Yes, but he has just made one of the best arguments to be made in US republicker politics. He has said: I'm stupid, vote for me.

Romney will not be the nominee

Obama will not be re-elected either

The Patriots will win the super bowl and I have never purchased Communist made electronics (made in China)...

Living in denial is a terrible reality but a great coping mechanism...

Romney will not be the nominee

Obama will not be re-elected either

Pray tell which one of the other clowns is going to win it? Mittens has about double the support of any other candidates and only half the entire base, facts and common sense do not sit very well with your statement.

Stick to the middle ground Mitt and win the election; who else will the religous theocracy vote for, and the election can't be won without the independents.

Don't be foolish like McCain and drive the middle away by trying to out-right the lunatic fringe or pick an anti-science, christian VP once you get the nomination. With a decent VP he could have won.

Exactly right, norm, but our primary system punishes the moderate.

Like any current republican Mitt is severley without an honorable bone in his body. What phonies. You can see right through em!

so we have a collection of the "real" conservative, the "only reagan" conservative, the "genuine" conservative, and now the "severely" conservative.

How one becomes any of the above:

Stick head firmly in sand.

Genuinely want America to fail because Democrats want it to succeed and boss DeMint says conservatives have to oppose anything Democrats are in favor of.

Oh yeah. For sure.

Mitt is the most conservative flip-flopper ever.

He never once flipped when he should have flopped.

LOL

Hey old fat guy-1144960........

Your above Quote.....Romney will not be the nominee. Obama will not be re-elected either.....EndQuote

----------------------------------

Your Aug. 11, 2011 Quote.....Romney will not be the nominee. A serious conservative will and she will win......EndQuote

Considering there WAS only one female (Bachmann) in the GOP race, your predictive skills proved far from perfect.

Gov. Romney may be willing to bet you $10k that HE will be the GOP nominee. And....there's virtually nothing you nor your Tea Party can do about that. The truth is: you have already lost.

Regarding the second part of your (current) prognostication: You seem to have an appetite for crow.

BTW---Did you SERIOUSLY support Michelle Bachmann to be PRESIDENT ?

His "severely conservative" line was ad-libbed, inserted by Romney on the spot on top of his prepared remarks, which he read from a teleprompter.

We used to say "severely retarded". Then, when that was considered inappropriate, we said "severely handicapped". Now, I guess it's "severely conservative." But they all mean the same thing.........

Mittens is such a joke. I am astonished that ANYONE would consider voting for him.

Yeah. And he reads his speeches from a Teleprompter. Can't have that!

Romney will be the nominee.

He will get smoked in the general election like a nickel cigar.

Sorry, oldfatguy.

Well, they started out with Tweedledee (Romney), TweedleDumb (Perry) and the Cheshire Cat (Cain). Then along came Mr. Potter (Gingrich), the Church Lady (Santorum) and some woman from "Psycho" (Bachmann).

Now we're down to Tweedledee, Potter and the Church Lady - may be best lunatic win.

See ya in November.

oldfatguy still cherishes the hope that whackadoodle Mrs. Palin will ride in on her white snowmobile and save the day!

Where is Mrs. Palin, by the way?

Or Bush?

Or Dick Cheney?

Do the Republicans have them all locked in Cheney's "secret location" until after the election? Are they hoping no one will remember them?

These republicans would vote for satan if he was the nominee.

The CPAC? You mean where the White Nationalists are attending?? That CPAC?

It is true, dispasion. Some of them are voting for Gingrich.

The Republicans do not have a good nominee and unfortuantely neither do the Democrats.

Oh dear Mitt, conservatism is not synonymous with business. It is an approach.

It is against major change and in favor of incrementalism. It favors a well proven regimentation instead of a bold new way. It requires that all the i's be dotted and all the t's crossed while liberals are not so strict. That is a true conservative.

But, of late, conservatism has added religious values when convenient and not so much when not. It has also recently become exclusionary... never a prime trait of conservatives of yesteryear. Add to that a little war mongering, isolationism, and deep rooted biases, and you have completed the conservative of today... or at least what they appear to be.

Mitt, you are not conservative or progressive... nor are you both... we don't know WHAT you are... wish we did.

Severely inept at connecting to Republicans is more like it. Epic fail once again Mitt.

TO: old fat guy-1144960 who wrote:

"Romney will not be the nominee

Obama will not be re-elected either"

BOTH of these statements are wrong, i.e., Romney will be the nominee, AND President Obama WILL be re-elected.

Obama / Biden 2012

TO: RealAmericansFirst who wrote:

"Where is Mrs. Palin, by the way? Or Bush? Or Dick Cheney?..."

They got some splainin' to do.

Obama / Biden 2012

Maybe Romney will get "severely conservative" with them?

Ick, that so makes me think of Larry Craig and Tom Foley....

http://www.badmouth.net/top-five-republican-gay-sex-scandals/

American Girl Don't you mean

Romney/Obama 2012

Conservatism, by its very nature, seeks to move forward by standing still...or even by reversing direction. Does anyone else see the contradiction here?

When will they ask Romney the real questions?

Like:

1."Mr. Romney, explain to everybody how placing your money into shelters overseas so you can get away with paying less then 14 percent in annual taxes is helping Americans?"

2."Mr. Romney, do you send the bulk of your money overseas because you value the trade of other countries over America's, or did you send your money over there so you didn't have to pay as much in taxes as everybody else does?"

3."Mr. Romney, you like to say that you pay what you owe in taxes and not a dollar more. What if the vast majority of America thinks you should pay a lot more? Do you agree with the majority of American people and pay more taxes or tell them you don't care and don't want their votes anyways?"

4. "Mr. Romney, do you think all Americans should pay less then 14 percent of their annual incomes to taxes, like you do, even though that would plunge this great nation into third-world status almost immediately?

5. "Mr. Romney only the rich could take advantage of loopholes you have used to insure you pay less in taxes then almost all Americans who pay taxes. Should that be how America's tax code works? Should rich people, like yourself, pay smaller percent of your income to taxes when people like our military, cops, social workers, firefighters have to pay a great deal more?

so we have a collection of the "real" conservative, the "only reagan" conservative, the "genuine" conservative, and now the "severely" conservative.

Next comes "super ultra mega conservative", then "epic grand master conservative"

Personally, I am waiting for the inevitable claim: "God has told me I am the greatest, largest, most powerful, awe-inspiring conservative in the universe. God also told me that the spirit of Reagan himself bows down and weeps at the feet of my epic conservativeness."

Pandering? Is that not the opposite of integrity?

I think the democrat that chooses to be a republican because it made him rich just concreted his loss.

Republicans need to find themselves and rid themselves of these parasites. Whatever a "" Republican or a ""Democrat is for that matter.

Romney is a pathological narcissist, and is still somehow the best that his party could come up with.

What Romney really wanted to say was, "I'M EXTREMELY FLEXIBLE" in my positions, instead of severely conservative.

Ron Paul is the only presidential runner that I would take the time to vote for. I am sick and tired of these unconstitutional wars, plain and simple and that includes the drug war.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who wants to end these unjust wars. What goes around comes around, so be prepared to face the consequences for who you vote for. BTW Obama signed a bill allowing the military to detain American citizens without any trial plus he signed the "Patriot Act". So anyone supporting Obama knowing any of this is very upsetting that we are selling our rights for food stamps, inflation, and the promise that everything is going to be ok.

Trascript of a real conversation between two old women in Iowa:

Woman 1- "I met my sons new neighbor in Arizona. He is a negro."

Woman 2- "Oh my, was he born in America".

1- "I dont know, I will ask my son and make sure he calls the deportation people".

Demented republicans sucking up to their caretaker, the demented DeMint. A joke of somber proportions.

Wait a minute, hold on, let me stop laughing.

