Can't say I agree with this in the least.
Create a "small, light defensive force that could be deployed to a 
threatened member country." - So in other words, just a little trip-wire 
force that can be raced into a threatened area ... Then the Russians 
will have the choices of either destroying it and igniting a large war, 
or back down and lose face.

I really fail to see the necessity of putting Russia in that position, 
she is obviously going to show no fear of any light, defensive force.
I don't understand the rational behind all of this, I hope the USA gets 
no support at all for this bonehead ploy.
Very discouraging to see "policy" traveling down paths like this.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Nato plan for rapid-reaction force to counter Russian agression


A Nato rapid reaction force could be expected to respond to future 
Russian aggression
Catherine Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent

Nato defence ministers are today considering the creation of a 
rapid-response military force to respond to Russian aggression.

The proposal, a compromise dreamed up by the Pentagon to reassure 
allies, will be under discussion at today’s Nato defence ministers 
meeting in London.

Britain called that meeting in April to discuss how Nato could be 
transformed to better address post-Cold War needs. But the creation of 
such a force would take Nato back to its roots as a deterrent on its own 
eastern borders after years of expeditionary missions to Kosovo and 
Afghanistan.

A senior US defence official told the Los Angeles Times that Washington 
would push for the creation of a small, light defensive force that could 
be deployed to a threatened member country.

Nato’s only current standing deterrent is a paper one – Article Five of 
its charter, which deems an attack on one member as an attack on all and 
obliges all countries to come to its defence.

But Article Five has been invoked only once in Nato’s history, after the 
September 11 attacks on the United States, and newer members in Eastern 
Europe have questioned whether the alliance still has the will and 
capability to carry through on its promise.

Questions will be asked today about whether such a force could in effect 
replace Article Five or whether it may provoke rather than pacify a 
resurgent Russia. There also remains the question of who would staff and 
equip the force, not to mention where the authority to deploy it would 
lie and in what situations it could be used.

Robert Gates, the US Secretary for Defence, hinted yesterday at the idea 
of a more concrete deterrent, calling for a revival of “the kind of 
actions Nato has been engaged in for 60 years that are not provocative 
and tend not to draw any firm lines”.

“We need to proceed with some caution as there is a range of views 
within the alliance,” he said, a nod to the like of Germany, France and 
Italy who are more cautious on the wisdom of Nato’s eastward expansion.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato Secretary-General, is due to speak today 
on a roadmap for the alliance’s transformation to provide quicker 
response forces and more mobile capabilities both in Europe and elsewhere.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4787565.ece

Jesse wrote:

> Can't say I agree with this in the least.

Nor can I. We already have a European Defence Agency, and now that the Cold
War is over NATO should be wound up: it has fulfilled its purpose and its
remit.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"Jesse"  wrote ...

> Can't say I agree with this in the least.
> Create a "small, light defensive force that could be deployed to a
> threatened member country." - So in other words, just a little trip-wire
> force that can be raced into a threatened area ... Then the Russians
> will have the choices of either destroying it and igniting a large war,
> or back down and lose face.
>
> I really fail to see the necessity of putting Russia in that position,
> she is obviously going to show no fear of any light, defensive force.
> I don't understand the rational behind all of this, I hope the USA gets
> no support at all for this bonehead ploy.
> Very discouraging to see "policy" traveling down paths like this.

Many other countries have such "rapid response forces" but unlike this
proposal they were not created for political purposes or to create a pretext
for escalating conflict.

Nothing boneheaded in rapid response forces per se, but this proposal
certainly is and deliberately and unnecessarily provocative. Hey, we agree !

There's a logic in creating such a force, but it's the logic of spoiling for
a fight, and it's foolish to put oneself deliberately in harms way knowing
that this will ultimately tie everyone into a subsequent course of action
with no other options. Typical US foreign policy; short sighted and not
properly thought through.

Jesse wrote:
> Can't say I agree with this in the least.
> Create a "small, light defensive force that could be deployed to a
> threatened member country." - So in other words, just a little trip-wire
> force that can be raced into a threatened area ... Then the Russians
> will have the choices of either destroying it and igniting a large war,
> or back down and lose face.
>
> I really fail to see the necessity of putting Russia in that position,
> she is obviously going to show no fear of any light, defensive force.
> I don't understand the rational behind all of this, I hope the USA gets
> no support at all for this bonehead ploy.
> Very discouraging to see "policy" traveling down paths like this.
>
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````> Nato plan for rapid-reaction force to counter Russian agression
>
>
> A Nato rapid reaction force could be expected to respond to future
> Russian aggression
> Catherine Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent
>
> Nato defence ministers are today considering the creation of a
> rapid-response military force to respond to Russian aggression.
>
> The proposal, a compromise dreamed up by the Pentagon to reassure
> allies, will be under discussion at today�s Nato defence ministers
> meeting in London.
>
> Britain called that meeting in April to discuss how Nato could be
> transformed to better address post-Cold War needs. But the creation of
> such a force would take Nato back to its roots as a deterrent on its own
> eastern borders after years of expeditionary missions to Kosovo and
> Afghanistan.
>
> A senior US defence official told the Los Angeles Times that Washington
> would push for the creation of a small, light defensive force that could
> be deployed to a threatened member country.
>
> Nato�s only current standing deterrent is a paper one � Article Five of
> its charter, which deems an attack on one member as an attack on all and
> obliges all countries to come to its defence.
>
> But Article Five has been invoked only once in Nato�s history, after the
> September 11 attacks on the United States, and newer members in Eastern
> Europe have questioned whether the alliance still has the will and
> capability to carry through on its promise.
>
> Questions will be asked today about whether such a force could in effect
> replace Article Five or whether it may provoke rather than pacify a
> resurgent Russia. There also remains the question of who would staff and
> equip the force, not to mention where the authority to deploy it would
> lie and in what situations it could be used.
>
> Robert Gates, the US Secretary for Defence, hinted yesterday at the idea
> of a more concrete deterrent, calling for a revival of �the kind of
> actions Nato has been engaged in for 60 years that are not provocative
> and tend not to draw any firm lines�.
>
> �We need to proceed with some caution as there is a range of views
> within the alliance,� he said, a nod to the like of Germany, France and
> Italy who are more cautious on the wisdom of Nato�s eastward expansion.
>
> Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato Secretary-General, is due to speak today
> on a roadmap for the alliance�s transformation to provide quicker
> response forces and more mobile capabilities both in Europe and elsewhere> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4787565.ece

When most of NATO gets over supporting Morocco's invasion and
annexation of Western Sahara, maybe a moral concept such as the above
can be applied!

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> 
>> Can't say I agree with this in the least.
>> Create a "small, light defensive force that could be deployed to a
>> threatened member country." - So in other words, just a little trip-wire
>> force that can be raced into a threatened area ... Then the Russians
>> will have the choices of either destroying it and igniting a large war,
>> or back down and lose face.
>>
>> I really fail to see the necessity of putting Russia in that position,
>> she is obviously going to show no fear of any light, defensive force.
>> I don't understand the rational behind all of this, I hope the USA gets
>> no support at all for this bonehead ploy.
>> Very discouraging to see "policy" traveling down paths like this.
> 
> Many other countries have such "rapid response forces" but unlike this
> proposal they were not created for political purposes or to create a pretext
> for escalating conflict.
> 
> Nothing boneheaded in rapid response forces per se, but this proposal
> certainly is and deliberately and unnecessarily provocative. Hey, we agree !
> 
> There's a logic in creating such a force, but it's the logic of spoiling for
> a fight, and it's foolish to put oneself deliberately in harms way knowing
> that this will ultimately tie everyone into a subsequent course of action
> with no other options. Typical US foreign policy; short sighted and not
> properly thought through.
> 
> 
Hippy, this calculated drift towards conflict with Russia disturbs me 
very much, I can see no sense in it at all.
It is so obviously not in our true national self interest, I am 
wondering just what clique is pulling the strings here behind the scenes.
Particularly, I am wondering just what interest the jew state of Israel 
has in seeing the USA and Russia embroiled in regional faceoffs again, 
cause it seems to me that they have their grubby little noses in this 
affair, and that they are prime movers and shakers in support of Georgia.
Just about every politician I have seen here left, middle or right has 
toed the line that "we will support Georgia no matter what" - And when 
politicians start agreeing like this, something shady is certainly afoot.
The last time that I recall partisan agreement like this was when they 
rammed NAFTA down our throats, and the fact that almost everyone of 
consequence was agreeing with it made me realize with a certainty that 
is was not designed to benefit the average man.
Same thing here - Powerful forces leading the masses towards decisions 
and events that are diametrically opposed to their interests.
I sure as hell know that there is nothing that could happen in that 
region that could be construed as a threat to the USA.
Western powers, with scant few exceptions, have steered clear of that 
region for just about all of history, and with good reason.

