The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Obama to GOP: Act on jobs or get run out of townWASHINGTON
©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.
Login to comment
It was brilliant planning by the White House. Right wingers going crazy. They can't finger a president who leaves no traces. This is what the president trained all those years for. Cooper's Union, the Midwest Academy,the south side of Chicago. Now is the time.
Obama. he is a uniter, not a divider.
Uh, would this be the same jobs bill Harry Reid blocked in the Senate just a couple of days ago? Come on O, who do you think you're fooling? Oh right, registered Democrats...
But - the Republicans do have a plan! - plenty of 'em, in fact! They plan to revoke the Affordable Care Act, abolish the EPA, and rid the business world of regulation! And that's just for starters; Cain's 9-9-9 plan, for example, would really shake things up!
Yup, these guys have a plethora of plans - just nothing to aid the common worker.
Yes, Democrat Reid DID block O'bama's bill. It looks like O'bama doesn't have any support, from either party, for his jobs bill. How embarresing for O'bama.
Pretty tough talk for such a wimp.
O'bama? Is he Irish now? I thought he was a socialist muslim satanist terrorist anticrhist abortion doctor?
So, yeah, let's see that Republican jobs bill. Oh, what? They don't have one? How embarrassing for the O'Republic Party.
President Obama just needs a little more money until the next time he needs more money. I don't see much relief coming from any of the possible Republican candidates either. The U.S. is doomed.
Oh my goodness! What is this? Economists agree the jobs plan would not only be EFFECTIVE but is possibly the ONLY thing preventing another recession in 2012? This can't be! Who are these so-called "economists"? Well, they must be "elitists" with their "college education" and their "knowledge of how economies work"
Oh my goodness! What is this? Economists agree the jobs plan would not only be EFFECTIVE but is possibly the ONLY thing preventing another recession in 2012? This can't be! Who are these so-called "economists"? Well, they must be "elitists" with their "college education" and their "knowledge of how economies work"
Must be the same economists that said the first stimulus bill would keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent and create new jobs.
In the two years after the ‘stimulus’ spending bill was enacted, more than 1.3 million jobs have been lost and the unemployment rate has averaged 9.5 percent – despite projections by White House economists that the “stimulus” would keep unemployment below eight percent.
I think the "college elites" and their expert 'knowledge" should go back to school for a little refresher training on the subject given their stellar track record so far.
I want another cowboy in charge not another 4 years of failed socialist hippism
Did you look at the article? It's based on an average of reports from maybe 3 dozen firms. That would mean it's the average of input from literally hundreds of economists. If they're not close to the mark, no one is going to be and we might as well just be throwing darts at a roulette wheel.
And, by the way, the stimulus package created jobs. It was the Republicans stalling varitably every aspect of government that led to the eventual job loss. Look it up.
Just wanted to add the economists in the article are unaffiliated with the White House.
So to get $470 billion dollars, I think the best way would be to give a million dollars to each person in the US, population of $350 million so that way you can save the rest of the money, people can all have a comfortable living for the small price tag of $350 million, instead of it being in the billions lol
President Owe-bama's got a hole in his bucket...
Instead of patching the hole, he wants to keep the water comin'...
Yeah, Obama created jobs alright -- like Solyndra; 1,200 jobs for $500 million -- that's $400,000 per job -- what a deal.
Actually I did, last paragragh was the most interesting. This is what these economic genuises were saying before Obama's Must Pass new stimulus, err I mean Jobs Bill was even on the table.
The economy will expand 2.2 percent next year, according to a separate Bloomberg survey of economists conducted Sept. 2 to Sept. 7. The same survey said the unemployment rate would average 8.8 percent in 2012.
I'm more inclined to believe double dip recession is the more likely outlook and unemployment stuck a 9.2 percent at a minimum until Govt finally gets it act together and the deficit spending under control.
Owe-bama. I get it. Very clever. Very clever indeed. You conservatives are very good at coming up with derisive nicknames for political figures you disagree with. Is that all you do? I mean, how long did you spend thinking that one up? 2, 3 hours?
Here's one: Spellcheck turns Boehner's name into "boner" The jokes write themselves.
Can we actually back up our name calling with facts of some kind from now on?
Tax cuts! Tax cuts! More tax cuts!
If I may be so bold.... If you want to get the US growing again it's time to rid your political system of people like Eric Cantor. "We must obstruct everything Obama does so that he becomes a one-term president! Whaddaya mean political gridlock hurts the economy?? Of course it does!! That's the point, that hurts Obama see!"