'Severely conservative' sounds like a bad rash when Mitt Romney says it...He should have the thing checked out... I just hope it is not in the delicate parts. Seriously though, I just saw a tape of him saying that he was a progressive govenor.

Who is this guy?

Obama, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum. The only differences between them is the spelling of their names. They are ALL status quo trash making the same tired promises, yet carrying on the torch from their predecessor. So the only "change" would be the name that goes on the shingle over the White House door. At least with Ron Paul there would be change within...

"He who lives on HOPE will die fasting." -- Benjamin Franklin

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, MUST be the truth." -- Sherlock Holmes

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell

"Better to shun the bait than struggle in the snare." -- William Blake

He tries so hard, poor baby..."love me, love me, please, somebody love me".

Asimplicity1....in fairness, the money he placed in offshore accounts was not taxed less than the money he kept here.

I agree with your sentiment though, and no, he does not stand much of a chance of winning the general election. Amazing that republicans had this opportunity to topple Obama but could not come up with a single viable candidate who had a chance. There is a message there.

If Mitt is the most conservative, then conservative party must be stupid

Flip-Flop Ro-money is "severely" constipated.

Great choice of a word but wouldn`t "radically" been better when trying to shore up the base?

Conservative or Liberal - it depends on what is relative to another. I'm sure next to some Republicans he's a liberal. Next to the typical Democrat in the area that he governed he's a moderate or conservative, etc. It's all relative. Not quite sure what the point is - the country needs someone with business acumen. Business and economics must flourish in order to right the ship.

If Mittler Romney keeps saying "I'm really a conservative" over and over, maybe one day he'll believe it himself.

In the meantime, we all know his platform and staff match up pretty well with George Bush, which is not conservative at all, but Neo-Con.

When he is getting beaten by the likes of Santorum and Gingrich, even with the great press he is getting, it spells the end of Romney.

Hell, even Ron Paul beat him in Minnesota.

Thankfully despite the best efforts of both the left and right mainstream press, Romney is falling flat on his face.

Hi asimplicity1,

You asked some fairly useless questions, but the one decent question was already answered properly above. Mitt isn't my favorite candidate, but he, like pretty much any of the four running to replace Mr. Obama, is easily better than our president. Though you don't mention it, your post being meant to impugn rather than enlighten, I think some useful tax reforms would be a boon to the USA. I don't know if people like you can find agreement with people like me or not, but something's gotta give.

For starters, why don't we end this charade and just eliminate the business income tax at the federal level? You pay the tax anyhow through a variety of mechanisms. So end that tax and begin taxing the people more directly. I'd favor an end to all federal taxes except for the personal income tax, but given you are a liberal I doubt you would accept simplicity of the code.

I'd in fact let your side pick the tax rate in order to get a simplified flat tax so long as we could compromise on the amount of a major deduction for each wage earner. No joint returns. No credits or other deductions, and tax all income regardless of the source as regular income (though we should index investment income for inflation). But like I say, I doubt your side would ever seek simplicity and liberty, particularly given the fact such simplicity would result in voters knowing their actual tax consequence to support the government.

Perhaps we have two Americas, yours and mine, and we will need some sort of winner before we can truly move forward. All I know is that so long as people like you (by that I mean liberals) oppose economic liberty we cannot find common ground. Too bad. It sure would be nice to find some common purpose again.

You amaze me Roy Wilson. Every time I think you cannot show your lack of understanding of facts any more than you have, you prove me wrong. What foreign country are you living in now? Lalaland?

What were the Deficits for recent presidents?

Here are the actual figures, according to official government sources (Obama White House);

Total Deficits under Reagan (1981-1998) = $1,339 Billion over 8 years = $167 Billion per year.

Total Deficits under Bush 1 (1989-1992) = $933 Billion over 4 years = $233 Billion per year.

Total Deficits under Clinton (1993-2000) = $321 Billion over 8 years = $40 Billion per year.

Total Deficits under Bush 2 (2001-2008) = $2,006 Billion over 8 years = $251 Billion per year.

Total Deficits under Obama (2009 – 2/10/2012) = $5,370 Billion = $1,580 Billion per year.

Obama's average Deficits are more than 6 times greater than 'big spender Bush'. After seeing what's happening in Greece, can we afford 4 more years of Obama?

Source - http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.3

How funny. The first 46 posts were almost all negative and vile towards Romney. Then the work day ends and people are getting home and, holy smokes, the next three posts aren't exactly Romney lovers, but they are more conservative. Coincidence? Maybe, but 46 in a row? Naw.

Ya Rich... the 'stay at home and wait for my goverment check' folks love their internet whist waiting.

Wow. The GOP PLATFORM in TWO SOUNDBITES!

I've got mine! FU** YOU!!

and

I HATE YOU! ALL OF YOU!!

That's something to look forward to...

roy this independent is disappointed in obama.i was really hoping he would do something worthy of reelection.about all hes done is pull our troops out of iraq and he was forced to do that by an agreement bush made.his health care bill,well if theres a plus in it ive missed it.making it so gays can serve openly in the military.thats one campaign promise he kept.a big who cares for that.

now for the republicans.the only guy that deserves a vote is ron paul.im voting for him anyway.im sick of casting my vote for the lessor of 2 evils.ill write my vote in if i have too.romney.santorim,or [god awful]newt...not only no but a hell no to newt

Correction to figures for Post #1.51.

Obama's Estimated Deficits for his first 4 years are $5,452 Billion. The actual increase in the National Debt for his first 3+ years (to 2/10/12) is $5,370 Billion ($5.37 Trillion).

But again I ask "Can we afford 4 more years of Obama?".

Roy, how much of President Obama's debts are from President Bush's inaction towards not paying for 2 wars and Medicaid Part D? How much of President Obama's debts are from the foreclosure/job loss hemorraging that started in 2007 (Bush's watch), and has just started to turn around? Input THOSE figures and come back with a REAL amount.

Roy,

I hate to admit it but I've concluded that facts are going to get us exactly no where with liberal Americans. Liberalism is as much a religion as any other belief system, and facts and logic simply aren't going to crack that nut. It's a shame that the Enlightenment has ended with modern Liberalism.

Fantomdog "Roy, how much of President Obama's debts are from President Bush's inaction towards not paying for 2 wars"

None. In what way were they not paid for - all of the cost of the wars under Bush are included in the deficit figures under Bush.

And the Dark Ages would be considered the GOP?

But again I ask "Can we afford 4 more years of Obama?".

And to think that a big majority of that 5.4trillion was spent in this country trying to undo some of the mess the republicans created when they took a surplus and turned it into a documented, 10.62trillion dollar deficit and ontop of the 10.6trillion, they hid the cost of the two wars and let Obama add that into the deficit during his first months in office.

Hey Fantomdog,

I'll let Roy answer you if he wants, but I think I can help just the same. To your first question the answer is none. The deficits Roy attributes to Bush include war spending, and the war in Iraq was already being wound down by the time Bush left and Obama arrived. You might argue that Bush should still be responsible for Iraq even after he left, so let's give Mr. Obama $200 billion to help assauge your concerns.

The second question is more problematic since one can argue from different directions what, if anything, should be included in the calculations. So let's do away with the argument and instead credit to Mr. Obama from Mr. Bush a wildly inflated number, say, $500 billion. Roy's numbers are accurate. Transfer $700 billion from Bush to Obama and you still, STILL, have a remarkably different result.

All of which misses the point which has, itself, eluded you. Mr. Obama, like him or not, is spending at a pace that far exceeds the worst of claims made by the left about Mr. Bush. You hated Mr. Bush for it, and yet you excuse (at a minimum) Mr. Obama for it. Which makes you and people like you nothing short of political hacks.

