Bill Clinton: "Democrats Responsible for Blocking Fannie Mae Reforms"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 5:11 PM GMT
    Who says Democrats are responsible for blocking Republican efforts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

    Bill Clinton, this morning, on Good Morning America.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-do.html

    Money Quote (found @ apprx -2:19):

    "The responsibility Democrats have may rest more in RESISTING ANY EFFORTS BY REPUBLICANS or by me [yeah right] TO PUT SOME STANDARDS IN AND TIGHTEN UP ON FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC"

    Perhaps ActiveAndFit, Ruck_us and Colbert_Nation should call the former president and cry to him "BUT THATS ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED!'

    Next time guys, try forming your opinions based on the facts instead of trying to make the facts fit your opinions and you wont look like such unreasonable, dishonest, ignorant hacks. icon_biggrin.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Sep 25, 2008 11:13 PM GMT
    He said both parties had a part and he was giving his view on how he sees the Democrat's role. I think both sides had their dealings in this mess.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Sep 29, 2008 2:12 PM GMT
    There is more than enough blame to go around, and the American people share in that as well for living beyond their means.
  • shoelessj

    Posts: 511

    Sep 29, 2008 3:22 PM GMT
    Hmmm...consider the source. Bill is still bitter that Hillary isn't going to be president [in 2008] and it seems he is still doing whatever he can to pave the way for a Democratic loss this year and for her to emerge as the party's savior for 2012.

    Bill seems to be a pretty horrible human being, no matter what your party or perspective is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 3:27 PM GMT
    Oh brother .. the phantom fake profile strikes again. What is being belched up here has nothing to do with what I posted icon_eek.gif I posted something with reference specifically to the "reform bill" s109-190.

    See http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/293375/
    also
    http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/721/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 3:42 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidThere is more than enough blame to go around, and the American people share in that as well for living beyond their means.


    The American people clamor for change...a leader..........someone who will tell us and guide us to solutions to today's problems.

    But when that politician comes along and tells us the tough choices we have to make, we won't vote for him.

    I'm sick of people blaming the politicians. They are just telling us what we want to hear. I blame American people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2008 3:55 PM GMT
    Hugh_Mongoose said

    Perhaps ActiveAndFit, Ruck_us and Colbert_Nation should call the former president and cry to him "BUT THATS ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED!'


    What the hell are you talking about? In other forum threads, I have repeatedly stated that both parties share much of the blame for the current financial debacle. During the Clinton administration, I was definitely not a big supporter of his; however, in retrospect, I think he was one of the greatest presidents of the latter half of the 20th century. Was he perfect? Absolutely not, but I think that the "facts" bear out that the nation prospered more under his leadership than during the current administration.

    That said, let's take a good, long look at W. Has he been a good steward of the economy? I think that the "facts" and history will prove that he is and has been one of the most ineffective presidents of all time. He values loyalty over logic (i.e., yes men need only apply). We've seen the deficit explode, joblessness increase, foreclosure rates go through the roof, financial institutions collapse, ad infinitum.

    As for McCain, if he lives up to his campaign promise to veto every piece of legislation with attached pork that reaches his desk, do you seriously think that anything at all will ever get done in Washington? Aren't congressional bottlenecks (read: Republican filibusters) just as responsible for the lack of reform over the last two years?

    "Pork reform" must come about, but like Obama has said, McCain takes a hatchet approach when a scalpel is the requisite tool
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2008 9:15 PM GMT
    ruck_us, We didn't prosper under Clinton, that's an illusion. Under Clinton, half the US Army, half of the American surface fleet and a third of the US Airforce were laid off. The FBI, ATF, CIA and the NSA were similarly cut. The Reagan Bush administrations won the cold war and Clinton was trying to lose it to the Soviet Union. Clinton's budget cuts resulted in our vulnerability to foreign threats.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2008 9:23 PM GMT
    John43620 saidThe Reagan Bush administrations won the cold war and Clinton was trying to lose it to the Soviet Union.


    No wonder John McCain is your candidate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2008 9:28 PM GMT
    John43620 saidruck_us, We didn't prosper under Clinton, that's an illusion. Under Clinton, half the US Army, half of the American surface fleet and a third of the US Airforce were laid off. The FBI, ATF, CIA and the NSA were similarly cut. The Reagan Bush administrations won the cold war and Clinton was trying to lose it to the Soviet Union. Clinton's budget cuts resulted in our vulnerability to foreign threats.

    The Soviet Union split in 1991.
    Bill Clinton took office in 1993.
    What am I missing?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2008 5:15 AM GMT
    1969er said
    John43620 saidruck_us, We didn't prosper under Clinton, that's an illusion. Under Clinton, half the US Army, half of the American surface fleet and a third of the US Airforce were laid off. The FBI, ATF, CIA and the NSA were similarly cut. The Reagan Bush administrations won the cold war and Clinton was trying to lose it to the Soviet Union. Clinton's budget cuts resulted in our vulnerability to foreign threats.

    The Soviet Union split in 1991.
    Bill Clinton took office in 1993.
    What am I missing?


