Obama and his socialist agenda

[ArlJim78]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx

I recommend reading this series of reports called "The Audacity of Socialism".
It was done by the folks at Investors Business Daily.
They have done what the mainstream media won't do, and that is to peal back the mask and look behind the curtain to tell the story of Obama's life that he cleverly tries to cover-up.

Its time to wake up people. We are way too close to having a radical socialist for president of the US. Start asking questions and thinking for yourself, and don't simply swallow the sanitized-for-your-protecton pablum that the mainstream media regurgitates

[ArlJim78]

on Jeremiah Wright- "a special shout out to my pastor...my friend, and a great leader"

qpzHQ_PC1uI

here are some of the greatest hits of this man Obama calls a great leader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3wh2XT4e8M
c3wh2XT4e8M

[Hank]

This is one the big reasons why this country is so F%$ked up,We are about to bail out a bunch Gordon Gekko 'greed is good' crooks to the tune of 700 billion tax payer dollors,and your carping about Obama's socialist agenda.:lol::D:lol:

[boxcar]

This is one the big reasons why this country is so F%$ked up,We are about to bail out a bunch Gordon Gekko 'greed is good' crooks to the tune of 700 billion tax payer dollors,and your carping about Obama's socialist agenda.:lol::D:lol:

What's your complaint, Hank? You're not for higher taxes? I thought higher taxes would be the solution to all this country's problems? Wouldn't higher taxes take care of this little bail out? You're not an unpatriotic sought, are you?

Boxcar

[Hank]

What's your complaint, Hank? You're not for higher taxes? I thought higher taxes would be the solution to all this country's problems? Wouldn't higher taxes take care of this little bail out? You're not an unpatriotic sought, are you?

Boxcar

Ahh.. when to quote someone your reply should relate to their post in some manner.Yours does not.:lol:

[Tom]

How about this, Hank......O'Bama is getting rich off bribes, er, contributions from these very institutions you whined about. So did Dodd, Kerry, Frank, Schummer.....now what do all those names have in common? Oh, yeah, the party that allowed the crisis to occurr.

[Secretariat]

I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold water. The GOP has supported and is supporting a President who is advocating the socializing the finacial sector with nationalizing Fannie Mae and Freddie and the AIG bailout.

I'm afraid GW has proven to be the biggest socialist of the last 50 years. So let's stop the socialism bs....we've got a socialist GOP President currently. You don't fix the roof during the hurricane.

[Tom]

So you think allowing them all to fold up will be a good think for us all?
Destroy the economy out of spite? What do we do then?
I do not like bail outs of any kind, but what is the alternative?
Do you have something constructive, or just more Bush = Bad rhetoric.
I'd love to hear a viable alternative. (I'd also love to hear about hoards of angry people hurt by this marching on the homes of the rat bastards with the golden parachute.....instant karma. Street justice.)

[witchdoctor]

So you think allowing them all to fold up will be a good think for us all?
Destroy the economy out of spite? What do we do then?



I think that is what Sec wants to do.

[fast4522]

The complex problems of our day are ones where there is no easy answer but more times than not, the correct thing to do is done. All who revere the Presidency current and past will listen to the people who advise, like someone or not in the office, its hideous to think a wise President would go against his advisers expert opinions unless its time to pray because of a pivotal outcome of who will die. It takes a rare breed of men to want the Presidency, to bail out this one or that one means very little. To think a man has to decide things when no matter what, someone is going to die because of a decision. No President escapes these kind of things period, is this country gotten that soft to think both candidates in this election cycle are up to such responsibilities?

[lamboguy]

obama is a socialist, just like bush.

i know mccain and palin got to be different than those 2.

thank god we have them running to get us on the right path....go mccain

[Tom]

Nothing shows you how bad O'Bama is as how good he makes McCain look.

[ElKabong]

I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold water. The GOP has supported and is supporting a President who is advocating the socializing the finacial sector with nationalizing Fannie Mae and Freddie and the AIG bailout.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Sec,
GWB had a plan to prevent what happened. Barney Frank and friends stopped the plan......and now here we are with a problem that could have been solved.

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
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.

and what was the democRats response to the plan to prevent what happened?

