There were a series of discussions on the box called Geoffrey Robertson's Hypotheticals back in the 80s.

Quite interesting, they covered a few topics like that.

RECOVERY...is when Obama loses his job.

Actually it would just be a start.....

Would be nice if Bawny Fwank left along with Nancy Pelosi & so many others....

In fact scrap the whole heap & the FED & maybe we would be onto a new start

I'll rest my judgement of Obama until after he has been in a full four years. It's very difficult to undo all the damage done by the previous Bush administration. And, nobody can work miracles.

Blame Bush? If the Bush Administration had gotten it's way back in 2003, we could have avoided this whole economic meltdown:

The New York Times

September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10—

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

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

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress

, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken.

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

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies

, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

.....

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said

Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

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

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

I have highlighted in mauve the other pertinant bits to this article.... so Congress had the authority, and Bush appointed the directors....and look what happened.

Of course, the question remains, as this article was produced to show how great Dubbya was, aside from making the reccomendation....what else did his administration actually do about it? What was the result? A result that Obama has to try to mop up.

If you click through and read the entire article you'll see this:

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president

to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members

.

It doesn't say whether or not the 5 members that the President can appoint were appointed by Bush or his predecessor, Bill Clinton.

I'll rest my judgement of Obama until after he has been in a full four years. It's very difficult to undo all the damage done by the previous Bush administration. And, nobody can work miracles.

Blame Bush? If the Bush Administration had gotten it's way back in 2003, we could have avoided this whole economic meltdown:

The New York Times

September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10—

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

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

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress

, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken.

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

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies

, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

.....

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said

Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

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

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

I have highlighted in mauve the other pertinant bits to this article.... so Congress had the authority, and Bush appointed the directors....and look what happened.

Of course, the question remains, as this article was produced to show how great Dubbya was, aside from making the reccomendation....what else did his administration actually do about it? What was the result? A result that Obama has to try to mop up.

If you click through and read the entire article you'll see this:

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president

to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members

.

It doesn't say whether or not the 5 members that the President can appoint were appointed by Bush or his predecessor, Bill Clinton.

Did you provide the link to "click through"? No matter....

So how many years was this debacle fomenting? Did Bush in his 8 years actually achieve something in this regard?......and you condem Obama after one year.

Did you provide the link to "click through"? No matter....

So how many years was this debacle fomenting? Did Bush in his 8 years actually achieve something in this regard?......and you condem Obama after one year.

Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business...agewanted=print

I didn't post this article for condemning Obama. It was in reply to someone's post blaming Bush and I just provided an article from the anti-Bush, anti-Republican New York Times that shows the Bush Administration tried to take action to correct Fannie & Freddie 5 years before it all came crashing down in 2008.

It is not really about what Bush did or did not do. He is gone. It is about Obama using the wrong strategies now and refusing to back down about things like health care when we are in the middle of a financial crisis. I am in favor of it, but not right at the moment.

I'll rest my judgement of Obama until after he has been in a full four years. It's very difficult to undo all the damage done by the previous Bush administration. And, nobody can work miracles.

Blame Bush? If the Bush Administration had gotten it's way back in 2003, we could have avoided this whole economic meltdown:

The New York Times

September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10—

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

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

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress

, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken.

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

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies

, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

.....

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said

Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

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

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

I have highlighted in mauve the other pertinant bits to this article.... so Congress had the authority, and Bush appointed the directors....and look what happened.

Of course, the question remains, as this article was produced to show how great Dubbya was, aside from making the reccomendation....what else did his administration actually do about it? What was the result? A result that Obama has to try to mop up.

Bush's proposed plan to oversee the two government corporations was never acted upon by Congress. Barney Frank killed it in the House of Representatives and Chris Dodd killed it in the Senate. The proposal presented by the Bush Administration in this article never took affect due to the inaction of Congress.

This problem had been fomenting long before Bush took office. It began with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under the Carter presidency, which called for the relaxation of lending requirements in order for minorities to become eligible for home loans, whether they were qualified or not. Bush 41 endorsed the legislation to a degree, but Clinton actually placed quotas on lending institutions in order for them to relax the requirements for home loans even further. Bush 43 also endorsed the program to a lesser degree but Clinton was the one that placed the quotas. Bush 43 did not remove the quotas, which was his mistake, along with the TARP program.

Read about the problem here:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...nancial_fiasco/

and here:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...n-59501737.html

I'll rest my judgement of Obama until after he has been in a full four years. It's very difficult to undo all the damage done by the previous Bush administration. And, nobody can work miracles.