Rich-281385 "Roy, I hate to admit it but I've concluded that facts are going to get us exactly no where with liberal Americans. Liberalism is as much a religion as any other belief system, and facts and logic simply aren't going to crack that nut. It's a shame that the Enlightenment has ended with modern Liberalism."

It sounds like you understand the difference between 'Classical Liberalism' and the 'modern' version.

'Classical Liberalism' is a philosophy wherein there is a very weak central government, along with very strong individual rights. In fact, the work 'Liberal' is derived from 'Liberty', meaning freedom from the dictates of dictators. It was actually part of the foundation leading to the American Revolution, and later, the French Revolution.

Modern Liberalism is essentially the exact opposite - a strong, all powerful central government dictating to individuals how they will be allowed to run their lives (government knows best), with very weak individual rights and freedoms.

Here's a link to Wikipedia on 'Classical Liberalism';

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

It's a shame that the term has been hijacked by the far left - and they call it "progressive' - lol

If he was severely conservative then I'm surprised he's not being more supportive of our severely conservative president. Romney, after all, created the severely conservative health care system for Massachusetts that the severely conservative US healthcare revamp was modeled after.

Roy, so you copied the 'cost' of 2 wars in the deficit figures, but not the 'cost' of Medicaid Part D, or the 'cost' of foreclosures and jobs losses? Shouldn't those also be added to the 'cost?' And to PAY for such 'costs,' isn't President Obama's 'costs' going to rise exponentially by passing stimulus' to avert a complete econimical collapse of everything in America, let alone the severe impact towards the rest of the world?

THURSDAY, Feb. 9 (HealthDay News) -- The
cancer drug bexarotene quickly eliminates Alzheimer's disease-associated amyloid
beta from the brain and reverses memory problems in mice, a new study finds.

This drug may very well represent the end of the republican party as we know it!

btw, the Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson, who was more a Democratic-Republican, which Abraham Lincoln also was, has been lost on those which call themselves Republican today.

Since these candidates are trying to "out-conservative" each other, let's quantify their conservatism...on a scale of 1 to 100 (with 100 being ultra-right-wing wacko conservative).

Ok, Mitt, Newt, RuPaul, and Sanitarium, just how conservative are/were you??

Fantomdog "Roy, so you copied the 'cost' of 2 wars in the deficit figures, but not the 'cost' of Medicaid Part D, or the 'cost' of foreclosures and jobs losses?"

I don't know what the cost of Medicare Part D is, but whatever it was under Bush was included in his Deficit figures.

As for the 'cost of foreclosures and job losses', who's really to blame - some unspecified Bush policies, or the refusal of Democrats to rein in the loose lending practices of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac? Consider my next post.

For those who want to blame the Bush Administration for lack of concern over the Sub-Prime mortgage crisis until it was too late, consider this:

2001 April (Only 3 months after Bush took office): The Bush Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002 May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003 February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

2003 September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

2003 September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)

2003 October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

2003 November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004 February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

2004 February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

2004 April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "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." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)

2004 June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005 April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2005 July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)

2007 August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)

2007 December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008 February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

2008 March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

2008 April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

2008 May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

2008 June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

2008 July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

2008 September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)

Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.

Political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership:

Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

Since 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

BY THE WAY - It was none other than Barack Obama, as one of just a handful of lead attorneys, that sued banks under CRA to force banks to make loans to unqualified 'disadvantaged' people. Ironically, he blamed Bush for the subsequent collapse of the housing market and financial collapse - and the liberal media STILL ignores the story.

A LIBERAL-Republican ended Slavery/Abraham Lincoln. What happened to them? They got run out of your party! What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.

-Excerpt from The West Wing, but in which everything that was written, is the truth, even against the backdrop of what is being bantered about by today's GOP. Nothing has changed but the players.

Hey again Fantomdog,

So, using your logic we should credit Mr. Bush with the decisions of all previous presidents, say Carter's CRA signing, or FDR's SS initiative, and so on? How about no. How about we look at the imcremental changes made by one president, compared to the other presidents. On that score Mr. Obama is several magnitudes WORSE than Mr. Bush, and yet you want to adulate Mr. Obama and hate Mr. Bush over spending too much. Interesting.

As to your point--I have to be careful reading your posts so that I don't spit my soda over the keyboard-- about needing to spend trillions more to save us from spending too many billions, all I can offer you is the obvious. If we've spent at the margins an additional $3 trillion MORE than Mr. Bush had in store for us, and for this money we've been able to improve GDP by an amazing $450 billion over the three years in play, then we are...wait a second I might need a calculator....$2.55 TRILLION LESS WEALTHY.

What you favor, and unfortunately what Mr. Bush too often favored, was to borrow money from our unborn heirs so that we can live beyond our means today. In my opinion this makes you immoral. I'm sure you think it's entirely proper to steal money for you to spend today and so you will dispute my conclusion and unfortunately this means we do not have any common ground on which to settle.

Before you calculate deficits and all..... take into consideration the residual effect of little tax revenue coming in because of Bush tax cuts, unemployed paying little tax, the cost to replace damaged military equipment from the two wars, all of the pork and barrel spending that congress is tacking on in every bill they tried to pass. No matter who is elected, USA will always be in deficit spending. Scary seeing how that kind of spending created the mess in Greece that is affecting the world economies.

It wasn't Freddie or Fannie that crippled the homeowners. They are the scapegoats. Although the home owners may have been living on strings and tight budgets to make ends meet, they were doing fine until the conservatives lied to us and the world in order to get what little support they found for invading Iraq and driving the cost of gasoline from .99$ a gallon to more than 4$ a gallon. That is what crippled homeowners and businesses alike for 3 solid years while the republicans simply lied about the recession and never admitted to the condition of the economy until they could no longer hide it in 2006. This is what crippled the homeowners and took away their abilities to pay their mortgages. Gasoline and heating fuels quadrupled in prices as well as did each and everything in the economy. Fannie and Freddie were just the scapegoats for the oil speculators and all three parties fell for it.

Fantomdog "Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act,"

A far higher percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats - so which Party was more 'liberal' when it comes to equal rights - in fact, Martin Luther King was a Republican?

Question to ask Mr. Romney...

What have you done for the USA since President Obama was elected that helped the poor, the middle class, the rich like you ?

Nothing came up on my internet search other than you prepared for this election campaign.

MM-584706, the most intelligent Republican Presidential aspirants begged off Election 2012 for two very good reasons.

#1 - Allow the stench from the former Bush administration to further dissipate.

#2- The economic recovery is still very weak. Allow the freshmen Republican Congressmen 4 more years to further inhibit that recovery by blocking every single effort the Democrats and President Obama make to restore a healthy economy.

There is an element of risk to these tactics. Taking those risks still remain the best bet for a successful Republican 2016 election. Their strategy is transparent and easily predictable.

If they can manage to keep the economic recovery at this snails pace(from a distance), the electorate will be desperate for any change in Washington. They will then step in to throw the entire Tea Party, the old Republican guard and the Democrats to the wolves.

They will claim to represent the patriotic GOP of old with new and fresh leadership to restore greatness and prosperity. The success of such a plan relies on the re-election of President Obama with more gains in Congress for the Tea Party to further inhibit economic recovery. This devious plan could work.

The greatest threat to the plan is that the American electorate of 2012 may see through the deception. The clown show called the Republican primaries has many of us wondering, "What the hell is going on?" The best chance of success for the cleverest con job is to NEVER over-play your role. They have blown that one big time.

The next greatest threat is that Democrats may succeed in regaining seats enough for a majority in both houses of Congress. The Democrats now know that gaining Republican support for even the most moderate proposals will be met with stubborn and partisan refusal. I believe that they will now stand as one to change archaic congressional rules that were grossly abused, at every turn, by hateful Republican partisans. Republican partisans that held party loyalty far above their sworn oaths to protect and serve this mighty nation.

