PDA

View Full Version : Revisionism ala Ronald Reagan



cotts135
02-06-2011, 03:53 PM
Sorry to all you Ronald Reagan admirers but I think that maybe we should take a look at what was going on and what the feelings were during the time when he was in office. Time has a wonderful quality of clouding the recollections of people who idolized President Reagan especially it seems the Conservative media.

http://www.salon.com/news/the_real_reagan/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/06/will_bunch_reagan

road kill
02-06-2011, 03:55 PM
Sorry to all you Ronald Reagan admirers but I think that maybe we should take a look at what was going on and what the feelings were during the time when he was in office. Time has a wonderful quality of clouding the recollections of people who idolized President Reagan especially it seems the Conservative media.

http://www.salon.com/news/the_real_reagan/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/06/will_bunch_reagan

Quite all-right, I mean your recollections for the last 2 years are pretty cloudy right now!!!:D



Just sayin'......


RK

charly_t
02-06-2011, 03:57 PM
My memory of him is not dim........I am sorry to say that I voted for him....'nuff said.

huntinman
02-06-2011, 04:17 PM
You can hate on him all you want. You are in the minority. Just makes you look like a bunch of namby pamby jackwagons! tissue?

dnf777
02-06-2011, 04:20 PM
You can hate on him all you want. You are in the minority. Just makes you look like a bunch of namby pamby jackwagons! tissue?

Not sure who said they "hated" him.
He was just wasn't the savior he's been made out to be by the RWM.
Funny thing is, he wouldn't even get a nod in today's GOP.

He happened to come along at the right time. We had a succession of weak presidents, at least in the personality department, and he certainly had plenty of that.

charly_t
02-06-2011, 04:25 PM
You can hate on him all you want. You are in the minority. Just makes you look like a bunch of namby pamby jackwagons! tissue?

Don't hate him at all. Just telling it like I see it. We haven't had a good man in the White House for a long time. Maybe mostly because a lot of them are being controlled by other people. The bills just keep increasing ........ of course we have others to blame congress etc. also. If we would just stop throwing money around like we had it to burn we might be able to get this nation back.

cotts135
02-06-2011, 04:27 PM
I also voted for him and remember clearly the hostage release from Iran. Jimmy Carter was reviled and Ronald Reagan brought alot of hope in a time that was tough time economically and politically.

Some of you here should not take this personally just try to be a little more objective.:p

M&K's Retrievers
02-06-2011, 04:32 PM
....
Funny thing is, he wouldn't even get a nod in today's GOP.

.....

And just how do you think JFK would fare with the DEMS today? He was farther right than ole independent dnf claims to be.

Time to put on your costume regards,

pat addis
02-06-2011, 04:38 PM
if you were around for carter he was a savior.carter was the worst president since i have been voting.but he might slip to #2 soon

Blackstone
02-06-2011, 05:02 PM
You can hate on him all you want. You are in the minority. Just makes you look like a bunch of namby pamby jackwagons! tissue?

You don’t have to “hate on him” to acknowledge the truth about him. If that puts me in the minority, so be it.

huntinman
02-06-2011, 05:06 PM
You don’t have to “hate on him” to acknowledge the truth about him. If that puts me in the minority, so be it.

So it shall be...

Blackstone
02-06-2011, 08:30 PM
So it shall be...

Thanks. It feels good not to be a part of the herd mentality.

BonMallari
02-07-2011, 02:10 AM
Not sure who said they "hated" him.
He was just wasn't the savior he's been made out to be by the RWM.
Funny thing is, he wouldn't even get a nod in today's GOP.

He happened to come along at the right time. We had a succession of weak presidents, at least in the personality department, and he certainly had plenty of that.


Seriously ?...if that were the case then please explain why perspective candidate like Gingrich and Palin go out of their way to please the Reagan conservatives and why He is considered the standard bearer for the modern day conservative movement..IMHO the Republican party has become sidetracked because it abandoned some of the principles that Reagan brought to the party, they moved to the center and thats not their nature or strong suit, if there is one thing the Tea Party has done its to kick the party in the rear and get them to move to the right of center which is where most of America sits too..

huntinman
02-07-2011, 09:32 AM
Thanks. It feels good not to be a part of the herd mentality.

Oh but you are...its just a very small herd.;-)

huntinman
02-07-2011, 09:36 AM
Seriously ?...if that were the case then please explain why perspective candidate like Gingrich and Palin go out of their way to please the Reagan conservatives and why He is considered the standard bearer for the modern day conservative movement..IMHO the Republican party has become sidetracked because it abandoned some of the principles that Reagan brought to the party, they moved to the center and thats not their nature or strong suit, if there is one thing the Tea Party has done its to kick the party in the rear and get them to move to the right of center which is where most of America sits too..

Not to mention the biggest joke in modern politics... Barack Obama (and his adoring press corps) comparing himself to Reagan. The only thing they have in common is that they both were elected POTUS.

Blackstone
02-07-2011, 12:26 PM
Oh but you are...its just a very small herd.;-)

One does not constitute a herd. I like to think for myself. ;)

Franco
02-07-2011, 01:49 PM
Pres. Reagan brought stability and strength to the office when we needed it after the weak Pres. Carter failures. Between his strong personality and determination we returned to feeling good about ourselves.

On the other hand, he did bribe the Iranian terrorist and did trade arms for hostages. He ran from Lebannon after the bombing of the Marine barracks. His Amnesty Program was ill-concieved and led to a mass influx of new illegal migrants. A program he should have never gotten behind when he knew Congress wouldn't follow through. And, he spent money like a Democrat.

I think Hannity and Palin try and ride his coattails because he is the only memorable Republican President since WW2. But then again, I liked Nixon and still do!

Roger Perry
02-07-2011, 02:07 PM
Pres. Reagan brought stability and strength to the office when we needed it after the weak Pres. Carter failures. Between his strong personality and determination we returned to feeling good about ourselves.

On the other hand, he did bribe the Iranian terrorist and did trade arms for hostages. He ran from Lebannon after the bombing of the Marine barracks. His Amnesty Program was ill-concieved and led to a mass influx of new illegal migrants. A program he should have never gotten behind when he knew Congress wouldn't follow through. And, he spent money like a Democrat.

I think Hannity and Palin try and ride his coattails because he is the only memorable Republican President since WW2. But then again, I liked Nixon and still do!

I will second that. I also liked George H W Bush 41

Franco
02-07-2011, 02:22 PM
I will second that. I also liked George H W Bush 41



Back in 1991 I never understood why Bush41 didn't finish the job of replacing Saddam Hussein when our troops were on the foot of Bagdad. I think he realized that a castrated Hussien was better than someone else and that Iraq with Hussien would maintain the balance of power in the mideast.

A lesson he should have taught his son!

dnf777
02-07-2011, 03:12 PM
Back in 1991 I never understood why Bush41 didn't finish the job of replacing Saddam Hussein when our troops were on the foot of Bagdad. I think he realized that a castrated Hussien was better than someone else and that Iraq with Hussien would maintain the balance of power in the mideast.

A lesson he should have taught his son!

You have heard Dick Cheney's defense of that decision, haven't you? Its very eloquent and prophetic. Why he did a 180, I'll never know.

dnf777
02-07-2011, 03:12 PM
Seriously ?...if that were the case then please explain why perspective candidate like Gingrich and Palin go out of their way to please the Reagan conservatives and why He is considered the standard bearer for the modern day conservative movement..IMHO the Republican party has become sidetracked because it abandoned some of the principles that Reagan brought to the party, they moved to the center and thats not their nature or strong suit, if there is one thing the Tea Party has done its to kick the party in the rear and get them to move to the right of center which is where most of America sits too..

