Constitutional Double-talk & The GOP

reply to post by Flatfish


Yes, the neo cons, a bastardization of the liberal Repubs.

I think the whole tea party movement is caused by them. The original tea party.

I believe the Constitutionalists and the Libertarians are the source of the original.

We see that enforcing one's own views was the neo con agenda. Pretty much I think the neo cons are a Liberal light base that believes in control.

That is not what the TRUE tea party origination entailed. Ron Paul was the epitome of the original intent.

Freedom of social.
Freedom of economic.
Freedom to make a choice.
Non interference in world affairs.

I can see why a LOT of democrats and independants drifted toward the tea parties. But they bring in the big government controls. Then the neo cons drifted in and want supposed big defense and moral control.

Then what do we have, the exact same thing as the Dems and the Repubs.

Tax and control.

One must make a decision sooner or later. You either have total freedom or total control.

To me, I want freedom. I could care less what my neighbor does. As long as it does NOT interfere with my rights, they can worship the flying purple spaghetti monster and marry the family cat. Does NOT bother me at all. Just LEAVE ME and MY PROPERTY alone.

Reply to post by ~Lucidity

You'll find that when it comes to ATS the people who spoke out against the actions if Bush and co. are often the same ones speaking out against Obama and co. This site isn't exactly filled with people who love and trust our government, you know.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I think career politicians on both sides selectively choose which constitutional laws and protections they rally behind or denounce based on its benefit to them personally.

I think the groups that would like to social engineer from both the right and the left have figured out they can use legislation to push their social agendas and have well-oiled PACs in place.

An example I've used in the past is that some who rally around the 1st and 4th admendments dislike the 2nd, while some who rally around the 2nd would like to throw out the 4th admendment in the name of law and order. The problem is, as Franklin pointed out, that you need all the amendments (like the 1st, 2nd and 4th taken together) to protect each admendment.

Simply put, its expected that politicians and activists double-speak to promote thier causes.

reply to post by Jenna


When "we" speak out against Obama, it's not what you think. I believe that most of us, democrats who have criticized Obama since his election are doing so because we feel that he has not been forceful enough, in the face of republican opposition, to get our goals accomplished.

Goals like real health care reform, (when single payer reps. were not given a seat at the table, I knew that true reform would not happen), the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," closing of Guantanamo, ending the wars, comprehensive immigration reform, etc...

I fully understand that the republican party has adopted a policy of "just say no," but that's no excuse. During the Bush years, the republican party did not have the luxury of a super majority like the democrats do today, yet they still managed to deregulate us into an economic collapse.

If the republicans don't want to contribute something positive to help this nation recover from economic collapse, then Obama should ignore them.

You know what they say, "Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way!"

reply to post by Flatfish


The NUMBER ONE source for the problems with the collapse is THIS-

www.moonbattery.com...




Many people even BACK in 2001 were saying that the housing problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

WHO BLOCKED IT!?

So quit your revisionist history!


edit to add>MoonBAT!

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Tyrannyispeace]

reply to post by Tyrannyispeace


Even though Freddie & Fannie had problems, they had much more stringent standards in place for approving home loans than did the private sector.

It wasn't until the Wall St. banks took over that they went to the "stated income" requirement and no verification of assets. I think they called them NINJA loans which stood for "No Income, No Job or Assets."

If I knew how to imbed video, I would show you one of Bush telling the American public that there is no reason that your first house can't be just as big and nice as you would like it to be, so get out there and buy one. (whether you can afford it or not.)

reply to post by Flatfish

EXACTLY!

The GOVERNMENT forced private business to make loans to people that were NOT able to keep the payments.

It was BOTH sides attempting to continue the bubble.

THEN the banks created the derivatives to offload these KNOWN bad loans. What, are the PRIVATE banks supposed to go broke because the government FORCED the issue?

Sorry to tell you this, THE GOVERNMENT caused it all. And now the GOVERNMENT has more power.

Just GREAT!

edit to add-NOW, we have LESS private banks, absorbed by the bigger ones, and the government acting as the cushion for these TOO BIG TO FAIL entities. HMMMMMM, thought that was supposed to be DONE WITH.

NOPE, now we have PRIVATE banks that the government is in bed with, and they will NEVER be allowed to fail.

What is that called?

Communism!

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Tyrannyispeace]

reply to post by Tyrannyispeace


I don't believe that the government forced anyone to make bad loans and I haven't seen any evidence to support that assumption.

It was the job of Freddie and Fannie to purchase home loans from the mortgage companies thereby freeing up cash to make further loans but Freddie and Fannie would not purchase just any loan. They had stringent lending guidelines in place to insure that the loans they purchased were a good risk.

It wasn't until the republican controlled congress repealed the Glass/Steagall act, effectively deregulating the banking industry that allowed the private banking sector to begin making unsecured home loans and bundling them for sale to unsuspecting investors worldwide.

