Can you demonstrate how Biden will be better?

Beat me to it. I doubt this post will see much light, as facts struggle to see the light in an age of misinformation campaigns.

 

Pardon me but Biden wasn't instrumental in anything. The only reason to ask wrong way Biden anything is to ascertain the least likely means of obtaining one's goals. Even discounting Obama's 1st two years average economic growth was less than 2%. We fired Bush the 1st for better numbers than that.

 

We focus too much on Biden during the age of Obama, instead of what Biden did prior to Obama.

Biden was instrumental in the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. Additionally, during that same year, Biden helped to pass the Violent Crime Control Act. So, to try Biden wasn't instrumental in anything is incorrect. It's going back to that track record to reaching across the aisle, which Democrats are accused to never doing.

 

Yeah he made sure everyone showed up to vote on two bills that essentially made federal crimes of things that were already illegal in every state in the Union.

 

They won in 2006.

Talk about "back here in reality." Such revisionist history!

"Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation." (https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...rats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac)

This, of course, was before John McCain became the Democrats' hero. At this point in his life, he was racist losing his bearings.

To add more perspective, the top Senate recipients of campaign donations from 1989 to 2008 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Democrats: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni/

You guys praised the economic success of Clinton, and gave him credit for it, even though it was due to the Republican Revolution. And you're giving Obama accolades for the good parts of the economy, even though Republicans, fighting against Democrats, were the ones who created an environment in which GDP could flourish.

 

And didn’t take office until 2007, like I said.

Nope. Here is every single bill from 2001-2007 attempting to regulate fanny/Freddy. Every single one was killed by republicans.

https://financialservices.house.gov...11/timeline_for_fannie_freddie_regulation.pdf

The economy flourished under Clinton because of the tech boom. The economy did fairly well under Obama. Had republicans not obstructed his policies for 6 of his 8 years, the economy would have been much better and recovery much stronger. But, he was able to turn around the Republican caused recession he inherited, which was the worst on record since the Great Depression, which led to the longest period of economic growth post ww2

 

Biased, non-fact-based source. I went to https://financialservices.house.gov, and whose face did I see? The Legendary Maxine Waters, a corrupt politician: https://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/maxine-waters-named-most-corrupt-member-of-congress/

 

uh, that’s the official government website for the financial services committee lol.

Your claims were completely demolished. I gave you the congressional voting record of every bill from 2001-2007 attempting to regulate fanny/Freddy. Every single one was killed by republicans. I provided the official house website confirming this. You lose.

 

Since when is the Financial Service Committee nonpartisan? Is there an equal amount of Republicans and Democrats on the committee? Do Democrats and Republicans take turns being the chairperson? No? Who is chosen to upload documents on the site? Does it depend on the party? Yes? Then it is nonpartisan. Thus, it is a biased, nonfactual source; depending on who uploaded that document, it could be a mischaracterization of reality.

Give me news sources for each of those incidents that provides detail and nuance, instead of a paragraph description by some partisan hack.

Here's an example:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

(https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/...ed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html)

 

You seem to think the congressional voting record is somehow biased? That’s moronic. I gave you a list of every single bill from 2001-2007 attempting to regulate fanny/Freddy. All of which republicans killed. That isn’t a biased version of events. That is historical record.

I don’t need to. I gave you a list of every single bill and who killed them.

Refuted by the actual congressional voting record that I provided for you. You remain refuted.
'

 

What you have posted is absolutely spot on. All we ever see from the left is how "bad" President Trump is. We never see anything about how any democrat will make the situation better.

 

Simple question then...Why wont Obama endorse him?

 

Simple answer. Obama was waiting for the convention because he didn't want to waste political capital on someone who might not be the nominee. Ain't rocket science.

 

Will Biden reverse the Trump Adminstrations' action to open 2.3 million acres of National Forest Preserves to hunting ?

Trump administration plans to open 2.3 million acres of wildlife refuges to hunting and fishing
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...es-of-wildlife-refuges-to-hunting-and-fishing

 

Or he knows the guy is a moron. Notice he STILL wont endorse him?

 

You gave me a mischaracterization of a listing of events framed in a partisan fashion. Because I don't want to waste too much time with this disingenuous, colored record, I will simply poke holes in it.

Conveniently, the PDF file, which you treat as if it were coming from a nonpartisan think tank as compared to its true source, Democrats, starts in the year 1995, stating, "No legislation to further regulate GSEs is passed by a Republican-controlled." Yes, that is true. But, two things. One, there was also no legislation passed to regulate GSE's in 1994, when Democrats controlled Congress. Why not mention that if we're just stating the record? Also, this PDF file does not mention the great opposition by Democrats against regulating GSE within the 1995-2005 timeline.

In 2003, there there was legislation proposed by Representative Michael G. Oxley, then chairman of the Financial Services Committee, to create a group to oversee Fannie and Freddie. Do you know who opposed it? Congressional Democrats. In fact, in the article, "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae," writer Stephen Labaton states that ""Democrats . . . fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing." In fact, according to Barnie Frank, "'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis." (https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/...ed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html) Now, riddle me this: where exactly in that "nonpartisan", "just-the-facts-jack" congressional voting record is that at all mentioned? Where? Point to it. And despite this extreme opposition to regulate GSE's, Frank, in 2007, according to that very own PDF you mentioned, becomes Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. What is that supposed to be, a joke?

Here is more on what Frank felt about GSE's:

"People tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." (https://www.americanbanker.com/news/frank-gse-failure-a-phony-issue)

Still not convinced that that "congressional voting record" is not framed in a partisan fashion, not putting everything into context, how about this: it does not show that Democrats, by and large, supported Fannie and Freddie. Senator Debbie Stabenow, who is still a Senator of Michigan today, said in 2005 that "we have the strongest, most dynamic housing market in the world," partly because of Fannie and Freddie (https://money.cnn.com/2005/06/15/real_estate/freddie_fannie/)

It does not show that Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, in 2005, "introduced a measure . . . to create an independent federal regulator with enhanced authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank." How did Harry Reid, then Senator Minority Leader, react? He said this: "The legislation from the Senate banking committee, passed today on a party line vote by the Republican majority, includes measures that could cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership." (https://www.upi.com/Business_News/2...Fannie-Mae-regulatory-measure/20231122581039/) That was the then Senator Minority Leader admitting that every single Senate Democrat voted against regulating the notorious GSE's, Fannie and Freddie. Again, where is this mentioned in the "unbiased" "congressional voting record"?

Lastly, in 2007, President Bush said, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed to complete a 'robust reform package' before they expanded their mortgage portfolios." According to the New York Times, that statement "drew fire from many [emphasis added] Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill." (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/business/11fannie.html)

And it makes sense that Democrats were very much against regulating Fannie and Freddie, since, like I've mentioned, and you conveniently side-stepped, Democrats are the largest recipients of campaign donations by Fannie and Freddie: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni/

 

No, I gave you the congressional voting record from 2001-2007 for every single bill proposed and voted on in an attempt to regulate fanny/freddy. Every single one of them was killed by republicans. sorry.

 

Well, I believe I won this argument, since you could not provide counterarguments to the points I've made and cited.

 

well, you clearly lost as I actually provided the congressional voting record showing you are wrong.