Why do ANY candidates go out of their way to please anyone? TO GET VOTES!

Hew
02-07-2011, 03:21 PM
You have heard Dick Cheney's defense of that decision, haven't you? Its very eloquent and prophetic. Why he did a 180, I'll never know.
Yeah, it's just so odd and mysterious and all why Cheney's thinking might possibly change after 9/11.

mjh345
02-07-2011, 03:26 PM
Yeah, it's just so odd and mysterious and all why Cheney's thinking might possibly change after 9/11.

What did 9/11 have to do with Saddam and Iraq?

YardleyLabs
02-07-2011, 03:28 PM
I think Reagan's Presidency offered a lot of good and a lot of bad. However, I also believe that the policies of his administration probably contributed more to the economic weakness of the US today than the policies of any other President with the possible exception of GWB. His was the Presidency that launched to belief that deficits were not a problem if done to reduce taxes or increase military spending. His policies led directly to bankrupting the Saving & Loan industry and undermining the financial stability of private pension plans that continue to be bailed out be taxpayers as a consequence. Linked to this, his administration's policies helped stimulate a wild west style of corporate management in which the long term future value of a company was sacrificed without thought to achieve short-term gains and the bonuses that went with them. These factors continue to haunt us today and are truly a core part of the Reagan legacy.

Roger Perry
02-07-2011, 03:30 PM
Yeah, it's just so odd and mysterious and all why Cheney's thinking might possibly change after 9/11.

Cheney himself said there were no ties between the 9/11 attack and Iraq.

road kill
02-07-2011, 03:41 PM
I think Reagan's Presidency offered a lot of good and a lot of bad. However, I also believe that the policies of his administration probably contributed more to the economic weakness of the US today than the policies of any other President with the possible exception of GWB. His was the Presidency that launched to belief that deficits were not a problem if done to reduce taxes or increase military spending. His policies led directly to bankrupting the Saving & Loan industry and undermining the financial stability of private pension plans that continue to be bailed out be taxpayers as a consequence. Linked to this, his administration's policies helped stimulate a wild west style of corporate management in which the long term future value of a company was sacrificed without thought to achieve short-term gains and the bonuses that went with them. These factors continue to haunt us today and are truly a core part of the Reagan legacy.

I am curious, how do you think the current administrations policies will affect future economic strength or weakness??

Just askin'.....


RK

Hew
02-07-2011, 03:44 PM
What did 9/11 have to do with Saddam and Iraq?
OK, here's where we divide delusional whack jobs from those who disagree but are capable of rational discussion. If you really believe that we would have invaded Iraq without 9/11 having happened, you're officially a whack job (and a borderline ignoramus who has zero understanding of national politics). So let's give you the acid test....do you think the invasion of Iraq would have occurred without 9/11 having happened?

Franco
02-07-2011, 05:06 PM
OK, here's where we divide delusional whack jobs from those who disagree but are capable of rational discussion. If you really believe that we would have invaded Iraq without 9/11 having happened, you're officially a whack job (and a borderline ignoramus who has zero understanding of national politics). So let's give you the acid test....do you think the invasion of Iraq would have occurred without 9/11 having happened?

And that justifies spending a couple hundred billion and over 4,000 American lives in our attempt to "Nation Build"? Where Bush and his staff made the big mistake was in staying in Iraq after we determinded that there were no WMD's left in Iraq.

dnf777
02-07-2011, 05:17 PM
Yeah, it's just so odd and mysterious and all why Cheney's thinking might possibly change after 9/11.

If you read the memos and memoirs from admin officials, you will see that his thinking "possibly changed" long before 9-11.

dnf777
02-07-2011, 05:23 PM
OK, here's where we divide delusional whack jobs from those who disagree but are capable of rational discussion.

So you just culled yourself from that group with that comment.


If you really believe that we would have invaded Iraq without 9/11 having happened, you're officially a whack job (and a borderline ignoramus who has zero understanding of national politics). So let's give you the acid test....do you think the invasion of Iraq would have occurred without 9/11 having happened?

Just because we would NOT have invaded without 9-11, does NOT prove the inverse that you are implying--that since 9-11 occurred, that means we should have invaded. Actually, you have not begun to prove causation in either direction. Merely a series of events, that may be causally linked, an association without causation, or a mere coincidence. Your argument addresses none of that, but merely establishes a sequence of events and posits the inverse. Essentially, a lot of "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
A Hew-ism, if you will.

Enjoy your sandwich.

Hew
02-07-2011, 05:31 PM
And that justifies spending a couple hundred billion and over 4,000 American lives in our attempt to "Nation Build"? Where Bush and his staff made the big mistake was in staying in Iraq after we determinded that there were no WMD's left in Iraq.
That's a different argument. The premise that I was addressing was that without 9/11 there would not have been an invasion of Iraq.

Hew
02-07-2011, 05:33 PM
If you read the memos and memoirs from admin officials, you will see that his thinking "possibly changed" long before 9-11.
That's interesting. Your post that I originally responded to said, "Why he did a 180, I'll never know." Now you possibly know? Okiedokey.

Hew
02-07-2011, 05:34 PM
Just because we would NOT have invaded without 9-11, does NOT prove the inverse that you are implying--that since 9-11 occurred, that means we should have invaded.
Step up to the plate, Tiger. Would we have invaded Iraq withou 9/11?

dnf777
02-07-2011, 05:43 PM
Step up to the plate, Tiger. Would we have invaded Iraq withou 9/11?

The two are not related, other than the administration lied to use 9-11 as a false justification for their invasion of Iraq.

So, NO, Bush/Cheney could not have falsely blamed 9-11 on Iraq if 9-11 had not occurred.

If you are using our invasion of Iraq to PROVE they were involved with 9-11, surely you can see the flawed logic in your argument.


My neighbor was snooping around my fence line looking for his dog. My log-pinch turned up missing. I accuse him of stealing it, so I throw a dirt clod at his head.

Now, did my throwing a dirt clod at his head prove he stole my log-pinch? Well, if my log pinch hadn't turned up missing, would I have accused him of stealing it, and thrown the dirt clod at him? NO. So that proves he stole my log pinch a la Hew-istic logic, right?

dnf777
02-07-2011, 05:44 PM
That's interesting. Your post that I originally responded to said, "Why he did a 180, I'll never know." Now you possibly know? Okiedokey.

No, I just proved your theory impossible, unless he used the same soothsayer Nancy and Hilary used to see into the future. And that assumes he really believed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11, and could see into the future. Neither is likely.

Hew
02-07-2011, 05:58 PM
The two are not related, other than the administration lied to use 9-11 as a false justification for their invasion of Iraq. And what percent of America would have said, "We've known for 20 years that Saddam has WMDs and we've been dickin' around with sanctions for the past 12 years, but hey, you know what, NOW is when we should invade Iraq" and supported an invasion had there not been a 9/11? And name me more than 10 Congressmen who would have voted for a full-blown invasion without 9/11. But hey, thanks for reaffirming that you truly are a piece of .........um, work, when it comes to American politics.

So, NO, Bush/Cheney could not have falsely blamed 9-11 on Iraq if 9-11 had not occurred.

