To our European posters

[Guest]

I agree with what you're saying Walter. It just amuses me that Americans must describe an action with a term other than what is used in the rest of the world. Even though the action is the same.

 

As you point out: "Lots of things in my country are socialist, but no one uses the term as it reminds them of communism and Americans can't seem to face that."

 

Schools, roads, the police, fire departments, are all funded with tax dollars in the USA. But heaven forbid you fund doctors with tax dollars because then we are "socialist"!!

 

I lived in the USA for five years and never understood how Americans make the distinction between public financing for so many things, except health care :blink:

 

Any way it's interesting to now see the USA being forced to embrace many of the foreign ideals they have for so long railed against as being "un-American."

 

Many small business owners in the USA being forced out of business should apply for this government "conservatorship". It sounds a whole lot better than going broke. The bosses at AIG just spent a huge sum of money on a retreat at one of the most expensive resorts in the world. I don't know how American tax payers stand for this, I'd have smoke coming out my ears!!

 

Read the story, unless you have a heart condition:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5973452&page=1

 

R,

[Justin Hayward]

I lived in the USA for five years and never understood how Americans make the distinction between public financing for so many things, except health care

 

My health care is fantastic. If I stub my toe, the doctors will trip over themselves to get me some ice. It's because my wife is insured, therefore so am I.

 

To be honest, I don't want to lose my health insurance as it's the best I can possibly imagine. All I have to do is show up... that's it.

 

It's true, I'm a greedy bastard. But, I'm doing well... at the moment...

[Guest]

My health care is fantastic. If I stub my toe, the doctors will trip over themselves to get me some ice. It's because my wife is insured, therefore so am I.

 

To be honest, I don't want to lose my health insurance as it's the best I can possibly imagine. All I have to do is show up... that's it.

 

It's true, I'm a greedy bastard. But, I'm doing well... at the moment...

 

Are you saying that under national health care if you stub your toe you'll wait nine hours in the emergency room or wait six weeks to see a doctor?

 

I'm guessing your wife gets her insurance via her employer, if her job goes...her and your health coverage will as well. If your wife changes jobs, any pre-existing conditions won't be covered under her new plan for you or her.

 

Stubbing your toe is one thing..if you get a brain tumor that will cost hundreds of thousands to treat, your insurance company will take on a whole new tone. They'll say your treatment is "experimental" and refuse to pay.

 

As I say I lived in the USA for five years, I've seen all the angles of US care ;)

 

R,

[James Steven Beverly]

Americans of all stripes are running around right now trying to figure out how to save the US banks and stabilize the economy. When all you have to do is to look at your Northern neighbour for an example of how to run the best banking system in the world. Not the third or fourth best, the BEST!! But of course being an American Paul you are loathed to even consider that Canada is surpassing the USA in any way shape or form. Fine then, lose your home and your job, maybe then you'll see some sense?

 

As for your crack about the Canadian army. Maybe you are not aware that the USA has 10 times the population that Canada does? How big is your army compared to China's?

 

Secondly, the USA is 13 trillion dollars in debt and it's growing fast with the huge budget deficits you continue to post each month. So in reality the vast bulk of America's mighty military machine is financed on a giant credit card, it may be big, but you can't afford it.

 

That credit card bill is going to come due at some stage.

 

 

R,

Yes Richie but we also have all the really COOL nukes and the BEST delivery systems on the planet so we just blast China into one big silk lined radioactive bomb crater so the size of their army is kinda a moot point then after Canada sees what we did to China they'll run and hide in Norway and we can walk in and take all their funny looking money out of their banks and pay off our army's Mastercard bills with it. :rolleyes:

 

Come on guys! Is anyone REALLY all that much worse off than they were a year ago? How much are you ACTUALLY having to tighten your belts and who had a butt load of money in the stock market that they lost or got a sub-prime loan that they defaulted on so they lost their house or had money invested in real estate loans that defaulted?

 

This is just more crap and as Roosevelt once said, the only thing we have to fear is fear it's self. The rich are probably gonna get hit the hardest on this one and I don't really feel all that bad about a bunch of billionaires getting their asses handed to them for being greedy, so if you do want to blame anyone, blame the "moral" dumbasses who put this brain dead moron back in office because Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants which gave us 8 years of favoring the rich at the expense of the poor, fighting a war on credit we should have never been involved in in the first place and ripping the heart outta the middle class, the people who really make the whole thing work. I HOPE these dumbasses are finally seeing that people who shout the loudest about "family values" are usually the most corrupt , immoral bastards out there. We learned these lessons in the 60s but I guess we have to keep on learning them.