Something is up, there are unquestionably some greedy, war mongering 
bottom feeders with a whole lot of influence making their weight felt, 
almost with a sense of urgency ... And I have the feeling that these 
traitorous bottom feeders are owned by the jew lobby.
Just a suspicion at this point, haven't had much chance to research that 
matter, and of course the waters are going to be very murky in this 
area, but if you run across anything interesting in this regards, post it.
This should be an area of prime concern to everyone, regardless of 
conflicting views in other areas.

"Jesse"  wrote ...

> The Happy Hippy wrote:
> > "Jesse"  wrote ...
> >
> >> Can't say I agree with this in the least.
> >> Create a "small, light defensive force that could be deployed to a
> >> threatened member country." - So in other words, just a little
trip-wire
> >> force that can be raced into a threatened area ... Then the Russians
> >> will have the choices of either destroying it and igniting a large war,
> >> or back down and lose face.
> >>
> >> I really fail to see the necessity of putting Russia in that position,
> >> she is obviously going to show no fear of any light, defensive force.
> >> I don't understand the rational behind all of this, I hope the USA gets
> >> no support at all for this bonehead ploy.
> >> Very discouraging to see "policy" traveling down paths like this.
> >
> > Many other countries have such "rapid response forces" but unlike this
> > proposal they were not created for political purposes or to create a
pretext
> > for escalating conflict.
> >
> > Nothing boneheaded in rapid response forces per se, but this proposal
> > certainly is and deliberately and unnecessarily provocative. Hey, we
agree !
> >
> > There's a logic in creating such a force, but it's the logic of spoiling
for
> > a fight, and it's foolish to put oneself deliberately in harms way
knowing
> > that this will ultimately tie everyone into a subsequent course of
action
> > with no other options. Typical US foreign policy; short sighted and not
> > properly thought through.
> >
> >
> Hippy, this calculated drift towards conflict with Russia disturbs me
> very much, I can see no sense in it at all.

We seem to have strayed onto uncommon ground where we are in agreement with
each other.


> It is so obviously not in our true national self interest, I am
> wondering just what clique is pulling the strings here behind the scenes.

From my perspective the same warmongering crowd who drove the invasion of
Iraq on, the same crowd which sees benefits in having wars.


> Particularly, I am wondering just what interest the jew state of Israel
> has in seeing the USA and Russia embroiled in regional faceoffs again,
> cause it seems to me that they have their grubby little noses in this
> affair, and that they are prime movers and shakers in support of Georgia.
> Just about every politician I have seen here left, middle or right has
> toed the line that "we will support Georgia no matter what" - And when
> politicians start agreeing like this, something shady is certainly afoot.
> The last time that I recall partisan agreement like this was when they
> rammed NAFTA down our throats, and the fact that almost everyone of
> consequence was agreeing with it made me realize with a certainty that
> is was not designed to benefit the average man.
> Same thing here - Powerful forces leading the masses towards decisions
> and events that are diametrically opposed to their interests.
> I sure as hell know that there is nothing that could happen in that
> region that could be construed as a threat to the USA.
> Western powers, with scant few exceptions, have steered clear of that
> region for just about all of history, and with good reason.

Yes, it does seem odd that anyone would want to pick a fight with Russia.


> Something is up, there are unquestionably some greedy, war mongering
> bottom feeders with a whole lot of influence making their weight felt,
> almost with a sense of urgency ... And I have the feeling that these
> traitorous bottom feeders are owned by the jew lobby.
> Just a suspicion at this point, haven't had much chance to research that
> matter, and of course the waters are going to be very murky in this
> area, but if you run across anything interesting in this regards, post it.
> This should be an area of prime concern to everyone, regardless of
> conflicting views in other areas.

My money's on the NeoCons and those who see having a big war as the best way
of getting a Republican re-elected, keeping the public behind the President
and keeping people's minds focused away from something else.

The question has to be what is that something else ?

Well ... let's look at the events of the last few weeks, months and years
and the predictions which have been made ( not in this newsgroup but from
fully qualified analysts ) about how the US was rapidly heading down the
John. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Things could be very much worse than everyone has imagined. It certainly
seems that way as Bush rushes towards 'Communism', nationalising and bailing
out companies with tax payer dollars and imposing restraints on the free
market. If that doesn't say Capitalism has just shot its load and the Free
Market has failed I don't know what does. I recall similar turbulance and
chaos in the days which preceded the end of the USSR. Looks to me that
America's own failed ideology is going to bring it down likewise.

It's all well and good blaming "Global Crisis", but the real question is;
what's brought this crisis along ? Only houses built of cards topple this
easily.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> 
>> The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote ...
>>>
>>>> Can't say I agree with this in the least.
>>>> Create a "small, light defensive force that could be deployed to a
>>>> threatened member country." - So in other words, just a little
> trip-wire
>>>> force that can be raced into a threatened area ... Then the Russians
>>>> will have the choices of either destroying it and igniting a large war,
>>>> or back down and lose face.
>>>>
>>>> I really fail to see the necessity of putting Russia in that position,
>>>> she is obviously going to show no fear of any light, defensive force.
>>>> I don't understand the rational behind all of this, I hope the USA gets
>>>> no support at all for this bonehead ploy.
>>>> Very discouraging to see "policy" traveling down paths like this.
>>> Many other countries have such "rapid response forces" but unlike this
>>> proposal they were not created for political purposes or to create a
> pretext
>>> for escalating conflict.
>>>
>>> Nothing boneheaded in rapid response forces per se, but this proposal
>>> certainly is and deliberately and unnecessarily provocative. Hey, we
> agree !
>>> There's a logic in creating such a force, but it's the logic of spoiling
> for
>>> a fight, and it's foolish to put oneself deliberately in harms way
> knowing
>>> that this will ultimately tie everyone into a subsequent course of
> action
>>> with no other options. Typical US foreign policy; short sighted and not
>>> properly thought through.
>>>
>>>
>> Hippy, this calculated drift towards conflict with Russia disturbs me
>> very much, I can see no sense in it at all.
> 
> We seem to have strayed onto uncommon ground where we are in agreement with
> each other.
> 
> 
>> It is so obviously not in our true national self interest, I am
>> wondering just what clique is pulling the strings here behind the scenes.
> 
> From my perspective the same warmongering crowd who drove the invasion of
> Iraq on, the same crowd which sees benefits in having wars.
> 
> 
>> Particularly, I am wondering just what interest the jew state of Israel
>> has in seeing the USA and Russia embroiled in regional faceoffs again,
>> cause it seems to me that they have their grubby little noses in this
>> affair, and that they are prime movers and shakers in support of Georgia.
>> Just about every politician I have seen here left, middle or right has
>> toed the line that "we will support Georgia no matter what" - And when
>> politicians start agreeing like this, something shady is certainly afoot.
>> The last time that I recall partisan agreement like this was when they
>> rammed NAFTA down our throats, and the fact that almost everyone of
>> consequence was agreeing with it made me realize with a certainty that
>> is was not designed to benefit the average man.
>> Same thing here - Powerful forces leading the masses towards decisions
>> and events that are diametrically opposed to their interests.
>> I sure as hell know that there is nothing that could happen in that
>> region that could be construed as a threat to the USA.
>> Western powers, with scant few exceptions, have steered clear of that
>> region for just about all of history, and with good reason.
> 
> Yes, it does seem odd that anyone would want to pick a fight with Russia.

I have no problems opposing belligerent forces, and though while we 
certainly were no angels ourselves, I think we were right and it was 
quite natural to stand in the way of the bear post WW2 into the 1980's.

I can't see the reasons now and, on the contrary, I think that, although 
we will never get along perfectly, a close understanding with Russia is 
essential for world stability and beneficial to us all.
> 
> 
>> Something is up, there are unquestionably some greedy, war mongering
>> bottom feeders with a whole lot of influence making their weight felt,
>> almost with a sense of urgency ... And I have the feeling that these
>> traitorous bottom feeders are owned by the jew lobby.
>> Just a suspicion at this point, haven't had much chance to research that
>> matter, and of course the waters are going to be very murky in this
>> area, but if you run across anything interesting in this regards, post it.
>> This should be an area of prime concern to everyone, regardless of
>> conflicting views in other areas.
> 
> My money's on the NeoCons and those who see having a big war as the best way
> of getting a Republican re-elected, keeping the public behind the President
> and keeping people's minds focused away from something else.

