Bernie Sanders Shows How Reagan Destroyed The Middle Class

I'm right again, it died in committee. I know I read or saw about this years ago and knew I was right.

Hassett claims S.190 was killed by the committee Democrats due to a “party-line vote” (2). A party line vote is when each member of the party votes for the stance of their party, one side for the bill the other against; in this case the Democrats voted against the bill while the Republicans voted for the bill, but due to “tight Democratic opposition” the Republicans failed to pass the bill. This is not possible if it was indeed a “party-line vote” because Hassett then implies that there were more Democrats in the committee then Republicans but this is not true. In 2005, the Republicans controlled the Presidency (President George W. Bush), the House, and the Senate. In case the vote comes down to a “partisan issue” the majority party would stack a committee with more of their senators. So, in this case, the Republicans would have a majority in the committee, which was true, the Republicans did have a majority in the Senate Banking Committee, along with every other committee in the House and Senate. If this bill was indeed decided on a “party-line vote” the Republicans should have won, but they did not. This means that a few Republicans voted against the passage of this bill. Although we cannot know which Republican senators stood out amongst the others we do know that vote was not “party-line”, like Hassett claims. Hassett also claims that Christopher Dodd was the “chairman” (3) of the Senate Banking Committee, another falsehood, Christopher Dodd is a Democrat and because of the Republican majority, the committee had a Republican chairman – Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama. Hassett constantly missuses the facts, changing them to support his claim. Christopher Dodd was not the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee in 2005, but after the Democrats won the Senate in 2006, Dodd became the chairman, only a year after Hassett says.

Hassett claims the market crash in 2008 is due to the failure of the passage of this bill. Hassett claims that the “tight Democratic opposition” (2) “received mind-boggling levels of financial support” (3) from the employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as their super PAC. A PAC is a Political Action Committee. These allow any corporation or person to give unlimited funds to any political candidate or political cause. Hassett is correct about Christopher Dodd receiving the largest amount of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (PAC and employees), but what Hassett does not mention is where Dodd’s $165,400 came from. $48,500 of that came directly for the PAC while the rest came from employees. What Hassett neglects to mention are the personal feelings of the employees; although an employee may feel obligated to give his or her money to the same candidate as his companies PAC, he may or she may not, they may give their money to which they feel is best. If the PAC supports a Republican candidate, but the employee does not, he or she may give their money to a Democratic candidate and vice versa. Of the top twelve politicians who received money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (PAC and employees) nearly half of which are Republican while the other half are Democrats. Of those candidates in the top twelve, the three who received the most money from the PAC are Republicans while Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama are seventh and eleventh respectively.

Hassett claims that Senator Dodd, Senator Obama, and Senator Hillary Clinton are the senators who protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and defeated S.190. But, only Senator Dodd was a member of the Senate Banking Committee in 2005; only Senator Dodd had an influence on Senate bill 190, not Senators Obama or Clinton. Senator Obama was only a freshman senator in 2005, meaning that was his first year in congress. It is very unlikely Senator Obama had received many donations from the employees of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or their PAC by the time of the vote – the same month as his inauguration into the Senate. The numbers Hassett use come from a list compiled over nineteen years (1989-200. For Senator Dodd, he received nearly $165,400 over the nineteen years, while Senator Obama received his $126,349 in three years (2005-200. It is true that the PAC and employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received more donations in total than did the Republican senators voting on bill S.190, but of the senators, more Republicans received donations than did Democrats. Of the twenty one members of the Senate Banking Committee seven Democrats received donations (including Dodd) while ten Republicans received donations.

Hassett makes a convincing argument if you as the reader assume his words are true, but he distorts the facts to support his argument. Why did Hassett do this? Hassett’s bias is clear. At the end of this article there is a note saying “[Hassett] is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own” (3). Hassett also claims, truthfully, that “John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190” which is true, but what Hassett assumes, and which benefits the cause of John McCain, is that S.190 would have “averted this mess [the financial crisis]”. Hassett writes this article as a propaganda piece supporting John McCain and the Republican agenda for the presidential election just a few months after the publishing of this article.


