Where were you when Franks and Dodds and the dem controlled finance committee
Posted By: caused the housing crisis, and then... on 2009-01-15
In Reply to: Where were you for the first 6 years - of the Bush administration?
the financial crisis in its wake?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
With the help of a whole bunch of dems...Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodds, Obama...
Progressives harping about camp finance reform for years.
We've heard virtually nothing out of the republican party on this issue (except resistance) until how. Why is that? Could it be because they never expected democrats to beat them at their own game?
Spare us the phoney outrage. As the law stands now, those small potatoes contributions up to $200 have not been an issue until Obama received such a landslide of them and raised more money than any other candidate in history.
You want somebody to do something about this? You will have to start at the beginning...swallow the bitter pill and enact campaign finance reform. Until then, you can raise all the questions you want to raise.
PS: Ghadafi's claims that foreign national fundraising is "legitimate" is pertinent to this argument how? Have you seen the global electoral map lately? The entire world has their eyes on this election (hoping against hope we will not elect another saber-rattler) and are entitled to have an opinion.
http://www.economist.com/Vote2008/ Take a look.
Why should Obama apologize for Franks or Dodd? He is not...sm
their keeper. John Glenn and John McCain did not receive a formal reprimand but were judged to have "poor judgement" with their naive support quashing an investigation of the doings of Charles Keating in the 1980's whose financial doings eventually caused the savings and loan crisis just 2 years later. $180 billion that time, probably more with inflation than now. Bill Clinton dug us out of that hole, and here we are again.
Your forgetting B. Franks, J. Kerry, N. Pelosi and
all the others in the senate who voted for it. You should listen to that youtube economic expert talking in the post Economics I can understand. He was right on.
Intelligence Committee?
A congressional delegation made what was supposed to be a top secret trip to Iraq this week. A few media outlets, including Congressional Quarterly, learned about it but agreed not to disclose anything until the delegation had left Iraq.
So what did Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Michigan do? By the way, Hoekstra is a former chairman of the Intelligence Committee and is still a ranking member. Hoekstra BLOGGED about the trip on his Twitter page and included details about their itinerary in updates posted every few hours.
In a related note, a recent debate between candidates for Republican National Committee chair featured an argument over who had more friends on Facebook. It's good to see the Republican party is embracing new technology.
The "you's" are the judiciary committee....
never meant to imply anyone else. And I frankly don't care how many are exposed, be they Republican, Democrat or polka-dotted. What I think would happen is that there would be a lot of people exposed, a lot of ties between people that might shock people, and that it will never get to the impeachment process. Ever think that it might be to the advantage of professional politicians tha America stays split? The end result, "we the people" will be more disgusted with politics than ever and with both parties. Of course there will still be the hard-liner tunnel-visioned on both sides who won't believe what comes out anyway if it does not fall in their belief system that the Democratic party (or the Republican party) can do no wrong. Some things never change. Sigh.
And there is that segment of the population, the professional politicians, who who don't really believe anything other than what it takes to advance their power base. As I have said ad nauseam, I only register as a Republican in primary years because I HAVE to in order to vote in them. Otherwise, independent because neither of the major parties interest me in the least and it is getting worse by the day.
And no, I don't necessarily think more republicans would come home to roost than democrats in republican administration. Especially since this republican administration kept over so many from the Clinton administration (so much for trying to bipartisan and reach across the aisle. He kept more people over from the last admin in his first term, I think, than any other Pres has. Most of them clean house when they come in). And not much of that went well (Armitage, Tenet, and how many others?). I think anyone honest can say a lot of the problems we face today were in part brought about by those very folks. They at the very least had both hands in it.
And when I said I wanted to know the truth...I meant that. I said the same thing during the Clinton impeachment...and everyone who watched any of that knows the man is guilty of both perjury and obstruction, no matter what he was lying under oath ABOUT, And THAT congressional montage let him walk. So I don't have faith, personally, in ANY professional politician. It is all about power and keeping it.
However, if all this ranting and raving and posturing does inadvertently prove that both parties were involved perhaps this two-party system we have basically been forced into will finally get shaken up enough to listen to "we the people" because they have not in a long time.
Piglet, I think this is a political exercise and I think those starting it have no interest in justice, just like those who started against Clinton had no interest in justice. If they had, they would have convicted him. It was an exercise, this is an exercise. But it has gotten so hatefully, bittery partisan that maybe some of them may not see that they perhaps would be hammering nails into their own political coffins (save Pelosi and a few others who are trying to keep it from happening). And by they, I mean any and all of the resident politicians in DC.