[James Steven Beverly]

You know Walter, you keep saying that a sitting president can not directly affect the economy but what you fail to seem to grasp is that a sitting president can and very much DOES effect the economy profoundly INDIRECTLY. Bush, Reagan and Nixon for that matter ALL created an atmosphere where greed was encouraged. Bush and Nixon fought wars opposed by the people on the fight now pay later credit plan which is costing us HOW much a day? Bush however has been the most blatant at stacking the deck with Republican radicals in key positions of power that has led to favoritism of the rich while distracting the people from his deliberate plan to dismantle the economy and remake it into a plaything of the super rich by using one of the greatest tragedies in American history to manipulate patriotism into a tool to further his corrupt agenda. Saying Bush has nothing directly to do with the state of our economy is a bit like saying Charles Manson had nothing directly to do with the Tate-La Bianca murders. No he didn't get out there and sign the paperwork for each of the shaky subprime loans that were giving out like Crackerjack prizes and he didn't personally tell the Army to go buy guns and bombs on a credit card. He just hired people into positions of power who went out and hired other people to do that for him and LIED HIS ASS OFF to get America into a war it was unprepared to fight with no plan whatsoever for stabilizing the invaded country after that war was over which America WOULD then have to then keep paying for while they Gomer Pyled their way through the peace. Bush didn't personally direct rescue operations for the FEMA relief after Katrina, all he did was put an incompetent buddy of his in charge of the organization who really couldn't give a rat's ass about poor black people and let them go without clean water and get robbed, raped, beaten as shot inside the Superdome for 5 days. No you're right, Bush has no direct influence on the economy just the way Iago had no DIRECT effect on Othello strangling Desdemona. :rolleyes:

[Mark Williams]

I'll just say something once:

 

Bush has nothing to do with what happened in the bank and investment fields.

 

I'll say it again, Bush has nothing to do with what happened in the bank and investment fields.

 

Let me say that one more time in case it didn't get through, Bush has nothing to do with what happened in the bank and investment fields. <_<

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33qQeIo0cKM

 

Do you still think Bush had nothing to do with the curent crisis?

 

SOME HISTORY

 

Facing opposition in the Congress, Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the U.S. in 2001 to increase public support for his plan for a US$1.35 trillion tax cut program?one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history.[34] Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying "the surplus is not the government?s money. The surplus is the people?s money."[34] With reports of the threat of recession from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs.[59] Others, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill, were opposed to some of the tax cuts on the basis that they would contribute to budget deficits and undermine Social Security.[60] By 2003, the economy showed signs of improvement.[34]

 

Under the Bush Administration, real GDP has grown at an average annual rate of 2.5 percent,[61] considerably below the average for business cycles from 1949 to 2000.[62][63] The Dow Jones Industrial Average has grown by about 30 percent since January 2001[64] and stock market indexes have risen.[34] Unemployment originally rose from 4.2 percent in January 2001 to 6.3 percent in June 2003, but subsequently dropped to 4.5 percent as of July 2007.[65] Inflation-adjusted median household income has been flat while the nation's poverty rate has increased.[66] By August 2007, due to increases in domestic and foreign spending,[67] the national debt had risen to US$8.98 trillion dollars, an increase of over 70% from the start of the year 2000 when the debt was US$5.6 trillion.[68][69] The perception of President Bush's effect on the economy is significantly affected by partisanship with 67% of Republicans and 1% of Democrats approving of his performance.[70]

 

The United States entered 2008 with a shaky economy, consisting of a housing market correction, a subprime mortgage crisis, soaring oil prices and a declining dollar value.[71] In February, 63,000 jobs were lost, a 5-year record,[72] and many observers believed that a U.S. recession had begun.[73] To aid with the situation, Bush signed a US$170 billion economic stimulus package which aimed to improve the economic situation by sending tax rebate checks to many Americans and providing tax breaks for struggling businesses. In September, the crisis worsened and the majority of the American banking industry was consolidated into three companies.[74] Many economists and world governments determined that the situation became the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.[75][76][77][78][79] The Bush administration recommended and pushed for significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. financial housing market in 2003,[80] though these requests went unanswered by Congress.[81] The administration, however, could have done additional work to curb excesses in the housing market and address the mortgage-backed securities problem.[81] In September 2008, President Bush proposed a financial rescue plan to buy back a large portion of the U.S. mortgage market

 

SO what was his answer to the falling American economy?