''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.

[JustRalph]

Bush isn't a socialist. He is a victim, just like just about everybody else. He had no choice but to choose to bailout Fred and Fannie

This thing reaches down through banks, Home Builders, Real Estate Agents, Appraisers, Brokers and stupid people who took the loans.

These are the people who should be on the menu for U.S. Attorneys for the next five years. The problem is, there are so many guilty in this mess that it can never be prosecuted properly. And the CEO's are walking away with Millions.

[Secretariat]

So you think allowing them all to fold up will be a good think for us all?
Destroy the economy out of spite? What do we do then?

The failure of AIG woudl not destroy our economy. Incurring 700 billions more dollars of debt will involve decades and decades of a new lower standard of living for Americans. I reject your premise that allowing capitalism to work,(instead of GW's socialism) would destroy the economy. IF you feel so strong about it, you can pay my 2500 on the debt tab.



I do not like bail outs of any kind, but what is the alternative?

The alternative is let the market find their solution. There are global banks and markets that have a vested interest in these firms not failing. (i.e we let Lehmans' fail, and Barclay's is already buying up profitable parts of Lehmans). The same would happen to AIG. Merrill already worked out a deal with Bank of America. Yes, things would be rough, BUT making taxpayers pick u pthe tab for reckless spending by risk experts is abhorent.



Do you have something constructive, or just more Bush = Bad rhetoric.
I'd love to hear a viable alternative. (I'd also love to hear about hoards of angry people hurt by this marching on the homes of the rat bastards with the golden parachute.....instant karma. Street justice.)

I've listed the alternative. If you truly beleive in captialism, let it work. Or is it rhetoric with you, where you belevie in capitalism while things are going well, but switch to socialism when times get tough. I agree with you about the people marching on rat bastards CEO's.

if you read the text of the provision, there is NOTHING that makes any of these bastards accountable, or pay back golden parachute profits. This is simply a dark ,dark moment in American history when our President decided on his own to initiate a socialist answer to the failure of capitalism.

[Secretariat]

Bush isn't a socialist. He is a victim, just like just about everybody else. He had no choice but to choose to bailout Fred and Fannie

This thing reaches down through banks, Home Builders, Real Estate Agents, Appraisers, Brokers and stupid people who took the loans.

These are the people who should be on the menu for U.S. Attorneys for the next five years. The problem is, there are so many guilty in this mess that it can never be prosecuted properly. And the CEO's are walking away with Millions.

I agree with all you write except Bush is a socialist. I have to judge him by his actions taken here, not his rhetoric.

[mostpost]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Sec,
GWB had a plan to prevent what happened. Barney Frank and friends stopped the plan......and now here we are with a problem that could have been solved.

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
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.

and what was the democRats response to the plan to prevent what happened?

''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.

As your hero would say, "There you go again" The first question I have is, "Do you really believe what you write, or do you think we are so dumb that we will just accept it without question?

Next I would like to know how Barney Frank singlehandedly stopped passage of this bill (HR2575) at a time (2003) when Republicans controlled Congress 229 to 206. Which meant that they had control of all the committees. According to "Thomas..Congress on the internet the bill was assigned a committee and a subcommittee and hearings were held in September of 2003.
That is the last action reported. Why didn't the Republicans vote the bill out of committee and bring it to the floor for a vote. They had the votes to do so.

Barney Frank expressed an opinion, as is his right, but the power lay with the Republicans.

And, if you are going to lift a quote from a newspaper article try to put it in proper context.
A more complete quote follows:
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''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.
Me Again
Frank was concerned that the tighter regulations would make it more difficult for low income families to finance housing. Perhaps in retrospect he was wrong, but it was the Republicans who had the votes and power to pass HR2575 and didn't

[boxcar]

Ahh.. when to quote someone your reply should relate to their post in some manner.Yours does not.:lol:

Hey, it should have been obvious to you since my post #3 followed immediately on the heels of your post #3.

Boxcar

[fast4522]

No sitting President would have not done a bail out, and send our country into a depression as some suggest, it would be like just giving the country to the left wing freaks and euro nuts to destroy our Constitution of these United States.

