Re: Under WHOSE Watch ?????

> Under WHOSE Watch ????? > >

formatting link

> Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

September 30, 1999

So between then and January 20, 2001 all the damage was done?

Granted, that's what I'd expect from the Clintons. But why didn't somebody (in Congress perhaps) step in with some regulations to keep a lid on this? And why did it keep on going on?

Where have all the real conservatives gone?

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

Because that is what the *people* wanted... Mortgages that allowed people to get houses that were substantially more than they should have gotten...

WTF is a conservative? Or a liberal for that matter?

Reply to
PeterD

Sounds like a floating 'oar house. ;-)

--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Very simple. They paid overblown bonuses to all the salespeople who ensured that the gravy train didn't stop. It's called capitalism.

--
John B
Reply to
John B

formatting link

No, it's been going on ever since and that's why it's so pervasive now.

Republican's *did* 'step up' and try to regulate it but the Democrats blocked it every time.

In particular, the Senate. If you don't have a 60% majority, and the Republican's never did, you can't break a filibuster so, under those conditions, any minority party can block just dern near anything they feel like.

If you remember, the filibuster issue came to such a fever pitch, because Democrats were blocking dern near everything, that Republicans toyed with the idea of changing the filibuster rules.

Many were voted out because people who hand out candy canes are more popular than those who warn you they're laced with arsenic, especially if you can't 'prove' it. And that was the problem Republican's faced. Everyone knew it was, at least, a 'potential problem' with 'potentially' dire consequences but you can't 'prove' it till the boom drops and, in the mean time, Democrats were waving candy canes.

Reply to
flipper

formatting link

In Britain a Conservative is AKA a Toraidhe - the Gallic word for bandit.

Reply to
ian field

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@hovnanian.com:

Maybe they were too busy gaming the system themselves and making money hand over fist...?

Or maybe they were too busy playing partisan politics as opposed to looking out for the *national* interest?

There are lots and lots and lots of social conservatives.

Fiscal conservatives are, however, pretty much DOA - they want all the spending for their own districts to remain in place and make everyone else cut *their* spending.

The problem with cuts is one of balance. Yes, there is wasteful spending and inefficiency (and even downrigh theft) in governemtn. But it's also true that everyone wants to eliminate all taxes (IOW spending) until it is

*their* checks that stop arriving in the mail, *their* house that burns down because firefighting services were cut, *their* commuting route to work that becomes impassible because tehre is no money for road repairs, *their* schools that run out of money for fancy sports stadiums (locally, there have been $$millions available for stadiums and fancy buildings, but they send kids to stand in the road begging for money for textbooks, go figure), and so on.

FOr example, even McCain, with an estimated worth of $73 million, 13 cars, and 7 houses, doesn't return his nearly $2000/month social security check. So it's not likely that those "selfish" people who actually need to live on their disability or soc. sec. checks will up and return theirs.

Reply to
Kris Krieger

PeterD wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Technically, or in practice?

Technically, AFAIK, Conservatives beleive in Laissez Faire economics and zero social spending; whereas Liberals believe, based upon historical evidence, that in the post-Industrial Revolution world, that voluntary charity is insufficient to keep people from being put out onto the streets to starve, to maintain things like public fire/police services, to build and repair public roads, to have livable wages for workers, and other things that benefit the "peasantry".

In practice, given the decreasing involvement of the average person in both the democratic process, the actions of their elected representatives, and acquiring the knowledge necessary to make informed choices, what's happening is that the extremists of both tribes (to take a term from another post) are gaining too much influence, which is Balkanizing the nation - a process for which each tribe blames the other while refusing to accept any and all responsibility for contributing to said Balkanization.

HTH

Reply to
Kris Krieger

Fiscally, liberals and conservatives have the same ultimate objectives, liberals just have a short term brute force "do it now" mentality, while conservatives have a long term "you just have to wait" until the market works it out mentality. There are arguments for both approaches, and the best approach is not obvious unless you can predict the future, hence, both viewpoints will always exist, you can never prove one is better then the other in all cases.

Reply to
bungalow_steve
[snip]

Except that McCain has no such net worth.

His wife is heiress to (as we call it here in AZ) the "Beer Baron Fortune".

McCain, himself, own no houses (or cars). He's a kept man... just as long as Cindy is happy... otherwise out on the street just like a lot of you guys who don't know how to keep a woman happy ;-)

McCain's income sources are his Senate salary and social security. I don't know, but he may have a military pension as well.

I also receive a substantial monthly social security check as well as a pension from GenRad. Do you consider me "selfish"?

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

You might have a point if you're speaking of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Typical left wing bull of "don't look at my cancer, you have a cold."

Between what and what?

Then let's get rid of it.

The 'problem' is liberals institutionalize fraud and waste; much like Captain Renault, who was socked, shocked, to find out that gambling was going on in here. Your winnings, sir, Oh, thank you very much.

Give mortgages to people who can't afford it and then they're shocked, shocked to find out there's bad paper out there.

Bull. *No one* wants to "eliminate all taxes (IOW spending)."

That is precisely the game liberals play: mass bribery.

A local government function.

Anyone else notice the slight of hand switchero from 'waste' to essential services?

A local government function.

Anyone else notice the slight of hand switchero from 'waste' to essential services?

Then talk to your local school board.

His wife's inheritance.

Investment property and she's a car collector.

Why would he? Social Security is a 'you pay in your money' over a lifetime and then you get *your* money back, with interest, paltry as it is.,

Notice the switchero from government spending to a blooming

*retirement account* that *you* paid into.

Not surprising, though, since liberals think everybody's money is theirs to confiscate and dole out as they please.

Reply to
flipper

formatting link

It took the Clinton administration 7 years to get its way on this, and you think Bush could have reversed it immediately? On what grounds would he have argued to reverse it?

They were forced into retreat in 98.

--
Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tom Del Rosso

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.