 

In 2006, going beyond calls from conservatives to secure the border, Bush demanded that Congress allow more than twelve million illegal immigrants to work in the United States with the creation of a "temporary guest-worker program." Bush does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants,[117] but argues that the lack of legal status denies the protections of U.S. laws to millions of people who face dangers of poverty and exploitation, and penalizes employers despite a demand for immigrant labor.

 

The President urged Congress to provide additional funds for border security, and committed to deploying 6,000 National Guard troops to the Mexico?United States border.[118] In May-June 2007 Bush strongly supported the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 which was written by a bipartisan group of Senators with the active participation of the Bush administration.[119] The bill envisioned a legalization program for undocumented immigrants, with an eventual path to citizenship; establishing a guest worker program; a series of border and work site enforcement measures; a reform of the green card application process and the introduction of a point-based "merit" system for green cards; elimination of "chain migration" and of the Diversity Immigrant Visa; and other measures. Bush contended that the proposed bill did not amount to amnesty.[120]

 

A heated public debate followed, which resulted in a substantial rift within the Republican Party, the majority of conservatives opposed it because of its legalization or amnesty provisions.[121] The bill was eventually defeated in the Senate on June 28, 2007, when a cloture motion failed on a 46-53 vote.[122] President Bush expressed disappointment upon the defeat of one of his signature domestic initiatives.[123] The Bush administration later proposed a series of immigration enforcement measures that do not require a change in law.[124]

 

Then Bush got our Prime minister involved in his war which meant us

 

He decided to attack Iraq as part of his war on terror but then alquieda never was in Iraq but Sadam was annoying so a WMD campaign was launched which we all fell for and in fact was all lies.

 

He decided to set up democracy in a fiercely Muslim state errrr How stupid does it get? It can and never will ever work... How many Trillions has that cost America and how many lost Billions? And what effect has that had on oil prices opec and the way America is seen in the Middle east? Of course Iraqs oilfields are now all divided up to Bushs friends in America so I guess problem can be solved whenever they want.

 

Still America elects those that have been groomed and paid for by big business and seem proud to be part of this How can any country actually vote in the son of a former president and think they have the right man?

 

I want your clothes your boots and your motorcycle Comes to mind when I think of how silly it all is..

 

Oh and after we have been sold out in this country to the EU dictatorship then really were just as bad.

 

All the values our countries fought for in the last great war are under threat by greedy power mad men at the top..

 

:)

[Walter Graff]

You know Walter, you keep saying that a sitting president can not directly affect the economy but what you fail to seem to grasp is that a sitting president can and very much DOES effect the economy profoundly INDIRECTLY.

 

 

Actually I've said that over and over in other threads, just tired of saying it. About all a president can do is make an atmosphere where business thrives or beg congress to lower taxes. Outside of that, he's a bystander for the most part when it comes to the economy. It's simply not in his job title. Our government works by crossover of branches, and the economy is not his alone. Mostly a president can affect business atmosphere and that is the key to the success of the American economy. If he is good to business, more jobs are created, more work is completed, and more money is put into the system. But outside of that influence, a president has little to nothing to do DIRECTLY with the economy. He can try all sorts of things, but historically nothing a president did during his administration ever worked. And most all of what a president can do is directly inherited by his predecessors. So for all those that blame Bush for the state of the economy, you need to take a lesson in economics, politics, and financing. This current situation has been brewing for more than 30 years, was exasperated by policies of numerous presidents, and was more directly caused by you and me than the president. But since it's easy to blame the office of the president since he is a man, and no other branch is represented as such, most Americans incorrectly do. That's why we live in a republic, not a democracy. It keeps the bread and circus happy and ignorant. Funny how every election the candidates tell you that they have a plan for the economy. They may but it is rhetoric. They know all too well they can't do anything directly. Oh they try, but rarely has anything a sitting president done every had a positive influence on an economy. Even some of the most ambitious plans have meat with failure such as FDRs plan to help. It's simply campaign rhetoric.

