[stupendousman]

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the architects of our current financial meltdown. The corrupt politicians who never knew a special interest they couldn't help, or a political pay-back they wouldn't take.

Frank's the guy who gave Congress the advise that there was absolutely no risk in Fannie & Freddie operating the way they did, and fought tooth and nail to have any additional regulations put on them a few years back when the problems started to rear their ugly heads. He's the guy who despite utterly failing at his job of ensuring Congressional oversight over the United States financial institutions, got a pay raise with the rest of Congress instead of losing his job like he suggests Obama's friends at AIG should. Or his pals at Freddie and Fannie apparently:

Fannie plans bonuses of up to $611K for 4 execs - Yahoo! Finance

Speaking of which, the guys who got their big bonuses did so because Christopher Dodd made sure they would:

BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd � - Blogs from CNN.com

First he lied about it, then he finally had to come clean when there was clearly evidence he was the guy who did it. Sort of like he had to admit he got an illegal kickback from Countrywide in the form of a non-standard mortgage deal which unfairly allowed him to save really big bucks from an entity he was in charge of legislation over.

So WHY aren't the media making a big deal about these two guys who keep being found to be the ones at the center of all the hooha that's happening in Washington that is GOING WRONG? Why are they letting them on shows as "experts", allowing them to chastise CEO's and others who are no more or less responsible for the mess then they are. Why aren't they putting their feet to the fire every time they show up on the news shows to ask them why they've failed at doing their jobs and in fact where responsible for making things worse?

Why are the inmates being allowed to run the asylum? If a republican had a record like Dodd or Frank, would either of them be in office very long? I doubt it.

This is the kind of partisan crap that makes me sick.

ps. If you guys know of Republicans in office who are just as guilty of this kind of crap, who fought against doing the right thing and actually fought to make things worse like Dodd and Frank, please add them to the thread. I myself can't really find any evidence of any (they are guilty of not taking a harder stance a few years back and forcing the issue, for the most part), but I'm willing to accept that there probably were.

[SpaceMonkey]

I don't know if you are aware of how this works, but House members serve 2 year terms, and Senators serve 6 year terms. They are elected by their district and their state, respectively, not the entire country. That's why they are still in office.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I don't know if you are aware of how this works, but House members serve 2 year terms, and Senators serve 6 year terms. They are elected by their district and their state, respectively, not the entire country. That's why they are still in office.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but in the past when a member of Congress screws up royally - either via corruption or incompetence, they are pressured to resign from office. Many members of Congress have stepped down for less. But, of course they were normally hounded by the media and then pressured by their constituents who had some type of ethical standards. I guess "ethical standards" aren't something that the media, or Frank and Dodd's constituents know much about.

[SpaceMonkey]

Oh, I guess I took your question at face value. I see where you are going now.

If it's any consolation, if you haven't been able to work up an angry mob before then, they will both be up for re-election in 2010.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Oh, I guess I took your question at face value. I see where you are going now.

If it's any consolation, if you haven't been able to work up an angry mob before then, they will both be up for re-election in 2010.

With the media uninterested in Democrat corruption and incompetence (only focused on Rush Limbaugh and Cramer the dancing financial monkey) and their constituents apparently immoral idiots, what does it matter?

I think that the above paragraph pretty much answers my question, sums up what's wrong with politics today, and illustrates why the country in in an economic sh%%ter today. It's sad, but unfortunately true.

ps. Bring Mona back!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

With the media uninterested in Democrat corruption and incompetence (only focused on Rush Limbaugh and Cramer the dancing financial monkey) and their constituents apparently immoral idiots, what does it matter?

You have a whole year and a half to change their minds!

[ort888]

So this entire collapse of the worlds economy can be traced back to Frank and Dodd? Is that basically what you are saying here?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not sure if you are aware, but in the past when a member of Congress screws up royally - either via corruption or incompetence, they are pressured to resign from office. Many members of Congress have stepped down for less. But, of course they were normally hounded by the media and then pressured by their constituents who had some type of ethical standards. I guess "ethical standards" aren't something that the media, or Frank and Dodd's constituents know much about.

Rules for Radicals Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
This is easy since liberal politicians have no rules.