"Neocons" - Thats an easy pick, may well be an element of truth, I think 
theres more to it than that.
> 
> The question has to be what is that something else ?
> 
> Well ... let's look at the events of the last few weeks, months and years
> and the predictions which have been made ( not in this newsgroup but from
> fully qualified analysts ) about how the US was rapidly heading down the
> John. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
> 
> Things could be very much worse than everyone has imagined. It certainly
> seems that way as Bush rushes towards 'Communism', nationalising and bailing
> out companies with tax payer dollars and imposing restraints on the free
> market. If that doesn't say Capitalism has just shot its load and the Free
> Market has failed I don't know what does. I recall similar turbulance and
> chaos in the days which preceded the end of the USSR. Looks to me that
> America's own failed ideology is going to bring it down likewise.
> 
> It's all well and good blaming "Global Crisis", but the real question is;
> what's brought this crisis along ? Only houses built of cards topple this
> easily.

No, not only houses built of cards - Also, houses loaned to mexicans and 
blacks on an industrial scale who are perfectly incapable and unwilling 
to ever pay back the loans.
A drastically failed social engineering attempt by the friendly folks 
who brought us multiculturalism. Our leaders, in their infinite 
foresight and wisdom, have chosen to let a whole range of foreign riff 
raff live off our backs, and now we are paying the price.

Of course this is only one factor, but a very large one, as the ripple 
effects from this debacle are felt world wide, as you know.
I would hope that you would be able to critically analyze this before 
dismissing it as racist hogwash, because its anything but that, its a fact.
I will grant that perhaps the intentions were good, the results anything 
but - And this domestic turmoil is just the ammo that those who would 
tangle us in foreign adventures need.


The Real Culprits In This Meltdown

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial 
turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the 
Clinton years are a prime reason for it.

Read More: Business & Regulation

Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of 
subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and 
specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, 
which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, 
that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped 
create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a 
retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered 
institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had 
no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound 
business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either 
that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton 
put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended 
Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so 
doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he 
and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary 
market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on 
Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his 
social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this 
slow-motion financial train wreck.

And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the 
quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage 
the real estate market in America.

As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at 
Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting 
it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he 
left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.

Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded 
their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.

Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and 
other senior executives could earn big bonuses.

In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC 
and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to 
make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.

But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie 
Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved 
from bankruptcy by Bank of America.

At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her 
brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.

The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to 
affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of 
both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens 
of billions of dollars.

And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying 
for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a 
whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, 
the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great 
Society and New Deal in size and scope.

There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. 
If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And 
taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.

But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't 
acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if 
misguided, acts.

Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more 
interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped 
cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is 
buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government 
solutions.

While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a 
home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and 
tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of 
billions in subprime bilge.

Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's 
fingerprints all over it.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

"Jesse"  wrote ...

> The Happy Hippy wrote:
> > "Jesse"  wrote ...
> >
> >> The Happy Hippy wrote:
> >>> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> >>>
> >>>> Can't say I agree with this in the least.
> >>>> Create a "small, light defensive force that could be deployed to a
> >>>> threatened member country." - So in other words, just a little
> > trip-wire
> >>>> force that can be raced into a threatened area ... Then the Russians
> >>>> will have the choices of either destroying it and igniting a large
war,
> >>>> or back down and lose face.
> >>>>
> >>>> I really fail to see the necessity of putting Russia in that
position,
> >>>> she is obviously going to show no fear of any light, defensive force.
> >>>> I don't understand the rational behind all of this, I hope the USA
gets
> >>>> no support at all for this bonehead ploy.
> >>>> Very discouraging to see "policy" traveling down paths like this.
> >>> Many other countries have such "rapid response forces" but unlike this
> >>> proposal they were not created for political purposes or to create a
> > pretext
> >>> for escalating conflict.
> >>>
> >>> Nothing boneheaded in rapid response forces per se, but this proposal
> >>> certainly is and deliberately and unnecessarily provocative. Hey, we
> > agree !
> >>> There's a logic in creating such a force, but it's the logic of
spoiling
> > for
> >>> a fight, and it's foolish to put oneself deliberately in harms way
> > knowing
> >>> that this will ultimately tie everyone into a subsequent course of
> > action
> >>> with no other options. Typical US foreign policy; short sighted and
not
> >>> properly thought through.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Hippy, this calculated drift towards conflict with Russia disturbs me
> >> very much, I can see no sense in it at all.
> >
> > We seem to have strayed onto uncommon ground where we are in agreement
with
> > each other.
> >
> >
> >> It is so obviously not in our true national self interest, I am
> >> wondering just what clique is pulling the strings here behind the
scenes.
> >
> > From my perspective the same warmongering crowd who drove the invasion
of
> > Iraq on, the same crowd which sees benefits in having wars.
> >
> >
> >> Particularly, I am wondering just what interest the jew state of Israel
> >> has in seeing the USA and Russia embroiled in regional faceoffs again,
> >> cause it seems to me that they have their grubby little noses in this
> >> affair, and that they are prime movers and shakers in support of
Georgia.
> >> Just about every politician I have seen here left, middle or right has
> >> toed the line that "we will support Georgia no matter what" - And when
> >> politicians start agreeing like this, something shady is certainly
afoot.
> >> The last time that I recall partisan agreement like this was when they
> >> rammed NAFTA down our throats, and the fact that almost everyone of
> >> consequence was agreeing with it made me realize with a certainty that
> >> is was not designed to benefit the average man.
> >> Same thing here - Powerful forces leading the masses towards decisions
> >> and events that are diametrically opposed to their interests.
> >> I sure as hell know that there is nothing that could happen in that
> >> region that could be construed as a threat to the USA.
> >> Western powers, with scant few exceptions, have steered clear of that
> >> region for just about all of history, and with good reason.
> >
> > Yes, it does seem odd that anyone would want to pick a fight with
Russia.
>
> I have no problems opposing belligerent forces, and though while we
> certainly were no angels ourselves, I think we were right and it was
> quite natural to stand in the way of the bear post WW2 into the 1980's.
>
> I can't see the reasons now and, on the contrary, I think that, although
> we will never get along perfectly, a close understanding with Russia is
> essential for world stability and beneficial to us all.
> >
> >
> >> Something is up, there are unquestionably some greedy, war mongering
> >> bottom feeders with a whole lot of influence making their weight felt,
> >> almost with a sense of urgency ... And I have the feeling that these
> >> traitorous bottom feeders are owned by the jew lobby.
> >> Just a suspicion at this point, haven't had much chance to research
that
> >> matter, and of course the waters are going to be very murky in this
> >> area, but if you run across anything interesting in this regards, post
it.
> >> This should be an area of prime concern to everyone, regardless of
> >> conflicting views in other areas.
> >
> > My money's on the NeoCons and those who see having a big war as the best
way
> > of getting a Republican re-elected, keeping the public behind the
President
> > and keeping people's minds focused away from something else.
>
> "Neocons" - Thats an easy pick, may well be an element of truth, I think
> theres more to it than that.
> >
> > The question has to be what is that something else ?
> >
> > Well ... let's look at the events of the last few weeks, months and
years
> > and the predictions which have been made ( not in this newsgroup but
from
> > fully qualified analysts ) about how the US was rapidly heading down the
> > John. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
> >
> > Things could be very much worse than everyone has imagined. It certainly
> > seems that way as Bush rushes towards 'Communism', nationalising and
bailing
> > out companies with tax payer dollars and imposing restraints on the free
> > market. If that doesn't say Capitalism has just shot its load and the
Free
> > Market has failed I don't know what does. I recall similar turbulance
and
> > chaos in the days which preceded the end of the USSR. Looks to me that
> > America's own failed ideology is going to bring it down likewise.
> >
> > It's all well and good blaming "Global Crisis", but the real question
is;
> > what's brought this crisis along ? Only houses built of cards topple
this
> > easily.
>
> No, not only houses built of cards - Also, houses loaned to mexicans and
> blacks on an industrial scale who are perfectly incapable and unwilling
> to ever pay back the loans.
> A drastically failed social engineering attempt by the friendly folks
> who brought us multiculturalism. Our leaders, in their infinite
> foresight and wisdom, have chosen to let a whole range of foreign riff
> raff live off our backs, and now we are paying the price.

