d7bec3c8   
   XPost: alt.support.attn-deficit, alt.support.tourette   
   From: dawgface@ten.hut   
      
   "marcia"  wrote in message   
   news:d20207fd-ed8a-4afa-b327-ce1db4595b1a@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Nov 4, 12:25 am, "Frank"  wrote:   
   >> "marcia"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:9d9e7692-73b1-4636-800d-b75c06f30d5b@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> > On Nov 3, 12:48 am, "Frank"  wrote:   
   >> >> "marcia"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> >>news:dfb43eec-59ea-4f77-b570-f3852a05e537@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> >> > I believe I've read, heard and watched more credible and   
   >> >> > reliable   
   >> >> > sources than you have during this election season, and NO,   
   >> >> > you're   
   >> >> > NOT   
   >> >> > going to change my vote.   
   >>   
   >> >> Didn't thinks so.   
   >>   
   >> >> > The Dems didn't cause the meltdown. I believe I agreed that some   
   >> >> > Dems   
   >> >> > were opposed to tightening regulation of Fannie MAE and Freddie   
   >> >> > MAC,   
   >> >> > which (imo) was a mistake, but I also said the legislation never   
   >> >> > made   
   >> >> > it out of committee, so you can't tell me the Dems in Congress   
   >> >> > rejected something they didn't even vote on.   
   >>   
   >> >> Just who do you think stifled it in committee, it was Democrats.   
   >> >> C'mon,   
   >> >> you are not that ignorant. Now you are saying you were for McCains   
   >> >> bill?   
   >> >> Meaning you are now agreeing that there was hanky panky going on?   
   >>   
   >> > Uhm, no, Frank. The year was 2005: The Republicans held the   
   >> > majority   
   >> > in the Senate (where the bill originated). The REPUBLICANS CHOSE   
   >> > not   
   >> > to bring it to the floor. Not only did the Dems not have a chance   
   >> > to   
   >> > vote on it, but it was never put on the Republican-controlled   
   >> > agenda,   
   >> > so the Dems didn't even have an opportunity to filibuster. In other   
   >> > words, the Democrats couldn't block the bill because it was never   
   >> > presented to them. If the Republicans had brought it up for vote,   
   >> > it   
   >> > would have passed without the Dems because the Republicans   
   >> > controlled   
   >> > both the Executive and Legislative branches. Nice try, tho.   
   >>   
   >> >> > The high price of oil was a consequence of high demand, combined   
   >> >> > with   
   >> >> > overzealous speculation because the value of the dollar was so   
   >> >> > low.   
   >> >> > This was also compounded by expectations that projected demand   
   >> >> > would   
   >> >> > dramatically out-pace supply because OPEC was refusing to meet   
   >> >> > early   
   >> >> > to discuss increasing output. The drop in the price of oil   
   >> >> > started   
   >> >> > with investors cashing out their profit, the value of the dollar   
   >> >> > rising, and demand for oil falling. The price dropped   
   >> >> > precipitously   
   >> >> > when the world economy started to tank, and demand fell   
   >> >> > dramatically   
   >> >> > lower than supply.   
   >>   
   >> >> BS, the demand wasn't that high, yes the dollar is low, but it was   
   >> >> the   
   >> >> housing crisis that created the banking and insurance failures and   
   >> >> subsequent bail outs. The whole world was invested in it, that is   
   >> >> why   
   >> >> they all hurt. It was not the oil prices that caused Greenland to   
   >> >> go   
   >> >> bankrupt, nor did it cause any of the rest of the worlds calamity.   
   >> >> You   
   >> >> are mixing apples and oranges here.   
   >>   
   >> > You are simply wrong. Go do some research and get back to me.   
   >> > You're   
   >> > spouting off opinions like they are facts, without backing up your   
   >> > reasoning.   
   >>   
   >> >> > Oh, and the oil companies somehow managed to have four solid   
   >> >> > quarters   
   >> >> > of their greatest profit ever during this period, so I'm sure   
   >> >> > there   
   >> >> > was quite a bit of profiteering going on as well. Now, which   
   >> >> > party   
   >> >> > is   
   >> >> > directly linked to big oil companies? The Republicans,   
   >> >> > especially   
   >> >> > those in the Bush administration.   
   >>   
   >> >> Yes, they had profits thanks to specualtors. It was a natural   
   >> >> cause   
   >> >> and   
   >> >> effect, the higher the volume of dollars spent the higher the   
   >> >> volume   
   >> >> of   
   >> >> profit even at lower percentages of profit. They are the most   
   >> >> overtaxed   
   >> >> of all corporations, and as a consequense the poor suffer the   
   >> >> higher   
   >> >> prices and the poorest fuel mileage which is amongst my earlies   
   >> >> contentions this go around.   
   >>   
   >> > Provide some evidence for this BS. You like to talk a good game,   
   >> > but   
   >> > you don't seem to know anything about the situation.   
   >>   
   >> >> > John Palmer already posted a good article about the cause of the   
   >> >> > financial collapse, which reflects my understanding of the   
   >> >> > situation,   
   >> >> > too, so I won't belabor the point by repeating it here. Go back   
   >> >> > and   
   >> >> > read John's article for a fuller understanding.   
   >>   
   >> >> > Oh, here's a cookie for you: I don't like Nancy Pelosi. But I'm   
   >> >> > still   
   >> >> > voting for Obama.   
   >>   
   >> >> They are both cut from the same cloth. In fact Nancy is one of the   
   >> >> driving forces behind Obama.   
   >>   
   >> > Nonsense. But no surprise you would believe that, given your   
   >> > obvious   
   >> > partisanship. None of your arguments is backed by evidence that I   
   >> > can   
   >> > find. Perhaps YOU can provide a link or two to a credible source   
   >> > that   
   >> > supports your claims.   
   >>   
   >> Reform Act of 2005, S. 190   
   >>   
   >> It never made it out of committee.  Chris Dodd, then the ranking   
   >> member   
   >> of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of   
   >> receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, one   
   >> of   
   >> the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis.  Meanwhile,   
   >> Barack   
   >> Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lobbyists McCain   
   >> mentions in this speech, making him the #2 recipient of   
   >> Fannie/Freddie   
   >> money.   
   >>   
   >> In May 2006, John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled   
   >> bill,   
   >> in the hopes of gathering more co-sponsors and getting a vote in the   
   >> 109th Congress before the bill would die. McCain would state, "I join   
   >> as   
   >> a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act   
   >> of   
   >> 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE   
   >> regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American   
   >> taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that   
   >> Fannie   
   >> Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial   
   >> system, and the economy as a whole." The bill did not obtain any of   
   >> the   
   >> necessary support from the Democrats, and once again, the bill died   
   >> when   
   >> the 109th Congress ended.   
   >>   
   >> The 109th Congress ended December 8, 2006, so you see Marcia all is   
   >> as I   
   >> said. Again you were trying to set up a straw man and failed, again I   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)