Remember, this only applies to right of center members of Congress. Barney Frank's boyfriend was running a male prostitution ring from Frank's Georgetown condo. (He claims he was unaware) Frank was also having a relationship with a Fannie Mae board member at the same time he sat on the committee responsible for it's oversight.

Originally Posted by ort888 

So this entire collapse of the worlds economy can be traced back to Frank and Dodd? Is that basically what you are saying here?

Them and the Community Reinvestment Act.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You have a whole year and a half to change their minds!

I have little power in these matters. Those that do won't, but would for less for political reasons. Frank and Dodd inarguably have helped lead the economy down the toliet, while they and/or their friends got rich off their actions and there's no outrcy from from cohorts in the media. Not too long ago, a guy got drummed out of office for tapping his foot in a bathroom stall. He couldn't do a single thing without the media asking him about it. The media go to Frank and Dodd as experts at fixing the problem at hand - a problem they are responsible for creating more so than probably anyone else (since it was their job to enact the laws and provide oversight for them), and they say nothing to them about that. Odd?

Originally Posted by ort888 

So this entire collapse of the worlds economy can be traced back to Frank and Dodd? Is that basically what you are saying here?

No. I'm saying that Frank and Dodd where in charge of "minding the store" while the sequence of events leading to the U.S's problems where being put into place. All the warning signs where there, and in fact some really tried to do something about all this back when there were things that could be done to "lessen the blow". Frank and Dodd fought tooth and nail to implement the policies that caused the problems and when it was clear those policies where causing severe problems, they fought tooth and nail NOT TO do anything to try and fix things. This while people like Chris Dodd got bribes in the form of low cost mortgages from people he was in charge of oversight over and made it possible for the taxpayers to pay AIG execs millions in bonuses.

So while they don't share all the blame, they unarguably should share a big portion of the blame since when it was clear there was problems, and they were in charge of oversight, they fought against trying to fix things and where the ones helping to push the bad laws into place.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

So this entire collapse of the worlds economy can be traced back to Frank and Dodd? Is that basically what you are saying here?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Them and the Community Reinvestment Act.

So, you think the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (see here for the CFTC press release on this legislation) had nothing to do with it then? Even though this legislation lifted restrictions on issuing and trading in certain classes of stock futures and issuance of unregulated derivatives like credit-default swaps?

So, you think the whole problem with the economic meltdown is due to President Clinton trying to get more poor people into homes (and indirectly "buying" the votes of poor people in the next presidential election) and not due to legislation changes that allowed risky OTC derivatives trading with no government oversight? Man, over eight years later and you guys still have it in for Clinton. That's some serious hatred.


(To be fair to your argument, Clinton's policies did call for funding of more government-backed home purchases. But the issuance of loan guarantees by Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac is not what led to our current problems, it was the derivatives traders who bought these new loans and traded them on the high-risk derivatives market as if they were some other artificial financial instrument when in fact they were very traditional financial instruments expected to be traded in a much less risky manner, if traded at all.)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not sure if you are aware, but in the past when a member of Congress screws up royally - either via corruption or incompetence, they are pressured to resign from office. Many members of Congress have stepped down for less. But, of course they were normally hounded by the media and then pressured by their constituents who had some type of ethical standards. I guess "ethical standards" aren't something that the media, or Frank and Dodd's constituents know much about.

It would take a lot to get Massachusetts to turn against Frank. He's extremely popular here (at least in and around Boston, I can't speak for the Cape or Western Mass., maybe Sek can comment).

[ort888]

It seems to me like you are trying to take a very complicated problem with thousands of players and directing the focus onto whomever bests re-enforces your pre-existing political biases.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

But the issuance of loan guarantees by Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac is not what led to our current problems, it was the derivatives traders who bought these new loans and traded them on the high-risk derivatives market as if they were some other artificial financial instrument when in fact they were very traditional financial instruments expected to be traded in a much less risky manner, if traded at all.)

Why did they think they could do this? What made these "instruments" special? Why exactly did the markets think there was less risk?

