Pretty much the take I would expect from a NY Times article.

Ah, yes, Bush's "ownership society."

I guess he thought the more people yip-yip-yapping about "private prop'ty" the better. He was wrong. Oh, thunderbolt!

Yes, the NY Times. The "Paper of Record". "All the news that is fit to print".....that they decide supports their beliefs and causes. The NYT is a sham of a newspaper and articles like the one you cited is exactly why they continue to lose money.

Yep, all Bush's fault,lol..Always get a chuckle from the unbiased NY Times articles ;)

Hey, it all happened on his watch...or better yet, lack thereof...whatever you may think about the NYT, the fact remains that it happened...still is spiraling downward...and he was and still is the President....who, a mere two weeks before all hell broke loose publicly stated that the economy was fundamentally sound.

That said, for those who don't believe the article is factual...do you have any documentation to provide..other than your own dislike of the NYT?

I'd be interested in reading it to see the other side.

This was in our newspaper today, I say: Show me the money!

Banks clam up on bailout
None fully account for share of $700B

By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON
Think you could borrow money from a bank without saying what you are going to do with it? Well, apparently when banks borrow from you they donÂt feel the same need to say how the money is spent.
After receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nationÂs largest banks say they canÂt track exactly how theyÂre spending it. Some wonÂt even talk about it.
Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money, said that while some of the money was lent, some was not, and the bank has not given any accounting of exactly how the money is being used.
"We have not disclosed that to the public. WeÂre declining to," Kelly said.
The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and whatÂs the plan for the rest?
None of the banks provided specific answers.
"WeÂre not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.
Some banks said they simply didnÂt know where the money was going.
"We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout.
The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion  about the size of the Netherlands economy  to help rescue the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money.
There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money  not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks.
But there is no process in place to make sure thatÂs happening, and there are no consequences for banks that donÂt comply.
"It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.
But at least for now, thereÂs no way for taxpayers to find that out.
Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings to the $700 billion bailout in October.
And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.
"Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. "Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?"
Nearly every bank AP questioned  including Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money  responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis.
A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan ChaseÂs plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year.
Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.
But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.
Some said the money couldnÂt be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesnÂt have its own bucket."
But he said taxpayer money wasnÂt used in the bankÂs recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasnÂt being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.
Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: "We are going to decline to comment on your story."
The banks that came closest to answering the questions were those, such as U.S. Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc., that only recently received the money and have yet to spend it.
But neither provided anything more than a generic summary of how the money would be spent.
Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.
"What weÂve been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor them while weÂre doing this," Paulson said at a recent forum in New York. "So weÂre building this organization as weÂre going."

What about Clinton's White House philosophy? He started the ball rolling on this fiasco...

qdognj: "What about Clinton's White House philosophy? He started the ball rolling on this fiasco..."

If you are referring to the Community Reinvestment Act, you need to go back further..to Carter.

That said, there is nothing in the CRA that states that fraud and decpetion should be used to issue home loans. In addition, there is nothing in the CRA that mandates Wall St "geniuses" to bundle worthless mortgages together, rate them triple A, then sell them to investors by misrepresenting the fact that they were worthless. There is nothing in the CRA that mandates CDO's CDF's, derivatives, etc...all instruments created by Wall St. to bolster their BS...with ZERO oversight.

Nothing in the CRA that mandates a bailout for those who executed the fraud...who now can't and won't answer to what they are doing with the money.
Just more offshore accounts getting padded.

After all..who would know..as Bush & Co. did not think it was important to attach strings of control as they dole out 750 bil of OUR money.

Get a grip.

get a grip? Get the info,lol..
Clinton's Repeal of The Glass Steagall Act is to what i refer...

qdognj: "Clinton's Repeal of The Glass Steagall Act is to what i refer...

Actually, although he signed it, the REAL catalyst was Sen Phil Gramm.

That said, who stopped Bush in his 8 year run from repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley? Especially when he was alerted at least 2-3 years ago that the housing market was going to implode due to what Wall St. was doing with the sub-primes? Notice....if he had tried, we would have heard about it.

Read on...

