# Bush knew



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

This video clearly shows that George Bush tried to warn Congress starting in 2001, that this economic crisis was coming, if something was not done. But democrats in congress refused to listen, along with the arrogant, Congressman Barney Frank. This video says it all.
The liberal media reportedly did not want this video on You Tube; it was taken off. 
This link is of the same video but is routed through Canada . Everyone in America needs to see this before it is yanked off the airwaves again!


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

So the libs tried taking away Amendment number one? :eyeroll:

Interesting video to say the least.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Looks like old barney got his wish, more people in homes who couldn't afford them.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks, I emailed that to some of my liberal friends.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Here is a post from another site dealing with this same Fox news piece. The poster makes some interesting points:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/84914

I realize FOX News does some good journalism but like most of TV they love to overdramatize, sensationalize and politicize. There is always some conspiracy against Republicans and frankly I think pieces like this conceal more than they reveal. (The other channels are just as bad of course. Not that I watch much on the boobtube. Commercials especially drive me bonkers.)

A nonpartisan piece would have addressed rebuttals. For instance, How can someone blame the democratic party for anything during 2000-2006 - a time when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House? That video attempts to pin responsibility for the Fannie and Freddie meltdown on one democrat. Good thing the viewer is assumed to be a moron because FOX News might have to explain how a man who didn't rise to Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee until 2007 should be held responsible for what Republicans were in charge of since 1995. Or if we have more than 5 seconds to soundbite here, What about the Republican-led Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (opposed by Frank) which removed the wall between commercial and investment banks and which contributed to the proliferation of the complex and opaque financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis? But we can't get into that level of detail because a) it's politically unhelpful and b) we've got to appeal to the lowest common denominator viewer because after all this is american political TV.

Barney Frank is obviously to blame for a part of the problem. Frank's zeal for helping people get houses undermined his knowledge of the financial vehicles necessary to fund the programs. That said I don't jump on the Barney-Frank-is-an-arrogant-jerk bandwagon, not that I follow him closely but let's acknowledge the guy is regularly voted "brainiest," "most eloquent" not to mention "funniest" member of the House in the annual survey of Capitol Hill staffers. But I'm getting off topic here... The guy made a policy mistake and they captured it on video. My question is, Why are we rewinding the tape back to Frank in 2001 when it was the Republicans who exclusively held the marionette strings from 2000 to 2006? (And in terms of just Congress Republicans ruled from 1995 through 2006.) If it was painfully clear so early on to Bush and Republicans that Fannie and Freddie were a ticking time bomb, why didn't they do anything about it when they had overwhelming political power? Frank seems a strange choice to play the scapegoat.

I admit I am ignorant on political issues. Most political wags would clean my clock in debate. Most of what I see on television is boring, partisan politics which is not to say TV journalism is all bad -- McNeil/Lehrer, PBS and the BBC are decent. But clips like the one you emailed strike me as propaganda, not because of what they say but because of what they omit. Flip to the web where people call out one another for this sort of thing, analyzing TV programs among other things in excruciating detail so that people know which wags blatantly cheat in argument. Maybe I'm overstepping my bounds here, but my point is what matters most is not the conclusion but the process by which you reach it. Sorry if I'm rambling it just to seems to me that instead of drudging up soundbites masquerading as news we should be reading this Wikipedia article, for example.

> The link...is routed through Canada.

No it is not. It links to the American version of YouTube. The Canadian version of YouTube starts with youtube.ca whereas your link starts with youtube.com. Not that it would make a difference: everything available on youtube.ca has always been available on youtube.com - it's just a different visual "shell" they use for the same library. The only thing Canadian about that link is the username of the publisher and the overlay they added to the video, promoting their commercial web site. Whoever sent this to you is feeding you a line.

> Everyone in America needs to see this before it is yanked off the internet again.

When was it yanked off the internet? According to the video itself, dated September 24 2008, the program aired on September 24 2008. Once again the video in your email is on a U.S. site. Here is another copy, uploaded the same day. Here it is again and again and again the day after - September 25 2008 - on YouTube's "U.S." site. Conclusion: this video was not censored by YouTube.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

I read 5-6 posts from the website and came to this conclusion-they couldn't say sh*t if they had a mouthful. The above poster wants Fox News to offer rebuttals in "their" news piece?? Where are the rebuttals on NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN? Let me guess they are right down the middle with their reports and news of the day?? PBS and the BBC?? Funny.

It is darn hard to give Bush any credit for the last eight years, it was absolutely horrible up here where god is still revered and values are held high. :-?