Oh, yeah. It's because it involved a GSE. One that the Government seemed hell bent on allowing it to do whatever it wanted.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It would take a lot to get Massachusetts to turn against Frank. He's extremely popular here (at least in and around Boston, I can't speak for the Cape or Western Mass., maybe Sek can comment).

Do you believe it's because of the inherent insanity of the people of Massachussetts, maybe a broad streak of masochism, or possibly simple illiteracy? I can't figure it out any other way.

Originally Posted by ort888 

It seems to me like you are trying to take a very complicated problem with thousands of players and directing the focus onto whomever bests re-enforces your pre-existing political biases.

I already offered up that possibility. I asked for submissions as to another person or person (regardless of political views) currently "In charge" who was more responsible. If you can't argue against my point, or offer up additional targets, I'd say your observation probably doesn't hit the mark.

[BadKosh]

Anyone mention 0bama's past as a shakedown artist? He used the old "these people have been discriminated against" ruse where he cited a fake study. The author later came clean and admitted he NEVER did the actual study, it was a LIE. So what of the Billions in high risk loans forced on the mortgage lenders through this scam?


When will the politicians GIVE BACK the bucks they took from FANNIE, FREDDIE and AIG to name just a few.

[BadKosh]

"Do you believe it's because of the inherent insanity of the people of Massachussetts, maybe a broad streak of masochism, or possibly simple illiteracy? I can't figure it out any other way."

how about plain old STUPIDITY? Lack of Morals? Are they a big GAY community? Maybe they think he reminds them of Elmer Fudd.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

"how about plain old STUPIDITY? Lack of Morals? Are they a big GAY community? Maybe they think he reminds them of Elmer Fudd.

I'll buy stupidity and a lack of morals. I sure hope that they wouldn't be voting for him just because he is gay, anymore than I hope that they would not vote for him because he was gay. While I understand the comparison to Fudd is based on his speech impediment, I think that Fudd's skill as a hunter approaches Frank's skill at leading Congress in financial oversight for the United State so it's a pretty good comparison.

THIS JUST IN: According the Center for Responsive Politics. AIG employees as a group represent Christopher Dodd’s fourth-biggest donor during his career.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aT_tMXRy2vDs

...and it was Dodd who demanded language be inserted into the surplus bill which ended up protecting AIG big wig's bonuses.

..but poor ol' Chris was hoodwinked again, just like he was when that Angelo guy gave him a reduced cost mortgage without telling him, and apparently he added the language in question but had NO IDEA that it would help his friends at AIG. He says the White House told him to do it. They say they did no such thing.

Could someone again tell me why Dodd isn't on the front page of every newspaper today with a scornful headline above his photo? Is this kind of partisan protection really what is best for the country?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do you believe it's because of the inherent insanity of the people of Massachussetts, maybe a broad streak of masochism, or possibly simple illiteracy? I can't figure it out any other way.

Yes. Also the fact that it's farcical to try and concentrate the blame on any one man for something so large as this. While Frank absolutely was a huge champion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he was not, and could not have been, single-handedly responsible for anything. Especially considering that he was in the minority party for a large chunk of the relevant time period...

[subego]

I can see an argument being made that Frank wasn't helpful back in 2K2-3 when Bush started pushing for regulation, but I can't see the reverse argument where you can pin Bush's failure to pass this legislation on one dude who's a Democrat.

Likewise, I don't understand how wanting Fannie and Freddie not to lose focus on low-income housing (which AFAICT he's always done) is inconsistent with his position as a Democrat, regardless of whom he's throwing his pickle into.

I don't know much about Dodd, so I can't comment.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So what of the Billions in high risk loans forced on the mortgage lenders through this scam?

Forced? It was ultimately up to the bank and/or lender to set the terms of the loan. The banks took advantage of the government backing by offering high risk sub prime mortgages, approving people who didn't meet reasonable requirements, etc.

The Act didn't force the banks to do anything, except extend their portfolio to lower income areas. It didn't force them to be absolutely, beyond retarded with their lending practices.

[SpaceMonkey]

FWIW: http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...in_fannie.html

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending firms
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.

and

84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the [Community Reinvestment Act].

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The Act didn't force the banks to do anything, except extend their portfolio to lower income areas. It didn't force them to be absolutely, beyond retarded with their lending practices.

