Even Alec Baldwin Admits Democraps Caused Financial Crisis
Post Turtle Obama
If a Bush-bashing, Republican-hating nincompoop like Alec Baldwin
understands that Democrats are responsible for the current financial crisis,
and is willing to say so on national television, why can't America's
so-called "real" journalists?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/04/baldwin-blames-financial-crisis-clinton-dems-barney-frank
BALDWIN: I'm gonna rape you...The, the thing we have to remember, a friend
of mine who is very close to the financial community in New York pointed out
that Democrats have a lot of the responsibility for this as well. I mean, it
was Clinton who killed the Glass-Steagall, and it happened under a
Democratic president. Barney Frank and his committee, they, they kept
propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying everything's fine,
everything's fine, everything's good. And it was his job to know everything
wasn't fine. And Barney Frank let you down and let us down as well. And so,
but I want to say there's blame to go both ways. But I will say, I want to,
I maybe keep beating this to death, but I still think anyone in this
Congress who voted to add $140 billion to that bill, they should be ashamed
of themselves. That is a disgrace. It's a disgrace. This Congress is a
disgrace, Democrat and Republican.
House of Pancakes
"Post Turtle Obama" <NOb...@NObama.org> wrote in message
news:WsCdnbLU2ZrvgHfV...@comcast.com...
> On Bill Maher's show! First Clinton now Baldwin. The truht is getting out
> !
Typical pinhead; make up something. If it's in the Moonie paper, it's TRUE,
eh Babs?
Scumbag Obama Hussein
"House of Pancakes" <J...@wh.net> wrote in message
news:zPpGk.2425$x%.962@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Post Turtle Obama" <NOb...@NObama.org> wrote in message
> news:WsCdnbLU2ZrvgHfV...@comcast.com...
>> On Bill Maher's show! First Clinton now Baldwin. The truht is getting
>> out !
>
> Typical pinhead; make up something.
Its not made up fuck face. Its on Bill Maher's Video you fucking pile of Pig
vomit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6FOI7yo7uE
BILL MAHER, HOST: What is your...
Scumbag Obama Hussein
> news:WsCdnbLU2ZrvgHfV...@comcast.com...
>> On Bill Maher's show! First Clinton now Baldwin. The truht is getting
>> out !
>
> Typical pinhead; make up something.
Its not made up fuck face. Its on Bill Maher's Video you fucking pile of Pig
vomit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6FOI7yo7uE
BILL MAHER, HOST: What is your...
BALDWIN: I'm gonna rape you...The, the thing we have to remember, a friend
lilhornie
NO QUESTION -- It's BUSH's DEPRESSION! His Crimes!
"Bush seems to have calculated -- cynically but correctly -- that
prolonging the credit-fueled consumer binge could help keep complaints
about his performance as commander in chief from becoming more than a
nuisance."
"After five and a half years of arduous effort, Iraq continues to
drain U.S. resources on a colossal scale. Violence is down, but
expenditures are not. An end to the U.S. commitment is nowhere in
sight."
----------------------------------------
"He Told Us to Go Shopping. Now the Bill Is Due"
By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, October 5, 2008; B03
It's widely thought that the biggest gamble President Bush ever took
was deciding to invade Iraq in 2003.
It wasn't.
His riskiest move was actually one made right after the Sept. 11,
2001, terrorist attacks when he chose not to mobilize the country or
summon his fellow citizens to any wartime economic sacrifice. Bush
tried to remake the world on the cheap, and as the bill grew larger,
he still refused to ask Americans to pay up. During this past week,
that gamble collapsed, leaving the rest of us to sort through the
wreckage.
To understand this link between today's financial crisis and Bush's
wider national security decisions, we need to go back to 9/11 itself.
From the very outset, the president described the "war on terror" as a
vast undertaking of paramount importance. But he simultaneously urged
Americans to carry on as if there were no war. "Get down to Disney
World in Florida," he urged just over two weeks after 9/11. "Take your
families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed." Bush
certainly wanted citizens to support his war -- he just wasn't going
to require them actually to do anything. The support he sought was not
active but passive. It entailed not popular engagement but popular
deference. Bush simply wanted citizens (and Congress) to go along
without asking too many questions.