Personally I can't wait for the next four years to develope, they are off to a great start!! :drunk: The socialists are lickin' their chops to give middle america the royal cornhole n' we deserve. OhBoy!!

Don't take this post personal bass, not intended to be so.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

seabass said:


> Here is a post from another site dealing with this same Fox news piece. The poster makes some interesting points:
> 
> http://www.dailypaul.com/node/84914
> 
> ...


Seabass this is _*the*_ best post on this forum in quite a long time.

The irony in that paragraph above is dripping.

The guy does make a lot of sense, and his assessments.

thanks for sharing it. :thumb:


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Remember, old Blarney's exact words, we need to get more people into houses, chairman or not, it was his direction.

This was also the guy that didn't know anything about the executive bonus wording in the bailout.

And, this is also the Bush administration asking for more regulation, a long time before things got bad.

There is enough blame to go around and most of it rests in congress, on both sides.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Bush Knew, those are two that rarely appear consecutively.

Before George W. gave out any warnings our own ND democrat Byron Dorgan gave his warnings in 1998 on the senate floor. As seabass posted the other day, one of the main architects of our failure was good old Texas republican Phil Gramm. Frank and the liberals deserve their fair share also but they were far from alone.

Bowstring hit the nail on the head yesterday, both parties are to blame. There were very few in DC who had the common sense or foresight to see where our economy was headed. The republican response was to de-regulate even more to the point that the foxes were all the way in the henhouse. It doesn't take an economic genius to figure out that if we let companies self-regulate and self-audit there is going to be trouble. Another indicator was the fed continuously cutting the interest rate. The signs were all there but because of so much de-regulation no one could either prove, or had the backbone to stand up and say we are headed for a collapse of gargantuan proportion.

Now that the corporations are funded almost entirely by the taxpayers there had better be a heavy and punishing hand from the gov't. More oversight, more regulation, and paybacks are needed. If corporations fail to comply the gov't should strip them of every nickel they have and send the crooks right to general population.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Somebody needs to show the Barney Frank clip to Barney Frank. :lol:

I especially liked the last statement "senator Obama did not weigh in on that bill".....fancy that.


----------



## Candiru (Aug 18, 2005)

Bush knew and he didn't have the sack to do anything about it. I believe much could have been done through executive power. Many times I heard this pre-socializer talk about his socialist-eutopian ownership society where everyone should own a home. I put a lot of blame at his feet. He lobbed a big fat one right over the heart of the plate for Obama to hit out of the park.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Bowstring hit the nail on the head yesterday, both parties are to blame.


I agree with that also TK. However, I do lay the majority of the blame at Barney Franks feet, and liberal attitude in general. When I say liberal attitude it's the attitude that everyone deserves a house attitude that I am talking about. Some lazy suckers don't deserve anything, others do, but you can't lend to people who can't pay.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

the republicans are cowards

the democrats running this issue and now the entire govt are idealogues without any business experience

the country the public "us" is/are screwed


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I don't care what you all dream up, *the power to change this country is in the hands of the voters.* If we get rid of the money suckers and put real leaders back into government we will gradually come out of this mess we have allowed ourselves to be caught up in.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Until we get term limits we will continue to have politicians that are more interested in a career position than what is best for America. They know that to hold their office they must be loyal to their party above all else. We have to limit the number of years, and I would also like to limit their retirement. No six years in office and 100% payment for life after they are out.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

the "voters" are so dumbed down most of them are clueless... the goverment school system has done exactly what those on the left in power
wanted, aided by our willing idiots in the media

They replaced economics, math and science with politcally correct ignorance.

Most of the "voters" in this country couldn't tell you a single issue position held by their elected officials.

Heck most of them couldn't tell you who the officials are

but they could tell you who is on America Idol uke:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Yep a bunch of wishy washy fence riding self serving.... oh I could go on!!! :beer:

We need people to learn to trust themselves again.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> but they could tell you who is on America Idol


 And the younger guys don't want to talk politics, they would rather watch Homer Simpson. Now some Obama backers complain because they can't find ammo. Duuuh. Some Obama backers/sportsmen (hate to use those terms together) think we should have specialized ammo dealers in places away from city centers. I guess they think gangs will them go without ammo and resort to group hugs. :eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Nothing in your life has a larger affect on you than politics and politicians

yet so few people want to follow what they are up to until the damage is done and then its very hard to undo

I never have understood why people feel that way about it, politics is almost a taboo topic for many people

when you live in a country like this, a republic governed by the rule of law, you better keep a sharp eye on those making the laws yet our congress is infested with crooks and I mean both sides of the aisle.


----------