Hassett claims S.190 was killed by the committee Democrats due to a “party-line vote” (2). A party line vote is when each member of the party votes for the stance of their party, one side for the bill the other against; in this case the Democrats voted against the bill while the Republicans voted for the bill, but due to “tight Democratic opposition” the Republicans failed to pass the bill. This is not possible if it was indeed a “party-line vote” because Hassett then implies that there were more Democrats in the committee then Republicans but this is not true. In 2005, the Republicans controlled the Presidency (President George W. Bush), the House, and the Senate. In case the vote comes down to a “partisan issue” the majority party would stack a committee with more of their senators. So, in this case, the Republicans would have a majority in the committee, which was true, the Republicans did have a majority in the Senate Banking Committee, along with every other committee in the House and Senate. If this bill was indeed decided on a “party-line vote” the Republicans should have won, but they did not. This means that a few Republicans voted against the passage of this bill. Although we cannot know which Republican senators stood out amongst the others we do know that vote was not “party-line”, like Hassett claims. Hassett also claims that Christopher Dodd was the “chairman” (3) of the Senate Banking Committee, another falsehood, Christopher Dodd is a Democrat and because of the Republican majority, the committee had a Republican chairman – Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama. Hassett constantly missuses the facts, changing them to support his claim. Christopher Dodd was not the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee in 2005, but after the Democrats won the Senate in 2006, Dodd became the chairman, only a year after Hassett says.

Hassett claims the market crash in 2008 is due to the failure of the passage of this bill. Hassett claims that the “tight Democratic opposition” (2) “received mind-boggling levels of financial support” (3) from the employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as their super PAC. A PAC is a Political Action Committee. These allow any corporation or person to give unlimited funds to any political candidate or political cause. Hassett is correct about Christopher Dodd receiving the largest amount of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (PAC and employees), but what Hassett does not mention is where Dodd’s $165,400 came from. $48,500 of that came directly for the PAC while the rest came from employees. What Hassett neglects to mention are the personal feelings of the employees; although an employee may feel obligated to give his or her money to the same candidate as his companies PAC, he may or she may not, they may give their money to which they feel is best. If the PAC supports a Republican candidate, but the employee does not, he or she may give their money to a Democratic candidate and vice versa. Of the top twelve politicians who received money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (PAC and employees) nearly half of which are Republican while the other half are Democrats. Of those candidates in the top twelve, the three who received the most money from the PAC are Republicans while Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama are seventh and eleventh respectively.

Hassett claims that Senator Dodd, Senator Obama, and Senator Hillary Clinton are the senators who protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and defeated S.190. But, only Senator Dodd was a member of the Senate Banking Committee in 2005; only Senator Dodd had an influence on Senate bill 190, not Senators Obama or Clinton. Senator Obama was only a freshman senator in 2005, meaning that was his first year in congress. It is very unlikely Senator Obama had received many donations from the employees of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or their PAC by the time of the vote – the same month as his inauguration into the Senate. The numbers Hassett use come from a list compiled over nineteen years (1989-200. For Senator Dodd, he received nearly $165,400 over the nineteen years, while Senator Obama received his $126,349 in three years (2005-200. It is true that the PAC and employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received more donations in total than did the Republican senators voting on bill S.190, but of the senators, more Republicans received donations than did Democrats. Of the twenty one members of the Senate Banking Committee seven Democrats received donations (including Dodd) while ten Republicans received donations.

