could afford to pay it back?

In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act

1999?

The Growth of Subprime Mortgages

In 1989, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) increased enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act.

1989?

Fraud And Predatory Lending?

The market crashed, partly, because Congress initially rejected the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, popularly known as the bank bailout bill.

BUT THE STRESSES THAT LED TO THE CRASH HAD BEEN BUILDING FOR A LONG TIME.

=====

But but but Bush?

NAME the policy OF Bush's, that caused the crash. Be exact. The ONLY
way you could MAYBE say Bush caused the crash, was saying "fuck this political correctness bullshit, and not being tough enough to stop what the race-baiters, like Obama and his ilk, were doing.


The Bush administration tried to stop what was going on, but you CONVENIENTLY deleted that part.

"A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to MISLEAD INVESTORS, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee- freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=QSccZEVFR_0C&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=% 22The+Bush+administration+today+recommended+the+most+significant+regulatory%22 &source=bl&ots=rqon710JNC&sig=ACfU3U3mLkOmbW1YEjZhOEUeUJWzD2cW- A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-mP6Ctc7pAhXOTd8KHbbTDsQQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=% 22The%20Bush%20administration%20today%20recommended%20the%20most%20significant% 20regulatory%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books/about/Masters_of_Audacity_and_Deceit.html? id=QSccZEVFR_0C

=====

Why Didn't Someone Try To Stop It?

Someone did:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." - The New York Times, September 11, 2003.

But someone intervened to stymie the Bush administration. Who? The
New York Times reports:

Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders
tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans
for lower-income families. . . . "These two entities - Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on
the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these
problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we
will see in terms of affordable housing."

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago."

"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
industry."

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee- freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

"McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"

"Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN
EVENTS learned."

************************************************

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was
when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

************************************************

Whose Fault was It?

By far the most dangerous myth is that deregulation is the root cause of
the problem.

The culprit was a system geared toward loaning money to people who were
not in a position to pay it back. Two policies underpinned that system:
easy money by the Federal Reserve and the government-induced lowering of standards for approving loan requests.

In a recent paper for the Independent Institute, University of Texas
professor Stan Liebowitz argues that "in an attempt to increase homeownership... virtually every branch of the government undertook an
attack on underwriting standards starting in the early 1990s... the
Clinton era."

Starting with the creation of the Federal Housing Administration in 1934
and all the way to the norms that made Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae acquire substantial loans given to people with weak credit.

Not surprisingly, once the Fed expanded credit, astronomical amounts of
capital poured into a housing market that people assumed was protected by
the government. What came next was a consequence of the original sin.

Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, H.U.D., Bahney Fwank, Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo.

Who is responsible for the crash?

Democrats' lobbyist-induced denial to regulate Housing, led to Wall Street collapse:

Barney Frank: I don't see anything in this report that raises safety
and soundness problems.

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee.

"The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there
is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."

************************************************

Democrat Bahney Fwank's $10 Trillion Dollar Crash

Fwank's Fingerprints Are All Over The Financial Fiasco

http://tinyurl.com/Fwanks-Prints-All-Over-Crash

************************************************

Key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act
of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory
body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie - a move that the
Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report.

************************************************

Barney Frank And Democrat Party Most Responsible For 2008 Economic
Collapse

It's beyond asinine that Democrats blame Bush for ruining the economy, and praise Clinton as having the mostest wonderfulest economy ever, when it
was a Clinton program that ruined the Bush economy. But that's the
mainstream media narrative for you.

************************************************

'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us
out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is
the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty
only of failing to rein the capitalists in.

The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by
people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits
today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows
best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems;
government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this
present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government
is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector's discipline can be -- they weren't the ones
who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points
notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to
junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised
loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say
they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that
they do so - or else.

*****

Anatomy of a bubble

Step 1. The intoxication: "My house is worth millions!" From 1995 -
2005, the number of sub-prime mortgages skyrocket. So did the house
prices.

Step 2. The hangover: "Oh my God, my house isn't selling. What went
wrong?"

WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE TRY TO STOP IT?

Someone did:

********* "The Bush administration today recommended the most
significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since
the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." - The New York Times,
September 11, 2003. ***************

But someone intervened to stymie the Bush administration. Who? The
New York Times reports:

Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders
tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans
for lower-income families. . . . "These two entities - Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on
the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these
problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we
will see in terms of affordable housing."

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago."

"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
industry."

http://tinyurl.com/6lp5qu

"McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"

"Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN
EVENTS learned."

===============================================================================

The Liberal Argument Outline

1. Use spun facts:

These can be found on Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, and many other liberal sources. What they do is take facts, polls or arguments and add a liberal spin in a weak attempt to make bad news for liberals look good. These are easily debunked and exposed as lies by going to the original source and posting the hard, cold facts with NO spin.

Note: At this point, you have won. It should never take more than one
post to win an argument with a liberal. It is recommended that you claim victory and disengage at this point. If you continue, for fun or
experimental purposes, no further logic will be forthcoming from the
liberals.

2. The Next Step For The Liberal Will Be To Attempt To Discredit Your
Source

If it is Fox or any perceived "right wing" source, they will refuse to
believe it. If it is a non-partisan source, they will claim it is right
wing, if it is a left of center source, they will find another lefty
source to "prove" you are wrong. They will not discuss the facts
themselves, as they know they have lost. If you must go down this road
(there is a high entertainment value), don't allow this diversion. Go
back to the facts.

3. The Limbaugh Defense:

This is one that comes out early and often. Although you know they never listen to Rush Limbaugh and have no idea what he says, they will drag him out and claim you are a Ditto head. This is another diversionary tactic. It has no relevance and is an attempt to change the subject. The more desperate they are, the more childish and ridiculous the reference to Limbaugh becomes: Flush, LimpBag, etc. Ignore this and re-post the facts. DO NOT BE DIVERTED.

4. The Personal Attack:

Another common thread. Also designed to divert the lost argument. NEVER give any hint of personal information. Even something as innocuous as "I am a chef".

They will attempt to engage you and call you a liar to divert attention
from the original lost argument. Ignore this and re-post the facts yet
to be refuted.

5. Name Calling:

Still another diversion. If you fail to give them any personal information, they will attempt to draw you out to gain more insight into your personal side. Then they will return to step 4. Ignore this.

6. The Liberal Bat Signal:

When they find out they are unable to engage
you, divert you or goad you into a completely irrelevant topic, they
will send out the Bat Signal. This is where a bunch of Liberals (or
often, the same one using several names, i.e., Rudy) post a number of
rapid fire posts congratulating the Liberal on handing you your head on
a platter. This tactic often works on even the most logical and
disciplined of us. The urge to rant must be resisted. Your rant will
supply them with all the personal insight they need to spew hatred and
personal attacks. The best tactic here is to use the same tactic back at
them.

Keep in mind, a Liberal will never admit you have a valid point (Dutch
did, once), much less that you won a debate. So, the only reasons to
continue a dialog with a liberal after the initial statement of facts
that established your victory are for entertainment and educational
purposes. If you refuse to take the bait and demand the topic remain on
the original premise, they will eventually just go away and try to find
someone else that will engage them on their terms.

Now, go away, Snowflake.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)