Oh, and maybe also rid the country of people who think dinosaurs coexisted with people 6000 years ago.
1 Million dollars X 350 million in population = $350million dollars, that would work out better, everyone living a better life, save the billions of dollars. Everyone can be instant millionaires for the mere price of $350 million dollars. I think it's a bargain lol.
"If I may be so bold.... If you want to get the US growing again it's time to rid your political system of people like Eric Cantor."
Why stop at Cantor? To get the economy growing again we should greatly limit the presence of all politicians, greatly restrict the power of all bureaucrats. But then, I doubt that 'tranel' and I are talking about the same kind of growth and development America needs.
deficit spending at its current levels is far down the list of what ails the US; at the top of the list is collapsed demand, and the vastly more important latter cannot be addressed at the same time as the former. Reagan knew that; the deficit as a percentage of GNP soared more during his presidency than during any other. Clinton knew that: he used the period of peace and prosperity to bring the deficit to a surplus. I mean, if you enter a hospital hemorrhaging blood and the doctor notes that you also have a broken leg and decides to address that issue first - that is what those who fixate on the American deficit are like.
The priorities of the crazed radicals interest me not.
The defecit didn't bother them when it was Junior cashing Chinese cheques, strangely to pay for the elusive freedumb of middle-eastern states.
But they'll fight tooth and nail against reform of the health system which would benefit less well-off Americans.
Talk about priorities. The repub fundies have got theirs all wrong.
Agreed, collapsed demand is what causes an economy or an entity to go through hard times. For instance take our Government, there is a huge demand for less of it right now but it demands more cash through tax hikes resulting in more hard times.
Bush invaded IraQ on a credit card, I know this when wil you get over it?
Back on topic please.
I know it too old buddy. Only in your world, what's good for the goose is heinous for the gander. Democrat bad, republican good.
You further reinforce my point, which is the point that Mr Obama is making on the standard policy of simply being against everything the president is attempting to implement.
Y'know I watched you very recently call for America to default on its' debt (and be damned with the consequences) so your party could show Obama who's boss. Perhaps it's the whole principle of democracy that goes against radical principles, well, at least when your party isn't in power....
Never said default on our debits, said if we could not pay them back we deserved the SP downgrade.
"sailwindJUL. 29, 2011 - 08:34PM JST Did it occur to anyone that the U.S actually deserves to default and have her credit rating downgraded?"
8 years ago when those that where "helpin' the terrorists" who where asking who indeed would be paying for the invasion of Iraq, you and yours bulldozed any such questions.
What more can I say?
The U.S invaded Iraq. Deal with the world as it is now. What more can I say.
So where's the legislation? Two years and you got nothing. Not one sponsored bill to help with jobs. Not a single one. You're legislating my ass. This is what boehners doing:
"Rounds of golf: 100 plus. Golf expenses: $83,000. Membership at all male club: $75,000. Special interest travel including golf junkets: $159,000. Raising the retirement age to 70 and voting to end unemployment benefits: priceless. For those who want an out-of-touch pro golfer for a Congressman, there's John Boehner.
Republicans will simply do whatever it takes to ensure Obama is not re-elected. They have no concern as to the damage it does to the country. That is superflous to regaining the White House and for that reason and that reason only, they shouldn't be allowed to return. Honestly, there should be mass impeachments throughout Congress because some of the behavior has bordered on traiterous. I have never liked the republican party but what I have seen over the last two years has absolutely horrified me. That they would actually turn their backs on the American people, solely for political gain is so beyond me.
But not beyond them.
"Frustrated over getting nowhere with the Republicans, Obama demanded that they explain themselves"
When are the Democrats going to explain themselves?
But I am dealing with the world as it is no,w sailwind. Currently, I'm asking you to deal with your contradictions on the debt ceiling, (which you're ignoring) - I'm no longer talking about your contradictions on the Chinese cheque-book........
The wanton denial is becoming a tad disturbing.
Democrat bad, Republican good. That's your position.
Allow me to translate that for you 'Verts.
I got my way. You have to accept that. Na na na na boo boo.
Funny now that sailwind ISN'T getting HIS way, his actions seem to have changed quite a bit, haven't they? Not so accepting himself, is he? It's not his fault, he's a conservative. It's a character flaw in all of them.
I hope that not all conservatives are comfortable sat plonked in the middle of their own denial, as sailwind has obstinately shown he is determined to be.
The two-party system in the US is defunct. Until this is addressed, I see no end to the stupidity from the far right, which if anything, is further digging America into the hole. What is the point of being given a mandate when the sole opposition out there offers nothing but total and utter obstructionism at every turn...