"Gramm and the 2007 mortgage and 2008 economic crises

Some economists state that the 1999 legislation spearheaded by Gramm and signed into law by President Clinton the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was partly to blame for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis.[8][9] The Act is most well known for repealing portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had regulated the financial services industry. Gramm responded to such criticism by stating that he saw "no evidence whatsoever" that the subprime mortgage crisis was caused in any way "by allowing banks and securities companies and insurance companies to compete against each other."[10]

The Washington Post in 2008 named Gramm one of seven "key players" responsible for winning a 1998-1999 fight against regulation of derivatives trading.[11] Gramm was later critical to passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which kept derivatives transactions, including those involving credit default swaps, free of government regulation.[12] The Act, it should be noted, passed the House by an overwhelming majority and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, though it was introduced on the last day before Christmas holiday and never debated by either congressional body. [13]

2008 Nobel Laureate in Economics Paul Krugman, a supporter of Barack Obama, described Gramm during the 2008 presidential race as "the high priest of deregulation," and has listed him as the number two person responsible for the economic crisis of 2008 behind only Alan Greenspan.[14][15] On October 14, 2008, CNN ranked Gramm number seven in its list of the 10 individuals most responsible for the current economic crisis.[16]

[edit] John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

Gramm was co-chair of John McCains presidential campaign[17] and his most senior economic adviser[18] from the summer of 2007[19] until July 18, 2008.[17] In a July 9, 2008 interview on McCain's economic plans, Gramm explained the nation was not in a recession, stating, "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession." He added, "We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."[20] Gramm's comments immediately became a campaign issue. McCain's opponent, Senator Barack Obama, stated, "America already has one Dr. Phil. We don't need another one when it comes to the economy. ... This economic downturn is not in your head."[21] McCain strongly denounced Gramm's comments.[22] On July 18, 2008 Gramm stepped down from his position with the McCain campaign.[23] Explaining his remarks, Gramm stated that he had used the word "whiners" to describe the nation's politicians rather than the public, stating "the whiners are the leaders."[24] In the same interview, Gramm said, "I'm not going to retract any of it. Every word I said was true."[25]"

For more on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, see below. Passed at the end of Dec 2000, in the standard political maneuver around the standard process, this too could have been addressed by Bush..the "DECIDER". Note..it never happened. Why is that??

"That said, who stopped Bush in his 8 year run from repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley? Especially when he was alerted at least 2-3 years ago that the housing market was going to implode due to what Wall St. was doing with the sub-primes? Notice....if he had tried, we would have heard about it."

I don't know - maybe the Constitution. The Executive Branch has no power to "repeal" laws. The Congress makes and repeals laws.

Go after Gramm, Greenspan, Dodd, Frank .... There are a lot of actors here. Bush can be blamed for many things but he did little to nothing in regards to the credit crisis. You could easily say that he did nothing to help and I have no argument except that the legislators that were on the Banking committee did nothing also. These people should have been more on top of this problem.

This whole issue is a good illustration that Presidents are not uniformly responsible for the condition of the country. There is no way they can predict problems that experts can't find and even if they could they are surprisingly impotent at fixing them. Luck is the single most important piece of the equation on whether a President has a successful term(s).

Bush did a number of stupid things but that doesn't mean he was responsible for every stupid thing that government has done. Despite the NYT's rambling.... It really has become a ridiculous paper that shamelessly pushes its agenda. The really damaging problem is that even people outside of NY still think of it as a credible national publication.

david cary: "I don't know - maybe the Constitution. The Executive Branch has no power to "repeal" laws. The Congress makes and repeals laws"

However, the President does indeed have the power of the Executive Order, which Bush has not been shy about using numerous times. Except in this instance, he seems to have conveniently forgotten that his power to issue them still exists...and instead, just behaved like a deer in the headlights, frozen in place.

You are correct in your statement that he did little or nothing regarding the credit crisis...which therein lies the problem...as he did nothing to make certain that at the very least the SEC in the form of HIS appointee, Chris Cox, was indeed performing his job...as opposed to turning the other way re: Bear Stearns,Madoff,etc.

He also let HIS pick for Treasury Secy ex-Goldman CEO Paulson hand out over 400 billion to Wall St. with specific language that states that their is zero requirment for the firms to account for how the money is spent.

Newsflash...being President means that "the buck stops here".