In fact, the CRA only applies to depository institutions, which, by and large, were not actually the institutions making the risky sub-prime loans anyway.

[BadKosh]

See your corrupt political 'leaders' in action ...... Including 0bama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314

[ort888]

Yeah yeah, this whole economic mess was caused because Democrats forced poor people to buy houses. We get it.

It's just a damn shame the Republicans weren't able to stop them in time. Especially since they've controlled all three branches of the Government for the better part of a decade now. Must be rough.

I'm going to just go put a gun in my mouth now. My shame knows no limits.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes. Also the fact that it's farcical to try and concentrate the blame on any one man for something so large as this.

Me either. I already explained that he wasn't the only one to blame. I simply pointed out that a good chunk of blame can be put on his shoulders. He's ONE OF THE GUYS who caused the problem, yet he doesn't find it hypocritical to set himself up as judge and jury for the other guys who also screwed up and the media isn't explaining any of this.

Originally Posted by subego 

I can see an argument being made that Frank wasn't helpful back in 2K2-3 when Bush started pushing for regulation, but I can't see the reverse argument where you can pin Bush's failure to pass this legislation on one dude who's a Democrat.

I don't either. I blame Bush. I'm going to see that he's thrown out of office for it as well.

[stupendousman]

[QUOTE=SpaceMonkey;3817706]

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending firms

Why did they do it, where did a good chunk of them end up, and why? When you answer the question, you'll see why the statistic itself doesn't have a lot of meaning.

Again, why is it that these lending institutions didn't think it was going to be a big risky hassle to give out these subprime mortgages? Was there...I don't know...someone, or some entity which was essentially telling this "private lending firms" to keep on lending because they'd end up seeing to it that the mortgages were backed?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

My shame knows no limits.

QFT.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So WHY aren't the media making a big deal about these two guys who keep being found to be the ones at the center of all the hooha that's happening in Washington that is GOING WRONG? Why are they letting them on shows as "experts", allowing them to chastise CEO's and others who are no more or less responsible for the mess then they are. Why aren't they putting their feet to the fire every time they show up on the news shows to ask them why they've failed at doing their jobs and in fact where responsible for making things worse?

The same reason you won't see Obama get ridiculed for thanking himself because the teleprompter told him to.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Me either. I already explained that he wasn't the only one to blame. I simply pointed out that a good chunk of blame can be put on his shoulders. He's ONE OF THE GUYS who caused the problem, yet he doesn't find it hypocritical to set himself up as judge and jury for the other guys who also screwed up and the media isn't explaining any of this.

Most likely, yeah. But his intentions were good which seems to be good enough for most people... Of course one's intentions can apparently only be good if one's stated goals are in line with the people's ideology. Otherwise they're evil.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Most likely, yeah. But his intentions were good which seems to be good enough for most people... Of course one's intentions can apparently only be good if one's stated goals are in line with the people's ideology. Otherwise they're evil.

I don't think his intentions where good. He wasn't protecting "the people" when he was stopping added regulation. F&F was a money machine ran by Democrats where Democrats got rich. Franklin Raines - remember him? Frank wasn't looking to help out the "little guy" due to "good intentions" any more than Obama does. They want to be the ones that GIVE so that others will feel indebted to them and their political cronies can be paid off. That's why added regulation caused a partisan argument. Frank's old boyfriend was one of the guys who were making cash off of F&F while Frank was busy regulating them.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why did they do it, where did a good chunk of them end up, and why? When you answer the question, you'll see why the statistic itself doesn't have a lot of meaning.

Again, why is it that these lending institutions didn't think it was going to be a big risky hassle to give out these subprime mortgages? Was there...I don't know...someone, or some entity which was essentially telling this "private lending firms" to keep on lending because they'd end up seeing to it that the mortgages were backed?

No, there wasn't. Fannie and Freddie securitize (purchase) a lot of loans, to be sure, but between 2004 and 2006, Fannie and Freddie's share of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market dropped from 48% to 24%. The huge growth of packaged and resold subprime mortgages was all in the private sector, primarily because Fannie and Freddie were actually subjected to higher standards than the unregulated actors in the private sector who were making risky bets -- the people who are bankrupt now. They kept buying because everyone was under the mistaken impression that real estate only goes up. That's what a bubble is.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/v-print/story/53802.html

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Most likely, yeah. But his intentions were good which seems to be good enough for most people... Of course one's intentions can apparently only be good if one's stated goals are in line with the people's ideology. Otherwise they're evil.