The 3rd greatest threat is that participating clowns( Boehner, O'Connell, Ryan, McCain, the Tea Party, the entire field of Republican Presidential wanna-bes and now Rubio may wise-up. I doubt this as a serious threat. All of these idiots are having way too much fun in roles that they know are way over their heads.

If this con job were to succeed, I would relish the moment that all of these clowns are thrown out on their butts by their own party. The looks on their faces would be a true Kodak moment. As entertaining as this thought may be, such success of devious con artists must never be allowed fruition.

We must give the President enough support to end this dangerous and purely partisan grid-lock. We must throw these clowns out now and elect representatives sworn to working together to solve the many threatening issues facing the mightiest nation on Earth.

Hey Roy,

If just one liberal would read your last post--it IS long but it is a devasting explanation of events--and not look at it from a partisan perspective I think we would have hope. I think, and I hate to think this, that not one will fairly look at what you wrote. You are disputing the liberal dogma and so you must be lying to them, or simply delusional. What a mess we find ourselves in.

Rich-281385 "What you favor, and unfortunately what Mr. Bush too often favored, was to borrow money from our unborn heirs so that we can live beyond our means today."

Amen to that. It wasn't just Bush - It's been every President since Eisenhower - in fact, it was Lyndon Johnson that started robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for his 'guns and butter' programs.

We have 'hocked our children's future' to pay for our selfish modern lifestyle, and I doubt that they will appreciate it when the bill comes due.

PS - The Democrats say "We need to tax the rich", and Republicans say "No, we need to cut spending".

The truth is that both are wrong - and right. We need equal parts of raising taxes and cutting spending (real cuts, not phony 'cuts in future increases') to avert a financial crisis. Unfortunately, neither side wants to 'bite the bullet' because it will cost them votes.

Fantomdog (1.67)

Absolutely wrong the Jefferson Republican-Democratic part is totally unrelated to the Lincoln Republican Party. Jefferson's party became the current Democratic Party, name change official in 1844. Current Republican Party founded in 1854. This internet thing is great.

RedBlue560clk "Question to ask Mr. Romney...What have you done for the USA since President Obama was elected that helped the poor, the middle class, the rich like you ?"

The same could be asked of Obama - not only before he was elected, but since he was elected.

Roy, I read what you're saying, and can only agree on what you last posted, when there isn't bias. Where is the list of Republicans who had/have been involved with Fannie/Freddie, and their financial gains, since they were in control of both House and Senate for 5 years?

2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)

Isn't that the same as President Obama, who has tried to work with Congress, being quoted for 'leading from behind,' as GOP talking heads placed a negative remark about him for? Unless you can show BOTH side's ills in Government, there can never be a middle ground for agreement on either side as to where to go from there in a positive light. Yes I know, Democrats and Republicans agreeing; everyone happy;the end of the world as we know it.

Rich-281385 "Hey Roy, If just one liberal would read your last post--it IS long but it is a devasting explanation of events"

Yes, it is long, but fully documented. Unfortunately, my experience with Liberals is "Don't confuse me with FACTS, my mind is already made up".

At any rate, I need to put my 6 year old daughter to bed.

Bye.

Bruce #1.80. The Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson AND James Madison in the 1790's to counteract the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton, which was then realized later and called the Jeffersonian Democracy.

The 'Party' which was known at the time as Republican, broke down in 1824, when the dominant factions within that 'party' switched to Andrew Jackson, then evolved into the Democratic Party. The rest of the 'party' that didn't follow, changed to the Republican Party in the civil-war-era, before that it was the Whig Party.

Fantomdog,

If only your supposition were right. But it isn't. Fannie and Freddie both have been fond of democrats in office by a wildly unbalanced ratio whether republicans were in power or not. Franklin Raines didn't forget that he was a partisan democrat while at Fannie just because his party no longer held control of Congress.

What Roy wrote is factual. Few democrats saw the problem or were willing to compromise and reform Fannie and Freddie. Republicans saw a problem, and imo didn't demand more action to fix it, but it's also true that in Congress you can't get anything done without 60 senate votes. And democrats in the Senate were just as recalcitrant as those in the House.

Bottom line: This was all avoidable. The USA has for decades pursued unstable economic policies in order to convince voters to support the politicians who enacted those policies. But President Bush argued for reform, and for his effort the likes of Maxine Waters called him racist. Barney Frank laughed at him, scoffing at the suggestion anything was wrong. And people you align yourself with, other liberals I mean, said it was Bush that was stupid. Yet he was the one arguing for reforms that the people you vote for refused to consider, and actively dismissed.

Kind of makes you wonder who was really the stupid one.

Roy, "Don't confuse me with FACTS, my mind is already made up" applies to both sides of the aisle. Have a good night.

now arent you sorry you got roy started.lol

Its official. Mr. Romney has come down with a severe case of conservatism. Because "they" all KNOW that conservatism is a disease is it not? A severely conservative disease.. ; ] You truly do not need sitcoms any longer. Simply laugh at what extremist tea bagging republicans in government have become.

They know not what they do. Seriously, they are actually clueless as to what it is they are doing. They have NO moves and zero spaces to go. ; ]

Cheers

Romney boasts of 'severely conservative' record in CPAC speech...

...no problem...ABO 2012

Rich, as I stated in #1.82, and for the most part, stupid happens, on both sides, and in different eras. I asked for an unbiased list of BOTH parties indiscretions as to the Fannie/Freddie situation, and let it stand as is. And aren't we, AS a people, the stupid one's in the end for either 'Party's' perceived 'infallibillity.'

hahaha JohnQ, no. I don't mind discussing matters without the use of denegrating words and personal put-downs that are usually tossed about, without intellect.

Rich, I guess THIS isn't facual then-

Republicans Blame The Financial Crisis On Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, And Government Policy

Speaker Boehner: "Government Mortgage Companies...Triggered The Whole Meltdown." From House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) May 9, 2011, speech on Wall Street: "And the government mortgage companies that triggered the whole meltdown went untouched." [Boehner Remarks, 5/9/11]

Sen. Graham: "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac" Were Behind "The Problem That Got Us Into This Mess." On the January 2, 2011, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said: "[T]he financial regulation bill really left unattended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and when you have government entities this large who own this much of housing, who've been pushing mortgages on people who couldn't afford to pay them, and you do nothing about it, it's pretty hard for me to say you've reformed the problem that got us into this mess. [...] To me, [the solution] is to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a, in a more privatized environment where risk/reward is, is, is more traditionally accepted. That--the American dream is to own a home you can afford. And to look at these entities and get more private-sector involvement and control who they lend money to and basically wind them down and make them more private." [Meet the Press, 1/2/11]

Sen. DeMint: "Liberal Housing Goals...Fueled The Housing Crisis." From Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-SC) blog: "Senator McCain has offered an amendment that would repeal their liberal housing goals that encouraged more risky lending and fueled the housing crisis, as well as end their dominance of the mortgage market and let the private sector back in. While more needs to be done to quickly end the permanent bailout of these mortgage giants, the McCain amendment is an important first step. True financial reform must include Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Congress cannot pretend to have ended 'too big to fail' without ending these out of control institutions." [DeMint.Senate.gov, 5/11/10]

Rep. Hensarling: "The Financial Crisis Was Caused By Failed Federal Policies" With Fannie And Freddie "At The Epicenter." From Rep. Jeb Hensarling's (R-TX) website: "The financial crisis was caused by failed federal policies that strong-armed, incented, and cajoled financial institutions into loaning money to people to buy homes that they couldn't afford to keep. At the epicenter of this were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." [Hensarling.House.gov, accessed 10/13/11]