If you are using our invasion of Iraq to PROVE they were involved with 9-11, surely you can see the flawed logic in your argument.

My neighbor was snooping around my fence line looking for his dog. My log-pinch turned up missing. I accuse him of stealing it, so I throw a dirt clod at his head.

Now, did my throwing a dirt clod at his head prove he stole my log-pinch? Well, if my log pinch hadn't turned up missing, would I have accused him of stealing it, and thrown the dirt clod at him? NO. So that proves he stole my log pinch a la Hew-istic logic, right? LOL (at you)....you're pushin' too hard. You're a much better internet Cliff Clavin than internet Mark Twain. When you try to get all witty it falls, well....flat. C'mon, Cliffy, you gotta dance with the girl you brought to 6,000 posts...
..................

mjh345
02-07-2011, 06:38 PM
OK, here's where we divide delusional whack jobs from those who disagree but are capable of rational discussion. If you really believe that we would have invaded Iraq without 9/11 having happened, you're officially a whack job (and a borderline ignoramus who has zero understanding of national politics). So let's give you the acid test....do you think the invasion of Iraq would have occurred without 9/11 having happened?

Once you answer my question I'll be happy to answer yours.

Be sure to rant on & use as many insults as you can in your answer; as that is always a sure sign of a mature, rational, logical mind that is confident of the subject matter that one is discussing

Roger Perry
02-07-2011, 06:46 PM
Step up to the plate, Tiger. Would we have invaded Iraq withou 9/11?

Why don't you tell us------------------

Jan. 11, 2004 <H1>Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?

O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11

(CBS) A year ago, Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

Now, O'Neill - who is known for speaking his mind - talks for the first time about his two years inside the Bush administration. His story is the centerpiece of a new book being published this week about the way the Bush White House is run.

In the book, O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

“The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said ‘X’ during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing ‘Y,’” says Suskind. “Not just saying ‘Y,’ but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election.”

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
</H1>

M&K's Retrievers
02-07-2011, 07:28 PM
I will second that. I also liked George H W Bush 41

Say what??

Elizabeth, it's the big one regards,

dnf777
02-07-2011, 08:17 PM
Once you answer my question I'll be happy to answer yours.

Be sure to rant on & use as many insults as you can in your answer; as that is always a sure sign of a mature, rational, logical mind that is confident of the subject matter that one is discussing

No, its just a sign of Hew. Someone who is sharp, but often bites off more than he can chew. When that happens....insults start flying.

Note the failed argument he made that our invasion of Iraq proves they were linked to 911. When I point out his flawed logic, I get called a piece of something. :D I wear all the names I get called here as a badge of honor!

Edit: oh, I almost forgot: tick tick tick.... (saves MK the trouble) :D

Hew
02-07-2011, 08:18 PM
Once you answer my question I'll be happy to answer yours.

Be sure to rant on & use as many insults as you can in your answer; as that is always a sure sign of a mature, rational, logical mind that is confident of the subject matter that one is discussing
I gave you the choice between whackjob and someone who rationally disagrees. You declined to answer (although I've got my hunch). Answer, don't answer....I'm not holding my breath either way.

Steve Hester
02-07-2011, 08:21 PM
I think Reagan's Presidency offered a lot of good and a lot of bad. However, I also believe that the policies of his administration probably contributed more to the economic weakness of the US today than the policies of any other President with the possible exception of GWB. His was the Presidency that launched to belief that deficits were not a problem if done to reduce taxes or increase military spending. His policies led directly to bankrupting the Saving & Loan industry and undermining the financial stability of private pension plans that continue to be bailed out be taxpayers as a consequence. Linked to this, his administration's policies helped stimulate a wild west style of corporate management in which the long term future value of a company was sacrificed without thought to achieve short-term gains and the bonuses that went with them. These factors continue to haunt us today and are truly a core part of the Reagan legacy.

Let's not forget the Democratic hero, Clinton. Clinton was the one who ordered FNMA to loosen up loan qualifications so that just about anyone could qualify for a home mortgage if they wanted it. That was the ongoing practice that helped artificially inflate real estate prices due to a very strong buyer demand. Then once the market was loaded with people who couldn't afford those mortgages, the bubble burst.

Hew
02-07-2011, 09:25 PM
Note the failed argument he made that our invasion of Iraq proves they were linked to 911.
Nobody can be this dense. That just leaves intentionally obtuse. But I'll try one more time....

I said that without 9/11 there wouldn't have been an invasion of Iraq.

That statement does not mean or have anything to do with whether Iraq/Saddam had some/any culpability for 9/11.

It means exactly what it says...nothing more/nothing less. Wrap your mind around all these:

Without 9/11 there'd be no Patriot Act, right?
Without 9/11 the Twin Towers would still be standing, right?
Without 9/11 3,000 less Americans would have died on that day, right?
Without 9/11 there would have been no invasion of Afghanistan, right?
See how that works? It's really not that hard to understand, is it? Now let's add:
Without 9/11 there would have been no invasion of Iraq
Capece?

Perhaps you can try to make the argument that Bush wanted to/would have/could have lead Congress and the American people to invade Iraq if 9/11 had not occurred. Be forewarned, though. You're going to look silly if you try.

dnf777
02-07-2011, 09:38 PM
Nobody can be this dense. That just leaves intentionally obtuse. But I'll try one more time....

I said that without 9/11 there wouldn't have been an invasion of Iraq.

That statement does not mean or have anything to do with whether Iraq/Saddam had some/any culpability for 9/11.

It means exactly what it says...nothing more/nothing less. Wrap your mind around all these:

Without 9/11 there'd be no Patriot Act, right?
Without 9/11 the Twin Towers would still be standing, right?
Without 9/11 3,000 less Americans would have died on that day, right?
Without 9/11 there would have been no invasion of Afghanistan, right?
See how that works? It's really not that hard to understand, is it? Now let's add:
Without 9/11 there would have been no invasion of Iraq
Capece?

Perhaps you can try to make the argument that Bush wanted to/would have/could have lead Congress and the American people to invade Iraq if 9/11 had not occurred. Be forewarned, though. You're going to look silly if you try.

You still fail to connect the dots in any logical fashion. So you create a list of reasonable assumptions. What the Sam Hill is your point? Bush/Cheney were set on a war in Iraq, even prior to 9-11. And how do the events of 911 justify the invasion of Iraq, any more than they do the invasion of Chile? You're flapping in the breeze.

YardleyLabs
02-07-2011, 09:46 PM
I am curious, how do you think the current administrations policies will affect future economic strength or weakness??

Just askin'.....


RK
I think the jury's out on that, and it depends largely on what he does in the balance of his term. Given where we started, I think we are now much better off than we would have been with a McCain Presidency. However, unless the administration is able to shift gears to reflect the change in the economy -- which means concentrating more and more on reducing the deficit while continuing to push job growth (for which I believe an extension of the health plan is critical), the current administration could be almost as bad for the economy as the last. Unfortunately, the alternatives being put forward by the Republican leadership are even worse.

Hew
02-07-2011, 09:51 PM
Bush/Cheney were set on a war in Iraq, even prior to 9-11. Let's pretend your looney bullsh!t is correct and that before 9/11 Bush/Cheney were looking to invade Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened how would they have convinced anyone in Congress to authorize an invasion of Iraq? How would they have convinced most Americans to support an invasion?. And how do the events of 911 justify the invasion of Iraq, any more than they do the invasion of Chile? I have not said one word about justification for invasion. That's an entirely different argument. You're flapping in the breeze. That's high praise from the Gum Flapper In Chief.

