Great Link!

[Guest Keith]

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html

[Guest a proud american]

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html

Excellent web site, but I doubt the 2dims and patriot will understand it, since thier great leader is never wrong. Another great web site that they will never visit is media matters.org. However, we have to wait for professor Bryan to give his opinion.

[Bryan]

Excellent web site, but I doubt the 2dims and patriot will understand it, since thier great leader is never wrong. Another great web site that they will never visit is media matters.org. However, we have to wait for professor Bryan to give his opinion.

Any site on Prescott Bush and the Nazis that ignores George H. W. Bush's military service is probably too biased to justify wasting one's time.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gb41.html

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0068080-00

Calling favorable attention to a site like that, Keith, is irresponsible. Some people might take it seriously. It shouldn't have been to hard to find a balanced account from a reputable source.

[Guest Keith]

Any site on Prescott Bush and the Nazis that ignores George H. W. Bush's military service is probably too biased to justify wasting one's time.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gb41.html

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0068080-00

Calling favorable attention to a site like that, Keith, is irresponsible. Some people might take it seriously. It shouldn't have been to hard to find a balanced account from a reputable source.

See, even George Sr. did his military duty Bryan. Keep in mind he fought in the "pacific" against the "Japanese"

I find it ironic that you call me irresponsible. What are you responsible for Bryan? Other than your steadfast support for a president who is literally driving this country into another depression. I have neither the time nor patience to list every one Bush's bungles although there are plenty of "reputable sources" where you can read about them. This man, this administration have done horrendous damage to our country and to you Bryan. How can someone who seems to be very intelligent not see this? Do you not want to see it? Are you so engrained in party politics that you just choose to look the other way? If you saw a crime being committed would you do the right thing or look the other way? How is it that since the inception of our country, millions of troops have fought and died to protect the consitution but the minute we are sucker punched on 9/11 we are willing to throw all of that away? We should all be ashamed of ourselves for not demanding and end to this corporate war, bring the troops home and hold those in power legally accountable.

[Bryan]

See, even George Sr. did his military duty Bryan. Keep in mind he fought in the "pacific" against the "Japanese"

Yeah, 'cause you could choose where you served.

The Nazis and the Japanese were allies (Axis pact).

I find it ironic that you call me irresponsible.

I don't see why, and I doubt that you could justify it within reason.

What are you responsible for Bryan? Other than your steadfast support for a president who is literally driving this country into another depression.

I criticize Bush over quite a few things. You simply choose to ignore it because you're so obsessed with idiotic stuff like thinking that Bush did something to hurt the U.S. economy. If he did, it was mainly his failure to reverse liberalized lending standards forced on banks by the Clinton administration.

Today's subprime mortgage market was the result of innovative yet high stakes political decisions by President Bill Clinton and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros to push homeownership to record levels. Homeownership gains were not to be made on the backs of conventional borrowers but rather through emerging market penetration of black, Latino, and Asian immigrant/first-time home buyers and through HUD's instruction of the Government Sponsored Enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to employ strategies to fund more loans by providing more credit primarily to credit-blemished borrowers. Wall Street was guided by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, whose economic wizardry spurred unprecedented loan performance. There was more money, more credit, more homes, and more wealth.

http://boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opi...misconceptions/

http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com...ll-clinton.html

I have neither the time nor patience to list every one Bush's bungles although there are plenty of "reputable sources" where you can read about them.

Not as many as you think.

[Guest a proud american]

Yeah, 'cause you could choose where you served.

The Nazis and the Japanese were allies (Axis pact).

I don't see why, and I doubt that you could justify it within reason.

I criticize Bush over quite a few things. You simply choose to ignore it because you're so obsessed with idiotic stuff like thinking that Bush did something to hurt the U.S. economy. If he did, it was mainly his failure to reverse liberalized lending standards forced on banks by the Clinton administration.

Today's subprime mortgage market was the result of innovative yet high stakes political decisions by President Bill Clinton and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros to push homeownership to record levels. Homeownership gains were not to be made on the backs of conventional borrowers but rather through emerging market penetration of black, Latino, and Asian immigrant/first-time home buyers and through HUD's instruction of the Government Sponsored Enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to employ strategies to fund more loans by providing more credit primarily to credit-blemished borrowers. Wall Street was guided by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, whose economic wizardry spurred unprecedented loan performance. There was more money, more credit, more homes, and more wealth.

http://boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opi...misconceptions/

http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com...ll-clinton.html

Not as many as you think.

So once again, Bush should take no responsibility and it's all Clintons fault. What has he been doing for the last two years while this problem was getting worse.