...And more poignantly, has not one single positive thing to add to the melting pot. That's not democracy. These people are dinasours, and would prefer to meet the same end it would seem.
Got it, I need help, could you both tell the U.s Govt to fund a program to get me well again? I'm sure a few your tax dollars will not be missed for worthy cause.
No one is suggesting you're a nut. There are other ways to being anti-Obama without embracing radicalsism and nonesense.
The only way to take a swipe is to have a better, hell any idea as to how to get us all back on the road to economic recovery. The extreme right here in France are identical - lot's of talk and no real program behind it. All mouth and no trousers. Or is it big hat no cattle?
He always was. In May 2011, US president Barack Obama arrived in Dublin for the beginning of a six-day tour in Europe, where he will visit a tiny village to pay homage to his ancestral roots.
During his visit, Mr Obama will meet Irish president Mary McAleese and will address thousands of people in Dublin. He will also visit the tiny village of Moneygall in the country's south-west, which is where his great-great-great grandfather Falmouth Kearney on his mother's side emigrated more than 160 years ago.
Top of the mornin' to ya.
What's this? No, no, no. Mr "personal responsibility" (shouted loudly with a southern game show host drawl for effect) is going to have to pick himself up by his bootstraps. Isn't that what you are all about? Why is YOUR hand reaching for the government pocket, sailwind?
It never ends.
On Thusday, Harry Reid (Democrat ), once again (that's 2 times and counting) REFUSED to bring Obama's jobs bill up for a vote in the Senate.
Apparently, Reid and the other Democrat Senators don't think much of Obama's jobs bill either.
Rich, white Republicans are still angry that a non-white man made it into the so called all white house their in Washington DC, not it aint so white?? So they want to keep making problems for Mr.Obama until everyone believes the Republican BS about jobs, since they do make jobs but all in the WAR industry, no recession for making BULLETS, guns, etc..just ask that old fart Dick Cheney!
I can not remember the name of one of the companies he owns that SUPPLIES the US army, but real good prices, last time I heard it was something like $500 to get 1 pizza out to a soldier in Iraq, something like $20 USD to get 1 crappy Coca Cola can etc...so lots and lots of CORRUPTION, and you and I, the American tax payers are paying for it! So, sorry ditto heads, I would not want another idiot corrupt Bush or any of his cronies back in the White House for a long, long time, and let Mr.Obama actually make jobs, make the bullet trains to connect the USA like here in Japan and in Europe, and to get us the hell out of those stupid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So basically you have nothing about Obama's jobs bill that Democrat Harry Reid continues to BLOCK (twice) in the U.S. Senate.
Please keep the discussion civil and do not be impolite to other posters.
You still haven't answered the question I posed. The republicans campaigned in 2010 on a "jobs" platform. Where are the jobs, mr. boehner? Where is the legislation?
All of the bills are available at Thomas dot gov. Just fill in the proper search parameters. Or email Mr. Boehner.
Thanks! I checked that out!! Guess what? The only jobs bill proposed by the 112th Congress was offered up by a Democrat. Doesn't look very good for mr. boehner now does it? On the other hand, I heard he shaved a whole point off his handicap. SWEET!
Changing policy revolves around stopping the current policy in place. You have to have that basic step first until anything can change. President Obama has not changed his policies and in fact has now double downed on them and is racheting up the class warfare rhetoric. Also Madverts, if you are going to use a past quote from me to show my 'radical' views please use the entire quotation so others that read here can make their decisions if my saying that the U.S deserves to default if it can't its fiscal act together is not based on hard economic reality and not on Maynard Keynes economic fantasies. You will also notice in my quote I advocated we change course and fast.
sailwindJul. 29, 2011 - 08:34PM JST Did it occur to anyone that the U.S actually deserves to default and have her credit rating downgraded? Our spending is out of control and there is no fiscal sanity anywhere evident in Washington. Until we learn to live with in our means we do not deserve to be able to borrow as we please or be considered a good credit risk. We have not earned our good credit rating since Obama became President and until we change course and get our spending under control and grow our economy through the hard work of the private sector to put people back to work should we bitch that our country defaulted and was downgraded as a not so good credit risk.
Does deciding to add more troops to affect a new strategy mean completely stopping everything that's in place to support the current one? Does deciding to add an extra room to a building mean stopping all construction?
The decades-long war against the middle-class is far more than rhetoric. The ranks of those losing their jobs and homes have grown to the point where thousands are now taking to the streets.