 

This article should help explain reality those that are confused:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8020502876.html

[Walter Graff]

"Do you still think Bush had nothing to do with the current crisis?"

 

Sorry, showing me some politically motivated video does not change things. No, he does not have anything directly to do with the current banking crisis.

 

And posting a Wikipedia entry of the history of Bush doesn't either. I can see your dislikes of Bush are more personal so anything I say will not sink in. But I'll briefly go through it.

 

"Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the U.S. in 2001 to increase public support for his plan for a US$1.35 trillion tax cut program"

 

He did so because other than begging congress to pass it, he has nothing. He needs their support and when he doesn't get it he tries to get the American people to support it so they pressure congress. But he alone can not pass any bill, only make a bill and hope congress approves it. Congress makes the decision, not him. They passed it after the Senate rewrote parts of it. It did little with 9-11 around the corner.

 

 

" Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs.[59] Others, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill, were opposed to some of the tax cuts on the basis that they would contribute to budget deficits and undermine Social Security.[60] By 2003, the economy showed signs of improvement.[34]"

 

Thats the problem with Wikepedia. It's written by everyone so anyone can say what they want. Nothing wrong with that, but people belive it as truth. My Buddy Carl Howe deconstructed the myth of growth due to Bush quite easily:

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/13234-the-...-gdp-statistics

 

Actually your WIki entry says it best:

 

"A survey done by the American Research Group showed that as of April 2008, 22% of Americans approved of President Bush's effect on the economy. The perception of President Bush's effect on the economy, however, is significantly affected by partisanship with 67% of Republicans and 1% of Democrats approving of his performance."

 

 

"To aid with the situation, Bush signed a US$170 billion economic stimulus package which aimed to improve the economic situation by sending tax rebate checks to many Americans and providing tax breaks for struggling businesses."

 

That did nothing. Once again a presidents attempt at a band aid that does nothing. The problems weren't Americans, but the banking system. No stimulus check was going to fix that. We laugh at that "stimulus" as Americans.

 

 

"So what was his answer to the falling American economy?

 

In 2006, going beyond calls from conservatives to secure the border, Bush demanded that Congress allow more than twelve million illegal immigrants to work in the United States with the creation of a "temporary guest-worker program." Bush does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants,[117] but argues that the lack of legal status denies the protections of U.S. laws to millions of people who face dangers of poverty and exploitation, and penalizes employers despite a demand for immigrant labor."

 

No sequitor. Your showing your political distaste, not anything that had an effect on the economy.

 

 

"Then Bush got our Prime minister involved in his war which meant us

He decided to attack Iraq as part of his war on terror but then alquieda never was in Iraq but Sadam was annoying so a WMD campaign was launched which we all fell for and in fact was all lies. "

 

Now your talking about something not related to the economy issue. More political hate, but nothing about Bush and the economy. I'm not into political affiliations and Bush bashing. It serves no purpose for me. Sure politicians do things for their own agenda. Everyone does. They just have more power and resources to do so. And in the end, it was those that believed it that all went with it. Were they lied to? More by the US military complex than Bush who was simply convinced of it and followed along championing it even though it turned ot not to be what it was presented as. Bush's Enneagram doesn't allow him to change his mind easily.

[Mark Williams]

QUOTE

 

The Bush administration recommended and pushed for significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. financial housing market in 2003,[80] though these requests went unanswered by Congress.[81] The administration, however, could have done additional work to curb excesses in the housing market

 

"and address the mortgage-backed securities problem"

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

Did you read this? The problem has been known about at least before 2003 and yet the

 

Government backing let Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage-underwriting. "The politicians created the mortgage giants, which then returned some of the profits to the pols - sometimes directly, as campaign funds; sometimes as "contributions" to favored constituents."[92]

 

On April 18, 2006, home loan giant Freddie Mac was fined $3.8 million, by far the largest amount ever assessed by the Federal Election Commission, as a result of illegal campaign contributions. Much of the illegal fund raising benefited members of the United States House Committee on Financial Services, a panel whose decisions can affect Freddie Mac,[93] but also benefitted Republican politicians in general.[94]

 

