This tossed me a bit BIG B. But you're a tough cookie to bake at times.
I'll give you that congress is ALL powerful regarding the "tax and spend" files of history. But nothing will ever negate that without a "veto override vote" they are useless. Two years of having their bills sent to GW's desk for his "First time" in six years vetoed, doesn't put the rot at their roots, it lays it at his. This "lame-ass congress" did manage to keep GW and his cronies from signing another "FREE TRADE DEAL" though for few, Corporate very few, it wasn't a good failure. But to all those losing jobs at the fastest rate in our history, it was the first victory for man and country since HE, GW TOOK OFFICE. Gas prices? Really, you think Congress just points a wand at the pumps and down they go? You didn't read of or listen to those countless hearings they ordered to try and get to the bottom of that greed based scam allowed because Gramm and GW made sure the rules were useless, after passing acts well ahead of the 2006 election. What about executive privileges and authorities used pointlessly by GW, why in the name of good common sense didn't he LEAP to the aid of Americans then as well? He declared Clinton the reason oil was $31.00 a barrel in 1999. In 2008 it hit $147.00 a barrel. (He) didn't take the blame then. Though energy deregulation took place under a total republican control and his watch, at least as far as profit taking and trading of energy based stocks were concerned. All GW had to do was get on board with electrics and compressed gas cars as he did HYDROGEN in 2001. That would have turned OIL companies into puppy's instead of the wolves they are. But NO, he gave 1.2 BILLION to a pipe dream that oil companies did not fear, because they, as he knew that it was NEVER a real alternative. NEVER will be either. You know the 5 miracles of Hydrogen? look em up.
You bet I mentioned that Carter's Congress of "inaction liberals" messed with his good ideas. Give me the power to do so, and I'd hold those "Ravenous Wolves"accountable. They lost congress after that didn't they. I'm a tad lost on your argument though. It seems you offer points for my understanding that Congress can make a big difference, good or bad, this or that party, but elude to that being strictly a democratic issue. Nothing to do with any republicans? Though you seem to fail to realize that within that circle of doo-doo, Carter wasn't allowed the effective efforts they(Democrats) turned down. I cannot blame him in that regard. Just as many excuse GW because Congress voted to let him have his Iraq war. Both ways again? We cannot punish one bad seed and let the other off the hook(s) because you don't seem like the representative party. I actually think the party system should be abolished and we should vote on merit or IQ and establish term limits for all elected representatives. I refuse to take pains for being able to call a spade a spade. I distrust ALL politicians and want them ALL made accountable regardless of party.
As for Carter, he served honorably and excelled in Navy service. He didn't hate the military, he preferred to lead nationally instead of a charge up "Hamburger hill" He hated war, not those men and women he served with. He didn't get the funding he needed and hoped to get. He failed here and there, because Congress failed. You are right, it was no coincidence that those hostages were freed the day Reagan took office though you fail to realize that Carter had a greater hand in those negotiations than he was ever given credit for. Why don't we punish presidents who make deals with enemy factions, or- over arms for hostages, by the way? Why don't we punish presidents who secretly sell weapons to enemies to support puppet regimes on foreign soil? What party did that in 1980? What can a group of representatives do in a short 2 years to fix a mess that took a decade to create? You come up with all those answers and I'll apologize to you and EVERY other unrepentant Republican/Democrat who has done nothing wrong leading this nation these past 14 years.
What one will do and say to blow some steam valves at times. Big B, you are perplexing at times and helpful as ever with alternative thought, but within this there are many truths, and as an honest person, who deeply feels our country has been raped by both parties since the eighties especially. I only present that crooks have adorned both party hatsand asked for our votes to do nothing but help a few get rich and powerful. One dirty hand washes the other just as the clean ones do. The "Red Lining" of the Community Reinvestment Act would have made sure that loans were made within legal limits of reasonable repayment ability. Thus NOT forcing lenders into "Bad Loans" The majority of those risky loans were made legally, by private banks that carefully repackaged multiple risky loans then sold them to other banks, failing to disclose the risk. There isn't one provision of the CRA signed by Clinton that actually forced any of these institutions into the type of lending that caused this financial mess. I DARE anyoneto show us the language within the CRA that merely indicates, much less proves that occurred. Fannie and Freddie were put at risk most direly by their own attempts to roll over these loans that their officers knew were risky to start with, in their repackaging schemes.
The Federal Reserve Bank Of Dallas stated that "the CRA may well not be needed in today's financial market because not all segment's of our economy are qualified to credit access." That means simply that households with credit history troubles, especially within neighborhoods where resale is tough, will not qualify for any of these loans at all, while those that do would have to pay a higher interest rate if qualified even under the CRA that Clinton signed. It also is true that those who might qualify with higher rates, were usually offset by a balance of lower mortgage values, versus higher rates. There isn't a higher conspiracy in that, it's just the way markets measure risk so they can manage ways to make credit available. In factthe record proves that Clinton's change into the CRA in 1995, made it more difficult to even get hold of a qualifying loan under the new CRA regulation, giving more credence to numerical(income) emphasis over subjective measures(race, location). The BANKS were rated by performance broken down by neighborhoods, income, and race. That then left them(THE BANKS) to decide the fate of the potential mortgage, be it risky or not. These issues were addressed between 2001 and 2005 by the Bush admin. and determined that if it was legal, the Bush camp wasn't too worried about it. Then even wider deregulation took place from 2001 to 2006 just prior to the next mid-term election. At that point, this administration lent respect to grades and effort rather than results. In fact, Krugman retorted, the CRA was innitiated due to sudden banking deregulation, giving way to mega-mergers that threatened to eliminate fall-back protection in the financial lending market and ratings system. That's why CRA was written----- and between 2001 and 2006 under Bush, the protections within CRA- were deleted. And THEN? THEN the bubble burst.
God Bless.
