All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Question: Do people know that Wall Street backed Obama in 2008 overwhelmingly? It's true. Look it up. Why is that?
Obama spent almost double what McCain did. Do people know that?
Obama received barrels of cash not only from Wall Street, but from many big businesses, such as GE, British Petroleum, and so on. Why? I thought Republicans are the party of big business?
Even a clock, which is correct twice a day, has a better record than some who argue here.
The Clinton surplus: this surplus was unanticipated even by Clinton. It was achieved because of unexpected growth in GNP. What achieved this growth?
3 things: first, Clinton's budgets, particularly stating in 1994, were modest. There is something to be said for gridlock. In 1994, for the first time in decades, a Republican Congress was elected, a reaction to the more liberal policies of Clinton's first 2 years. The result was a moderation of Clinton, who had originally campaigned as a moderate anyway.
The second spur to growth was the dotcom boom.
The third spur, and people need to remember this, was the faulty accounting(which had nothing to do with Clinton) that allowed the boom to continue past its natural cycle. We should have had a natural recession in the late 90s. But the faulty accounting allowed the boom to continue, based on inflated numbers. The cooked books were inevitably discovered around 2000(remember Enron, Global Com?), and the bubble burst. Bush had to deal with it. It was not Clinton's fault!! But nonetheless, Bush did inherit a mess, and only a highly filtered lens would allow someone to forget that.
the housing bubble: like the Depression, these things are complicated and will be argued over forever. But the simple truth is that like most recessions, a bubble fueled by speculation is at the heart. In this case, it was real estate.
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. But it was not pushed until the Clinton years. And I am old enough to remember it well. Studies were in the paper very day criticizing banks for not lending to minorities. These studies were not allowed to take into consideration credit worthiness, which should be a warning to what was to come. So the feds pushed hard on banks. And Fanny and Freddy became heavy players, eventually holding backing most of the mortgages in the country.
Basically, the government demanded banks back mortgages to people that shouldn't have got them. Combined with deregulation on how banks could invest, package and trade these mortgages(in 1997, under Clinton), and with the government essentially backing these through Fanny and Freddy and their army of lobbyists, the biggest bubble in history was created. I have oversimplified slightly here, but this is not my theory. It's supported by most economists, and there's a great book that came out a couple years ago by a NYT writer detailing this, I forget the name.
The bursting bubble caused the recession. No one seriously argues this. People can talk about the role of regulation, rightfully so, but it all goes back to the real estate bubble.
Google is your friend. You will find all this on pretty much any financial website. But be careful. The Lefties don't like blaming the bubble. Why?
Mostly because they would have to admit the bubble was fueled initially by government action. And they LIKE government. They really, really do. So they don't like this explanation at all. Much more fun to say Wall Street is evil and Bush is a stupid lackey.
Could Bush have done something to prevent the collapse? Yes, possibly. For one thing, he could have reformed Fanny and Freddy. And he even made an attempt at that. But those quasi govt companies had bought off people like Frank and Dodd. Frank's boyfriend ran Fanny and made many millions. Liberals were not going to agree to reform of those agencies.
What else could he have done? There were regulatory changes he could have and should have made. Easier to see in hindsight. Too complicated to go into here.
Finally, there is the matter of Andrew putting things in peoples mouths that he shouldn't. In this case, words: "The assertion that the GFC was predicated on (what you failed to mention but have stated before) the Democratic Congress of the '06 mid-terms forcing lenders to provide mortgages is factually incorrect"
Never said or thought it. Forcing lenders, or more accurately, creating pressures and incentives to push this lending, began in the Clinton years. No one questions this, except maybe fools at places like MotherEarth. Once the ball got rolling, people realized they could make money, especially with their friends in Congress backing things because they were "too big to fail".
Don't trust me on these things. Do your own research. But don't go to left wing blogs that will twist reality to fit what they imagine.
This was said about Repub convention: "It has to do with, first of all the real lack of authentic and honest representation of diversity."
I asked the person if they actually watched any of it, because more than half of the speakers were either minority, female, or both.
Surprisingly, he knew this, and listed the speakers. He said I must have a "narrow definition" of minorities, and that these were not real minorities, but "minstrels".
So when liberals watch Condaleeza Rice speak, they must put on special glasses that enable them to see a pasty white man speaking. This is how eager they are to distort reality. They won't even believe their lying eyes.
No point attempting to dissuade you of your points of view. But no one with a command of the facts and a unbiased mind will begin to equate the dotcom bubble with the events of late 2008.