How's that old saying go?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How's that old saying go?

Those who have played the game AfterLife know of course that the road to hell is in fact paved with hot tar, broken glass, and little chips of bone.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't either. I blame Bush. I'm going to see that he's thrown out of office for it as well.

Well, have at it.

At the time, there were enough legitimate things to criticize I didn't have to slam him for ideologically consistent words/actions he had made in previous years that turned out to be wrong. There's a specific 10,000 metric ****ton example which springs to mind.

They can't all be winners. These people are human, even Bush. It's about what they do afterwards.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

No, there wasn't. Fannie and Freddie securitize (purchase) a lot of loans, to be sure, but between 2004 and 2006, Fannie and Freddie's share of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market dropped from 48% to 24%.

Between 2004 and 2007 F&F where the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages with total exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion. While they may have reduced their percentage as their financial condition worsened and worsened, the damage was essentially already done. Why where they the "largest buyers"?

Jewish Russian Telegraph: Barney Frank: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role..."

"In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of 'affordable housing'"

In other words, when the Democrats in charge where caught cooking the books, the Democrats in Congress pressured them to take on more risky loans so that their constituents who couldn't afford homes could have their elected representatives "bring home the bacon" so to speak.

The huge growth of packaged and resold subprime mortgages was all in the private sector, primarily because Fannie and Freddie were actually subjected to higher standards than the unregulated actors in the private sector who were making risky bets -- the people who are bankrupt now. They kept buying because everyone was under the mistaken impression that real estate only goes up. That's what a bubble is.

..and if it didn't, F&F was there to buy up the bad debt. Why would they think this?

Fannie Mae's Patron Saint - WSJ.com

Taxpayers are now on the hook for as much as $200 billion to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and if you want to know why, look no further than the rapid response to this bailout from House baron Barney Frank. Asked about Treasury's modest bailout condition that the companies reduce the size of their high-risk mortgage-backed securities (MBS) portfolios starting in 2010, Mr. Frank was quoted on Monday as saying, "Good luck on that," and that it would never happen.


There you have the Fannie Mae problem in profile. Mr. Frank wants you to pick up the tab for its failures, while he still vows to block a reform that might prevent the same disaster from happening again.

At least the Massachusetts Democrat is consistent. His record is close to perfect as a stalwart opponent of reforming the two companies, going back more than a decade. The first concerted push to rein in Fan and Fred in Congress came as far back as 1992, and Mr. Frank was right there, standing athwart.

Again, while it wasn't ALL his fault, he's a big part of the problem and somehow he's still in charge - without the mainstream media making a big deal about (besides the occasional WSJ article or fringe mention). Same with that crook Christopher Dodd.

We spent 200 billion dollars on F&F's "rescue" and they have 5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities, and that expenditure and exposure is money we don't have. What did Barney Frank's oversight get us?

"I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems,"

"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis,"

Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury."

Here's the very special closing remarks of the WSJ article I posted above:

Mr. Frank has had many accomplices from both parties in his protection of Fan and Fred. But he was and is among the most vociferous and powerful. In any other area of American life, this track record would get a man run out of town. In Washington, he's hailed as a sage whose history of willful error will be forgotten faster than taxpayers can write a check for $200 billion.

To be honest, whenever someone creates a Ponzi Scheme, they usually never think that their plans will go bust. The problem is that Barney Frank thinks that this personal ponzi scheme of his has just sort of hit a stumbling block, and that once things get better economically he can go back to using it as his personal political slush fund. Yet, no one hardly says a word.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Between 2004 and 2007 F&F where the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages with total exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion. While they may have reduced their percentage as their financial condition worsened and worsened, the damage was essentially already done. Why where they the "largest buyers"?

Jewish Russian Telegraph: Barney Frank: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role..."