You cannot pass the buck that easily. It was Capitalism itself which got
itself into this mess through its own choice not through the dictate of
others. These are just examples of how Capitalism has shot itself in the
foot.

They are victims of their own greed and believing the hype they told
themselves.

This is a regime Bush has presided over for near eight years and you cannot
simply pass the buck back to previous administrations. There's been plenty
of time to fix anything that was wrong and if Bush had been opposed to
things he would have changed them. If the corporations themselves were
unhappy they'd have been pleading with the President to change things.

No, the corporations were deleriously happy with their greed until they
discovered they'd driven over the edge of a very deep chasm and had no
safety rope.



> Of course this is only one factor, but a very large one, as the ripple
> effects from this debacle are felt world wide, as you know.
> I would hope that you would be able to critically analyze this before
> dismissing it as racist hogwash, because its anything but that, its a
fact.
> I will grant that perhaps the intentions were good, the results anything
> but - And this domestic turmoil is just the ammo that those who would
> tangle us in foreign adventures need.
>
>
> The Real Culprits In This Meltdown

Capitalism itself.

Sure, all the supporters of the failed American Dream will be passing the
buck but they're all in it together. That's why it's such an unmitigated
disaster and there's such desperation in rescuing the situation that
Capitalistic ideology is being turned on its head in the process.



> By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM
PT
>
> Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial
> turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the
> Clinton years are a prime reason for it.
>
> Read More: Business & Regulation
>
> Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of
> subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and
> specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration,
> which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
>
> But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism,
> that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped
> create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a
> retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered
> institutions.
>
> Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had
> no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound
> business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either
> that or face stiff government penalties.
>
> The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton
> put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended
> Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so
> doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he
> and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
>
> Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary
> market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on
> Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his
> social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this
> slow-motion financial train wreck.
>
> And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the
> quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage
> the real estate market in America.
>
> As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at
> Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting
> it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he
> left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
>
> Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded
> their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
>
> Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and
> other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
>
> In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC
> and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to
> make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
>
> But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie
> Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved
> from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
>
> At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her
> brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
>
> The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to
> affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of
> both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens
> of billions of dollars.
>
> And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying
> for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a
> whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact,
> the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great
> Society and New Deal in size and scope.
>
> There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril.
> If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And
> taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.
>
> But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't
> acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if
> misguided, acts.
>
> Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more
> interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped
> cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is
> buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government
> solutions.
>
> While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a
> home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and
> tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of
> billions in subprime bilge.
>
> Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's
> fingerprints all over it.
>
> http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
>

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:JFNAk.189188$vn1.73260@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> Can't say I agree with this in the least.
> Create a "small, light defensive force that could be deployed to a 
> threatened member country." - So in other words, just a little trip-wire 
> force that can be raced into a threatened area ... Then the Russians will 
> have the choices of either destroying it and igniting a large war, or back 
> down and lose face.
>
> I really fail to see the necessity of putting Russia in that position, she 
> is obviously going to show no fear of any light, defensive force.
> I don't understand the rational behind all of this, I hope the USA gets no 
> support at all for this bonehead ploy.
> Very discouraging to see "policy" traveling down paths like this.

Excellent post Jesse.  Given the weight of Russian forces that got thrown 
into the Georgian crisis just how big would this 'rapid reaction force' have 
to be I wonder?  A force that is designed to race in and actually engage 
Russian troops.  God I can't wait to hear Condi try to sell this one, the 
idea is absolutely fucking insane.

Who the hell is going to man the force?  I can't imagine any of the major 
non-nuclear armed NATO armies wanting anything the hell to do with this. 
Germans?  Hah the Russian media will paint it as the Great Patriotic War 
about to restart!  This could be a pretext to the Russians deploying 
tactical nukes to their western-most forces, to provide a rapid and 
effective reaction to the rapid-reaction force.  It would be a rewind back 
to 1980.

To prevent Russia from becoming as paranoid as that it would probably have 
to be manned by Poles, Bulgarians, Romanians etc.  It would probably be a 
complete joke of a force.

"vilemerchant" <spam@spam> wrote ...

> "Jesse"  wrote in message
> news:JFNAk.189188$vn1.73260@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> > Can't say I agree with this in the least.
> > Create a "small, light defensive force that could be deployed to a
> > threatened member country." - So in other words, just a little trip-wire
> > force that can be raced into a threatened area ... Then the Russians
will
> > have the choices of either destroying it and igniting a large war, or
back
> > down and lose face.
> >
> > I really fail to see the necessity of putting Russia in that position,
she
> > is obviously going to show no fear of any light, defensive force.
> > I don't understand the rational behind all of this, I hope the USA gets
no
> > support at all for this bonehead ploy.
> > Very discouraging to see "policy" traveling down paths like this.
>
> Excellent post Jesse.  Given the weight of Russian forces that got thrown
> into the Georgian crisis just how big would this 'rapid reaction force'
have
> to be I wonder?

Just the one person. Don't even need to be armed, in fact best if not. Ideal
if they are an obnoxious depressive with a death wish.

This is not a force to tackle Russian agression it's a deterrent in that
should this force be tangled with it will be the pretext for all out
escalation. It's a low-tech version of Mutually Assured Destruction.


> God I can't wait to hear Condi try to sell this one, the
> idea is absolutely fucking insane.

I think it's quite rational if that's the way one wants to play it. No
different to a third-party with a hefty gang getting in front of a potential
wrong-doer and saying, "leave it, or you'll be dealing with me and my
mates".

What insanity there is comes it it being a burn all bridges maneouver. You
either get walked over and completely lose face or you have to do as
threatened, regardless of the ultimate consequences. Just putting oneself
there is saying, "I am willing to fight you. Come and have a go if you think
you're hard enough".