Blame Bush? If the Bush Administration had gotten it's way back in 2003, we could have avoided this whole economic meltdown:

The New York Times

September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10—

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

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

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress

, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken.

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

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies

, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

.....

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said

Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

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

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

I have highlighted in mauve the other pertinant bits to this article.... so Congress had the authority, and Bush appointed the directors....and look what happened.

Of course, the question remains, as this article was produced to show how great Dubbya was, aside from making the reccomendation....what else did his administration actually do about it? What was the result? A result that Obama has to try to mop up.

Bush's proposed plan to oversee the two government corporations was never acted upon by Congress. Barney Frank killed it in the House of Representatives and Chris Dodd killed it in the Senate. The proposal presented by the Bush Administration in this article never took affect due to the inaction of Congress.

This problem had been fomenting long before Bush took office. It began with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under the Carter presidency, which called for the relaxation of lending requirements in order for minorities to become eligible for home loans, whether they were qualified or not. Bush 41 endorsed the legislation to a degree, but Clinton actually placed quotas on lending institutions in order for them to relax the requirements for home loans even further. Bush 43 also endorsed the program to a lesser degree but Clinton was the one that placed the quotas. Bush 43 did not remove the quotas, which was his mistake, along with the TARP program.

Read about the problem here:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...nancial_fiasco/

and here:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...n-59501737.html

Riiiiigggghhhhhhttttt. Ok. That detail was greatly appreciated and apt. Bush is actually a good and smart guy because he didn't start the debacle........so why is Obama to blame?

"Riiiiigggghhhhhhttttt. Ok. That detail was greatly appreciated and apt. Bush is actually a good and smart guy because he didn't start the debacle........so why is Obama to blame?"

__________________________________________________________

Mr. Harcourt:

Watch your US crime and drama TV shows. The answers are all there.

Want to give me a link where I said Obama was to blame in this? If your question is rhetorical, why do you think Obama is to blame?

"Riiiiigggghhhhhhttttt. Ok. That detail was greatly appreciated and apt. Bush is actually a good and smart guy because he didn't start the debacle........so why is Obama to blame?"

__________________________________________________________

Mr. Harcourt:

Watch your US crime and drama TV shows. The answers are all there.

Want to give me a link where I said Obama was to blame in this? If your question is rhetorical, why do you think Obama is to blame?

The problem with trying to see non-existant fault with the minutiae, is that one misses the context gained from the bigger picture (the OP and the tone of the thread). You might say you can't see the trees for the wood.

It was not rhetorical......the OP is about what we think of Obama now, you have made your position clear, Bush came into it, there is an assumption of pro-Bush = anti Obama, and vice versa, etc etc...... Your picking on minor details, and those details being either inconsequential to the subject at hand or fallacious, makes most of your comments here spurious.

"Riiiiigggghhhhhhttttt. Ok. That detail was greatly appreciated and apt. Bush is actually a good and smart guy because he didn't start the debacle........so why is Obama to blame?"

__________________________________________________________

Mr. Harcourt:

Watch your US crime and drama TV shows. The answers are all there.

Want to give me a link where I said Obama was to blame in this? If your question is rhetorical, why do you think Obama is to blame?

The problem with trying to see non-existant fault with the minutiae, is that one misses the context gained from the bigger picture (the OP and the tone of the thread). You might say you can't see the trees for the wood.

It was not rhetorical......the OP is about what we think of Obama now, you have made your position clear, Bush came into it, there is an assumption of pro-Bush = anti Obama, and vice versa, etc etc...... Your picking on minor details, and those details being either inconsequential to the subject at hand or fallacious, makes most of your comments here spurious.

There you go again. Assuming something when I have not said it. Are you having difficulty finding a link where I said Obama was to blame for the economic problems of 2008?

But are you also claiming the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a "minor detail"?

Exactly which of my comments are you considering inconsequential, fallacious or spurious?

"You can't see the trees for the wood"????

Tut tut tut....I'll bite my tongue. My would-be answer is too obvious.

Tut tut tut....I'll bite my tongue. My would-be answer is too obvious.

Right on cue. No answers as usual.

this was sent to me by a business owner living in a small resort town in Co. He wrote telling me that when he manages to dig out from under the snow and is able to make it town he is shocked by the number of small business owners who are quiting business.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America .

I think you're confusing libralism with economic Socialism, you really should do some research and compare the two.

Your theory on selective immigration is interesting, I thought the whole idea of coming to America in the 1800s was to escape right wing oppression of minorities and unfair economic policies.

