Biggest bungle of the Obama admin? Operation Fast & Furious?

[Cutlass]

Everybody already knows he can't fix the economy to save his life... repeating again and again, that is the waste of time.

Sure. He's far too conservative, and Congress is worse. Which is why it makes so much sense to blame him for a screwup in a second level agency that does not much else except screw up for the past 30 years, but oh, no, it's all Obama's fault.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Everybody already knows he can't fix the economy to save his life... repeating again and again, that is the waste of time.

There has yet to be a president who can simply "fix the economy". It isn't a broken washing machine.

The bipartisan congressional agreement to deal with the recession, which was decided back when GWB was still president, is what Obama is essentially following here. He has slightly modified that joint agreement, but it is basically the same measures and time frame which were agreed upon long ago. This should be no surprise to anybody, yet Obama even "predicted" before he took office that he would be blamed by many Republicans for the so-called "failure" of the economy to slowly respond by the 2012 elections. Such obvious partisanship was inevitable.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Government cannot "fix" the economy it can only break it, the only way to fix the economy is for the Feds to get out of the way.

On-Topic:
This is probably the first time I have ever been actually angry at the Federal Government, I have been annoyed before but now I am angry. Through Operation Fast and Furious the United States has:

1. Interfered with the right of the gun dealers to sell or not sell to any law-abiding citizen they choose.
2. Committed an act of war against the United Mexican States. (A U.S. ally) By arming an insurgency against the Mexican government.
3. And Lastly fueled violence in mexico and along the border by arming drug lords. Costing law abiding Mexicans and Americans their lives.

I believe that any one responsible; and any member of the federal government who was in a position to stop it, knew about it, and did not act against it; should be removed from office, and if prosecutable (i.e not the president [if involved] and any members of congress [and possibly others I am not a walking law book]) turned over to the Mexican government (under the terms of our extradition treaty) to accept trial for their crimes.

Fast and Furious is a despicable and immoral action and all responsible should be punished to the fullest extent of the for this shameless act.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This has nothing to do with gun dealers having the right to legally sell firearms to anybody.

The ATF told gun dealers to illegally sell firearms to individuals who did not qualify under the existing laws, so they could ostensibly follow those weapons to cartel members residing in the US. They had no intent for the weapons to eventually end up in Mexico, but it was inevitable the firearms did so due to the lax way the "sting" was set up. The ATF simply had too few agents to properly follow each illegally purchased firearm, and they apparently did not properly secure the firearms which they did follow from falling into the wrong hands.

Should the people who were responsible be held accountable for implementing such an incredibly bad idea in such a poor manner? Certainly. Was it a despicable act? No more so than many other similar "stings" set up by the authorities.

 

[kochman]

This has nothing to do with gun dealers having the right to legally sell firearms to anybody.

The ATF told gun dealers to illegally sell firearms to individuals who did not qualify under the existing laws, so they could ostensibly follow those weapons to cartel members residing in the US. They had no intent for the weapons to eventually end up in Mexico

You really think they thought this?
I see agenda written all over it, personally...

 

[Cutlass]

Government cannot "fix" the economy it can only break it, the only way to fix the economy is for the Feds to get out of the way.

When the US government was "in the way", the economy did a hell of a lot better than it does when the Feds "get out of the way".

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

^Where did you get that from? You realize that this entire crises was caused by the Fed? How many times have you heard of a economic recovery brought about by the Government by means other than reducing taxes and regulations?

This has nothing to do with gun dealers having the right to legally sell firearms to anybody.

The ATF told gun dealers to illegally sell firearms to individuals who did not qualify under the existing laws, so they could ostensibly follow those weapons to cartel members residing in the US. They had no intent for the weapons to eventually end up in Mexico, but it was inevitable the firearms did so due to the lax way the "sting" was set up. The ATF simply had too few agents to properly follow each illegally purchased firearm, and they apparently did not properly secure the firearms which they did follow from falling into the wrong hands.

Should the people who were responsible be held accountable for implementing such an incredibly bad idea in such a poor manner? Certainly. Was it a despicable act? No more so than many other similar "stings" set up by the authorities.

Yes except then they deliberately kept the ATF from doing it's job properly, forcing them to meet unreasonable standards of evidence just to talk to suspects let alone bring them in.

 

[Cutlass]

^Where did you get that from? You realize that this entire crises was caused by the Fed? How many times have you heard of a economic recovery brought about by the Government by means other than reducing taxes and regulations?

The entire crisis was caused by Wall St and the private sector mortgage industry and banks. The Fed contributed in that they did what Wall St wanted them to do. And the government contributed in that they did what Wall St wanted them to do. But the private sector caused the crisis. It would not have happened without their efforts to make it happen.

 

[GamezRule]

^Where did you get that from? You realize that this entire crises was caused by the Fed? How many times have you heard of a economic recovery brought about by the Government by means other than reducing taxes and regulations?



Yes except then they deliberately kept the ATF from doing it's job properly, forcing them to meet unreasonable standards of evidence just to talk to suspects let alone bring them in.

How many times have you?