Some lawmakers received favorable treatment from financial institutions involved in the subprime industry. (See Countrywide financial political loan scandal). In June 2008 Conde Nast Portfolio reported that numerous Washington, DC politicians over recent years had received mortgage financing at noncompetitive rates at Countrywide Financial because the corporation considered for the officeholders under a program called "FOA's"--"Friends of Angelo". Angelo being Countrywide's Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo.[95] On 18 June 2008, a Congressional ethics panel started examining allegations that chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Christopher Dodd (D-CT), and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad (D-ND) received preferential loans by troubled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp.[96] Two former CEO of Fannie Mae Franklin Raines and James A. Johnson also received preferential loans from the troubled mortgage lender. Fannie Mae was the biggest buyer of Countrywide's mortgages.[97]

 

But then I guess Bush was just a bystander in these out of control events? Someone whos own campaigns could never have been finance by these kind of financial institutions?

[Mark Williams]

Hate??????

 

I dont hate Bush???? I dont like what he's done and I certainly think the bush admin is the most corrupt ever. But I don't hate anyone... America is a great country and I myself have lots of family there.. However if something is so clearly wrong then by talking about it shouldnt mean having to be tarnished with name calling or putdown or any other dubious practice to win an argument.. Yes I used references from wikeapedia as I hoped it would provide clear evidence for you but your even undermining that?

[Alex Ellerman]

2 points:

 

1. Bush went into office with a budget SURPLUS. we are now $10 trillion in debt. He had something to do with this crisis, 8 years in charge as an absentee father with a hooligan kid.

 

2. it's not only affecting rich people. You got a house and it's down 10-20% in value, you got a 401k and it's smoked, and maybe you have some personal holdings (smoked), plus unemployment is steep. The avg. american will be hit hard by this.

[Mark Williams]

Well from where I'm standing he's offloading taxpayers money faster than a cruise missile and all he's about to finish his term... I'd be seriously wondering just what is really going on all that dosh floating about in an already proveably corrupt setting.. :)

[Walter Graff]

2 points:

 

1. Bush went into office with a budget SURPLUS. we are now $10 trillion in debt. He had something to do with this crisis, 8 years in charge as an absentee father with a hooligan kid.

 

 

The national debt is not why we are in a banking and financial crisis.

[Walter Graff]

Hate????? Yes I used references from wikeapedia as I hoped it would provide clear evidence for you but your even undermining that?

 

I didn't undermine it. It simply does not prove your point.

[Mark Williams]

QUOTE

In 2006, going beyond calls from conservatives to secure the border, Bush demanded that Congress allow more than twelve million illegal immigrants to work in the United States with the creation of a "temporary guest-worker program." Bush does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants,[117] but argues that the lack of legal status denies the protections of U.S. laws to millions of people who face dangers of poverty and exploitation, and penalizes employers despite a demand for immigrant labor."

 

No sequitor. Your showing your political distaste, not anything that had an effect on the economy.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Of course it has to do with the economy This is nothing to do with my distate how absurd?

 

Immigration is about control to help the economy and country. When the economy is booming and you need workers then you open the gates to allow whats needed.. When the economy is failing then you control immigration so unemployment doesnt fall and wages dont get driven down.

 

Thats common sense.

[Walter Graff]

Mark,

 

Fannie and Freddie were unfortunate victims of what happened. They did not cause it. They had deed to 70% real Estate in the US. How they were run and allowed to operate with no oversight were parts of it. But not THE cause of the housing bubble bursting. When loans started to default out of control, they were faced with a serious problem. The government rescued them out of that problem. F and F were mismanaged, the government did not watch what they were doing, and lobbying and political favors kept what they were doing alive, but reality is that even if they did not exist, we would have had what happened. But the way the banking industry had begun to operate would have caused this problem even if F and F had only the best mortgages.