Do you know your Caps key sticks?

I thought the whole idea of coming to America in the 1800s was to escape right wing oppression of minorities and unfair economic policies.

That is what we tell everybody, but I think that it had a lot more to do with the streets of gold.

I thought the whole idea of coming to America in the 1800s was to escape right wing oppression of minorities and unfair economic policies.

That is what we tell everybody, but I think that it had a lot more to do with the streets of gold.

It worried me a little General because only yesterday we had a discussion on repackaging lies as the truth and defending them vigorously. It was suggested that this was only a leftist thing, but we all know better.

I was nice to maccaroni man because I thought he was genuinely confused about American history. Another example of someone not taking full advantage of your great education system.

But if he was just winding me up I missed it. I'm a bit slow this morning, too many tacos last night. (With great home made green salsa!)

I thought the whole idea of coming to America in the 1800s was to escape right wing oppression of minorities and unfair economic policies.

That is what we tell everybody, but I think that it had a lot more to do with the streets of gold.

It worried me a little General because only yesterday we had a discussion on repackaging lies as the truth and defending them vigorously. It was suggested that this was only a leftist thing, but we all know better.

My theory is that the left tend to do it more often - of course I am prejudice - but the more conservative posters are usually defending the status quo and have more information to back them up while many liberals have to make up facts to support their wild conspiracy theories.

But we lack the tools that you guys own, one of the most vigorous defended conservative lies is the myth of the "liberal" press.

The world media is owned by extremely wealthy people with no interest in encouraging Socialism, but plenty of interest in keeping right wing nutters frothing at the mouth about "the Commies" taking over the world.

There's not much true Socialism or many Socialists left anyway, Stalin shot most of them in 1927.... who do you think he was purging? Conservatives ? The wishy washy liberals are wrecking it in Northern Europe where economic Socialism did work. I genuinely fear for the next few generations, I suspect that the rich will live in guarded enclaves, (those that don't already), and outside will be like something out of a Mad Max movie. (Where it isn't already).

But we lack the tools that you guys own, one of the most vigorous defended conservative lies is the myth of the "liberal" press.

Maybe you should pick up a copy of the New York Times.

By the way, isn't most of Australia - other than the two coasts - like Mad Max already?

Stop snippy snipping little bits out of my posts and ignoring the rest General, you saw what happened to some one else who likes to do that this week.

Of course they're going to have liberal/left wing rags, they're not going to ignore half the newspaper buying market, the name of the game is the almighty dollar after all.

AND... It keeps the faithful convinced the world is on the brink of falling into the Communist morass.... oh, sorry.... it's the Muslim morass this decade isn't it?

Edit: And another thing, there's a difference between a few kangaroos and emus running around a scrubby desert and gangbangers cruising the streets looking for someone/anyone wearing a blue shirt. (Those wild camels can be quite nasty though).

But we lack the tools that you guys own, one of the most vigorous defended conservative lies is the myth of the "liberal" press.

There is a proven liberal bias in the American press. A vast majority of journalists declare themselves registered Democrats.

Then there's this:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media.

Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly."I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."...

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center

, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter

.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the

most centrist

news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

I stand by my original statements, political scientists, like whores, can be bought.

Stop snippy snipping little bits out of my posts and ignoring the rest General, you saw what happened to some one else who likes to do that this week.

Are you sure that you want me answering every topic that you bring up in your posts? Because of my great respect for you as human being, I try to pick out the stuff that I can answer politely!

Of course they're going to have liberal/left wing rags, they're not going to ignore half the newspaper buying market, the name of the game is the almighty dollar after all.

Since you're not American I don't blame you for being ignorant of the fact that newspapers in America are losing money at an alarming rate.

One of many links: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-y...re-losing-money

Bullshit, you pick on the stuff you think I might not have thought through properly.

Could catch up on the weekend, may be down to CM for a couple of days.

Of course they're going to have liberal/left wing rags, they're not going to ignore half the newspaper buying market, the name of the game is the almighty dollar after all.

Since you're not American I don't blame you for being ignorant of the fact that newspapers in America are losing money at an alarming rate.

One of many links: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-y...re-losing-money

Blame Bill Gates for that, you don't need to be American to work out the changing trends in the media. They don't use drums or message sticks much any more either.

See you then. You can give the lowdown on the book that you helped write that came out recently.

I stand by my original statements, political scientists, like whores, can be bought.

from the link:

"The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said."

See you then. You can give the lowdown on the book that you helped write that came out recently.

Maipenrai