Hassett makes a convincing argument if you as the reader assume his words are true, but he distorts the facts to support his argument. Why did Hassett do this? Hassett’s bias is clear. At the end of this article there is a note saying “[Hassett] is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own” (3). Hassett also claims, truthfully, that “John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190” which is true, but what Hassett assumes, and which benefits the cause of John McCain, is that S.190 would have “averted this mess [the financial crisis]”. Hassett writes this article as a propaganda piece supporting John McCain and the Republican agenda for the presidential election just a few months after the publishing of this article.

https://bu.digication.com/MikeOstlie/Essay_1

 

I find your opinion to be a silly bias, but maybe I haven't canvassed enough posts to see the conservatives incessantly use caps. I probably observed enough posts though. With all due respect, I haven't seen you do the cap nonsense, so thank you.

 

The problem with House and Senate democrats is they won't vote for anything unless republicans agree to fund their spending bills.

It's flipping disgusting.

Progressives are seriously pure evil and politics are dirty.

The contempt the democrats have against republicans is the driving force as to why we can't payoff our debt and have a successful nation... No - progressives want to spend us into oblivion and create a socialist "utopia" where government dictates everything and anything.

Progressive Democrats are a massive problem, RINO's as well.

 

LOL, I thought communism was a failed system? NOW it took Ronnie to knock it down? Ask Putin how Russia is doing though!

RIGHT WINGER S DON'T ACTUALLY REMEMBER HOW CONS THOUGHT RONNIE WAS TO SOFT OB USSR WITH THE WEAPONS DEALS, LOL

REVISIONISTS HISTORY STRIKES AGAIN FROM THE RIGHT, LOL



The source of the revisionism is that, in two of those areas, Reagan reversed himself completely. In foreign policy, he alienated the right by pursuing a detente policy with the USSR. Domestically, his administration recognized that the formula of higher defense spending plus huge tax cuts was a recipe for total fiscal disaster



Reagan’s dovish turn toward the Soviet Union. In 1986, when Reagan would not cancel his second summit with Gorbachev over Moscow’s imprisonment of an American journalist, Podhoretz accused him of having "shamed himself and the country" in his "craven eagerness" to give away the nuclear store. Washington Post columnist George Will said the administration had crumpled "like a punctured balloon." When Reagan signed the INF Treaty, most Republicans vying to succeed him came out in opposition. Grassroots conservative leaders established the Anti-Appeasement Alliance to oppose ratification and ran newspaper advertisements comparing Gorbachev to Hitler and Reagan to Neville Chamberlain. Reagan, wailed Will, is "elevating wishful thinking to the status of political philosophy."


http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/07/think-again-ronald-reagan/

 

Keep lying Bubba, YOU said it died in committee, it didn't. It passed out along party line vote. The GOP refused to vote on it in the full Senate, lol

 

HOW was that debt created?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending[ by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

 

Sorry dad, it died in committee. This is the second post that shows it. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

Nice...

View attachment 33348

- - - Updated - - -

We already know what economic policies work best for our country. ClintOn knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and a surplus in 2000. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12+ trillion since then.

 

The debt was created by a bipartisan congress - more so democrats.

I don't know how you can sit here and claim republicans are cheap but at the same time imply they're responsible for 19 trillion in debt.

Where the (*)(*)(*)(*) did you come from anyway? Thinkprogress?

 

I will give you one part of that as being true because thinking back, I read or saw where they took a side vote and found that there wasn't enough votes to pas it. As I said before, Republicans had a small majority by 2=4 votes, don't remember exactly now . But for some reason they didn't show up, or they sided with the Democrats not to pass and all the Democrats were against it, so it died in committee. So I will give you one twinkle, twinkle.

 

What Clinton did was say "screw government spending lets make credit an entitlement and let banks pay for it" that's why that idiot appears to be so successful....

Don't you remember the 90's? every other commercial on TV was "no credit zero down and walk away with whatever the hell you want today" - funny how all that stopped.

Of course the banks were more than thrilled to have Clinton do that..

Of course people bought homes they couldn't afford - which was perfect for the banks when it came to collateral.

I basically wrote a thesis on this issue.