At GOP Presidential Debate, Rep. Bachmann Blamed The Community Reinvestment Act And Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac For The Crisis.At the October 11, 2011, GOP presidential primary debate, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said: "I think if you look at the problem with the economic meltdown, you can trace it right back to the federal government, because it was the federal government that demanded that banks and mortgage companies lower platinum-level -- level -- lending standards to new lows. [...] It was the federal government that pushed the subprime loans. It was the federal government that pushed the Community Reinvestment Act. It was Congressman Barney Frank and also Senator Chris Dodd that continued to push government-directed housing goals. They pushed the banks to meet these rules. And if banks failed to meet those rules, then the federal government said, we won't let you merge; we won't let you grow. There's a real problem: It began with the federal government, and it began with Feddie and -- Freddie and Fannie." [GOP Debate, 10/11/11, via CFR.org]

_{[back to top]}

Facts Show Private Lenders Who Were Not Subject To CRA, Not Government-Backed Ones Who Were, Drove The Subprime Mortgage Market

Private Firms, Not Fannie And Freddie, Dominated The Subprime Mortgage Market

2007: The Collapse Of The Housing Bubble And Widespread Defaults On Subprime Loans Triggered A Banking Crisis That Led To A Massive Recession. From Slate: "The only near consensus is on the question of what triggered the not-quite-a-depression. In 2007, the housing bubble burst, leading to a high rate of defaults on subprime mortgages. Exposure to bad mortgages doomed Bear Stearns in March 2008, then led to a banking crisis that fall. A global recession became inevitable once the government decided not to rescue Lehman Bros. from default in September 2008. Lehman's was the biggest bankruptcy in history, and it led promptly to a powerful economic contraction. Somewhere around here, agreement ends." [Slate, 1/9/10, emphasis added]

The Subprime Market Surged From 2004 To 2006. As reported by McClatchy: "Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006." [McClatchy, 10/12/08]

From 2004 To 2006, Fannie And Freddie's Share Of Subprime Market Fell From Almost Half To Just Under One-Quarter. As reported by McClatchy: "But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership. Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication." [McClatchy, 10/12/08, emphasis added]

• Fannie And Freddie Faced Tougher Regulatory Standards Than The Private Firms. As reported by McClatchy: "One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble." [McClatchy, 10/12/08]

2006: Private Firms Issued About Six Out Of Every Seven Subprime Mortgages. As reported by McClatchy:

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

I pity those poor Republicans, I really do. Their party is in its death throws. They feed on themselves - whatever happened to "never speak badly about another Republican."? The economy is on the upswing and GM and Chrysler are alive so they can't campaign on the economy, Osama Bin Laden is dead so they can't campaign on national security and foreign policy - they have to dredge up birth control for an issue fer Pete's sake!

As to accomadate the News Vine as to where I get my content from, this can be found on none other then FOX NEWS, as to the Republicans involved with Fannie/Freddie, which does not account for Newt's involvement, or Romney's stock in said companies.

Freddie Mac Tried to Kill Republican Regulatory Bill in 2005

Published October 19, 2008

Associated Press

Oh Roy, now we know both sides of the story. Thanks Fantomdog. Roy and his assertions have been disputed many times before on NewsVine, and he knows it. Yet, like a true troll he pops his head up again with the same cut and paste, he has saved in his folder. Than he excuses himself to do a "personal " thing. Poor Roy can't put anything in perspective, because his personal life interferes. Maybe he sold those bad loans to the public?

Okay, I just have to point this out, because somebody mentioned the "teleprompter" above...

The three most ridiculous arguments from the "I hate Obama regardless" crowd are:

1. The teleprompter. Really, they all use them. You would need one too. Get over it.

2. First Obama's a minion of a radical Christian Reverend. Than he's a Muslim. Now he's destroying all religion. Make up you minds.

3. Obama's a communist/socialist who also manages to somehow be in the pockets of Wall St.

Holy crap, God help you if you don't see the contradictions in that. Furthermore, both parties suck behind. If we stop allowing them to be bought, gerrymander their districts, and if we limit their terms, well maybe we'll see some changes. Thursten Howell III, Mitt if you will, is simply pandering in order to maintain the status quo.

Finally, Conservatives, we can argue all day long about our opinions on gay marriage, Islam, abortion, immigration, and poor people. What we can't argue about is the definition of "limited government" and hypocrisy. The imagination can't be stretched far enough to call telling people who can marry who, telling women what they can do with their bodies, spying on a religion, shifting the burden of proof onto anyone who looks Hispanic to prove they're here legally, and drug testing poor people, limited government.

If you believe those are good things, fine, but you don't than get to call yourself the party of "limited government."

Good post as usual Sarah, and you made a point I was just about to post, but it bears repeating:

His "severely conservative" line was ad-libbed, inserted by Romney on the spot on top of his prepared remarks, which he read from a teleprompter.

People on the right like to criticize President Obama's use of a teleprompter. So what does it mean when Romney uses one?

There is also a lot of talk about moving toward the center, far left, far right, etc. It seems to me the entire spectrum has shifted to the right since the late 80's when Christian conservatives started taking over the Republican party.

What exactly is "conservativism"?? Is that when Ronald Reagan can't balance any of his budgets, but is able to pin the lack of fiscal responsibility on the Democrat's welfare programs, while he dumps billions into the "star wars defense program" that mounted to nothing?? Or George Bush who somehow has a tax cut going on while he is in charge of fighting 2 wars that has cost well over +2 trillion and no revenue to pay for it?? Is that the fiscal conservativism that everyone in Republicanism refers to????? Ia that what CPAC types mean by fiscal responsibility????

Hey Fantomdog,

You know who disputes your facts? No one. But I think you have looked at this problem as if it merely has two dimensions. Subprime loans have been around for EVER. Yes, they were a problem in this particular meltdown but they weren't the cause of it. And the problem they were creating should have been dealt with, but wasn't, and it wasn't because democrats refused to do anything to alter the situation.

The reason both Fannie and Freddie should bear the blame, and by extension the federal government for sanctioning and directing them, is because they operated outside of the laws of economics in the context of markets. It doesn't matter if you have too many subprime notes so long as the lenders of them are closely connected to the risk they will fail. The policy of wanting everyone to own their own home was put into place with a whole range of mechanisms, everything from mortgage interest deductions to first time buyer credits to zero down borrowing to, and here is where the you know what hit the fan, buying up paper on the secondary market to subsidize banks into lending more than they otherwise would.

Think about that last sentence. Our government wanted lenders to help borrowers buy homes which, had the government not subsidized the purchase, would not have been bought. What we did was fuel a bubble in the construction and banking and securities industries. Maybe for the best of reasons we did this, but it was always dumb. The homes, btw, would not have been bought for a whole bunch of reasons specific to each situation, whether the bank would have seen too much risk, or the borrower would have realized they couldn't service the debt, but the whole point is that through public policy NOT enacted by Mr. Bush we inflated a bubble that had to pop.

What Mr. Bush tried to do was to stop putting air into the bubble. He failed. And he failed because the likes of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Bobby Scott, Harry Reid, and more, said all is well, nothing here to see at all. You can hate Mr. Bush and love Mr. Obama all you want, but the former tried to fix the problem, the latter helped to worsen it.

This wasn't about subprime lending alone. It was about people wanting to live beyond their means and a government all too willing to help them by helping lenders do what a free market would have never rewarded. The market would have punished this risk-taking earlier. Home prices would have never climbed so far. Fewer people today would be underwater or foreclosed upon. This system had to fail. The only question would be "When?". Lack of regulation had nothing to do with it. Bad regulation and democrat's refusing to reform it had everything to do with it.

Rich: I just finished reading "House of Cards" which does a good job of explaining the mortgage fiasco.