Anyone who believes that the President can refuse to take responsibility for doing all possible to mitigate the effects of national catastrophes by sheer bungling, inaction, or planned action, whether they are in the form of Iraq, Katrina or a financial meltdown, gets the government they deserve.

And..as far as the NYT is concerned..I have no affinity for it one way or the other. However, I am still waiting for links to articles from other media sources that disproves the NYT article.

Have any?

I believe it goes back further, even further than Reagan's drive to get govt out of big businesses lives. Of course this is always packaged as being good for us citizens, 'getting govt out of OUR lives,' LOL. Actually if someone knows when industry lobbying began, that's where the root of this is. As long as special interests can pump millions/billions into campaign donations and lobbying, our elected officials will do what those special interests want.

I've read reports from the FBI going back a few years about rampant mortgage fraud in the real estate industry. This administration was warned in no uncertain terms that this meltdown we're in now could happen, and nothing was done to stop it. Had most of the crooks been consumers I think something woudl've been done, but the FBI found most of the crooks were in the housing and lending industries--the very industries that have those lobbyists and all that money.

Excellent points fathen, and they underscore the findings of the NY Times article that some are so loathe to believe....

"However, the President does indeed have the power of the Executive Order, which Bush has not been shy about using numerous times."

Executive orders cannot be used to 'repeal' a law.
They can be used to extend a law when it is not clear, or in areas that congress has not taken direct control over by passing laws.

I never stated that an executive order can repeal a law.

However, the use of the executive order is not as black and white as it may seem.

"...Critics fear that the president could make himself a de facto dictator by side-stepping the other branches of government and making autocratic laws. The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben in particular has criticized the generalization since World War I of the use of executive orders or decrees by all Western democracies, declaring that this tends toward the constitution of a "permanent state of exception." The presidents, however, cite executive order as often the only way to clarify laws passed through the Congress, laws which often require vague wording in order to please all political parties involved in their creation...."

That said, Bush could have used an EO to "clarify" the terms of the 750 billion hand-out...or better yet, vetoed it unless accountability was included. He did neither.

Enough said.

There really isn't a credit crisis. Blown out of proportion like everything else this last decade. Default swaps could easily be outlawed and defaulted, and only the premium paid be returned, not the policy amount. Debts would cancel each other out. Simple.

As for Bush - he made quite a few decisions that were immune from scrutiny under the guise of secrecy from terror. Many had nothing to do with it. The lack of scrutiny came from having 1 party in charge rubber stamping all. Same will happen with the other side in charge of both. Maybe we need to add some form of coalition type congressional structure - like all the newer democracies have made; it forces oversight and cooperation.

Agreed for the most part. So many love to blame one party or the other as if there is any real difference aside from the smoke and mirrors set forth by each..however, there are bad guys on both sides. Bush was and is but just one of them.

I thought this link would provide some interesting information on who said what regarding this mortgage mess we are in. You decide which party is using the smoke and mirrors with an enabling largely biased media. If one party wasnt so insistent that we had nothing to investigate, and also forced the banks to make a certain quota of loans to those who really didnt qualify - we wouldnt be in so bad a mess. The New York Times is a great spinner but most people dont see them for the joke they are. This is what makes me so afraid for this country, too many people believing the main stream media. Everyone should be aware of these politicians and their part in this mess, but they are getting a complete pass as usual.

Great link! Scary isn't it?

I tried to redo my post and show another link, it has the timeline for the dates when Bush stated we had a problem, it was 2001!! then he said it was a larger threat to the country in 2003. Where is the New York Times and the responsible politicians? Its like its more important to fight against party lines then do the right thing for the country, I cant see anytime the president got real cooperation except after 911. Even then it wasnt long before everyone said he made up the weapons of mass destruction claims. Forget the UN had sanctions for Iraq back in the Clinton administration for the very thing. The media has to be more accountable and less biased. How can we ever change this problem?

pollyanna...you DO relaize that the
"F" ins Freddie and Fannie stands for "Federal" ..or don't you?

As such, BOTH have always been a GSE..."GOVERNMENT Sponsored Enterprise".

As such, the head honcho is the President..and for the last 8 years, that was indeed George Bush who had zero problem issuing numerous Eexcutive Orders and Vetos when he wanted something done his way.....which indicates that reigning in the Mac was not a high priority on his "to-do list.