 

Your links to political favors and donations has nothing to do with anything other than showing how our government works. But nothing you show proves anything about Bush having to do anything with our current crisis, just political favoritism, a major part of how our government as a whole works. Freddie and Fannie are part of a larger picture, mostly driven by systems of business out of the reach of the president. You seem to think Bush could have done something earlier. First off, BUSH CAN DO NOTHING. He can only ask Congress to do something, but he alone can't do anything. It's not part of the presidents job description. Why couldn't he do something? With a democratic controlled Congress Bush couldn't have done anything even if he wanted to. And that democratic Congress refused to do something with Freddie when they were told there was a problem years before what happened did. When republican senators complained and demanded we do something to pull in the reigns of Freddie and Fannie back in 2006, the democratic controlled congress said that in their eyes there was nothing wrong, so they were going to do nothing. Point of my story is that my government has three branches that must work together to get anything done. No branch can do anything without the approval of another. A president can't lower taxes. He can ask congress to. A president can't rescue Freddie and Fannie, he can ask Congress to. So all this blaming one branch completely negates that it is a systemic problem, not a man's problem. The biggest problem with the US government and how it operates is it's political parties. Their name and meaning have trumped doing what is right for the people. The recent economic stimulus package (what people incorrectly call a bail out) was a perfect example. Rather than pass it knowing we needed it, political squawking had it fail, only to be re written with 150b more in pork barrel spending to make political parties happy. Our government operates completely out of touch with the constituency it serves. Rich people run it for their own benefit. The bread and circus funds their debauchery. Our system of government is broke, not the president... the system. But it's always been designed this way ever since a bunch of rich guys sat down and made themselves a constitution. People think it was America that fought he British for a 'free' country. No, it was about one quarter of the population that actually fought for independence. The rest were happy. Those that led the fight were rich land owners tired of Englands rule, and tired of being taxed. So the rich folks made their own govenrment and convinced the masses it was the way to go. And now htey tax us. We beleived them then and still let them run our republic. Welcome to the United States.

[Alex Ellerman]

The national debt is not why we are in a banking and financial crisis.

 

The national debt cannot be divorced from the banking crisis. the machinations that we are using to solve this crisis are hamstrung by our debt, by the pending hyperinflation/stagflation, by the lack of money that we have out behest to address the problem.

 

From some rather brilliant work (watch video of him calling crisis 2 years ago) by Peter Schiff:

http://www.newmogul.com/item?id=1002

 

Rather then allowing market forces to rein in excess borrowing and replenish savings, it will encourage even more borrowing and drain what is left of our savings pool. Rather than allowing our economy to return to one based on legitimate production, it will continue to encourage reckless consumption.

 

In the end, by refusing to allow market forces to work their cure, our economy will inevitably die from the disease. Our economy will now face death by hyperinflation, which will cause a complete loss of confidence in the dollar and result in prices and interest rates skyrocketing out of sight. The evaporation of our national wealth will lead to civil unrest, food and energy shortages, and the possible imposition of martial law. If such a scenario unfolds, what is left of our Constitution will surely be completely shredded.

[Mark Williams]

The point is you can confuse the issue as much as you like but subprime mortgages have been known about for years by the stock market and by Bush who could have put rules in place He didnt that was his failure but then again isnt the timing so perfect like he's run the economy to ruin and now finishes it off just before he leaves office.. Whether you regard this as his failure to correct what they knew needed correcting or whether there is some more sinister motive involved either way America has been bought to the brink of financial ruin by this administration. Thats up to you whether you wish to accept the truth or not.

 

Here in the UK our Government have done the same to us. The biggest mass immigration into this country the world has ever known coupled with excessive government borrowing..

 

Here in the UK we have Three parties who we elect into office every five years. The party elected runs the shop if they dont do what the people want they get kicked out.. Thats called democracy. So to get around democracy they have handed nearly all government powers over to a single party called the EU who are in power forever. Thats called a dictatorship. The EU has now being given its constitution.

 

Our world leaders seem to be working for themselves and not the people.

[Walter Graff]

The point is you can confuse the issue as much as you like but subprime mortgages have been known about for years by the stock market and by Bush who could have put rules in place

 

 

I'm not confusing anything. BUSH ALONE CAN NOT PUT ANYTHING IN PLACE. CONGRESS CAN, HE CAN PRESENT CONGRESS WITH AN IDEA OR PLAN, BUT THEY MUST APPROVE IT. since congress is run by democrats and Bush is a republican, he could not have gotten them to do anything. The republican senate already tried a few yeas ago, as did Bush to curb what was going on and they were turned away. Sorry mate, while you think Bush a dictator or some sort of monarch, he still can't do anything unless the other branches of government agree with him. So blame him all you want, you are only looking at what you want to see, and not reality.

 

Since this has now gotten to be about personal beliefs rather than reality, I'll back out of the conversation.