If you want to explain how Bush could have gotten authorization from Congress to invade Iraq without the context of 9/11 then I'm all ears. Anything else is just more of the obtuse bullsh!t you pull out of your arse whenever you're getting your hat handed to you in a discussion and looking to change the subject. Buh-bye.

Marvin S
02-07-2011, 09:59 PM
Why don't you tell us------------------

Jan. 11, 2004 <H1>Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?

O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11

(CBS) A year ago, Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

We had a discussion prior to POTUS about the low quality of Bush 43 appointees. O'Neill was a prime example, what has he done since writing the book no one other than yourself may have read.

But do us all a favor - The last three POTUS who wore an R behind their name had, IMO, declining quality in their cabinets. Why don't you post those cabinets, a chance do something on your own without being spoon fed & we'll discuss. This thread is supposedly about Reagan, IMO one who got his job from AUH20's pioneering effort, & forgot what his veto pen was supposed to do.

I've worked a lot for large corporations, there are those whose established reputation was going against the grain. Some show success, generally they are individuals who have little to offer, which was my opinion of O'Neill. But Bush 43 never did have a Treasury Secy worth his salt.

dnf777
02-08-2011, 05:43 AM
If you want to explain how Bush could have gotten authorization from Congress to invade Iraq without the context of 9/11 then I'm all ears. Anything else is just more of the obtuse bullsh!t you pull out of your arse whenever you're getting your hat handed to you in a discussion and looking to change the subject. Buh-bye.

Not quite Hew. You're arguing a flawed line of reasoning. MY point is that there was no justification for the invasion, as listed by the Cheney administration. You are making some non-sensical claim that the means justify the end. Like my example said, our invasion does not justify the invasion. THAT is my point. If you want to chase down some non-related what-ifs, go right ahead. I'll concede all those points to you...I have neither the time nor inclination to waste on an illogical argument. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, too. There, you happy? But it still doesn't justify the invasion of Iraq. And THAT, my friend, is the point here. End.

dnf777
02-08-2011, 05:46 AM
We had a discussion prior to POTUS about the low quality of Bush 43 appointees. O'Neill was a prime example, what has he done since writing the book no one other than yourself may have read.

.
After President Gerald Ford lost the 1976 election, O'Neill took an executive job at International Paper in New York City. He was vice president of the company from 1977 to 1985 and president from 1985 to 1987.
In 1988, he was approached by President George H. W. Bush to be Secretary of Defense. O'Neill declined, but recommended Dick Cheney for the position. Bush then pursued O'Neill to chair an advisory group on education that included Lamar Alexander, Bill Brock, and Richard Riley. Under O'Neill's leadership, the group recommended national standards and unified testing standards.
O'Neill was chairman and CEO of the Pittsburgh industrial giant Alcoa from 1987 to 1999, and retired as chairman at the end of 2000. His reign was extremely successful, as the company's revenues increased from $1.5 billion in 1987 to $23 billion in 2000 and O'Neill's personal fortune grew to $60 million.
In 1995, O'Neill was made chairman of the RAND Corporation.

Maybe after all that, and then working for a failed administration, he retired?

ducknwork
02-08-2011, 07:13 AM
Not quite Hew. You're arguing a flawed line of reasoning. MY point is that there was no justification for the invasion, as listed by the Cheney administration. You are making some non-sensical claim that the means justify the end. Like my example said, our invasion does not justify the invasion. THAT is my point. If you want to chase down some non-related what-ifs, go right ahead. I'll concede all those points to you...I have neither the time nor inclination to waste on an illogical argument. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, too. There, you happy? But it still doesn't justify the invasion of Iraq. And THAT, my friend, is the point here. End.

Can you really not grasp the concept that he is trying to get through your noggin? Hew NEVER said anything about the invasion being justified. His point is that it was only possible because 9/11 happened...not justified because of 9/11. There is no way that someone with such thin skin has such a thick head.

mjh345
02-08-2011, 07:54 AM
I gave you the choice between whackjob and someone who rationally disagrees. You declined to answer (although I've got my hunch). Answer, don't answer....I'm not holding my breath either way.

I did not decline to answer; I simply deferred my answer until you answer my question which was proffered to you first.

You tried to answer my question with a question. That is not responsive or the way productive conversations occur.

Still waiting for your answer regards

Roger Perry
02-08-2011, 08:22 AM
Can you really not grasp the concept that he is trying to get through your noggin? Hew NEVER said anything about the invasion being justified. His point is that it was only possible because 9/11 happened...not justified because of 9/11. There is no way that someone with such thin skin has such a thick head.

Bush 43 would have found a way to start a war with Iraq to get rid of Saddam even if 9/11 had never occured. It was his number one priority from his first day in office as told by Paul O'Neill Bush's Treasury Secretary.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

dnf777
02-08-2011, 08:24 AM
Can you really not grasp the concept that he is trying to get through your noggin? Hew NEVER said anything about the invasion being justified. His point is that it was only possible because 9/11 happened...not justified because of 9/11. There is no way that someone with such thin skin has such a thick head.

So only Hew gets to set the rules of discussion? Okay.

That is an irrelevant fact, true as it may be, but does NOT justify anything, and THAT is what I AM discussing. You cannot prove that we would NOT have found another bogus reason to invade Iraq, can you? CAN YOU???

I can't, so I don't pretend to.

If we can't agree on what the issue even is, then perhaps we should both just save some bandwidth?

dnf777
02-08-2011, 08:26 AM
Bush 43 would have found a way to start a war with Iraq to get rid of Saddam even if 9/11 had never occured. It was his number one priority from his first day in office as told by Paul O'Neill Bush's Treasury Secretary.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.




Very nice citation. Unfortunately, they won't engage in that discussion, but rather obsess on irrelevant axioms and feed-back loop logic. Hey, Bush is their Messiah, and can do no wrong! He even got to sit next to another Texas icon, Jerry Jones during the Superbowl! That proves he was right....right?

huntinman
02-08-2011, 08:58 AM
If we can't agree on what the issue even is, then perhaps we should both just save some bandwidth?

You running away from POTUS again??:p

BonMallari
02-08-2011, 09:12 AM
Very nice citation. Unfortunately, they won't engage in that discussion, but rather obsess on irrelevant axioms and feed-back loop logic. Hey, Bush is their Messiah, and can do no wrong! He even got to sit next to another Texas icon, Jerry Jones during the Superbowl! That proves he was right....right?

Bush a Messiah...show me one person on here who thinks that way...Jerry Jones is no Texas icon, he is from Arkansas, the only person that thinks he is an icon is Jerry himself...you know DNF some times your hatred for all things Texas rears its ugly head, no sure why and really dont care, but it blurs your ability to have a rational debate;)

M&K's Retrievers
02-08-2011, 09:15 AM
You running away from POTUS again??:p

And give up his moderator duties?:rolleyes:

Say it isn't so regards,

Roger Perry
02-08-2011, 09:22 AM
We had a discussion prior to POTUS about the low quality of Bush 43 appointees. O'Neill was a prime example, what has he done since writing the book no one other than yourself may have read.