And, apparently you missed the fact that WMD's were never found...which is why it is believed that the intelligence folks under the dircection of Cheney/Bush cooked up this excuse at Cheny'/Bush's direction in order to bamboozle the country into supporting the invasion. After all, there is no quatifiable evidence to the contrary.

In 2005 the US offically called off the search for the phantom WMD's...which were supposed to be the reason for being in Iraq. Notice we are still there...4 years AFTER the US admiited there were none to be found.

And..as far as the UN sanctions are concerned, they were intitated during George Bush Sr's Presidency in '90...and were not as you described. Their stated purpose was at first to compel Iraq's military to withdraw from Kuwait and after that to compel them to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction, and to do certain other things. They ended in 2003, one year inot Clinton's Presidency....but we still continue to occupy Iraq in this debacle 6 years later.

Your points are all moot.

Ok, I see where you stand politically, so, give all the liberal people whos duties were to oversee Freddie mac and Fannie mae a pass, they fought tooth and nail as the videos clearly show, (stating passionately that everything was fine and it was basically a witch hunt), but lets blame it all on Bush anyway. Perhaps if he had been a democrat and made those statements about the pending dangers then Dodd, Waters, Frank & co. would have said yes lets take a responsible look at our potential problems and make sure we dont implode? You are supporting my case with your bias, this terrible blindness of party lines is what causes these problems, weather its a politician or a reporter. In this case, they just couldnt bear to work with him when he started to interfere and question what was going on and now look where we are. And Clinton and Obama cohort Franklin Raines who made millions in his time at Fannie Mae is completely without fault as well? Is it because of his political leaning and connections? Sorry to point the finger in a different direction, there is actually lots of evidence that this was a democratic screw up of huge proportions and yet you want to make this a Bush problem exclusively? That is completely illogical and shows bias.
And as for old santioned Sadam - how does your logic go- do we go into denial?- he actually didnt use nerve gas against his people and neighboring countries and never actually bragged about the WOMDs he was working to develop, the nerve gas suits found by our military were just for fun dress up, and the people he gassed were a made up fairy tale. The empty passenger planes in the sand in the desert was not really for training terrorists, and Mohammad Atta who flew one of the twin towers jets was only meeting Sadams ambassadors in Europe for a high tea, not for any plotting or actual connection to the twin tower attacks?
As for how long we are staying in Iraq, I find it a sad situation, but for our militarys sake, not because I feel remorse for what we did to Sadam or care about who we offend in the interim. Certainly not for offending the countries who went behind our backs with the oil for food scandal during the sanctions.
The sad truth is that we cant quickly end wars in Mid eastern countries because more extremists come across the borders to fight the cause, it will never end this easily. They dont have the structure we have meaning there is no penalty for being a terrorist in those countries, so those people just keep crossing borders to join the fight. Here you would be in jail for that activity. Unfortunately those types seem to only respond to those hard core and heavy handed dictator types that are feared such as Sadam, without those dictators in power it seems impossible to control those extremists. We are in a catch 22. In Germany after the war there was years of this hit and run attacks, in some ways the same as we see in present day Iraq.
I dont think we will see eye to eye, your points dont move me and have no logic, but extreme political bias does not carry much logic. So lets agree to disagree, you can not make any point in this matter to change my opinion. I dont think I want to address this anymore either, this forum really isnt a political forum. You made your point about the mortgage mess, I thought it was politically biased and wrong and I made mine. See ya

Very well said pollyanna! When are the far left loons, and rags like the NY times going to learn? They all seem to be suffering from the worst case of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" that I have ever seen.

One other point on the blame game: Logic- what about the fact that Barney Frank's ex boyfriend and live in lover, Herb Moses, was Fannie Mae's assistant director for product initiatives while frank was on the House banking committee.
You want to talk about Cronyism!!!!!!!!! That's about as good as it gets.

Read the link below and make sure you read the part where Bill Clinton is quoted about the Democrat's and Frank's involvement in restisting and blocking any tightening of credit at Fannie and Freddie.

Let's face it Bush, Congress, the Fed, even the individuals who got mortgages that they knew they could not afford played a role in this and to try and single one person out for the blame is ludacris.

It's time to move on. Bush is gone, and now its time to see how many of Obama's promises he is going to "crawfish" on.