It relies on the other party backing down, and if not then it will be war.
There's no other option. That doesn't seem to me to be the best way of
dealing with an incident without escalating conflict. It's entirely the
opposite.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> 
>> The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote ...
>>>
>>>> The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>>>> "Jesse"  wrote ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't say I agree with this in the least.
>>>>>> Create a "small, light defensive force that could be deployed to a
>>>>>> threatened member country." - So in other words, just a little
>>> trip-wire
>>>>>> force that can be raced into a threatened area ... Then the Russians
>>>>>> will have the choices of either destroying it and igniting a large
> war,
>>>>>> or back down and lose face.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really fail to see the necessity of putting Russia in that
> position,
>>>>>> she is obviously going to show no fear of any light, defensive force.
>>>>>> I don't understand the rational behind all of this, I hope the USA
> gets
>>>>>> no support at all for this bonehead ploy.
>>>>>> Very discouraging to see "policy" traveling down paths like this.
>>>>> Many other countries have such "rapid response forces" but unlike this
>>>>> proposal they were not created for political purposes or to create a
>>> pretext
>>>>> for escalating conflict.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing boneheaded in rapid response forces per se, but this proposal
>>>>> certainly is and deliberately and unnecessarily provocative. Hey, we
>>> agree !
>>>>> There's a logic in creating such a force, but it's the logic of
> spoiling
>>> for
>>>>> a fight, and it's foolish to put oneself deliberately in harms way
>>> knowing
>>>>> that this will ultimately tie everyone into a subsequent course of
>>> action
>>>>> with no other options. Typical US foreign policy; short sighted and
> not
>>>>> properly thought through.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hippy, this calculated drift towards conflict with Russia disturbs me
>>>> very much, I can see no sense in it at all.
>>> We seem to have strayed onto uncommon ground where we are in agreement
> with
>>> each other.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is so obviously not in our true national self interest, I am
>>>> wondering just what clique is pulling the strings here behind the
> scenes.
>>> From my perspective the same warmongering crowd who drove the invasion
> of
>>> Iraq on, the same crowd which sees benefits in having wars.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Particularly, I am wondering just what interest the jew state of Israel
>>>> has in seeing the USA and Russia embroiled in regional faceoffs again,
>>>> cause it seems to me that they have their grubby little noses in this
>>>> affair, and that they are prime movers and shakers in support of
> Georgia.
>>>> Just about every politician I have seen here left, middle or right has
>>>> toed the line that "we will support Georgia no matter what" - And when
>>>> politicians start agreeing like this, something shady is certainly
> afoot.
>>>> The last time that I recall partisan agreement like this was when they
>>>> rammed NAFTA down our throats, and the fact that almost everyone of
>>>> consequence was agreeing with it made me realize with a certainty that
>>>> is was not designed to benefit the average man.
>>>> Same thing here - Powerful forces leading the masses towards decisions
>>>> and events that are diametrically opposed to their interests.
>>>> I sure as hell know that there is nothing that could happen in that
>>>> region that could be construed as a threat to the USA.
>>>> Western powers, with scant few exceptions, have steered clear of that
>>>> region for just about all of history, and with good reason.
>>> Yes, it does seem odd that anyone would want to pick a fight with
> Russia.
>> I have no problems opposing belligerent forces, and though while we
>> certainly were no angels ourselves, I think we were right and it was
>> quite natural to stand in the way of the bear post WW2 into the 1980's.
>>
>> I can't see the reasons now and, on the contrary, I think that, although
>> we will never get along perfectly, a close understanding with Russia is
>> essential for world stability and beneficial to us all.
>>>
>>>> Something is up, there are unquestionably some greedy, war mongering
>>>> bottom feeders with a whole lot of influence making their weight felt,
>>>> almost with a sense of urgency ... And I have the feeling that these
>>>> traitorous bottom feeders are owned by the jew lobby.
>>>> Just a suspicion at this point, haven't had much chance to research
> that
>>>> matter, and of course the waters are going to be very murky in this
>>>> area, but if you run across anything interesting in this regards, post
> it.
>>>> This should be an area of prime concern to everyone, regardless of
>>>> conflicting views in other areas.
>>> My money's on the NeoCons and those who see having a big war as the best
> way
>>> of getting a Republican re-elected, keeping the public behind the
> President
>>> and keeping people's minds focused away from something else.
>> "Neocons" - Thats an easy pick, may well be an element of truth, I think
>> theres more to it than that.
>>> The question has to be what is that something else ?
>>>
>>> Well ... let's look at the events of the last few weeks, months and
> years
>>> and the predictions which have been made ( not in this newsgroup but
> from
>>> fully qualified analysts ) about how the US was rapidly heading down the
>>> John. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
>>>
>>> Things could be very much worse than everyone has imagined. It certainly
>>> seems that way as Bush rushes towards 'Communism', nationalising and
> bailing
>>> out companies with tax payer dollars and imposing restraints on the free
>>> market. If that doesn't say Capitalism has just shot its load and the
> Free
>>> Market has failed I don't know what does. I recall similar turbulance
> and
>>> chaos in the days which preceded the end of the USSR. Looks to me that
>>> America's own failed ideology is going to bring it down likewise.
>>>
>>> It's all well and good blaming "Global Crisis", but the real question
> is;
>>> what's brought this crisis along ? Only houses built of cards topple
> this
>>> easily.
>> No, not only houses built of cards - Also, houses loaned to mexicans and
>> blacks on an industrial scale who are perfectly incapable and unwilling
>> to ever pay back the loans.
>> A drastically failed social engineering attempt by the friendly folks
>> who brought us multiculturalism. Our leaders, in their infinite
>> foresight and wisdom, have chosen to let a whole range of foreign riff
>> raff live off our backs, and now we are paying the price.
> 
> You cannot pass the buck that easily. It was Capitalism itself which got
> itself into this mess through its own choice not through the dictate of
> others. These are just examples of how Capitalism has shot itself in the
> foot.
> 
> They are victims of their own greed and believing the hype they told
> themselves.
> 
> This is a regime Bush has presided over for near eight years and you cannot
> simply pass the buck back to previous administrations. There's been plenty
> of time to fix anything that was wrong and if Bush had been opposed to
> things he would have changed them. If the corporations themselves were
> unhappy they'd have been pleading with the President to change things.
> 
> No, the corporations were deleriously happy with their greed until they
> discovered they'd driven over the edge of a very deep chasm and had no
> safety rope.
> 
> 
> 
>> Of course this is only one factor, but a very large one, as the ripple
>> effects from this debacle are felt world wide, as you know.
>> I would hope that you would be able to critically analyze this before
>> dismissing it as racist hogwash, because its anything but that, its a
> fact.
>> I will grant that perhaps the intentions were good, the results anything
>> but - And this domestic turmoil is just the ammo that those who would
>> tangle us in foreign adventures need.
>>
>>
>> The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
> 
> Capitalism itself.
> 
> Sure, all the supporters of the failed American Dream will be passing the
> buck but they're all in it together. That's why it's such an unmitigated
> disaster and there's such desperation in rescuing the situation that
> Capitalistic ideology is being turned on its head in the process.

You apparently didn't read or understand the article.
The "subprime" loans are the catalyst of this landslide, if anything is 
  - And these were geared specifically towards empowering minorities.
Enacted by one of the most liberal regimes in history, once enacted it 
is not a matter for a succeeding administration to simply overturn it, 
it doesn't quite work that way, especially with democrats in control of 
congress.
Were there other factors, certainly.
Do we have a perfect system ? Obviously not, but if you are going to 
look for root causes and then ignore the tap root, it doesn't say very 
much about your objectivity.
The burden of hard working folks like me supporting millions of 
"disadvantaged" 3rd world leeches on our backs is simply not a viable 
option and yes, something is most definetly broke and needs fixing.


>> By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM
> PT
>> Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial
>> turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the
>> Clinton years are a prime reason for it.
>>
>> Read More: Business & Regulation
>>
>> Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of
>> subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and
>> specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration,
>> which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
>>
>> But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism,
>> that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped
>> create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a
>> retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered
>> institutions.
>>
>> Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had
>> no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound
>> business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either
>> that or face stiff government penalties.
>>
>> The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton
>> put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended
>> Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so
>> doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he
>> and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
>>
>> Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary
>> market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on
>> Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his
>> social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this
>> slow-motion financial train wreck.
>>
>> And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the
>> quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage
>> the real estate market in America.
>>
>> As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at
>> Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting
>> it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he
>> left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
>>
>> Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded
>> their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
>>
>> Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and
>> other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
>>
>> In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC
>> and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to
>> make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
>>
>> But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie
>> Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved
>> from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
>>
>> At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her
>> brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
>>
>> The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to
>> affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of
>> both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens
>> of billions of dollars.
>>
>> And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying
>> for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a
>> whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact,
>> the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great
>> Society and New Deal in size and scope.
>>
>> There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril.
>> If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And
>> taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.
>>
>> But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't
>> acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if
>> misguided, acts.
>>
>> Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more
>> interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped
>> cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is
>> buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government
>> solutions.
>>
>> While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a
>> home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and
>> tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of
>> billions in subprime bilge.
>>
>> Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's
>> fingerprints all over it.
>>
>> http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
>>
> 
>

"Jesse"  wrote ...

[snips]

> >> The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
> >
> > Capitalism itself.
> >
> > Sure, all the supporters of the failed American Dream will be passing
the
> > buck but they're all in it together. That's why it's such an unmitigated
> > disaster and there's such desperation in rescuing the situation that
> > Capitalistic ideology is being turned on its head in the process.
>
> You apparently didn't read or understand the article.

I did. It's wrong. And that's putting aside it's blatant "Clinton's to blame
for everything".

To fall for this tripe is to be suckered by the very people who got you into
this mess into the first place. You were right to worry earlier that there
seems to be an unusual agreement across the political divide in the US. Of
course there is; they are all pulling together to save themselves and the
institutions which give them power and money. They cannot blame it on the
other because they know they are equally to blame, so they blame it on
'unprecedented outside forces' and throw in a bit of bitchin' and blame to
previous adminstrations to take the heat off themselves. They may appear to
be opposite political forces to you, but they are both breast-feeders of the
same beast which has just shat its load all over America.


> The "subprime" loans are the catalyst of this landslide, if anything is

"Subprime" was the final sraw which broke the back, yes. Not the catalyst
for the entire disater laid out before us today, no.


>   - And these were geared specifically towards empowering minorities.
> Enacted by one of the most liberal regimes in history, once enacted it
> is not a matter for a succeeding administration to simply overturn it,
> it doesn't quite work that way, especially with democrats in control of
> congress.

What do you mean "enacted" ? All these private companies were forced by the
government into doing whatever they said ? Did they hold a gun to their head
? Sounds like America's a Communist state if that's the case.

Don't tell me these companies were going along with this looming disaster
but didn't agree with it. They saw it coming but were unable to do anything
at all about it, like even raise a whimper and warn disaster was coming ?

As to Bush being powerless to overturn this crazy democratic nonsense as you
seem to believe it to be, I'm afraid I find that laughable. He could have
sent out an Executive Order telling the financial institutions, "Don't be
such wankers". If he's really so powerless that he couldn't overturn a
situation in eight years which was going to bring about the end of America
and imposed by his opponents ( when he had an unbeatable majority in
Congress and Senate and 80%+ approval rating ) then he isn't much of a
President and you've got one hell of a screwed country.