You are correct in some of your explanation but omit the fact that the mortgage institutions were graded by the government on how many loans they gave out to low income people....so yes the government was stupid. This "grading" led the mortgage companies to get REALLY creative in either helping the applicant to fudge their incomes/assets or in many cases they downright made up some really impressively good numbers. Thus, in at least a good number of cases the mortgage companies committed gross fraud and in some cases the mortgage applicants never even knew how good they looked on paper.

Now we can ask "How many of those fraudsters are in jail?" This is the sad part because they made out like the bandits they were while the people who couldn't afford the ballooning interest rates on their adjustable rate mortgages got kicked into the streets.

I know the top Mortgage foreclosure officer for Bank of America, they jokingly call him the "Grim Reaper", its all a big joke, how many did we put out today?

Fantomdog (1.84)

The party of Jefferson was the Democratic-Republicans this became the current Democratic Party. The current Republican Party started in 1854 and is totally unrelated to the Jeffersonian Party. The Whigs split into anti-expansion of slavery and pro-expansion of slavery. The Anti group went on to join with the NEW Republican Party or the Grand Old Party. You did not factually contradict my earlier post, it stands as factually correct.

Romney's Conservative values is outsourcing American jobs and his beloved flip flopping for his 1% buddies.

Obama kept this nation out of a depression.

The winner is "Obama" / 2012 "Guaranteed"

Old fat men are always the last to hear that their candidate already lost, and their party is no longer relevant to the majority of Americans. It's like memory: it goes first.

As for Romney, he's severely something. Conservative? I---- don't think so. Desperate? Maybe. Out of touch? Definitely. Lacking any platform to run on? Obviously. He seems to be the best they've got, and the dump-truck loads of money they are pouring on him can't get him above a 46% favorable rating.

There comes a point, a tipping point if you will, whey throwing money at a problem just doesn't help anymore. That point has been reached. All the people that got burned by the lies that republicans ran on in 2010 are about to get another chance at bat. I wonder if they remember the jobs-jobs-jobs, and don't touch social-security/medicare that they promised when they asked for their jobs? I bet they do.

More than anything else, Mitt Romney is severely hypocritical.

Mitt Romney: He even makes his dog sick.

"SEVERELY" shows that the GOP has a limited grasp of OUR language..

"PROFOUNDLY" would have served Willard so much better...

but then so would a promise TO NEVER EQUIVOCATE or LIE...

but neither of those tenets are considered possible when you are a CONSERVATIVE or a MORMON .

Prez O is smart. He doesn't have to seriously campaign; Just let these RepublicanCrimeCartelThugClowns go public with their unacceptably criminal behavior, and Voila!!!!!

There they are!!!: All TV'd Up! Like Dracula, Frankenstein and The WolfMan; MittTaxPittance Rommel, THEGangrene and, last BUT NOT in the least, The WolfManVomitorium! YESSSSSS!!!!! First off is DRAC: aka MittTaxPittanceRommel, Who will START A WAR WITH Iran, And A very Profitable War for his RepublicanCrimeCartelCorporateMasters AT THAT!! The Count was "nice enough" to expose his taxes!! Hmmm...Let Me See Now...Drac paid 13% on $42,000,000 income EEEZZZZ MONEY: About 5million AND!!! WE American Taxpayer Victims PAID The Count's REMAINING $7,800,000 Tax Liability!!!! Thanks for SUCKING US Dry Drac!!! AND Aren't We "LittlePeople" Thrilled that The Count is nice enough to Let US have the Honor of Paying His Taxes!! He WILL ALLOW Even, the Poor, Whom HE HAS STATED He "DOES NOT CARE ABOUT" To coughUp his Tax Liability!; 'Long as they got A BloodyJob with deductions Drac can get his FANGS into their BloodMoney as small as it might be!
Then There is Frankenstein, err...THEGangrene who, with his department store mannequin "Other Half", will turn to Destructive Rage at the drop of a wrong word or moment!!! EGADZ, This SelfEntitled Creature of Pleasure will Start A War for his RepublicanCorporateMasters AnyWhere, AnyHow, AnyWay, EVEN On The Moon!, as long as there is profit and Franky gets a stipend from it!!! ANYTHING TheGangrene Touches will Putrify and Rot like what is left of OUR AmericanBodyPolitic!!! Watch Franky TRY to Come alive with "lightening" speed at the RepublicanNationalCrimeCartelConvention!!!
Now Comes The WolfMan Vomitorium... What Can be said!! Such a Goot'Lookin'Boy! Ooh Facime! What A Face!! how could he do Anything Unsavory!!! BUT When The CORPORATE SYMBOLS rise in his eyes TheVomitorium begins his hungry and Very Hairy Growling for American Taxpayer's Blood!!!!
Yes!! THERE is your victim Wolfy!! Go and Savage It WolfMan with BloodLust Fangs and All! Our American UniversalHealthCare System!! All of OUR Allys have it, EVEN the TowelHeads Have A NationalHealthCareSystem!, This Political Beast Savaged and ALSO Struck down OUR Bill for AnAmericanNationalHealthCareSystem!!! Then, when The Killing Is Over, Out Steps The 'A nica'Boy Vomitorium; Ooohh!! How CleanCut!! Yes And so are His savage sever wounds on OUR AmericanHealthCareBill!!!!Brother And Sister American Putting these guys In Power is Having Dracula Guard our BloodBanks!!! You Saw What the Count Did......

Romney is also the guy who wants us to believe that his grandfather could put a handful of nails in his mouth and eject them one by one! Whoppers must run in the family!

The only things silver that have been in Romney's mouth are the spoon he was born with, his tongue, and his foot! No nails. Not a one.

He'll have to try one of the usual conservative schticks:

"The sky is falling!" "They're out to get us!" or maybe he'll learn how to gin them up by making them fearful or mad.

Whatever....the game will be over for the conservative nut jobs in November!

Conservatives have killed the Republican Party...it's now the RepubliCon party...."con" for conservatives and "con" as in persuading cajolery.

Romney is a conservative in the same way I am like a bucket of squid. We look the same but we sure don't smell the same.

Republicans throw around the words Conservative = Good and Liberal = Bad. It seems to me that somewhere in the middle is where we should be, because without compromise between the two positions we cannot agree on anything.

That is the problem with today's Congress. They can't agree on anything, and they don't vote for the good of the country, they vote for the good of the Party. Whatever happens, don't let the other party get away with doing anything good for the country!

I don't think I've ever seen such disdain from so many posters for Romney. Who actually likes this guy?

And maybe the bigger question, why does the press seem to only really cover Romney?

Because he can whup Obama, Jungle...get a clue

If he can't even beat Santorum or Gingrich, he can hardly beat Obama.

And like I said, this is DESPITE favorable press coverage from the left and right mainstream media.

It seems like besides the media hardly anyone can stand Romney.

I'd vote for Gingrich, Paul or even Santorum before Romney.

I don't trust Romney as far as I could spit. He sold out to George Bush neo-cons from day 1.

Obama isn't the only one laughing at the GOP circus, punkin.

Over half of the country is, too...

Cheers!

OMG!!!! Romney USED a teleprompter??? Well by GOP viewer standards on how President Obama uses one, Romney is toast, now. hahahahahaha

Get a Clue: You do understand that we are 16 trillion in debt and growing. And you do understand that every deal that has gotten us to where we are has been based on "compromise" don't you??

Compromise is overrated. There is never a right time to do the wrong thing. We need a leader, (not a dictator mind you) and Obama is not it.

Now, to be fair, I don't see anyone running on the Republican side who can fill the bill either. So, no matter which way we go, we're pretty much screwed.

Here is a clue for you. We have had a Trade deficit for 40 years, and our deficit in one year surpasses our Total National Debt for all years. Look at Nafta, and our Trade policy's to find out why we have a National Deficit. Have the Trade policy's benifited our economy or allowed big business/finance to circle the globe?