But do us all a favor - The last three POTUS who wore an R behind their name had, IMO, declining quality in their cabinets. Why don't you post those cabinets, a chance do something on your own without being spoon fed & we'll discuss. This thread is supposedly about Reagan, IMO one who got his job from AUH20's pioneering effort, & forgot what his veto pen was supposed to do.

I've worked a lot for large corporations, there are those whose established reputation was going against the grain. Some show success, generally they are individuals who have little to offer, which was my opinion of O'Neill. But Bush 43 never did have a Treasury Secy worth his salt.

Here is an interesting article about the Reagan Administration.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

dnf777
02-08-2011, 09:45 AM
Bush a Messiah...show me one person on here who thinks that way...Jerry Jones is no Texas icon, he is from Arkansas, the only person that thinks he is an icon is Jerry himself...you know DNF some times your hatred for all things Texas rears its ugly head, no sure why and really dont care, but it blurs your ability to have a rational debate;)

My claiming Bush is the republican Messiah is just like many here saying Obama is mine! As long as I hear that, I'll continue to label Bush as your side's messiah. Its also as patently false as saying I have a hatred for Texas. I grew up there and love the Lone Star state to this day. Like any other place, it has its faults as well. Unfortunately, one of its biggest mistakes became president.
And sorry, I understand your resistance to having Jerry named as a Texas icon, but the owner of the self-procalimed "America's Team" is an icon. A poor one at that, but an icon. I'm from the Houston area, so never cared too much for Dallas in the first place.

ducknwork
02-08-2011, 09:45 AM
So only Hew gets to set the rules of discussion? Okay.

That is an irrelevant fact, true as it may be, but does NOT justify anything, and THAT is what I AM discussing. You cannot prove that we would NOT have found another bogus reason to invade Iraq, can you? CAN YOU???

I can't, so I don't pretend to.

If we can't agree on what the issue even is, then perhaps we should both just save some bandwidth?

How does you not understanding the point he is making equate 'setting the rules of discussion'?:confused: You lost me there, chief.

As for the rest of your response, I'll save breath and bandwidth because it's obvious you can't 'get it'. :rolleyes:(In my best JDog impression)

ducknwork
02-08-2011, 09:49 AM
Bush 43 would have found a way to start a war with Iraq to get rid of Saddam even if 9/11 had never occured. It was his number one priority from his first day in office as told by Paul O'Neill Bush's Treasury Secretary.



You can believe that all you want, but the president can't declare war all by himself. I have a very hard time believing Congress would have had the stomach to vote to go to war if we were not attacked on our soil first.

dnf777
02-08-2011, 09:54 AM
You can believe that all you want, but the president can't declare war all by himself. I have a very hard time believing Congress would have had the stomach to vote to go to war if we were not attacked on our soil first.

Do you believe Iraq or Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9-11 attack?

___ yes

___ no


As for whether or not we would have concocted another reason to invade Iraq, or whether we actually would have will never be known, so there's little point in arguing it.

What we do know, is that the Cheney/bush administration shifted the reason for the invasion several times. First it was linkage to 9-11. Then WMDs and mushroom clouds. Then to remove a tyrant who gassed is own people. To me, each time the came up with a new reason, it invalidated the previous one. Now that we know there were no WMDs or imminent threat, WHAT IS THE REASON? I've asked this several times here, and never got an answer.

And please note, I haven't called anyone a wacko, thick-skulled, obtuse, or any other insulting name or phrase. Just trying to understand the war-hawk position on this costly war. Lets keep it civil.

Marvin S
02-08-2011, 09:58 AM
After President Gerald Ford lost the 1976 election, O'Neill took an executive job at International Paper in New York City. He was vice president of the company from 1977 to 1985 and president from 1985 to 1987.
In 1988, he was approached by President George H. W. Bush to be Secretary of Defense. O'Neill declined, but recommended Dick Cheney for the position. Bush then pursued O'Neill to chair an advisory group on education that included Lamar Alexander, Bill Brock, and Richard Riley. Under O'Neill's leadership, the group recommended national standards and unified testing standards.
O'Neill was chairman and CEO of the Pittsburgh industrial giant Alcoa from 1987 to 1999, and retired as chairman at the end of 2000. His reign was extremely successful, as the company's revenues increased from $1.5 billion in 1987 to $23 billion in 2000 and O'Neill's personal fortune grew to $60 million.
In 1995, O'Neill was made chairman of the RAND Corporation.

Maybe after all that, and then working for a failed administration, he retired?

Doc, it was IMO - I don't care what their resume says, I've seen an awful lot of really bad managers at the top. Revenue increases are most often a function of an orderly market & have little to do with the guy at the top.

& I notice he was involved with an education endeavor. Funny how most are involved but little of note is accomplished, it's a popular thing.


Here is an interesting article about the Reagan Administration.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

Please understand I do not condone this type of action,FWTW. But do you believe Carter or Mondale would have done better? It's easy to complain about someone but mostly we were given bad choices in the 1st place. Gore-Kerrey regards.

Still want those cabinets to compare!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ducknwork
02-08-2011, 10:01 AM
Do you believe Iraq or Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9-11 attack?

___ yes

__X_ no


As for whether or not we would have concocted another reason to invade Iraq, or whether we actually would have will never be known, so there's little point in arguing it.

When did I say that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? I don't recall that...

As for your second paragraph, I'll just shutup now since there is no point in arguing it:rolleyes:(thanks Mr. moderator...I guess now you and Hew get to set the rules for discussion?), although I tend to call these things 'discussions'. Maybe they are called arguments to those who seem to only want to stir the pot and like to 'argue'.:rolleyes: Since we can't prove or disprove anything, and you don't think we should discuss our opinions, I am sending a PM to Chris to shut down POTUS, because if we can't 'argue':rolleyes: about opinions, then EVERY thread on here is worthless and should be deleted.

Roger Perry
02-08-2011, 10:20 AM
You can believe that all you want, but the president can't declare war all by himself. I have a very hard time believing Congress would have had the stomach to vote to go to war if we were not attacked on our soil first.

If 9/11 had never occured Bush would still have used WMD as a reason to ask Congress to go to war with Iraq. According to O'Neill he was dead set on taking out Saddam.

Remember, the war with Iraq started March 20, 2003 almost 2 years after the attack on the world trade center.

luvmylabs23139
02-08-2011, 10:42 AM
You running away from POTUS again??:p

WE can only wish!

dnf777
02-08-2011, 10:52 AM
When did I say that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? I don't recall that...

As for your second paragraph, I'll just shutup now since there is no point in arguing it:rolleyes:(thanks Mr. moderator...I guess now you and Hew get to set the rules for discussion?), although I tend to call these things 'discussions'. Maybe they are called arguments to those who seem to only want to stir the pot and like to 'argue'.:rolleyes: Since we can't prove or disprove anything, and you don't think we should discuss our opinions, I am sending a PM to Chris to shut down POTUS, because if we can't 'argue':rolleyes: about opinions, then EVERY thread on here is worthless and should be deleted.


Argumentation is the process of making a claim, then definding it with justifications. It is one form of discussion. As far as I know, it does not include name calling and insulting. (not that YOU do that, but many if not most here do) I try not to, but obviously falter at times. I enjoy a lively "discussion", but if the logic and structure fall to pieces, and names and insults start flying, there's little point in continuing.

The best thing about POTUS is that it keep *most* of this behavior off the training forums.

Roger Perry
02-08-2011, 10:57 AM
Doc, it was IMO - I don't care what their resume says, I've seen an awful lot of really bad managers at the top. Revenue increases are most often a function of an orderly market & have little to do with the guy at the top.