If the United States was attacked by another country and had to expand its wars to take on a new front, would you say it would be better to surrender than let spending get out of control putting you into deeper debt? Or would you somehow "find" the funds to take on the necessary task? That's pretty much the situation the United States found itself in when going up against Japan and Germany. Economic conditions were far worse then, going into war, than they are now. And the U.S. had to borrow against itself and its future prospects much more heavily.
But a country can only do that if it has people who believe in it and its future.
You should admit that you are not an expert on economics. The United States spent more as a percentage of GDP during WWII years than it ever had in its history. But the money flowed mainly to the pockets of ordinary Americans in the armed services and workers on the home-front symbolized by Rosie the Riveter. (This created the massive demand that surged after the war.) The war was a massive government make-work effort. With a 90% top marginal tax rate, the US should have tanked at some point in the 1940s. Instead, the events triggered the biggest economic expansion in our history.
If we look at the country that has gone deepest into the red to invest in itself over the past 40 years, it would likely be China. That might be a bit skewed by the fact that so many American business leaders were so willing to de-invest in their own country to invest in China as well.
You claimed not to have stated that the US should default on its' debt. I showed that you were not telling the truth.
The Republicans and their newly empowered tea party crazies decided to dangerously politisize the issue of the debt. Many of you were openly calling for the US to default, of which the implications were un-thinkable. It's the systematic, mypoic stupidity I've come to expect from radical partisan cranks in the US. The repubs of today would like to see their own country implode under Obama, just to make a point and to try and snatch back the Whitehouse. This is why we see you as dangerous radicals.
But I digress.
Did you or did you not call for the US to default? You seem to be confused.
After world war 2, Europe and Asia were ruins. The U.S was the only country whose industries were intact and could supply the insatiable demand Europe and Asia needed to rebuild after the war.Reality is we got lucky due to our geographic position and did not have our industrial base bombed into ruins by the Facist forces that held sway in the world then. Our prior economic policies during the war only shifted from war industry to a consumer based one based on rebuilding the free world after the war. Your position that our deficit spending created massive demand after the wer is flat out wrong. It was consumer demand and if not for that we would still be saddled with that long ago debt to this day.
Sailwind and millions like him cheered on the living beyond the means craziness throughout the Bush years, notably the garagntuan cost of invading Iraq and the subsequent occupation. Anybody that asked who'd be footing the bill, or any other pertinent question for that matter, were shrieked down with a frenzy by the invasion's cheerleaders, lost in a fuzzy haze combined of too much patriotism, and the breathless, radical political fervour that was born through the bitterness of Barrack Obama being elected to office.
I don't wish to bring up the same topic repeatedly, yet people like sailwind seem incapable of addressing the issue, their hopeless radicalism is in ignoring their own past behaviour, notably on the national debt, when the rest of us can see it for what it is.
You're with us, or you're against us.
Republican good. Democrat bad.
Heh, and he denies being a "radical".
I have been working a template to copy and paste prior to anything I post to sastify your continued demands that I hate Bush just as bad you do.
Here it is so far, " President Bush was bad President, now on to the topic at hand"...........
For years I've posted here, longer than you even I think. And not once did you have a bad word for Bush or his policies.
In fact, up until about six moths ago, any poster daring to bring up dubya's tenure in the debate as a negative was met with calls (and I quote) "Booooooosh", from yourself.
If you've read any of my recent posts you'll have seen me reminiscing over the days when me and thee could debate without nonesense.
I'm laid up with the flu, so take your time on the template...
I do hope you get well. Honesty time. During our past discussions on Bush during the years I was still Active duty Military. I served twenty years, under both Republican and Democrat Commander and Chiefs. I took my oath to support the constitution and obey the orders of the Commander and Chief very seriously. I would not or could not in good conscience violate that oath and there were many times when I wish I could have posted more disparaging words about Bush during that time and I did not agree with a myriad of things he did during his terms, but service to ones country means just that.........Words sort of fail me right now, but understand this, I will have always tried to respect your posts and positions, and will always strive to in the future, I wil get rid of the template.
Yes, much of Europe and Asia were in ruins. But how could the Europeans and Asians come up with the money needed to pay for the demand? Since their industries were completely laid low and could not generate income, their governments would have to go into very, very deep deficit spending and borrowing in order to rejuvenate their economies. There was no other choice. And despite the heavy deficits, the economies recovered and those nations were able to attain prosperity again.
The US may have been lucky not to have been bombed in WWII, but much of our industrial heartland today looks like it has been hit by bombers.