If I have to, I will go back to the index of discussions on this very site that will disprove this:
"Finally, there is the matter of Andrew putting things in peoples mouths that he shouldn't. In this case, words: "The assertion that the GFC was predicated on (what you failed to mention but have stated before) the Democratic Congress of the '06 mid-terms forcing lenders to provide mortgages is factually incorrect"
It is comments like this that blow apart your I'm not a Repubican argument:
"So when liberals watch Condaleeza Rice speak, they must put on special glasses that enable them to see a pasty white man speaking. This is how eager they are to distort reality. They won't even believe their lying eyes."
This is well known:
"Question: Do people know that Wall Street backed Obama in 2008 overwhelmingly? It's true. Look it up. Why is that?
Obama spent almost double what McCain did. Do people know that?
Obama received barrels of cash not only from Wall Street, but from many big businesses, such as GE, British Petroleum, and so on. Why? I thought Republicans are the party of big business?"
But as Google is your friend, I'm sure you're able to find out how much was raised by small donors as a % of the total pie.
Economist uses great examples to explain how government and established businesses join forces to suppress new business and eliminate competition. This is why Big Business has become more and more Democrat over the years.
"So when liberals watch Condaleeza Rice speak, they must put on special glasses that enable them to see a pasty white man speaking. This is how eager they are to distort reality. They won't even believe their lying eyes."
(Andrew's reply) This is well known:
So Andrew really does think Condaleeza Rice is a pasty white man. Maybe he should write a short about her unmasking. Maybe Dick Cheney is really underneath. Isn't Dick behind everything, Andrew? And Halliburton? Come on, you know that's your dream. Admit it.
And go ahead, look through old posts. I never said the Democrat Congress of 2006 began the sub prime lending to unqualified buyers, or however you choose to word it. Barney Frank did stand in the way of any reform at that time, but this push began under Clinton in the 1990s. Go ahead, search all you want. Or even better, just keep making stuff up.
So Andrew really does think Condaleeza Rice is a pasty white man. Maybe he should write a short about her unmasking. Maybe Dick Cheney is really underneath. Isn't Dick behind everything, Andrew? And Halliburton? Come on, you know that's your dream. Admit it.
And go ahead, look through old posts. I never said the Democrat Congress of 2006 began the sub prime lending to unqualified buyers, or however you choose to word it. Barney Frank did stand in the way of any reform at that time, but this push began under Clinton in the 1990s. Go ahead, search all you want. Or even better, just keep making stuff up.
I know that, frankly, you're nuts, but you're either too dumb or too mischievous to realise you attached my response to the wrong quote. Nice try, though, mate. I clearly said it's well known that Obama received big bucks from business. Here's the evidence below (I'm assuming you know what ":" denotes, but assume you don't apologise 'cos you think you're right about everything):
"This is well known:
"Question: Do people know that Wall Street backed Obama in 2008 overwhelmingly? It's true. Look it up. Why is that?
Obama spent almost double what McCain did. Do people know that?
Obama received barrels of cash not only from Wall Street, but from many big businesses, such as GE, British Petroleum, and so on. Why? I thought Republicans are the party of big business?"
But as Google is your friend, I'm sure you're able to find out how much was raised by small donors as a % of the total pie."
That you think big business aligns with the Democrats shows you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's embarrassing. I have no time or inclination to debate with you. Cheerio, old chap.
As you can tell from the posts, I avoided addressing your comments, Andrew, until you brought me into the conversation, once again putting words in my mouth.(see your comments about 2006 and mortgages). When you adopt the fictional reality on which you base your world views, that's one thing. But when you again begin making up things that I said, that's another.
I did mistakenly quote box your comment above. That was due to the jumbled and uninteresting nature of your remarks. If you think your comments about quotation marks make you clever, well, you really do live in a bubble.
Don't expect an apology. I dealt respectfully with your arguments in the past, even though they were not so much arguments as slogans plucked off Leftist websites. Incoherent, unimaginative, unoriginal...but they were your beliefs, so I respected them.
I didn't much care for your hit and run manner of argument, where you simply change the subject when faced with counter arguments or contradictory facts. I understood, though, because I know how important these beliefs are to your sense of self and your perceived moral superiority.
But you began to cross a line recently with your personal remarks, so the personal regard I held for you faded just like your world view does under the light of reality. You may lack the time to debate with me, but you also lack the ammunition and the firepower. Enjoy the bubble.
^^ Well, as pointless as anything else! Well-conducted political debate is at least as useful a mental exercise as a sporting match is a physical exercise. Disagreement is good. Examination, and hopefully self-examination, is as worthwhile as most things, I think.
The kind of argument you describe, though, which makes sweeping claims about the opposing side, does tend towards the useless, I agree.
Pages: 
Author
The 2012 US Presidential Election
Logged
Locked Board