Due to Bush's policies, actions, and the brave men and women in this great country's military and department homeland defense our nation has not been attacked since 911. That is undeniable.

BTW, how many ex gitmo detainees are you going to personally sponsor when Obama closes down gitmo and releases all of those poor mistreated/misunderstood terrorists?

Pollyanna...IMO, you need to read, listen and watch a broad spectrum of reports...not just those espoused by Fox news and Rush.

I'm assuming this is why you seem to be unaware of the fact that both Bush and Cheney stated that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. See the link below.
That said, I had 5 relatives that barely escaped the towers on 9/11..and a friend as well as a neighbor who perished in the horror.

However, if for some unfathomable reason, you still buy into this nonsense, ask yourself WHY the man who everyone admits was behind 9/11 (as well as the first bombing of the WTC in '93) Osam Bin laden, was left to re-establish Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan, while we wasted time and billions on the man the President said had no link to 9/11?

Let me know your conslusion.

That said, therie are crooks in both parties...otherwise, Wall st. would never have been able to pull off the scam that they did....however...that does not negate the fact that Bush found a way to get his way via vetos and executive orders...despite opposition on a myriad of issues...except, he failed to use those tools in the Frannie/Freddie debacle. Why?

He WAS the President...and as such, the buck stops there...despite the excuses that some would like to make to absolve him of reponsibility.

BTW...I have ZERO party affiliation. I am proudly independent.

That said, it would do you well to bear in mind the old adage...."When one assumes...."

rar1: "Due to Bush's policies, actions, and the brave men and women in this great country's military and department homeland defense our nation has not been attacked since 911. That is undeniable."

The country was also not attacked between '93 and 2001. Who do we credit for that???

I'm definitely glad bush is finally out of office TODAY

logic-
You stated it well. I, too, wonder how the absence of something happening is considered evidence of an accomplishment. And if there had been a second attack on Bush's watch, I wouldn't have necessarily considered it evidence of a failure. I have no doubt we will be attacked again, and it's not a function of what President is in office or how "tough" he/she is. It's driven by much more complex issues than that. Didn't Rumsfield say that, in war, "stuff happens"?

Logic, there you go again. We have a difference in opinion due to what we choose to believe in the media. I admit I do trust more of what I see on Fox and less than I see in the NYT, cant stand Rush. I see far more sins of ommissions in NYT and CNN because I think they are so obviously left leaning, and they have finally achieved their goal, we have a liberal president. We will probably go ever so much closer to being a socialist country than ever before. It should be very interesting if it doesnt collapse the monetary system.
There is so much evidence that Sadam was involved in supporting terrorism, but the main stream media wants to slant findings of the 911 to practically deduce that he had no terrorist connections at all. I dont think any sane person feels that he was uninvolved with terrorist activities, and as for putting a competant commission together to find their own butts - with our politicians would be difficult. Heres a link to more information from that finding that the media leaves out when stating there is no link between Sadam and 911 (which I believe is obvious, though not proven to the commissions satisfaction).
Anyway Bush is gone, I hope we can move on in some positive way. I still do not feel the mortgage mess lies at his feet any more than it does at Clintons, it took years of bad mortgages to create this mess, and the overseers who I previously linked video to -who rejected investigations have a huge amount of responsibility, as well as those politicians who created policies which forced the banks to take on some percentage of these mortgages which would normally not have been allowed because they were not qualified buyers.
I am sure at the root of all of that they thought they were giving people a fair chance, but government just cant seem to get the job done right. Now we are going to create more government jobs to get us out of this mess?
Like Reagan said the most fearful words are "Im from the government and Im here to help."

pollyanna-
As has been said before by others, some Republican movers and shakers believe government can't work, and, when elected, ensure that it doesn't. As a past employee of both the private sector and the government over a 30+ year career, I found this to be true more than once. And I can particularly empathize with your negative view of government, especially after the last 8 years in which many appointees were truly not competent to lead their agencies and to facilitate the work they were supposed to do. I don't know what the next 4 years will bring, but it might help if we all withhold judgment for a while. When I looked up the Wikipedia article on Pollyanna, it said that the name refers to "someone who is cheerfully optimistic and who always maintains a generous attitude toward the motives of other people." I may not always succeed, but I'm trying to be that way, too.

logic- I think you need to take your own advice to heart... and broaden your reference list. You claim to be proudly independent, yet the references that you cite are all from left wing liberal rags. The last one from SeattlePI.com is known as the most liberal of the two liberal daily publications in Seattle. May be you do consider your references broad since the ones you cite are from two different coasts.