& I notice he was involved with an education endeavor. Funny how most are involved but little of note is accomplished, it's a popular thing.



Please understand I do not condone this type of action,FWTW. But do you believe Carter or Mondale would have done better? It's easy to complain about someone but mostly we were given bad choices in the 1st place. Gore-Kerrey regards.

Still want those cabinets to compare!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Perry http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=746907#post746907)
Here is an interesting article about the Reagan Administration.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

Marvin S Quote: Please understand I do not condone this type of action,FWTW. But do you believe Carter or Mondale would have done better? It's easy to complain about someone but mostly we were given bad choices in the 1st place. Gore-Kerrey regards.

Marvin, you said this thread was about Reagan so I posted something about Reagan. We will never know if Carter or Mondale would have done better. i voted for Reagan.

ducknwork
02-08-2011, 12:16 PM
If 9/11 had never occured Bush would still have used WMD as a reason to ask Congress to go to war with Iraq. According to O'Neill he was dead set on taking out Saddam.

Remember the war with Iraq started March 20, 2003 almost 2 years after the attack on the world trade center.

I understand all that...but read what I wrote. He could have screamed WMDs until the cows came home, but I don't believe that Congress would have approved it with the pre-9/11 mindset that this country had.

Roger Perry
02-08-2011, 12:25 PM
I understand all that...but read what I wrote. He could have screamed WMDs until the cows came home, but I don't believe that Congress would have approved it with the pre-9/11 mindset that this country had.

Well then, could this then be the reason Bush turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the warnings he received in August 2001 about an impending attack the CIA notified him about?

ducknwork
02-08-2011, 12:35 PM
Well then, could this then be the reason Bush turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the warnings he received in August 2011 about an impending attack the CIA notified him about?

I think your tin foil hat is a little too tight. It must be cutting off circulation to your brain if you really think that he was willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives in an attack in our country just to get rid of Saddam. Please tell me that your question was not serious. PLEASE. I would really hate to think that you would actually believe something so pathetic.

Cody Covey
02-08-2011, 12:44 PM
Well then, could this then be the reason Bush turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the warnings he received in August 2011 about an impending attack the CIA notified him about?

You don't really believe that Bush allowed 3000 civilians to die so he could start a war where 4000+ soldiers have died?

Roger Perry
02-08-2011, 01:13 PM
You don't really believe that Bush allowed 3000 civilians to die so he could start a war where 4000+ soldiers have died?

I would hope not.

dnf777
02-08-2011, 01:48 PM
I understand all that...but read what I wrote. He could have screamed WMDs until the cows came home, but I don't believe that Congress would have approved it with the pre-9/11 mindset that this country had.

Exactly Duck. But why does a non-related tragedy somehow get used to persuade otherwise opposed populace (and congress) into condoning a war?
If we knew at the time Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, isn't that sort of unethical to use an emotionally charged tragedy to promote one's agenda?

Now we're coming back around to the original point.... discussing, not arguing, if you please. ;)

M&K's Retrievers
02-08-2011, 10:26 PM
Argumentation is the process of making a claim, then definding it with justifications. It is one form of discussion. As far as I know, it does not include name calling and insulting. (not that YOU do that, but many if not most here do) I try not to, but obviously falter at times. I enjoy a lively "discussion", but if the logic and structure fall to pieces, and names and insults start flying, there's little point in continuing.


Now that's funny. I don't care who you are.

Steve Hester
02-09-2011, 10:13 AM
Well then, could this then be the reason Bush turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the warnings he received in August 2011 about an impending attack the CIA notified him about?

Since August 2011 hasn't even happened yet, I have to consider this post null and void......:rolleyes:

Roger Perry
02-09-2011, 10:19 AM
Since August 2011 hasn't even happened yet, I have to consider this post null and void......:rolleyes:

Ok, I went back and fixed it.;-) Now you can reply to it.

ducknwork
02-09-2011, 11:48 AM
Ok, I went back and fixed it.;-) Now you can reply to it.

I'll take the liberty of fixing it for Steve...


Since this was posted by Roger Perry, I have to consider this post null and void......:rolleyes:

;):D

mjh345
02-09-2011, 01:48 PM
What did 9/11 have to do with Saddam and Iraq?

Hey Hew, some of us delusional whack jobs and borderline ignoramuses are still waiting for your answer to this question; and how it may have influence Cheney's thinking

Enlighten us please grasshopper

YardleyLabs
02-09-2011, 09:47 PM
Let's not forget the Democratic hero, Clinton. Clinton was the one who ordered FNMA to loosen up loan qualifications so that just about anyone could qualify for a home mortgage if they wanted it. That was the ongoing practice that helped artificially inflate real estate prices due to a very strong buyer demand. Then once the market was loaded with people who couldn't afford those mortgages, the bubble burst.
A nice rhetorical; argument, but completely meaningless with respect to what happened. The mortgages that caused the failures were issued long after Clinton left office (2002-2005) and were underwritten by commercial instruments unrelated to FNMA. Even in 2006, Bush was taking credit for the massive expansion in our "ownership society" that happened on his watch.

Marvin S
02-09-2011, 10:19 PM
A nice rhetorical; argument, but completely meaningless with respect to what happened. The mortgages that caused the failures were issued long after Clinton left office (2002-2005) and were underwritten by commercial instruments unrelated to FNMA. Even in 2006, Bush was taking credit for the massive expansion in our "ownership society" that happened on his watch.

Thanks, Roger!!!!!!!!!!

dnf777
02-09-2011, 10:58 PM
Thanks, Roger!!!!!!!!!!

Why is it, that every time your ilk is confronted with facts that are contrary to what you want to believe, all you can do is call names and completely divert away from the issues?

Let's hear some good debate! If you don't believe the comments about mortgage failures and Bush's role in that matter, present some data!

(another rhetorical question)

Steve Hester
02-10-2011, 09:17 AM
A nice rhetorical; argument, but completely meaningless with respect to what happened. The mortgages that caused the failures were issued long after Clinton left office (2002-2005) and were underwritten by commercial instruments unrelated to FNMA. Even in 2006, Bush was taking credit for the massive expansion in our "ownership society" that happened on his watch.

NO, it's not meaningless. This was the beginning of the policies that caused the collapse of the real estate market. And if you think that there were not tons of foreclosures on mortgages underwritten by FNMA and issued during Clinton's watch, your are dead wrong. Did Bush do anything to change those policies? No, he didn't, and perhaps he should have. But the point is Clinton, the libs hero, started those policies.