So his administration's policies reflected an oddly business-as-usual
approach. Senior officials routinely described the war as global in
scope and likely to last decades, but the administration made no
effort to expand the armed forces. It sought no additional revenue to
cover the costs of waging a protracted conflict. It left the nation's
economic priorities unchanged. Instead of sacrifices, it offered tax
cuts. So as the American soldier fought, the American consumer binged,
encouraged by American banks offering easy credit.
From September 2001 until September 2008, this approach allowed Bush
to enjoy nearly unfettered freedom of action. To fund the war on
terror, Congress gave the administration all the money it wanted. Huge
bipartisan majorities appropriated hundreds of billions of dollars,
producing massive federal deficits and pushing the national debt from
roughly $6 trillion in 2001 to just shy of $10 trillion today. Even
many liberal Democrats who decried the war routinely voted to approve
this spending, as did conservative Republicans who still trumpeted
their principled commitment to fiscal responsibility and balanced
budgets.
Bush seems to have calculated -- cynically but correctly -- that
prolonging the credit-fueled consumer binge could help keep complaints
about his performance as commander in chief from becoming more than a
nuisance. Members of Congress calculated -- again correctly -- that
their constituents were looking to Capitol Hill for largesse, not
lessons in austerity. In this sense, recklessness on Main Street, on
Wall Street and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue proved mutually
reinforcing.
For both the Bush administration and Congress, this gambit has turned
out to be clever rather than smart. The ongoing crisis on Wall Street
has now, in effect, ended the Bush presidency. Meanwhile, a month
before elections, panic-stricken members of Congress are desperately
trying to insulate Main Street from the effects of that crisis -- or
at least to pass the blame onto someone else.
But in less obvious ways, the economic crisis also renders a
definitive verdict on the country's post-9/11 national security
strategy. The "go to Disney World" approach to waging war has produced
large, unanticipated consequences. When the American people, as
instructed, turned their attention back to enjoying life, their
hankering for prosperity without pain deprived the administration of
the wherewithal needed over the long haul to achieve some truly
ambitious ends.
Even today, the scope of those ambitions is not widely understood, in
part due to the administration's own obfuscations. After September
2001, senior officials described U.S. objectives as merely defensive,
designed to prevent further terrorist attacks. Or they wrapped
America's purposes in the gauze of ideology, saying that our aim was
to spread freedom and eliminate tyranny. But in reality, the Bush
strategy conceived after 9/11 was expansionist, shaped above all by
geopolitical considerations. The central purpose was to secure U.S.
preeminence across the strategically critical and unstable greater
Middle East. Securing preeminence didn't necessarily imply conquering
and occupying this vast region, but it did require changing it --
comprehensively and irrevocably. This was not some fantasy nursed by
neoconservatives at the Weekly Standard or the American Enterprise
Institute. Rather, it was the central pillar of the misnamed
enterprise that we persist in calling the "global war on terror."
At a Pentagon press conference on Sept. 18, 2001, then-defense
secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld let the cat out of the bag: "We have a
choice, either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to
change the way that they live, and we chose the latter." This was not
some slip of the tongue. The United States was now out to change the
way "they" -- i.e., hundreds of millions of Muslims living in the
Middle East -- live. Senior officials did not shrink from -- perhaps
even relished -- the magnitude of the challenges that lay ahead. The
idea, wrote chief Pentagon strategist Douglas J. Feith in a May 2004
memo, was to "transform the Middle East and the broader world of Islam
generally."
But if the administration's goals were grandiose, its means were
modest. The administration's governing assumption was that the U.S.
military, as constituted in late 2001, ought to suffice to transform
the Middle East. Bush could afford to tell the American people to go
on holiday and head back to the mall because the indomitable American
soldier could be counted on to liberate (and thereby pacify) the
Muslim world.
For a while, that seemed to work: The Taliban fell quickly, with
little need for the U.S. taxpayer to shell out for a larger military.
But the Bush team turned quickly to Iraq, hoping to demonstrate on an
even grander scale what the determined exercise of U.S. power could
achieve. This proved a fatal miscalculation. After five and a half
years of arduous effort, Iraq continues to drain U.S. resources on a
colossal scale. Violence is down, but expenditures are not. An end to
the U.S. commitment is nowhere in sight.