[Snag]

This is simply a dark ,dark moment in American history when our President decided on his own to initiate a socialist answer to the failure of capitalism.

Sec, does Congress not have a vote in your dark moment? You may want to get your talking points from somewhere else other than the rollover web sites.

[boxcar]

No sitting President would have not done a bail out, and send our country into a depression as some suggest, it would be like just giving the country to the left wing freaks and euro nuts to destroy our Constitution of these United States.

That's pure, unadulterated horse manure! A sitting president with backbone would have bitten the bullet by doing the morally right thing -- which would have also provided the best long term solution -- which is: let the markets correct themselves. It's absolutely criminal that the financially responsible citizens of this nation have to assume the burden of those who aren't responsible -- who are personal judgment deadbeats.

As stated previously, home ownership is not a God-given right. And it's not a Constitutional right either. But if you listen to nutcases like Barney Frank, he thinks everyone has a right to the slice of the American dream. To such idiots the concept of earning your way is unheard of!

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Secretariat
This is simply a dark ,dark moment in American history when our President decided on his own to initiate a socialist answer to the failure of capitalism.


Capitalism did not fail - democrats interfered with it. Anything a dem touches goes south.

[Greyfox]

This is simply a dark ,dark moment in American history when our President decided on his own to initiate a socialist answer to the failure of capitalism.

Me thinks that a pinko slip is showing here.
A failure in a capitalist system, is not the failure of capitalism.

[ArlJim78]

Mr. Obama, who are you?

16aBNduAyQ4

[JustRalph]

Mr. Obama, who are you?

16aBNduAyQ4

That's the best damn ad I have seen all season.................... :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

That's the best damn ad I have seen all season.................... :ThmbUp:

Agreed.

NoBam is the Master of Equivocation. Equivocating is the inevitable result of refusing to discriminate, i.e. taking a stand.

Boxcar

[pandy]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Sec,
GWB had a plan to prevent what happened. Barney Frank and friends stopped the plan......and now here we are with a problem that could have been solved.

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
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.

and what was the democRats response to the plan to prevent what happened?

''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.

Where did you get this from? And if it's true, why isn't McCain using it?

[mostpost]

Where did you get this from? And if it's true, why isn't McCain using it?

Because it's not true. (See post 17 this thread.)

No, I'm sorry. That wouldn't stop McCain from using it. He must have another reason.:rolleyes:

[Greyfox]

Because it's not true. (See post 17 this thread.)



Sorry. The NY Times article appeared in 2003. What's not true about that?
The headline was:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63

[pandy]

Interesting. So they knew trouble was brewing and did nothing.

[mostpost]

Sorry. The NY Times article appeared in 2003. What's not true about that?
The headline was:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63

What is untrue is that the democrats blocked passage of the bill. The bill had several committee hearings but was never reported out of committee. Since the Republicans controlled the house, 229 to 206, they could have passed the bill had they wanted to. Why they didn't I couldn't say.
It is true that some Democrats spoke against the bill. Nevertheless they did not have tha votes to block it had it come up for a vote.
And isn't it disengnuous to criticize the Dems for being against regulation after spending a thousand years criticizing them for being regulation happy?

[Greyfox]

What is untrue is that the democrats blocked passage of the bill. The bill had several committee hearings but was never reported out of committee.

Either I'm missing something, or you're missing something.
The article simply implies that Fannie and Freddie were being reviewed with a new agency being considered to oversee them. Effectively, both major parties knew that Fannie and Freddie had storm clouds.

Let's not worry about who proposed what and who blocked what.
The article that we are talking about doesn't appear to mention who blocked it.

The bottom line is that doubt was known as early as 2003 by all concerned.
That is true. We can point fingers at both parties. That won't get us anywhere.
But the stink was forming 5 years ago, and neither group did anything.
This thread highlights that point, that's all, and that is true.

[ArlJim78]

FYI- for what it's worth.
The Right Wing blogs are buzzing about some big story that is going to be revealed tonight. supposed to be released about midnight ET and someting to do with Axlerod, Obamas main campaign guy.

who knows if it is anything or not, big blog stories are not the most reliable.
but just passing it on.