> Were there other factors, certainly.
> Do we have a perfect system ? Obviously not, but if you are going to
> look for root causes and then ignore the tap root, it doesn't say very
> much about your objectivity.

It says less about yours - You're determinined to blame the niggers,
wetbacks, kikes and everyone else but accept the American Dream was as
hollow as a coconut, and of course it's the Democrats, liberals, commies to
blame.


> The burden of hard working folks like me supporting millions of
> "disadvantaged" 3rd world leeches on our backs is simply not a viable
> option and yes, something is most definetly broke and needs fixing.

The way it's going, 200 million Americans are about to become 3rd world
leeches. There are plenty living in abject poverty as it is, and that's
before you add in the 'slave labour'.

To paraphrase the real problem - Financial market players have been dealing
in dodgy bonds, futures and all manner of derivatives that were patent
nonsense for years. Lax and minimal regulation encouraged this as everyone
was seemingly 'rolling in it'. Money was being creating out of nowhere and
it was self-financing in that everyone was magicing up non-existent money to
buy magic beans which would grow them magic money they could spend on more
magic beans and, just to be safe, they'd bet money against each other that
beans would or would not grow money so they couldn't lose either way. If you
couldn't afford to insure me againt my bet I'd lend you the money which I'd
borrowed of a party who'd borrowed it of you in the first place.

With the collapse of the dollar, soaring national debt, increasing
indebtedness to foreign countries, engaged in two major wars which were
dragging out to a decade long with ever soaring costs and no one prepared to
name a game-over date, crippling oil prices, escalating food costs, someone
hiccupped at the wrong time and  that magic money disappeared in the puff of
smoke it originated from. Bingo; nothing, a bloody great black hole. Bloody
great black holes everywhere.

What's definitely broken is capitalism and globalisation. Does it need
fixing ? No, it needs abandoning. It's been as much a failed experiment as
the version of communism was in Russia.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> 
> [snips]
> 
>>>> The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
>>> Capitalism itself.
>>>
>>> Sure, all the supporters of the failed American Dream will be passing
> the
>>> buck but they're all in it together. That's why it's such an unmitigated
>>> disaster and there's such desperation in rescuing the situation that
>>> Capitalistic ideology is being turned on its head in the process.
>> You apparently didn't read or understand the article.
> 
> I did. It's wrong. And that's putting aside it's blatant "Clinton's to blame
> for everything".
> 
> To fall for this tripe is to be suckered by the very people who got you into
> this mess into the first place. You were right to worry earlier that there
> seems to be an unusual agreement across the political divide in the US. Of
> course there is; they are all pulling together to save themselves and the
> institutions which give them power and money. They cannot blame it on the
> other because they know they are equally to blame, so they blame it on
> 'unprecedented outside forces' and throw in a bit of bitchin' and blame to
> previous adminstrations to take the heat off themselves. They may appear to
> be opposite political forces to you, but they are both breast-feeders of the
> same beast which has just shat its load all over America.
> 
> 
>> The "subprime" loans are the catalyst of this landslide, if anything is
> 
> "Subprime" was the final sraw which broke the back, yes. Not the catalyst
> for the entire disater laid out before us today, no.

It was the log which over burdened and already overburdened system.
> 
> 
>>   - And these were geared specifically towards empowering minorities.
>> Enacted by one of the most liberal regimes in history, once enacted it
>> is not a matter for a succeeding administration to simply overturn it,
>> it doesn't quite work that way, especially with democrats in control of
>> congress.
> 
> What do you mean "enacted" ? All these private companies were forced by the
> government into doing whatever they said ? Did they hold a gun to their head
> ? Sounds like America's a Communist state if that's the case.

 From the article [that you said you read]:

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, 
that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped 
create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a 
retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered 
institutions.

*Tough new regulations* forced lenders into high-risk areas where they 
had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that 
sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was 
either that or face stiff government penalties.

If you are saying that that no new regulations were enacted, I'd like to 
see some proof.

> Don't tell me these companies were going along with this looming disaster
> but didn't agree with it. They saw it coming but were unable to do anything
> at all about it, like even raise a whimper and warn disaster was coming ?
> 
> As to Bush being powerless to overturn this crazy democratic nonsense as you
> seem to believe it to be, I'm afraid I find that laughable. He could have
> sent out an Executive Order telling the financial institutions, "Don't be
> such wankers". If he's really so powerless that he couldn't overturn a
> situation in eight years which was going to bring about the end of America
> and imposed by his opponents ( when he had an unbeatable majority in
> Congress and Senate and 80%+ approval rating ) then he isn't much of a
> President and you've got one hell of a screwed country.

U.S. presidents do not rule by decree, yet.
Closest we have come to that was with Lincoln during the civil war.
The legislative branch, or at least a healthy majority of it, has to go 
along as well.
Same as Wilson in 1919 sailing off to Europe in the wake of WW1, making 
all kinds of promises and treaties that he could in no way, shape or 
form keep, because its not a one man show here.

Laws are not made to just turn around every 4/8 years on the whim of 1 
man, that would be far too simple & disorderly.

>> Were there other factors, certainly.
>> Do we have a perfect system ? Obviously not, but if you are going to
>> look for root causes and then ignore the tap root, it doesn't say very
>> much about your objectivity.
> 
> It says less about yours - You're determinined to blame the niggers,
> wetbacks, kikes and everyone else but accept the American Dream was as
> hollow as a coconut, and of course it's the Democrats, liberals, commies to
> blame.

I face uncomfortable truths, you veer away from them.
Major difference between me and you.
No societies in history have come close to attempting to absorb so many 
millions of destitute, unskilled foreign folk in such a relatively short 
time span, no even close, completely unprecedented - And your cherished 
multiculturalism is a major factor in the financial burdens we face, and 
you are content to brush the issue aside as if it did not exist, simply 
because it is an inconvenient truth for you.

>> The burden of hard working folks like me supporting millions of
>> "disadvantaged" 3rd world leeches on our backs is simply not a viable
>> option and yes, something is most definetly broke and needs fixing.
> 
> The way it's going, 200 million Americans are about to become 3rd world
> leeches. There are plenty living in abject poverty as it is, and that's
> before you add in the 'slave labour'.

May be, get ready to become a leech yourself then.
You talk as though you can somehow avoid any hard times yourself, when 
you damn well know you are not much more than a pale reflection of us.

> 
> To paraphrase the real problem - Financial market players have been dealing
> in dodgy bonds, futures and all manner of derivatives that were patent
> nonsense for years. Lax and minimal regulation encouraged this as everyone
> was seemingly 'rolling in it'. Money was being creating out of nowhere and
> it was self-financing in that everyone was magicing up non-existent money to
> buy magic beans which would grow them magic money they could spend on more
> magic beans and, just to be safe, they'd bet money against each other that
> beans would or would not grow money so they couldn't lose either way. If you
> couldn't afford to insure me againt my bet I'd lend you the money which I'd
> borrowed of a party who'd borrowed it of you in the first place.
> 
> With the collapse of the dollar, soaring national debt, increasing
> indebtedness to foreign countries, engaged in two major wars which were
> dragging out to a decade long with ever soaring costs and no one prepared to
> name a game-over date, crippling oil prices, escalating food costs, someone
> hiccupped at the wrong time and  that magic money disappeared in the puff of
> smoke it originated from. Bingo; nothing, a bloody great black hole. Bloody
> great black holes everywhere.
> 
> What's definitely broken is capitalism and globalisation. Does it need
> fixing ? No, it needs abandoning. It's been as much a failed experiment as
> the version of communism was in Russia.

Well, you have to come up with another system before abandoning a 
current one.
Merely stating symptoms does not cure a disease.

"Jesse"  wrote ...

