U.S. Debt Clock

[phil]

Wow. Blame it on Barney Frank. New tactic? Nope, same old one. Let me think for just a minute. Oh yeah, now I remember. Despite having Republican control of Congress for over 10 years, and a Republican President for 8, Congressman Barney Frank was singlehandedly able to create this crisis.

If he's got that amount of power, to create the financial crisis in the face of this tremendous opposition, then Barney Frank needs to be given even more power. Barney Frank forced the banks to lend all that money? Impressive. :laugh:

Bold move. Orchestrated by whom?

Yeah I know the housing bubble. Orchestrated by who? Barrny Frank and the forcing of banks to lend money to people (sub-prime loans) who could not pay the money back. So the taxpayer is left footing the bill.

 

[mayday]

Bold move. Orchestrated by whom?

Fanny and Fready

 

[phil]

But Fannie Mae was created in 1938, many years before Congressman Frank was even born. He must REALLY be powerful, particularly since he was in the minority party for over 10 years. Fannie was made a private corporation in 1968, prior to Congressman Frank's political career.

That just must be raw power.

Bold move. Orchestrated by whom?

Fanny and Fready

 

[mayday]

Enjoy there's more to this story.

http://tinyurl.com/yfbsuqp

 

[mayday]

If you want more of Barney just ask.

http://tinyurl.com/ylh3j74

 

[phil]

You need to read the story. Mr. Moses left Fannie in 1998, over 10 years ago.

So, let's get this straight: Barney Frank was able to bring about this crisis, despite being a member of the minority party for the past 10 years, with a Republican President for the past 8 years. And this had something to do with his personal relationship with someone in 1998?

I really don't think so. That's probably a stretch of the imagination that not even I can really follow. In short, I really don't think that Congressman Frank had that much power. If he did, then what you're telling me is that the Republicans just didn't do anything for the past 10 years. I'd like to agree on that, but it just doesn't pass any sort of test of reason.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

I know how to take off a part of this.

http://www.costofwar.com/

This is just too easy. This is just for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I've always wondered something about this. What exactly are they putting into these numbers? Is it the cost of replacing bullets, bombs, and missiles? Is it the cost of feeding the soldiers? Is it the cost of medical supplies? Is it the cost of fuel, maintenance, and replacement of damaged vehicles? Is it the salaries of the soldiers?

The reason I ask about this, is because I believe these numbers are inflated. Salaries for officers and enlisted are going to be paid to the active duty soldiers regardless of whether they are in the theatre of operations or not, so those numbers need to be taken out. Take out the monthly drill pay that would be paid to reserve and national guard troops if they were not activated for the war effort. Enlisted soldiers, with the exception of those paid separate rations, are going to be fed whether in or out of the theatre, so those numbers need to be taken out. A certain number of rounds of ammunition and ordinance are used for training whether the unit is in theatre or out of the theatre, so those numbers should be taken out. Fuel and maintenance costs should be reduced by the amount that would have been used for daily operations and training had the units not been in theatre. Equipment is regularly replaced as a result of damage during training exercises, and the military budgets for that, so that amount should be taken out.

When you consider all of the factors, I believe the amount spent on the war effort is much less than is being portrayed here.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

And to only think......8 years ago, under Clinton, we were paying that off.

Let's see, what happened between then and now? Oh yeah, now I remember.

Actually, it was the Republican Congress. They passed the laws and the budgets. Clinton just signed them into law.

Who took over the Congress before the market crashed? The Democrats. Coincidence? I think not!

 

[mayday]

Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.

Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.

"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in 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," Clinton said recently.

Bill Sammon is FOX News' Washington Deputy Managing Editor

phil I wonder about your reading ability.

 

[mayday]

I've always wondered something about this. What exactly are they putting into these numbers? Is it the cost of replacing bullets, bombs, and missiles? Is it the cost of feeding the soldiers? Is it the cost of medical supplies? Is it the cost of fuel, maintenance, and replacement of damaged vehicles? Is it the salaries of the soldiers?

The reason I ask about this, is because I believe these numbers are inflated. Salaries for officers and enlisted are going to be paid to the active duty soldiers regardless of whether they are in the theatre of operations or not, so those numbers need to be taken out. Take out the monthly drill pay that would be paid to reserve and national guard troops if they were not activated for the war effort. Enlisted soldiers, with the exception of those paid separate rations, are going to be fed whether in or out of the theatre, so those numbers need to be taken out. A certain number of rounds of ammunition and ordinance are used for training whether the unit is in theatre or out of the theatre, so those numbers should be taken out. Fuel and maintenance costs should be reduced by the amount that would have been used for daily operations and training had the units not been in theatre. Equipment is regularly replaced as a result of damage during training exercises, and the military budgets for that, so that amount should be taken out.

When you consider all of the factors, I believe the amount spent on the war effort is much less than is being portrayed here.

Viva La Migra: Very astute observation. I'm rather partial to those in the military risking thier lives for our safty.