Thats right he was keeping us safe while listening in on our phone calls. People could purchase homes when clinton was president because we had a strong economy. But the people who always want to keep up with the Jonses never though that this president would do so much to destroy the economy that the chickens would come home to roost. Well they are and people who believed this nit wit are paying the price.

Also, I heard on the radio yesterday that, people who have home equity lines of credit better check with their lenders because the money they thought wouold be there may not be.

[Bryan]

So once again, Bush should take no responsibility and it's all Clintons fault.

Well, yeah, if you want to lie about what I wrote.

If (Bush) did, it was mainly his failure to reverse liberalized lending standards forced on banks by the Clinton administration.

A "proud american" with no shame, evidently.

What has he been doing for the last two years while this problem was getting worse.

Trying to appease idiots like Keith with economic stimulus that gives tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes and considering a fix on mortgage rates. The latter is a bad idea since it amounts to a subsidy on bad business decisions.

Thats right he was keeping us safe while listening in on our phone calls.

A major terrorist attack probably would send the economy into a tailspin, now that you mention it. Maybe the Democrats want that to happen in order to assist their chances in November?

Can we do without the red herring?

People could purchase homes when clinton was president because we had a strong economy.

And because Clinton worked to encourage banks to make more and riskier loans. It's like you ignored the URL above.

But the people who always want to keep up with the Jonses never though that this president would do so much to destroy the economy that the chickens would come home to roost. Well they are and people who believed this nit wit are paying the price.

You should try composing that sentence again, with an emphasis on sounding coherent.

The loan problem is the problem with the economy. Housing prices boomed because people were willing to pay the cost, and people were willing to pay the cost because they could obtain risky loans. The economy has been humming along, demonstrating excellent growth and job numbers. I know you may have been fooled on that count because the media have been painting doom and gloom despite the numbers, but that's the way it is.

Also, I heard on the radio yesterday that, people who have home equity lines of credit better check with their lenders because the money they thought wouold be there may not be.

Right, because banks can't afford to further extend their risk right now. Meanwhile the economy continues to grow, albeit at a slower rate, while the media message keeps indoctrinating the average guy into thinking that we're in a recession or something. Unfortunately the reality of economics is that public perception does affect the economy directly since it affects the things that people do with their money (that's why economic news features things like "consumer confidence"). Thus the media have a substantial hand in creating a reality that might eventually come close to agreeing with the distorted picture they're feeding you.

[Guest Keith]

Yeah, 'cause you could choose where you served.

The Nazis and the Japanese were allies (Axis pact).

I don't see why, and I doubt that you could justify it within reason.

I criticize Bush over quite a few things. You simply choose to ignore it because you're so obsessed with idiotic stuff like thinking that Bush did something to hurt the U.S. economy. If he did, it was mainly his failure to reverse liberalized lending standards forced on banks by the Clinton administration.

Today's subprime mortgage market was the result of innovative yet high stakes political decisions by President Bill Clinton and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros to push homeownership to record levels. Homeownership gains were not to be made on the backs of conventional borrowers but rather through emerging market penetration of black, Latino, and Asian immigrant/first-time home buyers and through HUD's instruction of the Government Sponsored Enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to employ strategies to fund more loans by providing more credit primarily to credit-blemished borrowers. Wall Street was guided by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, whose economic wizardry spurred unprecedented loan performance. There was more money, more credit, more homes, and more wealth.

http://boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opi...misconceptions/

http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com...ll-clinton.html

Not as many as you think.

You don't don't Prescott Bush had enough pull to get his son assigned to the pacific if he wanted to?

[Bryan]

You don't don't Prescott Bush had enough pull to get his son assigned to the pacific if he wanted to?

No, I don't think Prescott Bush had enough pull to get his son assigned to the Pacific theater. He was an investment banker. Not God or even president.

If you have evidence that Prescott Bush pulled strings in order to affect his son's assignment, though, feel free to post it.

[Guest Keith]

No, I don't think Prescott Bush had enough pull to get his son assigned to the Pacific theater. He was an investment banker. Not God or even president.

If you have evidence that Prescott Bush pulled strings in order to affect his son's assignment, though, feel free to post it.

Of course we may never know, but if you think for a minute that someone like him doesn't have that kind of pull then you are truly naive. This is a facist country after all.

[Guest a proud american]

Of course we may never know, but if you think for a minute that someone like him doesn't have that kind of pull then you are truly naive. This is a facist country after all.

Old Prescott may not have pulled any strings but G.W. Sr. sure did.