> The Happy Hippy wrote:
> > "Jesse"  wrote ...
> >
> > [snips]
> >
> >>>> The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
> >>> Capitalism itself.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, all the supporters of the failed American Dream will be passing
> > the
> >>> buck but they're all in it together. That's why it's such an
unmitigated
> >>> disaster and there's such desperation in rescuing the situation that
> >>> Capitalistic ideology is being turned on its head in the process.
> >> You apparently didn't read or understand the article.
> >
> > I did. It's wrong. And that's putting aside it's blatant "Clinton's to
blame
> > for everything".
> >
> > To fall for this tripe is to be suckered by the very people who got you
into
> > this mess into the first place. You were right to worry earlier that
there
> > seems to be an unusual agreement across the political divide in the US.
Of
> > course there is; they are all pulling together to save themselves and
the
> > institutions which give them power and money. They cannot blame it on
the
> > other because they know they are equally to blame, so they blame it on
> > 'unprecedented outside forces' and throw in a bit of bitchin' and blame
to
> > previous adminstrations to take the heat off themselves. They may appear
to
> > be opposite political forces to you, but they are both breast-feeders of
the
> > same beast which has just shat its load all over America.
> >
> >
> >> The "subprime" loans are the catalyst of this landslide, if anything is
> >
> > "Subprime" was the final sraw which broke the back, yes. Not the
catalyst
> > for the entire disater laid out before us today, no.
>
> It was the log which over burdened and already overburdened system.
> >
> >
> >>   - And these were geared specifically towards empowering minorities.
> >> Enacted by one of the most liberal regimes in history, once enacted it
> >> is not a matter for a succeeding administration to simply overturn it,
> >> it doesn't quite work that way, especially with democrats in control of
> >> congress.
> >
> > What do you mean "enacted" ? All these private companies were forced by
the
> > government into doing whatever they said ? Did they hold a gun to their
head
> > ? Sounds like America's a Communist state if that's the case.
>
>  From the article [that you said you read]:
>
> But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism,
> that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped
> create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a
> retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered
> institutions.

And that's simple "blame Clinton" by rote with the usal
anti-multiculturalism's evil and to blame garbage. Find a source which has
less bias in it and you'll find yourself better informed.

A quick glance through the past and recent editorials show their near
complete pro-republican and anti-democrat stance. Great place if you want an
editorial guaranteed to blame democrats. Try getting some balance, try
digging deeper, try elsewhere.


> *Tough new regulations* forced lenders into high-risk areas where they
> had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that
> sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was
> either that or face stiff government penalties.
>
> If you are saying that that no new regulations were enacted, I'd like to
> see some proof.

I'd like to see what these regulations actually are so we can see just how
much these companies were forced and how much they willingly took on
themselves.

What for examples were the penalties for not complying ?

It all sounds like "I was only following orders" excuse making and buck
passing.


> > Don't tell me these companies were going along with this looming
disaster
> > but didn't agree with it. They saw it coming but were unable to do
anything
> > at all about it, like even raise a whimper and warn disaster was coming
?
> >
> > As to Bush being powerless to overturn this crazy democratic nonsense as
you
> > seem to believe it to be, I'm afraid I find that laughable. He could
have
> > sent out an Executive Order telling the financial institutions, "Don't
be
> > such wankers". If he's really so powerless that he couldn't overturn a
> > situation in eight years which was going to bring about the end of
America
> > and imposed by his opponents ( when he had an unbeatable majority in
> > Congress and Senate and 80%+ approval rating ) then he isn't much of a
> > President and you've got one hell of a screwed country.
>
> U.S. presidents do not rule by decree, yet.
> Closest we have come to that was with Lincoln during the civil war.
> The legislative branch, or at least a healthy majority of it, has to go
> along as well.
> Same as Wilson in 1919 sailing off to Europe in the wake of WW1, making
> all kinds of promises and treaties that he could in no way, shape or
> form keep, because its not a one man show here.
>
> Laws are not made to just turn around every 4/8 years on the whim of 1
> man, that would be far too simple & disorderly.

When SEC decided to ban short-selling a few days ago it did it overnight.
Bush et al have had no problems in changing things when  that's wanted.


> >> Were there other factors, certainly.
> >> Do we have a perfect system ? Obviously not, but if you are going to
> >> look for root causes and then ignore the tap root, it doesn't say very
> >> much about your objectivity.
> >
> > It says less about yours - You're determinined to blame the niggers,
> > wetbacks, kikes and everyone else but accept the American Dream was as
> > hollow as a coconut, and of course it's the Democrats, liberals, commies
to
> > blame.
>
> I face uncomfortable truths, you veer away from them.
> Major difference between me and you.

Bullshit. The difference is that you're stubbornly sticking to the same
blame game as always. If it weren't for those pesky darkies and latinos
everything would be rosey and the sun would be shining. Hogwash.


> No societies in history have come close to attempting to absorb so many
> millions of destitute, unskilled foreign folk in such a relatively short
> time span, no even close, completely unprecedented - And your cherished
> multiculturalism is a major factor in the financial burdens we face, and
> you are content to brush the issue aside as if it did not exist, simply
> because it is an inconvenient truth for you.

Modern day Capitalism is a recent invention too. Yes, recent events are a
factor but that doesn't get round the fact that it was a house of cards
built in a swamp.


> >> The burden of hard working folks like me supporting millions of
> >> "disadvantaged" 3rd world leeches on our backs is simply not a viable
> >> option and yes, something is most definetly broke and needs fixing.
> >
> > The way it's going, 200 million Americans are about to become 3rd world
> > leeches. There are plenty living in abject poverty as it is, and that's
> > before you add in the 'slave labour'.
>
> May be, get ready to become a leech yourself then.
> You talk as though you can somehow avoid any hard times yourself, when
> you damn well know you are not much more than a pale reflection of us.

Hell no, we're fucked too, the entire world which put all its eggs in the
Capitalism basket are, but many have seen it coming for years. I've seen it
coming for decades. At least I have that as some sort of comfort.


> > To paraphrase the real problem - Financial market players have been
dealing
> > in dodgy bonds, futures and all manner of derivatives that were patent
> > nonsense for years. Lax and minimal regulation encouraged this as
everyone
> > was seemingly 'rolling in it'. Money was being creating out of nowhere
and
> > it was self-financing in that everyone was magicing up non-existent
money to
> > buy magic beans which would grow them magic money they could spend on
more
> > magic beans and, just to be safe, they'd bet money against each other
that
> > beans would or would not grow money so they couldn't lose either way. If
you
> > couldn't afford to insure me againt my bet I'd lend you the money which
I'd
> > borrowed of a party who'd borrowed it of you in the first place.
> >
> > With the collapse of the dollar, soaring national debt, increasing
> > indebtedness to foreign countries, engaged in two major wars which were
> > dragging out to a decade long with ever soaring costs and no one
prepared to
> > name a game-over date, crippling oil prices, escalating food costs,
someone
> > hiccupped at the wrong time and  that magic money disappeared in the
puff of
> > smoke it originated from. Bingo; nothing, a bloody great black hole.
Bloody
> > great black holes everywhere.
> >
> > What's definitely broken is capitalism and globalisation. Does it need
> > fixing ? No, it needs abandoning. It's been as much a failed experiment
as
> > the version of communism was in Russia.
>
> Well, you have to come up with another system before abandoning a
> current one.
> Merely stating symptoms does not cure a disease.

That was discussed a while ago on this group by myself and others, and it's
not as if there haven't been alternatives proposed ( even tried )
throughout the entire history of mankind. As I said earlier, modern day
Capitalism is a recent invention and there were and are alternatives.

"Jesse"  wrote ...

[snips]

> No societies in history have come close to attempting to absorb so many
> millions of destitute, unskilled foreign folk in such a relatively short
> time span, no even close, completely unprecedented - And your cherished
> multiculturalism is a major factor in the financial burdens we face, and
> you are content to brush the issue aside as if it did not exist, simply
> because it is an inconvenient truth for you.

You also need to take a less US-centric view to see or understand why it's
capitalism which has failed and not simply some disaster which has befallen
the US through multi-culturalism factors. Capitalism is failing everywhere,
not just because of some dependency on or entanglement with US markets and
institutions, not because of some Clintonian act over a decade ago.
Collapses in the US have high-lighted the problems others outside the US
have created for themselves, made everyone wake up to the fact the system is
broken and deeply flawed but collapse elsewhere has not been caused by the
US sub-prime issue itself.

Realisation of the nonsense which has been ongoing in the mortgage market
has caused people to look at other sectors and finally, belatedly, come to
the realisation that there's been as much nonsense going on there as well.

We've seen similar collapses before through such nonsense, and not in the
housing or mortgage sectors, but that was always swept under the carpet as
'one-off failure' and the systemic nonsense was completely ignored. Not
surprising really when those indulging in such nonsense wanted it presenting
that they were doing just fine, nothing to see here, nothing to worry your
pretty little heads over. They got themselves some extra lifetime that way
but this time round the nonsense is so patently obvious that they haven't
been able to hide it away.