So I say let them have at it. And when the dust settles, we might actually have enough disgusted rank and file in America that who might get elected at that point? Ron Paul? I am at the point now where the whole thing is just ridiculous.
Pelosi is using her power the only way she knows how...in an effort to KEEP it. That is what they are ALL about. If she cared about the truth or justice and really felt in her heart of hearts that anyone in the administration was guilty of impeachable offenses she SHOULD go forward. The fact that she does not, and even tries to keep her fellow Dems from going forward, tells me all I need to know.
That being said...I have not had faith in much of any congressional montage period since Clinton walked and not only walked, continued as President. And even if WE the people push for it, we are not going to see anything done unless the professional politicians weigh the pro's and con's and if they think it will help insure winning the White House, they will go forward. If they think it will not, or will in any way hinder that goal, they won't. That is, sadly, the bottom line and because of that, we may never know the truth. It is in their best interest to just have the innuendo out there...because seeking the truth sometimes finds it, and that might not be the most opportune thing for getting the White House back. Politics.
And in the end...I am wondering if THAT matters, because we knew the truth about Bill Clinton and it didn't matter..he still was not convicted though they all knew he was guilty. Not of multiple affairs, against which there is no law, but lying under oath before a federal grand jury. There is no question he did it, we all saw him do it on national television. So it is not a question of guilt. The perjury automatically proved the obstruction count, he lied to keep from being caught, thereby obstructing "justice." And he not only walked on perjury and obstruction, he remained President. The Arkansas Bar Association knew he was guilty...said so and disbarred him. I believe that soured me (not because it was Bill Clinton...sheesh...but because the law should be applied equally to ALL and certainly that should include the President of the United States no matter what party he is a member of). And those same people who bemoan Clinton being impeached are thirsting for impeachment of someone else for the SAME crime. I don't understand that. I do not understand the incapability of some to grasp the concept of equality under the law. I thought that was a founding concept of America. Equal application of the law to all, no matter how high up the chain it goes. Guess that is just asking too much of people, to put down partisan politics and just look at the facts, guilty or not guilty. Didn't happen with Clinton. I don't have much faith that it will happen this time either, though the same people who want to excuse Clinton want to fry Cheney and use that to jump start frying Bush. They really don't care if it is true or not. Sigh. Almost laughable.
And I think that the powers that be in Washington just don't want us to know everything that would come out in impeachment hearings. Which are televised, so it would be HARD, HARD, HARD to spin. And the American people, I believe, are in a place where certain kinds of information would have very long-reaching effects. because I think there are more people toward the middle of the spectrum that the hard right or hard left.
So, I still say bring it on, have the hearings if they think they have the goods, and let it all come out. If the evidence points to guilt of Cheney, them impeach him, and if it is proven he is guilty, then remove him from office. And if others are in the process found to have committed crimes, then prosecute them and throw them in the cell next to Libby. Be they Dem, Repub, or polka-dotted. Let's try to get it right this time. Put the criminals in jail, not back in the White House. We can't go back and put Clinton in jail where he belongs, but we can get it right this time (yeah right, like that will happen, but one can hope).
If I sound disgusted, I am. As disgusted as kam but in a totally different way.
Pubs must be in distraction committee.
nm
The Central Committee will be informing
In the meantime:
1. On Monday of next week, you will present yourself to your neighborhood Communal Health Station to be inspected for head lice.
2. On Tuesday of next week, you will present yourself to your neighborhood Clothing Inspection Station where we will check to make sure you are wearing cotton underwear.
3. The Brand Control Committee will visit your residence on Wednesday of next week to ensure that you are purchasing only products from companies that donate to the Party.
4. You will confine yourself to the burning of one 25-watt electric light bulb per household.
5. Luxury items such as curling irons are now forbidden. If you want to curl your hair, just stay tuned for what we do next!
They are both being controlled
Both McCain and Obama are being controlled by others. Nobody is going to change anything without "their" permission. The people with the big money and power are the people who will decide what happens. If they go against that they will end up like JFK. It still amazes me how a lot of people still think we have a say in what happens. We can march, protest, elect all we want. The "elite power" people are the ones who will decide what is going to happen to our country. The only thing I see as a value for this president is his public speaking ability. Nothing else. All decisions are made in the congress which is being controlled by dems. The president doesn't have a say, he is just a public speaker. Even at that he doesn't write his own speeches.