There was plenty of consumer demand during the Great Depression too. People desperately wanted things. The main difference between the 30s and the late 40s was that deficit spending (via government contract work) put a LOT of money in peoples pockets, enabling them to ACT on their desire to buy. Without money, they would have just been like those on the breadline a decade prior.
This is rather obvious and simple. Why do you fail to comprehend it? Or, why do you feel such a need to deny the obvious historical reality? Look at the level of government spending during WWII. It was enormous. I'm sure there were conservatives at the time who said it was insane and would drive the US into the abyss. They were as wrong then as they are today.
Honesty time. You know, I like the sound of that.
Does being an active service member really mean you are litteraly barred from critisizing the President of the hour?
In a Yank word......"Yup".
I recall that time and the events very, very well.
The U.S. was at a critical crossroads in 2000: The government actually had a surplus and could have directed the annual surplus funds to pay down the national debt. Fed Chairman Greenspan actually was warning about the danger of paying down the debt too quickly. Imagine that.
The thing I recall on the campaign trail of 2000 was a particular cover of The New Republic magazine. It came after a debate between Bush and Gore, where Bush claimed that his plans would: a) shore up Social Security, b) pay down the national debt, c) create a trillion-dollar contingency fund while at the same time allow for the massive tax cuts he was proposing.
The words on that cover: He's Lying!
Well, he surely was.
I'm guilty of being the victim of my own stupidity from time to time. Usually from the anonymity of right here. A poster that used to contribute on JT long ago taught me a pretty important lesson in life, strange as it may seem, but it marked me nonethless. And that was that it is more important and infinitely more fulfilling to bring back those to the discussion table that merit the effort, than waste time on those that have no merit at all.
No intent at homily, just saying it how I see it. Desperate times don't have to negate desperate measures. Unity is better than division in a crisis.
If I can emphasize my own point here. Turning the clock further back to the start of the 90s, we had Ross Perot and other conservatives running scared telling us how bad the deficits and debt were.
So in the span of a decade we went from hearing Chicken Littles on the deficits to surpluses so large that we risked paying down the debt too fast. Just as the massive deficits of WWII were rapidly brought back down in the post-war expansion. Genuine economic growth that brings prosperity to many instead of just a handful is the key.
Obama is the President. Obama is currently pleading with the public to call Congress and demand that his "jobs bill" be passed NOW. Democrat Reid is the one who is refusing to bring Obama's bill to the Senate floor. Twice.
If the Democrats do not want Obama's bill, why should anyone else?
p.s. Did you look for bills with the word "job" in them or did you look to see if the bills would have created jobs?
I looked at all the bills offered by the 112th Congress. Boehner has sponsored zero. There is no jobs bill. I checked.
I asked you where it was. You, instead of showing me, took the lazy way out and said check, so I did. There is no jobs bill from the republicans. They only want to repeal stuff.
Sorry, that's the facts.
I teach you to fish and you chose to throw stones at the fish. Tsk, tsk.
You asked - Where is the legislation?" - and I told you where to look. Bills that create jobs don't have to be titled "jobs bills" do they.
How many of those bills could have created jobs if they were passed? How many of those bills could have created jobs if the progressive Democrats hadn't blocked them? How many bills were passed that crippled established energy production jobs in favor of unproven "green" energy jobs?
Obama has been losing support among independents and even Democrats. They have no faith in his ability to fix America's problems. Even Democrats in the Senate won't support Obama's jobs bill.
Jeez paul man up and admit the repoubs have no program!
This morning, on CNN's GPS (global public square), the Chief Economic Editor for the conservative, London-based Financial Times, Martin Wolf, was interviewed by Fareed Zakaria. His comments:
The jobs-stimulus package being proposed by President Obama is too small.
Those who are opposed to the package must want the U.S. economy to contract further.
Since the U.S. economy is so important to the world, we simply can't afford to follow the people whose "leadership" got the U.S. into the mess it found itself in in 2008.
Moody's downgrades a dozen UK banks .......... Yesterdays headline on JT for a little reference on London based advice.
Martin Wolf mentioned that. He said that one of the greatest mistakes the UK made was the conservative government trying to cut spending in a time of serious deflationary pressure. He was delivering a message of caution to those in the U.S. advocating the same.
The Financial Times is a conservative economic journal and has nothing to do with ratings or bank policy.
But the UK banks and government rejected the advice of FT and opted to rein in deficit spending. So, you were saying?...
I don't know what "repoubs" are????