Jungleboogie: "If he can't even beat Santorum or Gingrich, he can hardly beat Obama."

If Santorum, aka "The Pope" and Gingrich are the republican candidate the independents will vote for Obama and he will be reelected (ugh). If Romney is the candidate the Santorum and Gingrich voters will vote for Romney and he will be elected. In short, Romney is the only republican candidate who can actually win the election.

As long as Romney doesn't put a christian theocrat on the ticket and goes with someone who is middle ground, the republicans will win the election. Go ahead, Jungle, nominate one of the other two guys and then you can complain on Newsvine about how bad Obama is for another four years. Get it now?

His "severely conservative" line was ad-libbed, inserted by Romney on the spot on top of his prepared remarks, which he read from a teleprompter.

I'm trying really hard to keep from laughing.

I also know we were in Iraq & Afg. and a total cost of +2 trillion with no revenue to pay for it, tax breaks during the same time, first time ever in the history of war time in U.S history and I don't recall ever seeing Rep. Paul Ryan crying out DEBT PROBLEM!!!!!DEBT PROBLEM!!! When there clearly was a debt issue as the Bush era was finishing. Why weren't they bitching back then?????????

Romney: human wind-sock. I wish I could take credit for that one, but someone funnier than I came up with that one.

Whether Vanity Romney !

He's the X-treme conservative. He drinks Mountain Dew, diet caffeine free, of course.

You all missed the analogy of Willard - his father was a carpenter - so was Jesus's father a carpenter - Joseph Ergo Willard must be Jesus

Not just conservative, Justin - "severely conservative"!

You know, really, really, really severe!

Just what we need - a masochist.

I'd say he's severely something but conservative is not the first word that comes to mind!

Just what we need - a masochist.

LMAO! What's Romney going to do, tie up the GOP voters and whip them until they believe he's one of them?

Justin Blaque said:

I have seen footage of Romney saying that he was "progressive", but now he is "conservative",

Would that make him a Proconative? A Proconaserve? A Conproative? A Congressive?

As long as we all know it's a Con of some kind...

RealAmericansFirst and euterpe...That would be a sadist..LOL!!!

Put an awesome image in my mind though...Mitt in domatrix garb, lining up fellow naughty boys for a spanking.

Santorum."Me first! Me first! Women just don't UNDERSTAND me!!!"

Mitt in domatrix garb

I know I was stretching, Pam, but that image came to my mind too - and I couldn't resist! Well they do say sadomasochist!

okay Pam, that just made my throw up in my mouth a little, thank you very much! =D

Here, here, Justin. I'm so tired of candidates saying that we need Washington outsiders to come in and fix things. The presidency is a political position. As distasteful as it may seem, we need a policitian in the White House to navigate the ins and outs of Capitol Hill.

If I have a heart attack, I don't want a lawyer cracking my chest open. And if my country's in a mess, I don't want a corporate raider trying to fix things.

easydoesit:

That is exactly why they are called RepubliCons!

Well said, Mike from AZ. And this bs Mitt keeps spouting about being a successful businessman doesn't wash either. A corporation is a tool set up to do two things: make money and gain market share. A government isn't designed to do either. He would be a complete failure as a president.

Perhaps it shows just how screwed up the political system is. You have to go hard to the left/right to get your party's nomination, go center to get elected, and then do what you really think is right once you're in office.

Yeah right, you mean this presidential race is NOT a SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE skit?

Could of fooled me...

Actually Joe...this presidential race is NOT a 'Saturday Night Live' skit - just to let ya know....so don't be fooled

You need to get a new argument or pull your head out and look around. Obama has created so much debt that our greate-great-grand kids will still be paying off. But that seems just ok with everyone. Romney is so much better than anyone of the candidates dem or rep that is running. What next I will answer that one for you it is the White House. It just that simple. So get a better argument or just shut up.

knowndoyen - what was the deficit at in January 2009?

knowndoyen - Romney is NOT a person anyone can trust in the White House. He is bought and paid for. He cares nothing for average Americans. He frankly doesn't give a damn about the country. He has sent more jobs to China than all the other candidates combined. He will never be in the White House - except on a tour.

Seeking, I'm against Romney going on the White House tour. They'd probably need a crane and a jackhammer to haul him out of there!

Romney wants to be President because he thinks with all his good looks and money, the only thing missing is for him to be "King of the World!"

Obama / Biden 2012

American Girl I hate to tell you but Romney is Obama dressed in white skin. Both want to be President of the World.

Neither will though.

Romney is the Republican version of Obama as Obama is the Democratic version of Romney. They both have very similar donors who are very connected from within the government. Oh what a fascist country we live in, amazing most people are blind to this.

Seeking Sanity - you missed sanity somewhere

He is bought and paid for

Actually, he cannot be bought - and cannot buy what he really wants.

Lucky thing Romney has a lot of money, knowndoyen. Rumor has it that when he tells a lie or when someone repeats his lies, he burns a hole in the bottom of his special panties...and them thangs ain't cheap!!

So tired of the Republican scare tactic of "Obama will have our great, great, grandchildren paying his debt!" Do you know that we, the United States of America, were in debt 75 million dollars in 1791? So using the Republican logic, Obama created this debt when he, his mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, and maybe, great grandmother and father weren't even whispers or thoughts in people's minds! USA has been in debt for over 221 years! Can you Republicans please start singing another tune? That song is outdated!

Let's see. Mittens is not in the real world, Newty wants to create some other world,Missouri/latest GOP stunt/ turned things a little, then Paul is lingering. Hmm, how is the PAC's gonna change this? Isn't it wonderful? Heck, I even voted for Perot to stay away from the bullsh*t that was on the slate. But hell, the Gerrymandering,PAC's,benefits to those who are the Republic Leaders of our Country , nowadays is insane. If Obama says he is for the ones that are hurting, that doesn't make a difference. He is a President, not the Senate,Congress, on down to the State level, that have the best Ideas to tell US what to do. While they get the benefits they allow hard working, saving people.

don't aloow hard qorking

Did Derek just post that President Obama is a Fascist? Well that goes against ALL the Republican dogma that President Obama is Socialist. WOW

Yes, but he says he was and I guess still is "severely conservative". The only thing that tops that is being really, really really, really, really, really, really, conservative. Of course, that is his statement for tomorrow

obama opposes free speech and religious liberty. Wonder if he is for Sharia law

and Islamic brotherhood?

RD - do yourself a favor and tune-out that weasel of a man Sean Hannity.

Calling Sean Hannity a man is an insult to us real men...

I think once a GOP is finally the nominee for the Presidency the Democrats will vote Democrat. The Republicans will vote Republicans. Independents will compare Obama to one of three possible candidates, and end up staying with Obama for 4 more years, and watch business and jobs to continue to improve.

Paul I think you are right as far as Obama may get reelected but business and jobs improving. That is a joke!! Obama and his Obama care will raise taxes so much that we will lose more jobs. Him and congress both Dems and Reps love to spend our money. I don't care who you blame for the 15 trillion in debt it needs to be paid down at some point. According to the CBO unemployment will be at 10% by 2013. How will this continue to improve Jobs for the future?? We may and I hope not be in a type of revolution in the very near future.

Just give our current health care system another 10 years when 70% of Americans cannot afford health care and tell me if the Obama health care initiative wouldn't be better than what we are about to see. About the public debt, I agree, but what insults me is that a Rep. Paul Ryan can give us the 6 trillion debt reduction in 10 years with no tax increase and blame it all on entitlements, but that same guy wasn't around yaking his debt theme when we waisted +2 trillion in Iraq & Afg. with no revenue to pay for it, but tax breaks going on at the same time that also resulted in a loss of over 2 trillion in revenue. So effectively the war cost us 4 trillion and thats not a "fiscal" problem??? Explain that!! Becasue this was the first war(s) in our history with tax breaks at the same time, that's FISCAL responsibility???????