Everyone is getting worked up over nothing (myself included).
Thus speaketh the tiny mind committee.
Are you retarded or just immature?
Her'es a buntch of othur typeoes you kin crect to get her rockx off.
You're a troll. Go away.
I still don't believe government-controlled...
or provided insurance is the answer. Just today read article about how a bunch of women from Canada who had problem pregnancies had to come to the US to have their babies because of the socialized medicine in Canada because...news flash...you can't put a pregnant woman on a waiting list for treatment because babies are born when babies want to be born...and that is what happens when the government administrates health care. Waiting lists...substandard care...and on and on and on. The VA is a government administered health program...go ahead and tell me THAT works. We need to come up with a better plan than socialized medicine...like prioritizing social spending. If you really want to insure all kids, then give their parents a big tax break for insuring them themselves...don't extend entitlements higher and higher up the income ladder. Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. When the troops come home and the war is over, you can talk about that money then. It is nonstarter while we still have troops in combat, no matter who sent them or why (and by the way, it was not George Bush personally, it was your duly elected Congress). We have to fund them while they are in combat. I don't think even the most liberal (no matter what the definition is) would be for withdrawing funding while we still have men and women in combat.
Who controlled congress until 2007 whenever
Which side of congress voted down any suggestion of setting time limits or considering troop withdrawals. Which candidate voted against the war 5 years ago? Which candidate brought a timetable for troop withdawal up for consideration in February 2007? Who lobbied to defeat that initiative? Which party is now trying to highjack that same initiative and take credit for it in an election year? Simple questions. Direct answers, please.
barely controlled temper
Do you think that is why he left the hall right after the debate rather than meeting with the voters, which he referred to as "my friends" all night. He certainly didn't want to speak with his friends after the debate.
I also thought it was strange when one man asked a question about the bailout and McCain began his answer with "I bet you never heard of Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac before . . . " Yeah, because we are so stupid we never heard of it before. So condescending. At least he didn't say "I betcha"
yes, this was a government-controlled election.
manipulated, to make Ahmedinejad the winner.
All the prostesting will not help, and Khameini remains the supreme religious leader.
A lot of Mousavi supporters said they will never again vote in Iranian elections.
The developments regarding North Korea are scary.
Then we will agree to disagree. And a controlled interview...
is not like meeting with a hostile head of state. And I don't think an "understanding" of Islamic principles is going to help talk to the prime minister of Israel OR Ahmadinejad. That is just my opinion.
I beg to differ about Joe Biden's comfort zone...he is extremely comfortable in DC. He is an established member of DC politics. Unless you have not been paying attention in past years, you know this. He is a toe-the-line Democrat. When he actually said in public what he said about McCain, I thought well, maybe he isn't as partisan as I thought. Buzz, wrong thought. I was right. He is. He came from a blue collar background...so did Obama, so did his wife. But they are far, far removed from that now. And they trot it out when they feel they need to "connect" to the blue collar out here among us. Maybe some buy into that, and that is fine. But some do not, and that is also fine.
Personally, I feel Joe Biden wants to be Vice President and whoever he has to mow down in the process, fine, casualities of the political war. No blue collar people I know throw friends under the bus to promote themselves. But maybe the blue collar people I know are not like the blue collar people he comes from. Can't say.
Yes, he used to talk about partisan bickering, and he and McCain worked on a lot of issues, and if McCain felt he was right then he bucked his own party to support him. Which is why Biden said he viewed McCain as a friend and "I would be proud to be on a ticket with John McCain." Notice how quickly that changed. Either you have integrity or you do not. Either you feel loyalty to a friend is more important than partisan politics or it is not. He showed me what was important to him. I was not impressed. That is my opinion of course, entitled to it, just like you are to yours. We just disagree.
All that being said, I do feel that he is much more qualified for the job than the man who is running for it. I would still be concerned, but I would not be as concerned if Biden were in the #1 seat instead of the #2 seat.
But that would not change my opinion of Joe Biden as a person. I think he lacks integrity, I know he lies, because he was either lying when he said Obama wasn't ready or he is lying now when he says he is. Either way...he lied. Same old Washington politics...sorry, I don't see much change or any hope thereof where Biden is concerned.
You should be writing to your democratically controlled congress...
about those issues as well. They are the ones we actually vote for personally and put there. They are the ones who should be taking care of us. Their approval rating is way lower than Bush's. And yes, I am pointing fingers at BOTH sides of the aisle.
|