[Mark Williams]

The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, and although the Clinton Administration rewrote the CRA to REQUIRE loans be made to low credit quality borrowers. And engaged FNMA and FRE to buy these loans. a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn?t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

 

And throughout all this Bushs answer was massive immigration and even more sub prime debts.

 

----------------------------------------------

Quote

Sorry mate, while you think Bush a dictator or some sort of monarch, he still can't do anything unless the other branches of government agree with him

---------------------------------------------

Nicely smeared here... Yes Bush could have done something HE COULD HAVE BOUGHT IT UP He could have flashed the warning lights You know just like he did regarding WMDs in Iraq although Iraq had no WMD's and there never was any evidence But something as serious as the out of control subprime loans was allowed to run and run until they called time at a time of most damage to the American stock market and so have a knock on effect globally as well as allowing nearly a trillion of taxpayers money to be used by them to buy all the bad debts. And when this amount of money is involved the loss of a few billion here and there is hardly noticed...

 

Bush stood by the whole time knowing it was happening and yet where was the alarm bells? The warnings?

 

NONE.

[Matthew Buick]

It's time to adopt some other Canadian and European ideas, raise the taxes needed to pay ones bills.

 

Could I also add; abolish the death penalty, and hand out decent state funded housing and healthcare. :)

 

 

And I think these things are first world ideas, rather that Canadian or European.

Edited October 11, 2008 by Matthew Buick

[Mark Williams]

QUOTE

hand out decent state funded housing

-------------------------------

Heh Heh :)

[Guest]

Could I also add; abolish the death penalty, and hand out decent state funded housing and healthcare. :)

 

 

And I think these things are first world ideas, rather that Canadian or European.

 

No death penalty that's fine, national healthcare also fine, but I don't want homeless people living in my basement. I have to draw the line some where :D

 

R,

[Mark Williams]

Meanwhile of course after Bush has finished his personal business with Sadam Iran really has developed the ability to make WMDs that could end up in a western city somewhere.. Yes Got to admit The Bush admin has made me feel safe about as safe as houses.

[James Steven Beverly]

I'm not confusing anything. BUSH ALONE CAN NOT PUT ANYTHING IN PLACE. CONGRESS CAN, HE CAN PRESENT CONGRESS WITH AN IDEA OR PLAN, BUT THEY MUST APPROVE IT. since congress is run by democrats and Bush is a republican, he could not have gotten them to do anything. The republican senate already tried a few yeas ago, as did Bush to curb what was going on and they were turned away. Sorry mate, while you think Bush a dictator or some sort of monarch, he still can't do anything unless the other branches of government agree with him. So blame him all you want, you are only looking at what you want to see, and not reality.

 

Since this has now gotten to be about personal beliefs rather than reality, I'll back out of the conversation.

 

Nobody said Bush did it alone Walter, he got a WHOLE lot of people into positions of power in ALL branches of government based not on their qualifications but on their allegiance to the Carl Rove, Dick Chaney, George W Bush agenda. The Judaical branch was stacked with right wing federal judges INCLUDING the Supreme Court, the congress has only recently returned to Democratic control after a avalanche of political scandals tied directly to the White House so disgusted the American people that they finally said "ENOUGH!!" which effectively stopped the forward movement of this radical right winged juggernaut but prior to that, Bush got pretty much everything he wanted from a Republican controlled congress so the damage was already done after all, just because you pull the gun out of the hand of a manic doesn't mean the people he's already shot won't bleed to death, it just means he can't shoot 'em any more. So though Bush can't do anymore damage OTHER than the massive bill from the war we won that keeps on costing us lives and dollars, what he's already done is MORE than enough to keep us struggling to stay afloat for a while.

 

Try and grasp the concept of this Walter, INDIRECT INFLUENCES have toppled nations,and how many third world countries that were not acting in the best interests of US business has the CIA de-stabilized through INDIRECT INFLUENCES? It was INDIRECT intervention by the US that finally brought down the Soviet Union. You look at a forest and all you see are the trees, there is FAR more to a forest than just trees just as there is far more a president can do to advance his agenda that what he's legally can do on his own. Try thinking outside the box buddy and you will soon see just how insipid this administration truly is.

 

As for Bush not trying to act like a dictator, his administration rammed the Patriot Act through congress and if usurping the Constitution of the United States for political gain and increased executive power is not steps towards a dictatorship, I don't know what it!