As far as WMD's they were there and Saddam used them on his own people. Or may be that was some sort of green house/global warming gas that Saddam used to kill all of those women and children. Numerous intelligence sources outside of the US comfirmed the appearance of weapons and production facilities. I guess the fact that Saddam actually used WMD's has no bearing on the truth?

"The country was also not attacked between '93 and 2001. Who do we credit for that???" Are your kidding me?
You even mentioned the WTC bombing, what about the killing of US troops in Somalia and Saudi Arabia, and the USS Cole? You need to read the link below and find out why Clinton failed to protect this country and let Bin Laden get away numerous times due to his inaction and restrictive policies. Using your "logic" the buck should stop with him. Maybe all of that cigar smoke and intern action clouded his judgement!

For those of you that "wonder how the absence of something happening is considered evidence of an accomplishment" I have two words for you: birth control. Think about it! What about medical vaccines? Highly effective and the proof is in the fact that you don't get diseases like polio and others.

kudzu9-Republicans do not believe that government can't work...they believe that a larger/bigger government can't work. As apposed to the Democrats that believe the people can't exist without a larger government taking care of them. Like giving tax cuts to people that don't pay taxes.

For the sake of our country I too hope the next administration can make a difference, but it is not looking good so far.

We have an attorney general nominee that pardoned Marc Rich for buying Iranian oil while they held americans hostage, pardoned FALN terrorists who bombed and killed americans. We have a Sec. of State nominee whos husband's foundation accepts "donations" from countries that are considered a conflict of interest, and HE is the main reason we are still looking for bin laden. We have a Treasury Secretary, who will be in charge of the IRS, that does not pay his taxes, it was only when he was nominated that he completely paid the balance that he owed. He also tried to deducted his kid's summer camp expenses from his taxes. The nominee for Commerce Secretary had to withdraw because he is under investigation for a "pay for play" scheme. Then there's associations Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and Gov. Blogo...all class acts!

Is this really the change and sound judgement the country needs and was hoping for?

rar1-
I agree with you that using birth control prevents conception and that using vaccines prevents disease. Those are scientifically demonstrable facts, not unprovable, political assertions. The reason we have not had another terrorist attack could be due to George Bush's policies, the incompetence of terrorists, the will of God or Allah, to luck, or the phases of the moon. It's all speculation. As my old engineering professor always reminded us: "Correlation does not mean causation."

rar1-
Sorry...I overlooked your point about big government, smaller government. Not all Democrats want bigger government...most of us just want it to function effectively and professionally, regardless of size. I can only speak from my personal experience: I've worked for a number of Republican appointees who disliked government so much they effectively crippled the offices they were in charge of. They did nothing to curb its size or budget, but did succeed in diminishing their office's effectiveness and reputation, and demoralizing staff. In the private sector, this would have been the equivalent of destroying your own brand. I assure you that the mess in New Orleans, for example, had little to do with available resources or staff, and much to do with incompetence and lack of leadership from the top down. Sadly, that's only one of many examples. And if you re-read what I wrote, I didn't characterize all Republicans as disbelievers in effective government...just some of the influential ones that have held sway recently. I also understand why many true Republicans are unhappy right now...because a Republican President and Congress abandoned the core Republican principles about smaller government that have been central to the Party's previous success. When someone like William F. Buckley's son Christopher, who recently resigned as editor of National Review, wrote that the Bush Administration's "[e]ight years of 'conservative' government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance," anything else I could say is superfluous.

pollyanna: "There is so much evidence that Sadam was involved in supporting terrorism,"

Pollyanna,
Saddam was an evil, immensely controlling dictator..who did not tolerate terrorists....as he was the only one to have any power...

Terrorists only took a foothold and then gained strength in Iraq once WE toppled Saddam.That said, you side stepped the issue that Osama was ignored by the Bush adminstration in favor of Saddam. Why is that...when even the Bush administration stated that Osama was the one behind 9/11 (and the '93 bombing of the WTC, the USS Kohl, etc)....yet under the Bush/Cheney/Rove dictum all efforts were concentrated in Iraq?