 

LOL

I GAVE YOU THE ACTUAL LINK TO THE SENATE MOD EDIT - Rule 3



Get help Bubba

"S. 190 (109th): Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

Reported by Committee
Jul 28, 2005

A committee has issued a report to the full chamber recommending that the bill be considered further. Only about 1 in 4 bills are reported out of committee.

LOL

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s190


MORE:

S.190
Latest Title: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Sponsor: Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@C


THOSE ARE GOV'T LINKS BUBBA, LOL


HOW ABOUT FOX 'NEWS' BUBBA


Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/1...d-to-kill-republican-regulatory-bill-in-2005/


LOL

 

If you wrote a thesis on it you are crazy Bubba


Jun 16, 2005




NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.

http://www.economist.com/node/4079027




Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.



These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/1...ow-the-facts-of-the-economic-crisis-stack-up/


CLINTON HUH?


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

 

If you look at this, it tells when the first warnings that was put out on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack over the housing fiasco. I think it's plain to see they had them losing homes a lot during Clinton's administration. F/M was already in trouble.

https://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/...annie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/

 

That link didn't explain it. This is what happened. You need to knock off your bad remarks, or they will throw you off of here. Learn how debate without being nasty. Have you learned what a lie means yet?

 

Yeah I see him calling everyone "Bubba" or "Buba". Like many terms the name can be used without prejudice or with prejudice, and in I'm thinking the latter. That name can be used pejoratively against blacks and whites, or innocently, which is why I asked.

 

LOL, Keep digging MOD EDIT - Rule 3

IT PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE ALONG PARTY LINE VOTE. GOP HAD 9 MEMBERS TO THE 7 DEMS. IF ENOUGH WEREN'T THERE ON A PARTICULAR DAY THEY'd WOULD WAIT TO VOTE ON IT. It's just just a right wing MYTH (like Mcain's epic push to pass it, lol, he signed onto 9 months AFTER it was brought to committee, lol)

I GAVE YOU 4 DIFFERENT LINKS, 2 GOV'T ONES. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

- - - Updated - - -
MOD EDIT - Off topic

- - - Updated - - -

Cheap? lol. BECAUSE they were trying to starve the Gov't of revenues to shrink it down? By growing as big as they could first? MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

I get it Bubba, MORE right wing MYTHOLOGY like AEI's crap. DUBYA WAS THE REGULATOR OF F/F. F/F DIDN'T CAYUSE THE CRASH, THOUGH DUBYA HOSED F/F!!!

Why would Dubya's own group put it at 2004-2007? lol

 

Sorry, two of them said it died in committee.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3



"Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it."

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3on one hand you accuse republicans of being "cheap" and then you imply republicans are solely responsible for the national debt.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

No they didn't. Google the terminology they usedMOD EDIT - Rule 3



MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

MOD EDIT - Off Topic

As a Libertarian I'm epically tolerant, but if I was a mod I would ban you for a week for being stupid and insulting others. And this comes from a guy that doesn't even believe in bans...

 

Well there seems to be different versions of what happened. I have two that said it died in committee and you have one that said it made it out. Who knows which one are right. I tried to find more on it, but couldn't.

 

I remember the Jimmy Carter Presidency and although I believe Carter to be a good man he was the wrong man to be President at the wrong time.

The U.S. Economy was in shambles with double digit inflation and Jobless Numbers.

People had a complete defeatest attitude which was a combination of the after effects of Vietnam, Oil Embargo's, Watergate the Iranaian Hostage Crisis and a total and complete lack of ability for President Carter to LEAD the American People.

Reagan was overwhelmingly voted into Office by the American People and he was able through sheer will turn the Nation around in two terms.

Granted some of the deregulation Reagan implemented would haunt us later but as far as the Middle Class was concerned REAGAN PROVIDED JOBS!!!

He was the right man at the right time in the Oval Office and the U.S. was better for it.

AboveAlpha