The achievements of Gen. David H. Petraeus notwithstanding, the
primary lesson of the Iraq war remains this one: To imagine that the
United States can easily and cheaply invade, occupy and redeem any
country in the Muslim world is sheer folly. That holds true in
Afghanistan, too, where the reinforcements that Gen. David D.
McKiernan, the recently appointed U.S. commander, says he needs to
turn things around will be unavailable until at least next spring.
Yet there is an economic lesson here too. "We have more will than
wallet," the president's father said in 1989 during his own inaugural
address. That is again painfully true today. The 2008 election finds
the Pentagon cupboard bare, the U.S. Treasury depleted, the economy in
disarray and the average American household feeling acute distress.
Profligacy at home and profligacy abroad have combined to produce a
grave crisis. This time around, telling Americans to head for Disney
World won't work. The credit card's already maxed out, and the banks
are refusing to pony up for new loans.
It's not surprising that people don't cotton to the idea of spending
$700 billion to bail out Wall Street. Nor should they find it
acceptable to spend as much as that, or more, to perpetuate a
misguided and never-ending global war. But like it or not, the bill
collector is pounding on the door. Bush's parting gift to the nation
will be to let others figure out how to settle accounts.
(Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international
relations at Boston University. His new book is "The Limits of Power:
The End of American Exceptionalism.")
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100301977.html
Scumbag Obama Hussein
"lilhornie" <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1370e862-e20e-4271...@q5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
And video of Clinton blaming Democraps for it all. SWEET !
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-do.html
Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC's Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years
have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me
when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac"
Roy Blankenship
"Scumbag Obama Hussein" <Hus...@DemocratTerrorist.org> wrote in message
news:gcdem0$er5$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
I find it hilarious that you right-wing dumb fuckers totally diss Hollywood
until they say something you like.
And he is not telling the whole story, just like you fucking assholes do
with your "facts", Clinton signed a bill passed by Congress, but the vote
was so over the top by the Republicans that he knew it was veto-proof. Why
are you conveniently leaving out that fact, ASSHOLE?
End.of.an.Error.012009
> On Bill Maher's show! First Clinton now Baldwin. The truht is getting out !
>
> If a Bush-bashing, Republican-hating nincompoop like Alec Baldwin
> understands that Democrats are responsible for the current financial crisis,
> and is willing to say so on national television, why can't America's
> so-called "real" journalists?
The so-called "real" journalists have no integrity left. If they did,
they'd be talking about Barry Soetoro's complete, utter lack of
qualifications for the position of POTUS, instead of fawning over him
like lovesick schoolgirls.
>
> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/04/baldwin-blames-financial-crisis-clinton-dems-barney-frank
> BALDWIN: I'm gonna rape you...The, the thing we have to remember, a friend
> of mine who is very close to the financial community in New York pointed out
> that Democrats have a lot of the responsibility for this as well. I mean, it
> was Clinton who killed the Glass-Steagall, and it happened under a
> Democratic president. Barney Frank and his committee, they, they kept
> propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying everything's fine,
> everything's fine, everything's good. And it was his job to know everything
> wasn't fine. And Barney Frank let you down and let us down as well. And so,
> but I want to say there's blame to go both ways. But I will say, I want to,
> I maybe keep beating this to death, but I still think anyone in this
> Congress who voted to add $140 billion to that bill, they should be ashamed
> of themselves. That is a disgrace. It's a disgrace. This Congress is a
> disgrace, Democrat and Republican.
It's refreshing to hear someone like Baldwin say anything that's even
remotely accurate!
--
Obama '08. History in the making!
http://www.cafepress.com/saproducts/6033655
House of Pancakes
"Scumbag Obama Hussein" <Hus...@DemocratTerrorist.org> wrote in message
news:gcdem0$er5$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> news:zPpGk.2425$x%.962@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> "Post Turtle Obama" <NOb...@NObama.org> wrote in message
>> news:WsCdnbLU2ZrvgHfV...@comcast.com...
>>> On Bill Maher's show! First Clinton now Baldwin. The truht is getting
>>> out !
>>
>> Typical pinhead; make up something.