The UK ( and I expect elsewhere ) have their own sub-prime ad toxic debt
issues, but not because of multi-culturalism or poverty, but because the way
capitalism has propelled itself along. House prices in the UK have soared
and are beyond the means of many people. There's a natural balance obviously
but that leads to market stagnation and limited profit. The capitalistic
system therefore took it upon itself to maximise profits, and to fuel growth
started to offer mortgages at ridiculous levels which even the well-off
cannot afford but need to be in the housing market, or more importantly,
keep the housing market growing profit. Let house prices climb, finance
those buying and rake in the profit. It's all motivated by greed and they
will do anything to boost their profits. Long-term sustainability is neither
here nor there when there's jam to be had today and more tomorrow. It all
looks so good on paper when things are growing and expectations are high but
as soon as there's a downturn, people don't have the money they expected to
have to pay the bills they cannot otherwise afford and the knock-on effects
are tremendous.

It's fair to say that "external forces" have helped bring about the downturn
but they are not the cause of collapses we see; the industry was entirely
unsustainable as it was no matter what brought about the downturn. It was a
question of when, not if, and the final straw cause is largely irrelevent.

Everything did indeed look good on paper, *if* we have 30% growth, *if* the
stock market grows 20% and all sort of similar caveats and the industry in
its greed took it as fact or believed this would be reality, acted
accordingly, and people were suckered into having the same confidence the
industry itself professed to have.

People had little choice but to believe anyway. Without that they were up
the creek with no paddle as capitalistic supporting governments held the
same beliefs, set policy accordingly and in consequence encouraged much of
the same from the industry. Anyone with any doubts only had to look around
at others and see it was the way everyone was playing the game; this is the
way capitalism worked and it self-proved it was the way capitalism should
work. Yes, governments have played their part in furthering capitalistic
ideals but they are not solely to blame for the outcome, they are just a
part of the capitalistic system doing their bit for it.

It was a circle-jerk to disaster and, now it's falling to pieces, all those
who mutually pushed each other further and further up the ladder to the
stars and untold riches blame the other for pushing them, and, in the common
cause of blame, accuse the "external force" rather than accept any of them
did anything wrong.

And when we look at those "external forces" we find the reason they've
arisen is at least partly to wholly to blame on the capitalistic system
itself. As is so often the case, this is the blow-back from going over the
boundaries in pursuit of a course which entirely unsustainable long-term.
The capitalistic system set itself up for a fall in the very way its model
works and in the process also sowed the seeds of its own destruction. It's
why Soviet Communism collapsed, it's why empires collapse, and invariably
those promoting the course fail to see the ultimate consequences or
optimistically but foolishly dismiss portents of doom as impossible.

For UK readers who want to depress themselves further, if they haven't
realised quite how bad the situation has become ...

From BBC Radio Times Online Magazine ...

<quote>

Channel 4 - Dispatches: Let Down By Labour

20:00 - 21:00 : Monday, 22nd September 2008 ( 60 minutes )

A report on the families across Britain who were won over by Tony Blair,
including aspiring middle classes and working class voters, but are now
deeply disillusioned after a decade of struggling to better themselves. The
film features stories of families in London's stock broker belt who cannot
afford their mortgages, working families in Birmingham who have not been
able to lift their children out of poverty, and pensioners who fear they
will be unable to pay their winter heating bills.

</quote>

Personally I believe it's unfair to entirely blame Blair or New Labour (
although it's true that they both presented a vision of this "Third Way" and
a promise things would be different which failed to materialise ); because
the system they supported was doomed to failure regardless. It's fallen on
their watch but many more are to blame for creating and encouraging the
system itself.

"Jesse"  wrote ...

>  From the article [that you said you read]:
>
> But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism,
> that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped
> create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a
> retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered
> institutions.

<quote>

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases
of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under
that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and
creative in stimulating minority gains ... Most importantly, Fannie Mae has
agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments-or with mortgage
payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer's income.
That's made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might
have rejected.

</quote>

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

<quote>

Since 1992, Fannie and Freddie have had an obligation to assist in financing
affordable and low-income housing.

</quote>

http://www.ciaonet.org/pbei/aei/oti/wap02/

<quote>

The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act
("FHEFSSA") of 1992 modernized the regulatory oversight of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac ... And, it established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing
of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and
under served areas.

</quote>

http://www.alliemae.org/fanniemaecharter.htm

<quote>

Consider Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 requires these companies to
dedicate substantial portions of their business to serving low-income people
and communities. They must meet annual goals, established by HUD, and
expressed as a percentage of all the housing units for which the
institutions provide financing.

</quote>

http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/072103harvey.htm


1992 eh. Blame Clinton, sure. George Herbert Wa*ker Bush was at the helm in
1992.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> 
>>  From the article [that you said you read]:
>>
>> But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism,
>> that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped
>> create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a
>> retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered
>> institutions.
> 
> <quote>
> 
> In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases
> of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under
> that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and
> creative in stimulating minority gains ... Most importantly, Fannie Mae has
> agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments-or with mortgage
> payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer's income.
> That's made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might
> have rejected.
> 
> </quote>
> 
> http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807
> 
> <quote>
> 
> Since 1992, Fannie and Freddie have had an obligation to assist in financing
> affordable and low-income housing.
> 
> </quote>
> 
> http://www.ciaonet.org/pbei/aei/oti/wap02/
> 
> <quote>
> 
> The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act
> ("FHEFSSA") of 1992 modernized the regulatory oversight of Fannie Mae and
> Freddie Mac ... And, it established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing
> of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and
> under served areas.
> 
> </quote>
> 
> http://www.alliemae.org/fanniemaecharter.htm
> 
> <quote>
> 
> Consider Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Federal Housing Enterprises
> Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 requires these companies to
> dedicate substantial portions of their business to serving low-income people
> and communities. They must meet annual goals, established by HUD, and
> expressed as a percentage of all the housing units for which the
> institutions provide financing.
> 
> </quote>
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/072103harvey.htm
> 
> 
> 1992 eh. Blame Clinton, sure. George Herbert Wa*ker Bush was at the helm in
> 1992.

You cannot seem to shake your notion that US Presidents are dictators.
They are not, and if you could show that republicans controlled congress 
in 1992, then maybe you'd be on to something.
All theses acts referred to is legislation proposed by, and made into 
law by, congress.
If the democrats, who made and passed these proposals [I am assuming], 
had the majority, a republican president would not have vetoed it, as 
his veto would be over-ridden in short order.
That is how it works, simple.

So as of yet, you have no point.
Show me repubs controlled the house during that time period, I'd be 
forced to concede that you have a point.
I honestly don't have the time to do it right now, so I don't know.
Suffice it to say I'd be surprised if they did.

"Jesse"  wrote ...

> So as of yet, you have no point.

I do but you are ignoring it. You cannot blame the Clinton Adminstration for
something when the Bush Adminstration was in office at the time. It doesn't
matter who had majority control of Congress; it certainly wasn't a Clinton
Adminstration at that time.

I'll be interested in hearing the logic of any argument to the contrary. I
could do with a laugh.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> 
>> So as of yet, you have no point.
> 
> I do but you are ignoring it. You cannot blame the Clinton Adminstration for
> something when the Bush Adminstration was in office at the time. It doesn't
> matter who had majority control of Congress; it certainly wasn't a Clinton
> Adminstration at that time.
> 
> I'll be interested in hearing the logic of any argument to the contrary. I
> could do with a laugh.
> 
> 
I suggest you look in a mirror then.
I don't give you credit for being as ignorant as to how the American 
political system works as you are trying to lead on, so I am left to 
assume that you are purposely being idiotic just for some kind of amusement.
Once again, I am not going to indulge bad habits - Grow up.

"Jesse"  wrote in message
news:1kfCk.778742$3p2.355742@fe10.news.easynews.com...
> The Happy Hippy wrote:
> > "Jesse"  wrote ...
> >
> >> So as of yet, you have no point.
> >
> > I do but you are ignoring it. You cannot blame the Clinton Adminstration
for
> > something when the Bush Adminstration was in office at the time. It
doesn't
> > matter who had majority control of Congress; it certainly wasn't a
Clinton
> > Adminstration at that time.
> >
> > I'll be interested in hearing the logic of any argument to the contrary.
I
> > could do with a laugh.
> >
> >
> I suggest you look in a mirror then.
> I don't give you credit for being as ignorant as to how the American
> political system works as you are trying to lead on

So I'm wrong then when I say that when the Bush Adminstration held office
the Clinton Administration did not ? If you say so.