Yar-El Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Dow Dips Below 10,000 Holy Henna! Freefalling or what. It looks like the bailout may be a little too late, or it may have never had a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Quite frankly, the attempt to intervene was way too late, if the plan the Republicans had to fix the regulations had actually been allowed to proceed and pass all the way back in 2003 or 2005, 2006, or even 2007. We wouldn't be in this mess. A video of interest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhQAHKxuR1Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted October 6, 2008 Author Share Posted October 6, 2008 Quite frankly, the attempt to intervene was way too late, if the plan the Republicans had to fix the regulations had actually been allowed to proceed and pass all the way back in 2003 or 2005, 2006, or even 2007. We wouldn't be in this mess. What your saying is that we are 4 to 5 years too late. I have never seen it below 10,000 since the 1990s. If it did go down in recent history, I may not have been paying attention. This is a rear occassion for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 What your saying is that we are 4 to 5 years too late. I have never seen it below 10,000 since the 1990s. If it did go down in recent history, I may not have been paying attention. This is a rear occassion for me. President Bush tried to add regulations to the two banks that started all this with the Subprime mortgages back in 2003, the Democrats fillabustered it. John McCain, Elizabeth Dole, and a few other Republicans tried again in 2005-2006. Democrats fillabustered it. Then John McCain was a cosponsor for another bill to try to fix this problem again in 2007, this time the Democrats voted it down. Throughout all this the Democrats claimed there wasn't any problems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs Another video: (note You Tube has repeatedly tried to supress this video) Reason being that Time Warner which owns YouTube gave $338,527 to Senator Obama, and thus YouTube is in the tank. Edit: Another video a lot is the same but it has some more stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Quit saying that it is all the Democrat's fault, as Republicans have been equally guilty on sitting idly by while the economy goes to Hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Funny, by what Garfield is saying, the Republicans have tried three times to fix this mess. So that's dead wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Funny, by what Garfield is saying, the Republicans have tried three times to fix this mess. So that's dead wrong.And did any of those attempts work? No, they didn't, and what's even worse is that the Republicans that Garfield was referring to all tried to introduce a bill in a Republican controlled Congress. And Garfield, that first video that you posted is about Obama's ties to ACORN, which is completely irreverent to the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Yes, and why did it fail? Oh, yes. Because the Democrats FILIBUSTERED IT TO DEATH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 The blame-game is fun, isn't it? It's times like this that I wish we had bipartisan action instead of pointing fingers at each other, trying to dole out the pain in an effort to get reelected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Yeah, me too. Some Bipartisan action would have been nice five years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Yes, and why did it fail? Oh, yes. Because the Democrats FILIBUSTERED IT TO DEATH.The Democrats made several attempts to stop sub-prime lending as well. I have to say though, it's nice that Democrats and Republicans were able to put aside their differences and ruin the economy together. Edit: Yeah, me too. Some Bipartisan action would have been nice five years ago.Excellent timing sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 The Democrats made several attempts to stop sub-prime lending as well. I find that hard to believe, and I've posted up around here in some thread a copy of one of the Bill's submitted by the Republicans and the Democrats fillabustered it. The reasons I don't believe the Dems made any attempt to fix this was: 1. They denied the existance of the problem. 2. They were the ones getting all the money in the kickbacks for their campaigns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I find that hard to believe, and I've posted up around here in some thread a copy of one of the Bill's submitted by the Republicans and the Democrats fillabustered it.I am shocked sir. Why to think that Democrats and Republicans have different priorities when it comes to the economy. Well I never... The reasons I don't believe the Dems made any attempt to fix this was: 1. They denied the existance of the problem. 