I do see that Obama is lacking support from the public and from the Democrats in the Senate.
Perhaps if Obama could just blame Bush one more time, people will overlook President Obama's years of failure to create jobs as the current President.
I know Fareed Zakaria to be a rabid Obama supporter who doesn't understand how anyone could obect to anything Obama says or does but what influence does the other guy have in the US?
I know Zakaria to be an extremely insightful purveyor of what is actually happening in our world. On the other hand, I have been reading your posts and find that you can't back up nearly any of the distorted claims you make, like the one above.
The Financial Times is one of most respected economic journals in the world. US conservatives will often quote it when they find it supports one of their points.
So who is the other guy and what influence does HE have in the US?
Martin Wolf is the chief economic commentator at The Financial Times. His reputation is stellar, but it's very likely he won't have any influence on those whose minds are tied to falsehoods and error.
As amply demonstrated on a related topic, there are some people who want to pretend that the Democrats were in charge of Congress and the White House for most of the years between 1994 and 2008 and so are primarily responsible for the economic collapse -- and the Republicans not responsible at all. Some actually believe that a congressman from the minority party was primarily responsible for the collapse of the housing industry -- while the Republican leadership stood by helplessly, unable to do anything to stop the fearsome power of Barney Frank.
I agree that the progressive Democrats won't listen to him.
Barny Frank knew full well that the sub-primes were a ticking time bomb and he continued to lead the defense of the sub-primes and Fannie even after they blew up in his face.
If Barney Frank knew it "full well," then it only stands to reason that the Republican leadership knew it too. Either that, or Frank was smarter than all of them.
If Frank was leading the defense, who was leading the offense?
And how was it that Frank could have that much power in a Washington DC where the Republicans had control of Congress and the White House in the critical years leading up to the collapse? Did Frank out-maneuver and outsmart them? Or did they just cave in and agree to let him run things?
Maybe the Republicans decided to let Frank run things, knowing that the sub-primes were a ticking time bomb, just so that they could have a Democrat to blame things on when the stuff exploded.
You can spot a typo but not see the facts. Heh, why am I not surprised?
The Repubs have no plan. No ideas. No program, other than obstructionism.
I'd check your links prior to posting them next time.
Lies... not to forget the lies.
It wouldn't matter what plan the Republicans put forward. Barney Frank would stop it. Paul's posts make him out to be the most powerful man in Washington.
You'll have to provide a frame of reference. What would that have been in response to?
And my name isn't "paul"
Congress passed a bill in 1999 that loosened restrictions on what banks and other financial institutions could offer. The bill was also supposed to make it easier for minorities and poor people to buy "affordable housing".
The nuts and bolts of the "affordable housing" was left up to the banking committee. Barney Frank helped write those regs and was aware of the pressure the committee was putting on HUD to force Fannie to buy up these faulty, unverified loans. Even as the market in sub-primes grew beyond poor people and were becoming the mortgage of choice for jumbo loans, Frank did nothing to stop the bubble and even encouraged it. When several Republicans held several Congressional hearing to curtail the sub-primes, Frank led the defense while declaring that there were no problems with the sub-primes. Frank was in on this mortgage joke from the very beginning and still refuses to admit there was a problem. Chris Dodd has apologised for his part in the sub-prime debacle but not Frank who was just a guilty.
Yes, we've covered that ground. A Republican-led Congress passed a bill written by three Republicans (Gramm, Leach, and Bliley). Barney Frank's name was not on the bill.
Yes, a banking committee that was chaired by a Republican and had a Republican majority among its ranks.
If the committee was putting pressure on HUD, it was due to the Republicans -- since the committee was led by them and had to have their support for any actions taken....When several Republicans held several Congressional hearing to curtail the sub-primes, Frank led the defense
This is the question you repeatedly refuse to answer: Do you expect people to believe that Barney Frank was in control of a Republican-led committee in a Republican-led Congress? How could Frank's position have carried the day?
It is one thing for Barney Frank to take an indefensible position. It is quite another for the people who were in a position to stop him -- and had the power to do so -- to fail completely in that. In those respects, they are far worse than Barney Frank, since everyone knows Frank is a liberal who will defend liberal positions. What is the excuse of the Republicans on the committee and in Congress who could have stopped Frank easily? Especially since you claim that Frank and others knew the mortgages were a -- your words -- a ticking time bomb.
Why can't you address that issue directly? How can readers interpret your repeated attempts to deflect things back on the party that was NOT in control of Congress?
A better phrase would be: They are far more culpable than Barney Frank.