YardleyLabs
02-11-2011, 08:37 PM
NO, it's not meaningless. This was the beginning of the policies that caused the collapse of the real estate market. And if you think that there were not tons of foreclosures on mortgages underwritten by FNMA and issued during Clinton's watch, your are dead wrong. Did Bush do anything to change those policies? No, he didn't, and perhaps he should have. But the point is Clinton, the libs hero, started those policies.
The Clinton administration absolutely supports and embraced policies to expand opportunities for home ownership to more minority and lower income borrowers. That resulted in some expansion of the pool of mortgages that Fanny Mae would repurchase from lenders. The impact was an increase in the percentage of sub-prime mortgages by tens of billions. As those policies were maintained, and the Bush administration pushed hard for unrealistically low interest rates and massive tax cuts even after the economy had begun to grow at a healthy rate, there was an unprecedented relaxation of lending standards at all loan levels between 2002 and 2006. The number of sub-prime mortgages being issued each year beginning in 2002 exceeded the value of all sub-prime mortgages issued in the entire history of the US real estate market before Bush became President. The interest differential between sub-prime mortgages and prime mortgages declined to the point that there was almost no risk premium to reflect the higher risk of default. This resulted not from government policies but from reliance on unprecedented, and illusory, increases in real estate prices as too much cash in the pocket encountered too little scrutiny of credit. The mortgage crisis did not result from bad loans made to poor people. It resulted from bad loans made to relatively affluent who were aught in an impossible trap when the value of their homes declined by 40%. None of this would have been possible without the derivatives market, created to absorb financing volumes beyond anything ever contemplated by Fanny or Freddie, artificially low interest rates, excess cash from unwarranted tax cuts and massive deficits in an economy that needed neither, and a relaxation of all regulatory oversight by an administration convinced that the free market could price and adsorb the risk appropriately. This is very similar to the stupidity that led to the S&L and pension crises under Reagan.

EDIT:

If you look at http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/ChomPennCross.pdf as an example, you will see that the number of sub-prime mortgage in 2002 was twice the volume as 2000 and that the volume in 2003 was three times the volume in 2000. That difference continued to grow until the collapse in 2005/2006. The biggest sources of increased risk was not from mortgages issued to sub-prime borrowers to increase home ownership. By 2003 the number of cash out refinancing transactions -- often converting prime loans into sub-prime loans -- increased from almost nothing to be almost equal to the total number of mortgages issued for home purchases. Stated another way, as people used equity in their homes that resulted from an artificial inflation in home prices to finance current consumption, they assumed a level of credit risk that could not survive any market downturn. At the same time, the derivatives market reduced the interest premium for these higher risk loans to less than 2% even though default rates were six times higher despite growing housing values. None of that was stimulated by Fanie or Freddie. It was stimulated by a desire to cash in on extraordinary short term profits without regard to long term consequences (i.e. wild west mentality meets "free market" stupidity).

Steve Hester
02-12-2011, 10:16 PM
Yardley,
I'm not going to aruge this with you anymore. I have been in various Real Estate industries for 39 years. I am currently a Real Estate Appraiser. You can rest assured, there are many more foreclosures out there on properties where the buyer was a low income, poor credit risk buyer than number of foreclosures of the "relatively affluent". When buyers who made $40,000 annually and had relatively poor credit to boot were given home loans of $300,000 at a rapid pace, this caused run away inflationary prices in real estate. These price levels were artificial, and there was no way the market could sustain them. When the low income, poor credit risk loans began defaulting at an alarming rate (which was inevitable), causing all demand and prices for residential real estate to take a sharp decline. Building effectively stopped, and the house of cards fell. This drastic change then affected the entire economy, causing problems for even the "relatively affluent", resulting in larger dollar volume foreclosures. Most of the foreclosures of the "relatively affluent" were not a result of the mortgagors not having sufficient income and good credit at the time the loans were made, but a result of layoffs, salary reductions, etc. due to the collapse of the entire economy. The low income, poor credit loans were bad loans to begin with, and would have defaulted, regardless of the economy. The "relatively affluent" loans were good loans to begin with. Thank you for your debate.

Julie R.
02-12-2011, 11:20 PM
I'll argue my point I brought up 2 years ago that Clinton is more to blame than Bush. The original thread started by R Little on 3/15/09 also has a very good article, do a search on Community Reinvestment Act, the little Carter legislation that Clinton beefed up. And actually there was talk of reining in the free for all on lending in the Bush admin. but let's get real, no politician is going to touch the hot potato that is the uncreditworthy, because they happen to be disadvantaged, largely minority and/or single parent households that live in blighted areas that banks are forced to loan to because of the CRA and its quotas.


...several key components came together to seed the perfect storm, including names we now see in the Oboma Admin.

That brilliant social architect Jimmy Carter laid the groundwork with his Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) from the late 70s, but it was a little-used tool until Clinton and his Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac cronies beefed it up.

excerpts from the New York Times, 1993
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1)

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...f-news/2095055/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2095055/posts)

Quote:
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
note: Raines departed Fannie Mae after authorizing the largest bonuses in its history and under a cloud of millions unaccounted for; he was Obama's chief financial advisor during the campaign and architect of some of Obamo's wealth redistribution projects.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, was put under increased pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people (loans the banks would not make on their own).

Then, **imagine this** Obama advisor Eric Holder, then U.S. Attorney, settled a landmark case in 1994 in which two D.C. area banks were accused of bias in not serving certain (blighted) areas of the District. Chevy Chase S&L denied the charges of bias, but did agree to make $140 million in subsidized or below-marketrate mortgage loans in to neighborhoods it was accused of discriminating against.

Holder bragged that the settlement was unique because cash was funnelled directly to the community rather than to the government. The banks were also forced to fill quotas and open branches in underserved areas (ghettos) and all the employees had to take 'sensitivity training'.

(National Review, 1993)
Assault on the mortgage lenders continued in the name of racial justice as the Clintonites wanted the power to decide who got a home of his own with imposition of regulations on banks to make loans even if applicants are not creditworthy:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...s_/ai_14779796 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...s_/ai_14779796)

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...f-news/2088728/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...f-news/2088728/posts)

Quote:
QUIETLY, behind the scenes, the Clinton Administration is preparing for the biggest regulatory crackdown of recent years. Attorney General Janet Reno is linking up with banking regulators and with HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to end the supposed epidemic of discrimination against minorities in making home loans. The implications for society at large are ominous.

Here, as in affirmative-action efforts in hiring, college admissions, and the drawing of voting districts, the Washington establishment is obsessed with "disparate impact," which it equates with racism. In the mortgage-lending area, there is ample evidence of disparate impact to feed this obsession. Data collected by the Federal Government revealed that in 1992, while 16 per cent of white applicants for mortgage loans were rejected, 36 per cent of black applicants were rejected.

But does disparate impact indicate racism? According to Lawrence Lindsey, the Federal Reserve governor who oversaw the collection of mortgage lending data, even the celebrated Boston Fed study that inspired this crusade found that factors other than race--such as one's credit record and whether one has sufficient income to meet the payments--are enough to account for nearly all the difference in rejection rates.

In short, the banking and housing crisis was created by the Democrats' grandiose plans to share the wealth even with those unable and unwilling to repay loans.

Note: Much of this is from an article I saved from the Richmond Times Dispatch Jan. 18th about banking deregulation. It was written by Walter Williams, a college professor for the Ricmond Times Dispatch; I can't find it on the Times-Dispatch website or I'd link to it.

YardleyLabs
02-15-2011, 09:22 PM
I'll argue my point I brought up 2 years ago that Clinton is more to blame than Bush. The original thread started by R Little on 3/15/09 also has a very good article, do a search on Community Reinvestment Act, the little Carter legislation that Clinton beefed up. And actually there was talk of reining in the free for all on lending in the Bush admin. but let's get real, no politician is going to touch the hot potato that is the uncreditworthy, because they happen to be disadvantaged, largely minority and/or single parent households that live in blighted areas that banks are forced to loan to because of the CRA and its quotas.
The point that is being lost is very simple -- timing. When were the mortgages that have ended in default issued? The answer is simple: 2002-2006. The wave of cash out refinancings dwarfed the entire volume of low income mortgages issued under the Clinton policies to expand home ownership (for which the Bush administration subsequently claimed as its own). If 100% of all sub-prime mortgages issued while Clinton was President had defaulted (which they did not), the impact on the real estate market would have been trivial.