2. They were the ones getting all the money in the kickbacks for their campaigns. I love speculation. I also love your assertion that Democrats were the only ones getting kickbacks. Teehee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I know republicans were getting kickbacks, but nowhere near the level the Democrats were, and the Republicans were trying to fix the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I know republicans were getting kickbacks, but nowhere near the level the Democrats were, and the Republicans were trying to fix the problem. you have already proven you excel at pointing fingers, could we kindly get back to the fact that regardless of who's to blame, we still need a solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 you have already proven you excel at pointing fingers, could we kindly get back to the fact that regardless of who's to blame, we still need a solution? You have to understand what caused the problem before you can start to fix it. Some finger pointing is going to go on, and perhaps _should_ go on instead of trying to cover up the crap that went on, because cover-ups and misstatements of earnings were HUGE problems in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 You have to understand what caused the problem before you can start to fix it. Some finger pointing is going to go on, and perhaps _should_ go on instead of trying to cover up the crap that went on, because cover-ups and misstatements of earnings were HUGE problems in this case. While that's all good, Jae, it's when the politicians that are supposed to be working for the good of the country are caught up in the blame-game, instead of saying "Okay, we messed up, now let's try and fix this." That's where the problem is, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 You have to understand what caused the problem before you can start to fix it. Some finger pointing is going to go on, and perhaps _should_ go on instead of trying to cover up the crap that went on, because cover-ups and misstatements of earnings were HUGE problems in this case. I disagree, understanding what caused the problem will only prevent us from doing it again. Which is entirely irrelevant to preventing a cataclysmic in the now. Knowing what caused things to happen now will not change what's happening, it will not stop what's happening, and it won't change the course of things. What we need to understand is how we got out of recessions and depressions before. We don't need to know WHY the earth shakes during a earthquake, only that it does, and the results can be bad, and what we need to focus on is how to be able to withstand these sorts of things better than we currently do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Knowing the diagnosis and the contributing factors is integral to finding a treatment. If fraud is part of the problem and you do nothing to fix the fraud, guess what? The problem won't get fixed. If giving people who shouldn't have had loans more loans, the problem won't get fixed. If legislators allowing deregulation in exchange for lobbyist money is part of the problem, how's the problem going to get solved if you don't fix those things? How are you going to even begin to solve the crisis without beginning to understand how the problem came to be so that you don't continue doing the same things that got you to that point in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 You have to understand what caused the problem before you can start to fix it. I actually agree with Jae in this case, but I have to ask why. Why do we have to understand the problem? I mean it is not like this hasn’t happen before. We deregulated the Saving and Loan industry and then have to perform a mass bailout. So what did congress learn from that debacle, not enough not to deregulate the banking industry. Will knowing the cause really solve the problem and prevent it from happening again? I would say if history is any indication, then it is highly doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Again I'm going to point out this problem wouldn't exist if not for the Democrats stonewalling attempts at reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Again I'm going to point out this problem wouldn't exist if not for the Democrats stonewalling attempts at reform. Yes, you keep stating that, it does not however make it true. The problem also would not exist if a Republican Congress had not deregulated the Banking Industry in the first place. Funny thing is you also would not have to reform it if you had not deregulated it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Yes, you keep stating that, it does not however make it true. The problem also would not exist if a Republican Congress had not deregulated the Banking Industry in the first place. Funny thing is you also would not have to reform it if you had not deregulated it in the first place. I will acknowledge that part but as I pointed out that Senator McCain wasn't present at the vote. And McCain acted to try to fix this issue. Again the Democrats in their own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I will acknowledge that part but as I pointed out that Senator McCain wasn't present at the vote. Yet his vote was counted. He voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Which was deregulation of the Banking Industry. According to the Senates own website John McCain did vote and he did vote yea. Are you saying he did not vote, if so I call it voters fraud, but I sure it is Obama’s fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Yet his vote was counted. He voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Which was deregulation of the Banking Industry. According to the Senates own website John McCain did vote and he did vote yea. Are you saying he did not vote, if so I call it voters fraud, but I sure it is Obama’s fault. I'm not sure we were looking at the same bill, but the bill you're referring to, I can't get the text of the bill, so can you get me the bill text. Anyways: (this is a video of Democrats actually stonewalling) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.