    There really should be a "Best of Realjock Forums" thread. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2008 5:51 AM GMT
    I quit drinking the Kool Aid in about 2001, so what do I know?

    Regarding the purported layoffs of military personnel during the Clinton era, did we suffer for it? It wasn't until the Bush doctrine kicked in that we stretched our military to the brink of collapse. What a pitiful waste that we have sacrificed over 4,000 American lives (and countless thousand Iraqi lives) only to propagate the myth that America is/was the last, great Super Power. There is nothing just or honorable about invading a sovereign nation on false pretenses while syphoning off the treasury to pad the pockets of cronies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2008 7:06 AM GMT
    John43620 saidruck_us, We didn't prosper under Clinton, that's an illusion. Under Clinton, half the US Army, half of the American surface fleet and a third of the US Airforce were laid off. The FBI, ATF, CIA and the NSA were similarly cut. The Reagan Bush administrations won the cold war and Clinton was trying to lose it to the Soviet Union. Clinton's budget cuts resulted in our vulnerability to foreign threats.



    You seem to equate military and security strength with economic strength but it seems to me just the opposite is true. During both Bush administrations military and security spending increased and the economy faltered. This is because that kind of spending usually just makes a few military complex company owners wealthy and does not effectively trickle down to the middle and lower classes where the real power in the economy lies. Also, much of the military spending gets dumped down the drain abroad which does not directly effect the US economy.

    As far as Clinton being able to take credit for the boom in the economy during the 90's, this is a fabrication of the facts as well. Clinton was just a lucky guy to be in office at the same time as the internet boom. The economic strength that was apparent at that time is more the responsibility of Bill Gates and others like him that built companies from scratch and created so many jobs.

    If Clinton deserves any credit for the boom at all, it is because he picked Al Gore as his VP. It was Al Gore's work that cut government spending in the 90's. He was responsible for closing down, not only military bases that were no longer useful but many other non-military government programs that were inefficient. The combination of making government more efficient and the internet boom is what gave us the largest surplus in US history. (And then Bush II came along and squandered it)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2008 1:43 PM GMT
    I, for one, am not clammering around waiting for a leader to get us anywhere.
    I don't follow leaders. Religious or otherwise. Keep you Clinton's, Bush's, Obama's and McCains, Keep your Jesus and Mohammed and Dalia Lamma away from me.

    My life is my life. I do well or fail on my own. I do not live my life based on some old books written by stone age people in the desert of the middle east. Hey Bible, guess what, the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. Hey Muslims, worship what you want, but don't kill me if I do not believe in your silly beliefs. That goes for you Christians also. Jesus was a Jew. Died a Jew. I love Jews, at least they never tell me how to live my life, they just tell Jews how to live. No pushing your stupid "religious" beliefs on me. Jews don't. Christians and Muslims do, Bible belt or Middle East. Religion is the cause of most problems. Not Democrat or Republican. Religion. I have liberal Democrat friends that hate that I am an atheist. Let alone my Rebublican friends.

    Give up religion, give up this old world idea of a God that controls things. Rain? It happens. Lightning? It happens. Plane crashes? They happen. Floods? They happen. Meteors? They happen.

    My liberal friends hate religion. But tell them there is no God, and they get perplexed beyond belief. WHAT??? You can't believe there is no GOD??? But where does God come from if not religion? Who would even know about God if he was not mentioned in the Bible, Koran, Old Testamant? (Torah). But I am spiritual!!! Huh? Not religious but spiritual? What does that even mean? Buffett? Pick and choose like a Chinese buffet what feels good. Take the easiest parts of all religions and say, "Hey, I am not religious, but I am spiritual." What does that mean?

    So no, I am not a Christian Right Winger. I am an atheist middle of the road fiscal conservative social liberal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2008 2:08 PM GMT
    Wake up, people. Democrats and Republicans both got us into this mess. They all pushed for loans for people that could not afford them, thinking the housing boom would go on forever. Both parties. Both wanted Fannie May and Freddie Mac to give loans to unqualified people. And the people that got those loans are also to blame. Kids do not get loans. Adults do. If you are not making the income to pay for your loan on a house that is way out of your price-range, you should not buy the house.. Plain and simple. If you lost your house, maybe you should blame yourself for buying a house that you could not afford, regardless of the low-interest rate initially.

    We blame Congress, we blame Wall Street. Neither made anyone sign loan docs. We all got greedy. We also saw houses appreciating like helium balloons. It is like Vegas. You walk by a blackjack table, see the dealer bust three times in a row, and think hell, I should put money down. Easy money. Then you win a hand or two, but then the dealer starts a streak of 20's and 21's. And soon your winnings are gone and then your initial bet is gone. Guess what? You gambled and you lost. The one rule of gambling that we all forget? The house always wins. Maybe not short term, but the house always wins.

    So, this problem is not caused by Wall Street or Congress. It is caused by people that did not want to think about what they signed, they just saw dollar signs and wanted a piece of the action. Blame them? No, but it was greed all the way around. Buy a house I can't afford, but the market is going up and I will be safe. No, the market does not always go up. It also goes down. Big suprise.