lawgator1
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 75,722
- Likes
- 45,078
Great postI read your post that you were implying this was a Clinton initiative . My apologies.
The home loans being laxed during Clinton was done in 1999. It was the GrammLeachBliley Act ,also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999
This was a Republican bill. Introduced in the senate by by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.
During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government Dingell was spot-on.
The final votes passed by the Senate 908 and by the House 36257. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
Both the Dems and Repubs have sponsored and passed laws that has brought us to the disastrous point we are in today. Our country debt has been going out of control since the early 1980's. Both sides of the aisle has helped put us there. In reality, there is basically no difference in the two party, other than their rhetoric in pandering for votes.
Ok, so what different would a President Romney do that would result in a different calculation by Putin?
Answer: Absolutely nothing.
Hard to say - would depend on what Romney had done up until this point.
If you believe Putin makes all his moves completely independent of how he expects other leaders to react then you are more naive than I thought.
As would be the case under any president.
President Obama prefers public speeches. President Putin prefers to let his actions speak for him. Obama talks big. Putin says FU.
This is where you have you have a severe disconnect. If Putin thought for a moment that Obama (any POTUS) would act, had a track record of strong decisive actions he just might not have started the whole thing.
If you look at Obama's track record, he is a lot of bluster and bluff with little to no substance so why would any world leader be fearful of the US?
Syria - red line = no action
Benghazi = No action
Iran deal fall through = no action
and so on and so on
Hard to say - would depend on what Romney had done up until this point.
If you believe Putin makes all his moves completely independent of how he expects other leaders to react then you are more naive than I thought.
Still waiting for anyone to list a single thing any president could do to stop this.
Still waiting ....
Still waiting for anyone to list a single thing any president could do to stop this.
Still waiting ....
I don't think the answer you are asking is not what would any president would do now, it"s what they would have done to get to this point.
The question in my mind is if Obama had backed up his red line remarks would Putin have started this to begin with. Putin does not fear Obama. Obama's past actions show he is talk with no show, therefore Putin is going to do whatever he wants to.
Still waiting for anyone to list a single thing any president could do to stop this.
Still waiting ....
The enormous and obvious problem with that assertion (aside from the fact that it is rank speculation) is that it assumes that Putin would think that a harsher president on foreign policy would act to stop him in Crimea.
As no president, no matter how tough he might have been leading up to this, would ever act to stop the Russians in Crimea, it makes no difference.
In order for prior actions of Obama to have "invited" this, or otherwise made Putin think he could to it with impunity, you would have to believe that some other president would actually be perceived as ready to have done something other than what Obama is doing.
The entire argument fails because there is nothing any president could do in this situation.
And so, still, I am waiting for any coherent argument as to what any president could do to stop this. And I am going to be waiting I suspect forever because there is nothing any president could do to stop this.
You don't want an answer. You've clearly stated that the office of POTUS is powerless to influence how this goes down regardless of who is in there. With that mindset you will never accept that influence could be wielded.
Further, this mindset absolves the current office holder from any criticism since events are 100% out of his control.