Were they perhaps the largest single buyer? That's the only way I can think to reconcile what you are citing and and the facts that I already put forward. I can imagine that they may have been the largest single buyer, but, as I have shown, they were still a significant minority of the subprime loan market -- and a shrinking one -- as the private sector market around these instruments swelled. You are repeating erroneous claims. The reality is that the growth in the subprime derivative market had very, very little to do with Fannie and Freddie. F&F did buy into that market -- and it hurt them badly. But had F&F not existed, there still would have been a subprime bubble and it still would have burst.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ort888 

It's just a damn shame the Republicans weren't able to stop them in time. Especially since they've controlled all three branches of the Government for the better part of a decade now. Must be rough.

Where did you get THAT??? "Control" would imply a 2/3 majority.

[ort888]

If only the republicans had 2/3 of congress (rather then just a simple majority) in addition to the white house and supreme court... then we wouldn't have any of these problems. There would have been no economic meltdown. Life would be perfect... the hardworking rich would be richer and creating tons of jobs creating gold plated backscratchers and giant Hummers to carry all their other Hummers... the mooching lazy poor people would be living in apartments like they deserve to, Bin Laden would be dead, gas would be 50 cents a gallon because of offshore drilling, and the stock market would be at about 15,000 right now.

Damn Democrats.

Seriously, the way some of you guys paint this stuff, it's as though the Democrats are this evil ruthless organization that is bent on screwing the world any way they can... and the only people who can stop them are the noble and valiant underdog Republicans, fighting tirelessly to save the country they love from the crushing oppression of the Democratic horde.

It's like G.I. Joe vs. Cobra. And Obama is Cobra Commander.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

It's like G.I. Joe vs. Cobra. And Obama is Cobra Commander.

omg. And I thought I had seen it all.

No, it's more like taxes vs. Democrats, teleprompters vs. Obama, bonus payouts vs. Dodd and Geitner, and the housing crash vs. Barney the wonder moron. Shxt, as allegedly bad as the Republican majority and Bush were, this administration with Congress' help is making that era look like the friggin' roaring 20's. And they're just getting started.

Meanwhile... the deficit comes in $2.3 trillion worse than the Obama administration predicted in its budget just last month. I wish it were a little more like G.I. Joe where all kinds of bullets and shxt are flying around and no one gets hit, everyone safely bails out of the flaming fighter jet.

Damn Democrats indeed. At this point they're the only ones left with any power. Open your friggin' eyes.

[ort888]

Exactly.

You can't even have a discussion in this environment so f*** it...

Anything bad that happens can be spun back to Democrats. Any Democrat who does something is up to no good. Hey look a Democrat did something, lets spin it into a negative...

Go Joe!

[stupendousman]

Apparently the people of Connecticut are catching on....

Dodd's political stock tumbles in Connecticut

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Exactly.

You might be reasonable after all. You'll be a rabid right-wing, pro industrial military complex, cigar-chomping, crucifix wearing, card carrying Republican by the time Obama is done with you.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It would take a lot to get Massachusetts to turn against Frank. He's extremely popular here (at least in and around Boston, I can't speak for the Cape or Western Mass., maybe Sek can comment).

He's pretty popular down here too. Can't say I feel strongly either way about him, but most folks seem to like the cut of his jib in this state.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by sek929 

He's pretty popular down here too. Can't say I feel strongly either way about him, but most folks seem to like the cut of his jib in this state.

I think that's an extremely sad commentary in regards to the people of Massachusetts. The like corrupt, incompetent legislators. It explains how the Kennedys have stayed in power so long.

Sad.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You might be reasonable after all. You'll be a rabid right-wing, pro industrial military complex, cigar-chomping, crucifix wearing, card carrying Republican by the time Obama is done with you.

I'll bring the Scotch.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think that's an extremely sad commentary in regards to the people of Massachusetts. The like corrupt, incompetent legislators. It explains how the Kennedys have stayed in power so long.

Sad.

It's sad you think that only applies to just the politicians you've decided to rally against. Your soapbox style ranting is so shallow, so futile when you try to single out crooks in a sea of crooks and tell us those crooks are the worst crooks. Then you have the gall to indict an entire state full of people who, I'd bet, over 60% of them don't even know, or care, who Barney Frank is.