> ===============
>
> Its not made up fuck face. Its on Bill Maher's Video you fucking pile of
> Pig
> vomit.
All you have is lies.
Sid9
"House of Pancakes" <J...@wh.net> wrote in message
news:ghzGk.1856$Ei5....@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031216-9.html
President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment
Act of 2003
Remarks by the President at Signing of the
American Dream Downpayment Act
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Washington, D.C.
bush,jr:
"One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is
getting money for a down payment. This
administration has recognized that, and so today
I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will
help many low-income buyers to overcome that
hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the
American Dream....."
"...This administration will constantly strive to
promote an ownership society in America. We want
more people owning their own home. It is in our
national interest that more people own their own
home. After all, if you own your own home, you
have a vital stake in the future of our country.
And this is a good time for the American
homeowner. Today we received a report that showed
that new home construction last month reached its
highest level in nearly 20 years. (Applause.)
The reason that is so is because there is renewed
confidence in our economy. Low interest rates
help. They have made owning a home more
affordable, for those who refinance and for those
who buy a home for the first time. Rising home
values have added more than $2.5 trillion to the
assets of the American family since the start of
2001.
The rate of homeownership in America now stands a
record high of 68.4 percent. Yet there is room for
improvement. The rate of homeownership amongst
minorities is below 50 percent. And that's not
right, and this country needs to do something
about it. We need to -- (applause.) We need to
close the minority homeownership gap in America so
more citizens have the satisfaction and mobility
that comes from owning your own home, from owning
a piece of the future of America.
Last year I set a goal to add 5.5 million new
minority homeowners in America by the end of the
decade. That is an attainable goal; that is an
essential goal. And we're making progress toward
that goal. In the past 18 months, more than 1
million minority families have become homeowners.
(Applause.) And there's more that we can do to
achieve the goal. The law I sign today will help
us build on this progress in a very practical way.
Many people are able to afford a monthly mortgage
payment, but are unable to make the down payment.
So this legislation will authorize $200 million
per year in down payment assistance to at least
40,000 low-income families. These funds will help
American families achieve their goals, and at the
same time, strengthen our communities.
And there's more to do, as well. We'll continue to
pursue a broad agenda to help people own a home.
There are three steps I want to describe to you
right quickly about what we intend to do. First,
those who apply for mortgages should be made aware
of all the costs and warned about predatory
lenders who take advantage of inexperienced
buyers. So we've doubled the funds for housing
counseling services, including those run by
faith-based and community groups.
We understand that buying a home for the first
time is complicated, and we want to simplify the
process. We want to help people understand the
pros and cons of buying a home. We want people to
be fully aware of what it means to buy a home and
what it takes. And we want people as best
protected as possible from those shysters who
would take advantage of first-time buyers.
(Applause.)
Second, we need to make the home-buying process
more affordable. Some of the biggest up-front
costs in a home purchase are the closing costs.
Sometimes they catch you by surprise. (Laughter.)
Many home buyers do not have the time to shop
around looking for a better deal on closing costs.
You're kind of stuck with what you're presented
with. And so they end up paying more than they
should. So we've proposed new rules to make it
easier for buyers to shop around and to compare
prices on closing costs, so they can get the best
deal and the best service possible.
And thirdly, we want to make buying a home
simpler. Many first-time buyers look at the
paperwork from a loan application, and frankly,
get a little nervous about all the fine print.
Those forms can be intimidating to the first-time
home buyer. They can be intimidating to the second
or third-time home buyer, too. (Laughter and
applause.) So this administration has proposed new
rules to simplify the forms home buyers and
homeowners fill out when they apply for a loan or
close on a mortgage.
We understand that buying a home is a big step,
and so these three recommendations we're making,
these three changes in the rules will make that
step easier; will enable people to make the step
to buying a home -- they'll be able to do so with
more confidence. These are practical ways that we
are working to expand homeownership across the
country.
The dream of homeownership should be attainable
for every hardworking American. That's what we
want. In this act of Congress I'm going to sign,
the regulations that I hope are finalized soon
will help thousands of families fulfill the dream.
And so now it my honor, right here at this
important Department, the Department responsible
for encouraging homeownership in America, to sign
the American Dream Downpayment Act.
(Applause.)..."