[mostpost]

Either I'm missing something, or you're missing something.
The article simply implies that Fannie and Freddie were being reviewed with a new agency being considered to oversee them. Effectively, both major parties knew that Fannie and Freddie had storm clouds.

Let's not worry about who proposed what and who blocked what.
The article that we are talking about doesn't appear to mention who blocked it.

The bottom line is that doubt was known as early as 2003 by all concerned.
That is true. We can point fingers at both parties. That won't get us anywhere.
But the stink was forming 5 years ago, and neither group did anything.
This thread highlights that point, that's all, and that is true.

True

[ddog]

Interesting. So they knew trouble was brewing and did nothing.


interesting , well maybe for people that never pay attention.


this crap has been known to be a giant trash heap going on 10 years at least.

Oh and to get back to the thread there, if you are going to have a socialist(worse than that really) gvt , then you may as well elect those who believe in gvt and socialisim to run it.

You wouldn't put an arsonist in charge of the fire dept now would you??

[Dahoss9698]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU

[ArlJim78]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU

as a satire thats actually pretty funny. the sad part is i have no doubt you actually believe that the video is essentially truthful and accurate.

[Dahoss9698]

as a satire thats actually pretty funny. the sad part is i have no doubt you actually believe that the video is essentially truthful and accurate.

You have no idea what my beliefs are. I actually hadn't been over here in months and stumbled on your work here. You've been a busy guy I see. I've never seen someone so determined to get people to believe in what you do. At least you have toned it down over there. Good decision. This is more your crowd anyway.

[ArlJim78]

You have no idea what my beliefs are. I actually hadn't been over here in months and stumbled on your work here. You've been a busy guy I see. I've never seen someone so determined to get people to believe in what you do. At least you have toned it down over there. Good decision. This is more your crowd anyway.
why wouldn't i have any idea what you believe? what where all those comments/opinions you made on the other place? not the real you?

i'm flattered that you've taken such an interest that you're following me around and really paying such close attention. there is hope for you after all.

and yes, as far as the politics goes, this place is much better. not that everyone agrees with me, but because the general level of debate is higher and many of those on the opposite side over here do a much better job of defending their positions and bring more to the table.

with that said, the real good stuff is elsewhere.

[Dahoss9698]

why wouldn't i have any idea what you believe? what where all those comments/opinions you made on the other place? not the real you?

i'm flattered that you've taken such an interest that you're following me around and really paying such close attention. there is hope for you after all.

and yes, as far as the politics goes, this place is much better. not that everyone agrees with me, but because the general level of debate is higher and many of those on the opposite side over here do a much better job of defending their positions and bring more to the table.

with that said, the real good stuff is elsewhere.

Don't flatter yourself. My bulls.hit phone was ringing off the hook because BBB was making some claims in the handicapping section. I had to check it out and wandered down here. I undestand wanting to "debate" stuff around a group of posters that, from what i can tell believe the same stuff you do. But let's not pretend it's anything more than that.

For your mental state I almost hope McCain wins, because I can't imagine the let down if he doesn't. But, for our country and our futures, I hope Obama wins. I'm sure we'll pick this up elsewhere...

[JustRalph]

after reading this thread I thought I was reading "whobet" the whole time

Then I realized it wasn't whobet.........that avatar gives me the willies

[Dahoss9698]

after reading this thread I thought I was reading "whobet" the whole time

Then I realized it wasn't whobet.........that avatar gives me the willies

Yeah my bad. In my attempt to screw with him months ago I used his avatar and forgot to change it.

[ArlJim78]

Don't flatter yourself. My bulls.hit phone was ringing off the hook because BBB was making some claims in the handicapping section. I had to check it out and wandered down here. I undestand wanting to "debate" stuff around a group of posters that, from what i can tell believe the same stuff you do. But let's not pretend it's anything more than that.

For your mental state I almost hope McCain wins, because I can't imagine the let down if he doesn't. But, for our country and our futures, I hope Obama wins. I'm sure we'll pick this up elsewhere...
please lay out you ideas sometime as to why the country will be so much better off with Obama as president. make the case, convince me what it is you see in him that has so inspired you.