Julie R.
02-16-2011, 11:23 AM
The point that is being lost is very simple -- timing. When were the mortgages that have ended in default issued? The answer is simple: 2002-2006. The wave of cash out refinancings dwarfed the entire volume of low income mortgages issued under the Clinton policies to expand home ownership (for which the Bush administration subsequently claimed as its own). If 100% of all sub-prime mortgages issued while Clinton was President had defaulted (which they did not), the impact on the real estate market would have been trivial.

And the point that is being lost with this assumption is that the policies that enabled all these borrowers to obtain their subprime loans including cashing out on refinances were put in place by the CRA well before Bush took office. I don't believe he ever crowed about the massive wave of refinance which by definition did not increase home ownership. And as I mentioned earlier you surely do not think any politician would commit political suicide by attempting to dismantle policies put in place to make it easier for minorities and disadvantaged to borrow? Remember--banks were punished if they did not meet their CRA quotas.

Uncle Bill
02-16-2011, 11:44 AM
Why is it, that every time your ilk is confronted with facts that are contrary to what you want to believe, all you can do is call names and completely divert away from the issues?

Let's hear some good debate! If you don't believe the comments about mortgage failures and Bush's role in that matter, present some data!

(another rhetorical question)

That's because you wouldn't recognize "FACTS" IF THEY SLAPPED YOU IN THE FACE!

Bush asked to have Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac investigated and revised a dozen times, but your assorted froot loops, liberals, and socialists claimed they were doing just fine, and since they had the purse strings, voila.

If you had just a small tinge of decency, you would acknowlege the role played by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the Houston loudmouth, Shiela Jackson Lee in their complete fawning over that corrupt head of Fanny Mae that ripped off that agency for multi millions.

You don't want good debate. You want Obama sycophants and Roger-type toadys to confirm your misguided belief system. We all know your views of how badly you pathetic so-called Americans view Bush. Most of the conservatives I know have the same view of Carter/Clinton. But we don't continue to harp about how much damage they did to this nation and the office of the President of The US.

But the main reason most of us don't want to even reply to your inane comments, is because we have come to the realization we shouldn't argue with idiots, because you will just drag us down to your level and beat us with experience. You understand, DNF, if I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

UB

sandyg
02-16-2011, 12:06 PM
That's because you wouldn't recognize "FACTS" IF THEY SLAPPED YOU IN THE FACE!

Bush asked to have Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac investigated and revised a dozen times, but your assorted froot loops, liberals, and socialists claimed they were doing just fine, and since they had the purse strings, voila.

If you had just a small tinge of decency, you would acknowlege the role played by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the Houston loudmouth, Shiela Jackson Lee in their complete fawning over that corrupt head of Fanny Mae that ripped off that agency for multi millions.

You don't want good debate. You want Obama sycophants and Roger-type toadys to confirm your misguided belief system. We all know your views of how badly you pathetic so-called Americans view Bush. Most of the conservatives I know have the same view of Carter/Clinton. But we don't continue to harp about how much damage they did to this nation and the office of the President of The US.

But the main reason most of us don't want to even reply to your inane comments, is because we have come to the realization we shouldn't argue with idiots, because you will just drag us down to your level and beat us with experience. You understand, DNF, if I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

UB

Right on the money!

dnf777
02-16-2011, 01:27 PM
Right on the money!


http://i982.photobucket.com/albums/ae306/dnf777/images-3.jpgSandy the Dandy....take your place next to UB!

M&K's Retrievers
02-16-2011, 01:44 PM
That's because you wouldn't recognize "FACTS" IF THEY SLAPPED YOU IN THE FACE!

Bush asked to have Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac investigated and revised a dozen times, but your assorted froot loops, liberals, and socialists claimed they were doing just fine, and since they had the purse strings, voila.

If you had just a small tinge of decency, you would acknowlege the role played by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the Houston loudmouth, Shiela Jackson Lee in their complete fawning over that corrupt head of Fanny Mae that ripped off that agency for multi millions.

You don't want good debate. You want Obama sycophants and Roger-type toadys to confirm your misguided belief system. We all know your views of how badly you pathetic so-called Americans view Bush. Most of the conservatives I know have the same view of Carter/Clinton. But we don't continue to harp about how much damage they did to this nation and the office of the President of The US.

But the main reason most of us don't want to even reply to your inane comments, is because we have come to the realization we shouldn't argue with idiots, because you will just drag us down to your level and beat us with experience. You understand, DNF, if I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

UB

Well said, UB. Unfortunately, your points will be wasted as they will clearly go over dnf's head or at least he refuses to believe the truth when it comes to the Libs who caused this mess.

sandyg
02-16-2011, 02:16 PM
http://i982.photobucket.com/albums/ae306/dnf777/images-3.jpgSandy the Dandy....take your place next to UB!

Are you for real? You just admonished me and RK in a different post yesterday about slinging insults and then you throw out this one. Remember? Here, let me refresh your memory for you...


02-14-2011, 03:25 PM #18 Egypt - Be careful what you wish for?
thank you. It was an example, and was supposed to. Maybe sandyq can learn from it, instead of insulting everybody. I never meant to insult anyone, but he certainly took it that way, and returned fire.

I appreciate your reply. its nice to have a meaningful discussion. Not sure why RK is lobbing insults again, which is out of character for him. I didn't call anyone any names. if using a latin phrase which is in common english usage is somehow insulting to him, I don't know what to tell him, but would appreciate if he and RK would keep things civil. We could all digress into name calling, but then the janitor would be conscripted into action again, and he really doesn't need or want that.

Again, its good talking with you. It will be interesting to see how we deal with Egypt and any other uprisings in that region.

dave f

Don't worry, I won't go crying to Chris the way some people would and have in the past! And you know firsthand who I'm talking about!

dnf777
02-16-2011, 02:18 PM
Well said, UB. Unfortunately, your points will be wasted as they will clearly go over dnf's head or at least he refuses to believe the truth when it comes to the Libs who caused this mess.

U mak-a me laugh!

I havent' even commented on the housing debacle, so how do you ascribe my feelings one way or another??

Just to entertain you two for a moment, I think that WAS one of Clinton and the democrat's failures! :shock:


Okay, if you've had time to put your eyes back in their sockets, let me say as a homeowner, who mortgaged a house WELL within my means (less than my annual salary) I am sick as $#it hearing of poor poor Americans losing their homes to forclosures! I blame in the following order of responsibility:

1) the f-ing morons who bought homes they HAD NO BUSINESS BUYING!
(my wife and I are BOTH physicians, and we drive a toyota minivan and a Chevy Silverado.....yet I see nurses and nurses aides driving BMWs and Benz's)

2) The banks who knowingly floated very risky loans to people for amounts three times their annual salary, (or more) on hopes of home values increasing over their already inflated values. People with new jobs who haven't demonstrated the ability to save even a 10% downpayment.

3) the gov't Clinton, Bush, FAnnie and YES, even the VA! For enabling BOTH of the above idiotic groups to carry out their greedy, irresponsible home buying practices.

Now, that was a fun rant. Not only did it release pent up frustration at having to pay for idiots to keep their homes.....but it proves YOU and UB wrong once again in your prejudices!

Have a great day.....I am!