To Proffesor Bryan, Fannie Mae was first created in 1938 under Roosevelt who beleived that helping families keep their houses during the depression was important.

It was re-chartered in 1968 by Congress as a shareholder owned Company.

Now, with regards to Clinton and Cisneros, you had a strong economy, large job growth and worked to make housing more affordable, especially first time ownership.

You didn't see the re-financing take off until after 2002. People started re-mortgaging their houses to purchase goods and services they couldn't afford like automobiles, vacations, paying off huge credit card debt, paying for college for their kids and making investments that they then used to save on taxes. They were perfectly content to sign these secondary Adjustable rate mortgages without any thought being given that eventually the rates would change. Sadly, when these rates changed they were ill prepared to deal with the increased cost. So now they're stuck with houses that are worth less than what they owe, they can't sell them because the housing market is in bad shape and the banks want to be paid so they are foreclosed on. Thats what the chickens coming home to roost meant.

Now according to the Government, not the newspapers, we have gone through two quarters of negative growth and the forecast for the next quarter is just as bleak. Which means we are in the early stages of a recession. All of this under a President who is supposed to be an economic genius.

Well lets see how the genius gets us out of this mess he created.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Old Prescott may not have pulled any strings but G.W. Sr. sure did.

To Proffesor Bryan, Fannie Mae was first created in 1938 under Roosevelt who beleived that helping families keep their houses during the depression was important.

It was re-chartered in 1968 by Congress as a shareholder owned Company.

Now, with regards to Clinton and Cisneros, you had a strong economy, large job growth and worked to make housing more affordable, especially first time ownership.

You didn't see the re-financing take off until after 2002. People started re-mortgaging their houses to purchase goods and services they couldn't afford like automobiles, vacations, paying off huge credit card debt, paying for college for their kids and making investments that they then used to save on taxes. They were perfectly content to sign these secondary Adjustable rate mortgages without any thought being given that eventually the rates would change. Sadly, when these rates changed they were ill prepared to deal with the increased cost. So now they're stuck with houses that are worth less than what they owe, they can't sell them because the housing market is in bad shape and the banks want to be paid so they are foreclosed on. Thats what the chickens coming home to roost meant.

Now according to the Government, not the newspapers, we have gone through two quarters of negative growth and the forecast for the next quarter is just as bleak. Which means we are in the early stages of a recession. All of this under a President who is supposed to be an economic genius.

Well lets see how the genius gets us out of this mess he created.

And of course it was GWB who forced all those people to sign up for adjustable rate mortgages. You

"blame America first" Loonies never fail to disappoint me.

[Bryan]

Old Prescott may not have pulled any strings but G.W. Sr. sure did.

To Proffesor Bryan, Fannie Mae was first created in 1938 under Roosevelt who beleived that helping families keep their houses during the depression was important.

It was re-chartered in 1968 by Congress as a shareholder owned Company.

Now, with regards to Clinton and Cisneros, you had a strong economy, large job growth and worked to make housing more affordable, especially first time ownership.

Housing was not made more affordable. Clinton made it easier to secure loans. He didn't lower the prices. If anything, the increased availability of loans would have pushed home prices higher (supply & demand).

You didn't see the re-financing take off until after 2002. People started re-mortgaging their houses to purchase goods and services they couldn't afford like automobiles, vacations, paying off huge credit card debt, paying for college for their kids and making investments that they then used to save on taxes. They were perfectly content to sign these secondary Adjustable rate mortgages without any thought being given that eventually the rates would change. Sadly, when these rates changed they were ill prepared to deal with the increased cost. So now they're stuck with houses that are worth less than what they owe, they can't sell them because the housing market is in bad shape and the banks want to be paid so they are foreclosed on. Thats what the chickens coming home to roost meant.

You seem to be trying to make it sound the the people's fault ("re-mortgaging their houses to purchase goods and services they couldn't afford like automobiles"). Can't you work Bush in there somehow other than just by saying "2002"?

Now according to the Government, not the newspapers, we have gone through two quarters of negative growth and the forecast for the next quarter is just as bleak.

You're an idiot, no offense.

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property

located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007,

according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter,

real GDP increased 4.9 percent.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/g...newsrelease.htm

In short, the economy has continued to grow but at a lesser rate. You stupidly confused a decrease in the growth rate with negative growth. The Democrats love people like you. Notice how you offered no citation in favor of your claim while the BEA blog supports mine?

Which means we are in the early stages of a recession. All of this under a President who is supposed to be an economic genius.

Sweet irony. I don't read you as the type to apologize for his misrepresentation of the facts. Please surprise me.