This is a main reason why over 70% of the country disapproves of Bush...he has lost the ability to bamboozle them.....no one believes him anymore...as he lied way to many times to have any credibility.

And...the link you provided was to a supposed, unverified "military" website...so, again, your point is moot.

rar1,
The link I provided was the first that popped up on google...feel free to google on your own; you will find numerous links stating the same....maybe even one that you actually "approve" of...LOL!

Here, for your convenience, is Bushy boy in his own words, retracting his statements re: Saddam & Terrorists...

Yes indeed there were many attacks on US interests abroad while Clinton was in office...and indeed his distraction of his own personl issues (Monica, Whitewater et al) left him little time apparently to do much else.

However, I made that point about no attacks between '93 and '01 only to demonstrate that just as he (Clinton) can't be credited with no attack on US soil...neither can George.

In addition, George is responsible for the loss of almost twice the number of US lives, as well as the destruction of countless others via the miltary he has sacrificed in his "war". IMO military lives are just as precious as those lost in on 9/11. He has weakened and decimated our military to such an extent, if we ARE attacked, heaven help us.

I don't think 9/11 had anything to do with the housing and mortgage market fiasco, did it?
How about getting back on track, or start a new discussion, which probably will not last long here.

As for being on track, your absolutely right, isnt this a site for getting useful information on buying and selling homes? Slamming ex presidents doesnt seem like useful information for this forum, but I didnt want so see a hit and run comment just go. If you are going to make political statements, expect about half the population to disagree with you, and keep it in the proper venue also. This isnt a proper place for a thread like this. It would seem its about time for them to clear this thread about now. Im heading back to the decorating forum this thread is a little ugly and not useful to anyone seeking buying and selling homes information.

The original thread was about the mortgage debacle...quite relevant to the forum.

It IS a political issue...they are both hopelessly intertwined.

Those who don't wish to discuss such need not do so.

No terrorist attacks between 93 and 01???? Is that statement supposed to be a joke?

"No terrorist attacks between 93 and 01???? Is that statement supposed to be a joke?"

There were NO major terrorist attacks by foreigners in the US I know of between '93 and 9/11/01.
I wouldn't call the Empire State Building Sniper Attack on 2/23/97 a major one.

patser: "No terrorist attacks between 93 and 01???? Is that statement supposed to be a joke?"

Only if one read my posts incorrectly. Please review:

"Yes indeed there were many attacks on US interests abroad while Clinton was in office...and indeed his distraction of his own personl issues (Monica, Whitewater et al) left him little time apparently to do much else.

However, I made that point about no attacks between '93 and '01 only to demonstrate that just as he (Clinton) can't be credited with no attack on US soil...neither can George.

Weren't the first World Trade Center bombings in 1993? That's US soil as far as I can tell. I'd also call the bombing of US military ships, no matter where they are floating, to be bombings as well.

And then Oklahoma City can be thrown in for good measure. But then you'd have to differentiate between Christian and non-Christian attacks. And then how many have to be killed to be called "major"?

"Weren't the first World Trade Center bombings in 1993?"

What is being talked about, are the bombings between the WTC of '93 and '01 timeframe.

"I'd also call the bombing of US military ships, no matter where they are floating, to be bombings as well."

Sure, they are bombings, but NOT on US soil.
You might want to claim ownership of the seas and harbors, but I'm sure many countries will let you know where their borders are.

"But then you'd have to differentiate between Christian and non-Christian attacks."

No, the argument here is between US citizens and non-US citizens.

Thnaks Berniek, for clarifying for patser.

That said, as far as home grown terrorism vs. terrorism committed by foreign entitites is concerned, lets not forget that there appears to be quite a double standard.

After all, if Osama & Co. had caused the financial carnage in the nation that Wall St caused, it would be a terrorist attack on our economy.

Wall St. does it...and is business as usual.

We are our own worst enemey, as we have allowed Wall St. to do far, far more financial damage than was done by the 9/11 attacks.

Granted...only a few lives have been lost so far in the Wall St debacle....but countless livilhoods, families and buisnesses have been destroyed.

Yet, we give the perpetrators even more $$$$$ to play with...from the very pockets of those who have been screwed the most.