"Paul Ryan should be fired, he is a Phony"

Mark--Cute. I'll have to remember that for my Republican friends.

Mark R-638735, Great Joke! Loved it ! Got anymore?

Mark, that's a blast!! lol

good one lol!

One joke for the road - Mickey Mouse stood in divorce court, waiting for the judge's verdict. "Mickey Mouse" commanded the judge, "I cannot grant you a divorce, since the court has found Minnie Mouse to be mentally competent." "But , your honor, I didn't say Minnie was crazy. I said she was f...ing Goofy !"

Ah, but how else are they going to pass the nutjob crazy purity test?

And Santorum, the most conservative, is making a move out of nowhere to be in a statistical dead heat with Obama.

Mitt is having a hard time finding something to torpedo Santorum. If Mitt can't find anything to stop Santorum - neither will Obama.

lol # not beating Santorum.

How about his being against pre marital sex and thinks it should be against the law an women raped cant abort the baby. he wont get 20% of a general vote. Most people are not religious zealots

Obama's fiscal policies...as well as his failed economic policies is his failure...

Leave sex out of it....Obama = epic fail

Santorum is just a religious kook. There happen to be enough religious kooks in the republican party to let him win in some of these cheesy caucuses in the backwater states.

He's not only against premarital sex, he's against sex between married people that aren't actively trying to procreate.

He's not only against abortion, he's against abortion even to save the life of the mother.

There may be enough crazy teabagger nutcases out there to help win a few primaries, but Obama will eat his lunch in a general election. None of the primaries that he's won so far even guarantee him delegates. It's all hot gas.

And with that gas comes the froth....

"Ron Paul is dismissing Santorum as a desperate fool of deception"

"Santorum said rape victims should think of the babies conceived during their assault as gifts from God" This guy is Weird.

That and Oxycontin...can't have one without the other in Rushland...

No Mata, we advocate that you pay for your OWN viagra, abortions and headaches....oh ...umm it's not something you need?

He did hire someone to improve his debate skills - which is why he did so well in Florida. Then he fired him because...well...he likes to fire people. (Actually he was concerned that his coach was getting too much credit for his turnaround). Now, thank heaven's he is back to chewing on his foot.

Americans are fed up with severe anything. Severe has caused obstruction in our government and we need no more of it.

True but half his base won't vote if he isn't extreme and the other half won't if he is.

Johnny Cook

I just think that, “severely conservative” is a very poor choice of words. Mainstream Americans are fed up with extremists.

that's why we are trying to make sure liberals are no longer elected to office.

Larry, that’s wishful thinking for sure.

Larry, why are you guys doing such a poor job?

Larry - in your dreams!

You go Larry, these people think that bullying with no substace is gonna win an election. FACT: OBAMA= EPIC FAIL

Actually, Clinton came in to the mess left by Reagan/Bush I, and turned things around pretty nicely, in spite of the most obstructionist Congress ever (under Gingrich BTW). Remember, he left us with a pretty good-sized surplus, which Dumbya took about a minute and a half to squander.

Now, Obama has inherited an even bigger pile of steaming $h!t from Bush II, and he's starting to make headway in cleaning it up.

Why do self-proclaimed conservatives want our country to fail, just so they can say they were right about Obama. I know it can't be racial, because there has never existed a racist conservative, right?

Himself.

laurie-480643

Mitt says he's "severly conservative". Sounds like something that might be catching!! LOL!! I really have a hard time listening to Mitt because he sounds as if he's always on the defensive....something about the way he speaks. Anyway who is he trying to convince???

Indeed, he does try hard to sell himself, but I don't think he can define himself, let alone his rivals. To date, he's convinced me of nothing, except he's a greed based power hungry d**k that would sell his soul for a shot at the immorality of being the POTUS.

Then inquire. You will find out that your statements are completely false.

Why are you still on to this whole Mormon thing? Stop the hate, man.

bhaskie...his base thinks it's a cult for goodness sake! So who do you think he's trying to convince?

Add to that Joe Smith's "translation" of the book of Mormon was divinely inspired, but that the mormons have made some changes since then (like erasing the racist parts). People say religion shouldn't matter in politics, but the intellectual suicide it takes to believe mormonism should.

Have you read the book of Mormon?

What was racist and When did they take out the racist stuff?

Any "Moron" who would make a statement like you just did when there is freedome of religion in this country doesn't deserve a reply or an answer. I'm so tired of negativity.

"You will find out that your statements are completely false"

Kind of defensive, aren't we? Nothing he said was false. I sympathize with those raised in Mormon communities but they will rarely accept truth, particularly regarding Mr. Smith, a known charlatan. But there is nothing remarkable about believing in myths. Obviously most Americans are guilty of that foible. If Mormonism wasn't so young as a faith we wouldn't be able to get such a clear picture of how it evolved. They shouldn't be ashamed. They believe by faith that which is not provable. That is for sure in the case of the LDS Church.

I do often wonder if a thorough dig at the Hill Cumorah wouldn't show there was no great battle there? Certainly not of the scale described in Mormon doctrine. But would that sway the faithful? Probably not. And we know the geology of the entire story does not fit the known movements of the Earth. And that many similarities exist between these books and other Western NY literature. No surprise. Smith was a fanciful character but no godsend. Who knew the Garden of Eden was really in Missouri? I often ask of Mormons whether they believe that something good can come from a fraud? An interesting question.

Western NY literature?

The constant Mormon bashing that comes with every Romney article is getting old. Get over it and move on.

Dan,

Isn't it the same as bashing Obama because of his name? How many have called him a devout Muslim because of his name?

HA HA OBAMA...Ca$h for Clunker$ President. More $$ wasted than ANY adminstration to 'save the economy' and NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT.

EPIC FAIL.....NEXT

Was it?? My daughter worked at a Honda dealership and said Ca$h for Clunker$ saved their dealership as well as several in the Oklahoma City market while it was in place, looks like the 3 big are hanging in their pretty well now, are you absolutely sure it was a waist???? Like you claim the stimulus that improved 400 projects across the United States, are you sure it was failure?? I know you can bring up the Solyndra problem, (you people like to bring up Solyndra) like you could with any time a near depression occurs like the mistakes made in the 1930's with projects that didn't go as planned. All I need to bring up the billions waisted in the Star Wars program under Reagan, or the trillions waisted under Bush with 2 wars that have taken us NO WHERE.

Amazing that anyone would consider voting for a guy that had those kinds of beliefs. Maybe only a "severely conservative" would. LOL!

It's interesting that when you look at those two books online, that you can easily tell that neither of them are used verbatim. Neither of them are written like scripture, so the only way to use them verbatim, would be to copy something that they were quoting from the Old Testament.

The Book of Mormon (BoM) does quote from Isaiah. According to the BoM, the people brought a record that included some of the Old Testament with them. It does not match word for word with the Bible's version.

View of the Hebrews (VoH), which was published in 1823, contains two groups that did fight with each other on and off, and mentions the Egyptian language. These are the only two parallels that coincide. There are other parallels, like Jerusalem being destroyed (BoM: 587 BC, VoH: 70 AD) and Israelite travelling to the Americas (BoM: by boat, VoH: by the Bearing Strait), but none of these parallels coincide closely with one another.

The Wonders of Nature (WoN), published in 1826, also contains a few parallels, however I could not find any matches at all that directly coincide with one another. Both books talk about a group that may have traveled to the Americas (BoM: During Zedekiah's reign, WoN: During Solomon's reign).

It should be noted that I didn't look for a copy of the Apocrypha.