I think it was greed that forced them to do it and not the government, nice try though.

reply to post by whatukno
[mo


Wow, you really don't know what your talking about do you? As a conservative, I want the best for everyone, and I believe in the constitution as it stands. Of course I can't speak for every single conservative, but most conservatives are more tolerant than the liberals. But I can't expect people with such extreme ideas to see past their own ego's and desires.

reply to post by Jenna

Well I've been around since 2000, so I'm well aware of this trend, which might still be true for many. However, it's no longer the rule or vast majority. Seems we have a whole new wave of disenfrachised people around here. They're the ones I was referring to. You can pretty easily tell who they are...but to rephrase what I said and what you bring up is exactly the reason I said it, you shouldn't assume.

[edit on 8/13/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Yes there are a lot of 'fair weather' and complete PHONY 'constitutionalists in the reactionary right wing.

The very people who want to steal every single one of our civil rights on the flimsiest of excuses.

Critique,

btw, do you have any documentation that SPECIFICALLY the libertarian party supports any of these besides the

balanced budget amendment & possibly

term limits?

On topic,
How can people who spend like drunken sailors for bloodbath wars & taxcuts for global corporations, & rob unborn babies of their prosperity even before their first breath,

EVER CLAIM to be supposed 'conservatives?

They are more like drug addicts & schizophrenics than cool, buttoned down, frugal & ACTUAL conservatives.

There is such a bizarre disconnect between the phony rhetoric & the actual treacherous behavior it would boggle any sane person's mind.

There really is an Orwellian mission to rob & then completely convolute the meanings of words until they actually mean the diametric opposite of their original & true meaning.

Right wing wordsmith distorter-liars have been working overtime.

If sound is coming from the mouth of a reactionary,
it is a lie.

Reactionaries fly high on lies &
crash in flames on the truth.

reply to post by Flatfish

It just seems recently that every time one of these conservative movements disagree with constitutional law, they propose amending it to fit their beliefs.

To just cite the first few of your pet peeves:
Abortion
Gay anything
Flag burning
Balanced budget;

These are NOT in the Constitution!

Most Libertarians and Conservatives will tell you they want the government to get out of their personal decisions and self-expression. These are not "Constitutional" issues, although some liberal judges believe they are; creating "Rights" where none exist.

As for the "balanced budget," we already have a "Pay as you go" law that the democrats have virtually mocked if not outright ignored.

When liberals stay out of our business and our businesses, there will no reason for such outcries that have upset you so.

reply to post by Flatfish

Even though Freddie & Fannie had problems, they had much more stringent standards in place for approving home loans than did the private sector.

Well then can you explain how Fannie and Freddie bought all that crap, if it didn't meet THEIR standards?

Who do you think SET the underwriting standards for the loans?

Did you know that just this year, FHA, a program that was supposed to support home loans to the poor and less affluent, has approved GUARANTEES for condo loans up to $730,000 at 96.5% LTV? For unsold and half-sold projects!

They are setting us up for even more; even as Fannie and Freddie scream for more funding.

The GOP are not the party of NO, they had conservative and responsible alternatives for all of your favorite bailouts; only to be run over.

reply to post by jdub297


Like I said before, it was the repeal of the Glass/Steagall act by the republican party that allowed for the fraudulent lending.

Prior to that, the private banking industry was much more reluctant to enter into the home loan market because of the very regulation that insured the safety of the loans.

I don't believe that you can demonstrate even one instance of Freddie or Fannie purchasing mortgages, that were designed to fail, insuring them against that failure through AIG, bundling them up and selling them to unsuspecting investors worldwide. If you have some examples, I would be more than happy to hear about them.

Freddie & Fannie had provided a much needed opportunity for first time home buyers for many years and it wasn't until the republican party, in their infinite wisdom, decided to deregulate the industry and allow greed to become the predominant driving factor that allowed private banking to corrupt the industry.

The government didn't force anyone to do anything, they just allowed it to happen through deregulation and greed took over from there.

EDIT; By the way, I believe that the "troubled asset relief program" or TARP was orchestrated and approved under the Bush administration while republicans controlled congress. Remember McCain suspending his campaign to go back to Washington and work on it? Remember the first 700 billion being let out without any accountability and zero oversight?



[edit on 14-8-2010 by Flatfish]

Originally posted by jdub297

These are not "Constitutional" issues, although some liberal judges believe they are; creating "Rights" where none exist.

As for the "balanced budget," we already have a "Pay as you go" law that the democrats have virtually mocked if not outright ignored.

If my memory serves me correct, judge Vaughn Walker who recently reversed Prop 8 in CA. was originally a Reagan nominee that was not approved due to the fact that most liberals felt that he was too conservative, only to be later nominated and approved under the administration of George Bush Sr.. Maybe you can explain to me how this makes him a liberal activist judge.

With regards to "balanced budget" issues, I believe that we did indeed have a balanced budget under Clinton and a budget surplus to boot. Democrats don't mind "pay as you go," but every time they try to pay for something the republicans object. Like the 26 billion recently approved for state aid being paid for by eliminating loopholes for corporations that outsource jobs overseas. For the life of me, I can't understand how the republican party can object to this, but they do.