 

[Buster]

I've always wondered something about this. What exactly are they putting into these numbers? Is it the cost of replacing bullets, bombs, and missiles? Is it the cost of feeding the soldiers? Is it the cost of medical supplies? Is it the cost of fuel, maintenance, and replacement of damaged vehicles? Is it the salaries of the soldiers?

The reason I ask about this, is because I believe these numbers are inflated. Salaries for officers and enlisted are going to be paid to the active duty soldiers regardless of whether they are in the theatre of operations or not, so those numbers need to be taken out. Take out the monthly drill pay that would be paid to reserve and national guard troops if they were not activated for the war effort. Enlisted soldiers, with the exception of those paid separate rations, are going to be fed whether in or out of the theatre, so those numbers need to be taken out. A certain number of rounds of ammunition and ordinance are used for training whether the unit is in theatre or out of the theatre, so those numbers should be taken out. Fuel and maintenance costs should be reduced by the amount that would have been used for daily operations and training had the units not been in theatre. Equipment is regularly replaced as a result of damage during training exercises, and the military budgets for that, so that amount should be taken out.

When you consider all of the factors, I believe the amount spent on the war effort is much less than is being portrayed here.

Also to add to this..Whatever the cost is to run the WAR MACHINE, means mostly that the monies goes back into the US economy, be it to build boats, tanks, missiles, rockets, guns, bullets, etc..it's still creates jobs and fosters employment...

 

[grandma]

Also to add to this..Whatever the cost is to run the WAR MACHINE, means mostly that the monies goes back into the US economy, be it to build boats, tanks, missiles, rockets, guns, bullets, etc..it's still creates jobs and fosters employment...

I have heard it said that Economy was a big factor for the war fought in 1863; I am well aware that WW II was a great Economy boost. But how can the wars we're are in now be? ...well, the Senate wants to provide airplanes the Pentagon flatly states they don't need, they wanted to provide airplanes for Congress, But they don't want to provide for the troopers' livelihoods...
Seems like the bullet-makers are being shut down, the scrap metal sent to China ? So I suppose there is not as much to be made in tires, mobile units, etc ?? :suspicious:
If I am contradicting myself here, or mixing up apples with opium, let me know!

 

[mayday]

Buster: You have your head on straight although I can't see your head in your avatar

Also to add to this..Whatever the cost is to run the WAR MACHINE, means mostly that the monies goes back into the US economy, be it to build boats, tanks, missiles, rockets, guns, bullets, etc..it's still creates jobs and fosters employment...
__________________
COUGARS: They Don't Swell, They Don't Tell and are Appreciative as Hell.

 

[mayday]

I have heard it said that Economy was a big factor for the war fought in 1863; I am well aware that WW II was a great Economy boost. But how can the wars we're are in now be? ...well, the Senate wants to provide airplanes the Pentagon flatly states they don't need, they wanted to provide airplanes for Congress, But they don't want to provide for the troopers' livelihoods...
Seems like the bullet-makers are being shut down, the scrap metal sent to China ? So I suppose there is not as much to be made in tires, mobile units, etc ?? :suspicious:
If I am contradicting myself here, or mixing up apples with opium, let me know!

Grandma: Keep those ears flapping in the wind. They sure do pick up things we need to hear. China is a power that can hardly be ignored. The Senate and Congress in power we only have ourselves to blame for voting them into office.

 

[phil]

Actually, the Democrats took over because of the economy. That was the major theme of their campaign. As I remember, Wall Street firms were going under prior to their taking over.

As I also remember, the government shut down for about a month during the Clinton years.

Actually, it was the Republican Congress. They passed the laws and the budgets. Clinton just signed them into law.

Who took over the Congress before the market crashed? The Democrats. Coincidence? I think not!

 

[phil]

Thanks for the personal attack at the end there. It really makes your argument stronger.

So, with the Republicans in charge of both houses of congress for over 10 years, with 8 years in the Presidency, Barney Frank was able to stop all of them from making any changes.

I'm not sure, but if I were a Republican in congress, I would feel terribly insulted by this. One single Democratic Congressman simply halted any changes, despite the enormous power that the Republicans wielded?

Was Barney Frank some sort of Superman? Couldn't the opposition have used kryptonite to stop him? It's a bird...It's a plane...no, it's Congressman Frank.

Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.

Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.

"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in 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," Clinton said recently.

Bill Sammon is FOX News' Washington Deputy Managing Editor

phil I wonder about your reading ability.

 

[phil]

http://www.costofwar.com/

So, let's discuss this idea that somehow war helps our economy. No, it really doesn't. It just adds to the national debt. We are now spending as much money as the rest of the world combined on our defense.

The idea that this does something positive to our economy is just too weird. Why not instead build an enormous pyramid in the middle of the desert? That surely beats invading other countries for no reason. It's safer too.

Building something here, transporting it halfway across the world to be dropped out of a plane and/or shot from a gun.....then justifying this action as economically positive just doesn't work. I think Adam Smith would probably not understand. The Keynsians would probably agree, but I don't think anyone here could stomach John Maynard Keynes's radical economic socialism. No way.

 

[nnuut]

No comment!

 

[Buster]