But by all means, continue making outrageous generalizations. It's not retarded, at all, that the entire meltdown of our...nay the world's economy is due to TWO F**KING GUYS!

Give my regards to the saints that occupy your states government seats.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by sek929 

It's sad you think that only applies to just the politicians you've decided to rally against. Your soapbox style ranting is so shallow, so futile when you try to single out crooks in a sea of crooks and tell us those crooks are the worst crooks.

The "well, they are all crooks" routine. Seen it a million times. It never ceases to amaze me. I've explained my stance before, and I'll explain it again. I KNOW that people go to Congress to enrich themselves. I know that they mostly (with few exceptions) run for their own gain. The difference between the majority and people like Frank, Dodd and the Republicans who got voted out the last couple of elections are that they got TOO GREEDY, weren't discrete and made it clear that they'd do anything for power and money even if it meant throwing the American people overboard. At some point the "plausible deniability" that you are either a crook or incompetent goes away and a rational person has to cut bait and loose the stinking fish. The people of Massachusetts apparently don't understand the concept. The people of Connecticut apparently are smelling what's been reeled in and don't like it.

Then you have the gall to indict an entire state full of people who, I'd bet, over 60% of them don't even know, or care, who Barney Frank is.

...another sad commentary on the people of Massachusetts. Their state is sending a fraud to Congress and they don't care or know. For the most part, I'm willing to accept ignorance due to the media protecting Frank than sheer immorality or stupidity. I'm a reasonable man.

But by all means, continue making outrageous generalizations. It's not retarded, at all, that the entire meltdown of our...nay the world's economy is due to TWO F**KING GUYS!

Strawman. I've made it QUITE clear that's not my stance.

Give my regards to the saints that occupy your states government seats.

Of the two senators in my state, I've voted for one consistently in the past and not the other because he was a buffoon. It's a sad commentary on my state, one I won't try to deny, that the person in question keeps getting in office. He's not really corrupt (he's not wanting for money), but he consistently backs things that are irrational and will hurt our country more than help. I'm not going to talk about how the people around here like the cut of his "jib" when I know plenty that do not.

The one thing though is that neither of my Senators have directly acted in ways that HELPED lead to our current economic malaise, are now preaching to others about it, or have engaged in the kind of corruption (at least as indiscreetly as Dodd and Frank) we are currently talking about. My mom taught me a long time ago that the "so what, everyone does it" isn't a good enough excuse. Apparently you and the people of Massachusetts never got that lesson. All the response needed for such a naive response is to ask if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you jump to?

[nonhuman]

Frank is a Representative, not a Senator. Therefore he only represents a small portion of the state of Massachusetts and there's no need for the majority of the state to know who he is. It also means he has very little power; given the large number of people in the House of Representatives, a single man simply can't do all that much on his own.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Strawman. I've made it QUITE clear that's not my stance.

sooooo ... they *weren't* the architects of the financial meltdown or the minders of the store?

[ort888]

Why won't you just tell us what state you're from stupendousman?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm a reasonable man.

<snicker>

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Strawman. I've made it QUITE clear that's not my stance.

Originally Posted by you

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the architects of our current financial meltdown.

So WHY aren't the media making a big deal about these two guys who keep being found to be the ones at the center of all the hooha that's happening in Washington that is GOING WRONG?

As clear as a muddy river, so were they the architects of our financial meltdown, or were you using a healthy dose of hyperbole? It's one or the other. Also, 'architects' would imply exactly what I said, that you think two dudes caused a worldwide financial meltdown.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

My mom taught me a long time ago that the "so what, everyone does it" isn't a good enough excuse. Apparently you and the people of Massachusetts never got that lesson. All the response needed for such a naive response is to ask if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you jump to?

Actually you might want to check were I said "So what, everyone does it." I agree everyone does it, and it's despicable. What I was pointing out is how outrageously predictable you are when you skewer a Democrat and leave all the crooks you like unscathed. They all deserve to burn in the pits of hell, hardly a 'jumping off a bridge' scenario since that applies to cool kids doing something you want to do. Maybe your mom should've spent more time with correctly using phrases.