I personally believe that the 600 billion recently approved for border security should come out of our defense budget, after all it's defense isn't it? The republican party would choke on this idea because it doesn't find a way to take the money from the poor.

reply to post by Flatfish

Like I said before, it was the repeal of the Glass/Steagall act by the republican party that allowed for the fraudulent lending.

Prior to that, the private banking industry was much more reluctant to enter into the home loan market because of the very regulation that insured the safety of the loans.

You have no idea what Glass-Steagall was, do you?
It kept depository banks and investment banks separate. It had NOTHING to do with issuance of ORIGINAL mortgages. Investment banks wouldn't WANT to do that petty crap, anyway.

Repeal of PART of the Act (the F. D. I. C. STILL exists, you know?) allowed banks to merge with depository and investment departments.

As for Fannie and Freddie and FHA, THEY purchased the bundled original mortgages ONLY if they met their underwriting standards. These standards were lowered from the usual "20% down" with good FICOs, and the 23/36 Ratios; to 125% first and seconds with much lower FICOs, worse ratios, and fewer income/asset/liability documentation.

If FNMA, FHLMC, FHA and the HLBB had not altered their standards, thereby CREATING the market for such crap, the Home Mortgage Bust would never have occurred!

The trading of CDOs is nothing more than any of dozens of "derivative" markets that have gone on for ages! If the underlying assets weren't crap to begin with, they never would've affected that market.

You asked for a source? It is common knowledge!

Here's a brief third-party description of the process:

The Coming Fannie and Freddie Bailout
Paul McMorrow, Boston Globe

Fannie and Freddie were once the most powerful forces in the US housing industry. They pumped liquidity into the sector by buying up mortgages written by banks and mortgage companies. That kept the cost of capital low and increased the volume of mortgages. Government backing allowed the two to borrow money at lower rates than anyone else in the housing financing market.
Their business was making money ... by buying, securitizing, and reselling subprime mortgages that never should have been written in the first place.

The Boston Globe
How's that?

Want to know what Clinton, Obama, Raines, Frank, Rangel, et al have created? Here's more:

While Fannie and Freddie operated under some form of congressional oversight, they ultimately answered to their stockholders.
...
In September 2008, the two firms received a bottomless line of credit. So far, their tab stands around $148 billion — more than AIG, the company that insured all of Wall Street’s worst housing bets, is in hock for.
In January, the Congressional Budget Office said the total cost to taxpayers could reach $373 billion.
...
Both companies were recently taken off the New York Stock Exchange.
That leaves nationalization.

Deny ignorance!

jw
[edit to add signature, trim quotes]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by jdub297]

reply to post by Flatfish

If my memory serves me correct, judge Vaughn Walker who recently reversed Prop 8 in CA. was originally a Reagan nominee ... only to be later nominated and approved under the administration of George Bush Sr.. Maybe you can explain to me how this makes him a liberal activist judge.

You just do not get it, do you?
You have to 'take the cards you're dealt' in appointing Federal Judges. Where did you think Reagan or BushI were going to find a judge for a CALIFORNIA court? They each nominated the "least liberal" idiot they could find under the rules.
Why do you think the liberals rejected him the 1st time?

(You must not have been born yet NOT to be aware of fairly recent politics and history.)

With regards to "balanced budget" issues, I believe that we did indeed have a balanced budget under Clinton and a budget surplus to boot.

YES! Because the economy was booming under Reagan, who killed Carter's runaway inflation by CUTTING TAXES!

Democrats don't mind "pay as you go," but every time they try to pay for something the republicans object.

Then why did they stall Unemployment benefits extensions for so long? They had to gather enough votes to AVOID "PayGo."

Like the 26 billion recently approved for state aid being paid for by eliminating loopholes for corporations that outsource jobs overseas.

That $26bills goes to teachers unions and seniors to try to buy off some of their constituents for November. It wasn't paid for, either.

For the life of me, I can't understand how the republican party can object to this, but they do.

I certainly agree that you "can't understand." Or won't.

deny ignorance

jw

I personally believe that the 600 billion recently approved for border security should come out of our defense budget, after all it's defense isn't it? The republican party would choke on this idea because it doesn't find a way to take the money from the poor.

reply to post by Flatfish

EDIT; By the way, I believe that the "troubled asset relief program" or TARP was orchestrated and approved under the Bush administration while republicans controlled congress. Remember McCain suspending his campaign to go back to Washington and work on it? Remember the first 700 billion being let out without any accountability and zero oversight?

TARP was generally approved by ALL the candidates, including Obama, to relieve the investment banks that got screwed by Fannie and Freddie's crap loan standards.

Obama and the Democrats bastardized it to use it to gain control of businesses that had no business getting ANY of it.

deny ignorance

jw

This clip from the Daily Show is hilarious. They take a crack at updating the Constitution.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I watch Jon Stewart & Steven Colbert almost religiously so I don't know how I missed this segment. Thanks for posting the clip as it addresses the exact point I was making in this thread.

Get ready for their upcoming constitutional amendment proposal banning the building of any additional mosques in America. I sense that it's just over the political horizon.