 

[kochman]

Update on the situation...
Obama knew in March... Holder knew in May?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...t__furious_before_holder_claimed_he_knew.html

CNN's John King plays Holder's testimony to Congress on MAY 3, 2011, where he said he had only just recently heard about the Fast & Furious gunrunning program. "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks," Attorney General Eric Holder said.

Then CNN compares Holder's testimony to what President Obama said in MARCH to CNN Espanol about the operation. "I heard on the news about this story that -- Fast and Furious, where allegedly guns were being run into Mexico, and ATF knew about it, but didn't apprehend those who had sent it."

How would Obama know before Holder??? Unless... someone is lying?

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

The entire crisis was caused by Wall St and the private sector mortgage industry and banks. The Fed contributed in that they did what Wall St wanted them to do. And the government contributed in that they did what Wall St wanted them to do. But the private sector caused the crisis. It would not have happened without their efforts to make it happen.

No, the Fed forced the banks to make unreasonable loans and to sell people houses regardless of credit or ability to pay for it, investors then pored money into these loans, because the loans were backed by the Fed. Then when people could not pay back the loans thing started to go to pieces and viola, stimulus and bailout.

How many times have you?

Twice: Italy in the '30s and Germany in the '30s.

 

[Cutlass]

No, the Fed forced the banks to make unreasonable loans and to sell people houses regardless of credit or ability to pay for it, investors then pored money into these loans, because the loans were backed by the Fed. Then when people could not pay back the loans thing started to go to pieces and viola, stimulus and bailout.

That never happened. There was no law or no regulation and no pressure by government at any time to make unsound loans. The law is actually the opposite of that.

You are completely giving an apologetic excuse to protect the guilty.

 

[bhsup]

That never happened. There was no law or no regulation and no pressure by government at any time to make unsound loans. The law is actually the opposite of that.

You are completely giving an apologetic excuse to protect the guilty.

From 1999...

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.


Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

...

'From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

And then Bush tried to do something about it, but some Democrats didn't like that...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...ed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

...

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

 

[Cutlass]

From 1999...

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html



And then Bush tried to do something about it, but some Democrats didn't like that...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...ed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

Increasing mortgages to low income people does not equal forcing banks to make loans that they think are unsound and unsafe. And most of the unsafe loans went to higher income people. Not to the poor. Loans to the poor defaulted at lower rates, and with less money involved, than loans to middle and upper middle class.

So again, no policy by government compelled the making of a single unsafe loan. The private sector did all of it because they wanted to do all of it.

 

[JollyRoger]

CRA loans have had a lower rate of default than conventional loans and certainly was an insignificant blip on the radar compared to the credit default gambling than was the driving cause behind the bailouts of the banks.

 

[bhsup]

Increasing mortgages to low income people does not equal forcing banks to make loans that they think are unsound and unsafe. And most of the unsafe loans went to higher income people. Not to the poor. Loans to the poor defaulted at lower rates, and with less money involved, than loans to middle and upper middle class.

So again, no policy by government compelled the making of a single unsafe loan. The private sector did all of it because they wanted to do all of it.

You specifically, earlier, said "no pressure" as well. My link clearly showed that wasn't the case, and in fact Clinton did pressure them to make such loans.

And, NYTimes, not Fox, for source.

 

[Cutlass]

You specifically, earlier, said "no pressure" as well. My link clearly showed that wasn't the case, and in fact Clinton did pressure them to make such loans.

And, NYTimes, not Fox, for source.

And you have yet to demonstrate any pressure. Why? Because you are comparing apples to oranges.

Originally Posted by Me,myself,and,I View Post
No, the Fed forced the banks to make unreasonable loans and to sell people houses regardless of credit or ability to pay for it, investors then pored money into these loans, because the loans were backed by the Fed. Then when people could not pay back the loans thing started to go to pieces and viola, stimulus and bailout.

Originally Posted by Cutlass View Post
That never happened. There was no law or no regulation and no pressure by government at any time to make unsound loans. The law is actually the opposite of that.

You are completely giving an apologetic excuse to protect the guilty.

has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people

So. Pressure to make loans to low and moderate income people does not equal unsafe or unsound loans. There was never, as Me,myself,and,I claimed, and others claim, pressure to make loans that banks believed could not be paid back. The loans made that banks did not believe could be paid back were all made exclusively at the choice of the banks. They wanted to make those loans. And they committed massive fraud and broke a lot of laws to do so.

Pretending that loans to low income people caused the problem fundamentally distracts from understanding what actually happened.

 

[kochman]

Increasing mortgages to low income people does not equal forcing banks to make loans that they think are unsound and unsafe. And most of the unsafe loans went to higher income people. Not to the poor. Loans to the poor defaulted at lower rates, and with less money involved, than loans to middle and upper middle class.

So again, no policy by government compelled the making of a single unsafe loan. The private sector did all of it because they wanted to do all of it.

This is somewhat true... but the Government guaranteed Fannie & Freddy loans... which was a bad idea...

 

[Cutlass]

This is somewhat true... but the Government guaranteed Fannie & Freddy loans... which was a bad idea...

It wasn't a bad idea for the other 70 years it was being done. All that made it a bad idea was deregulation of other areas of finance.

 

[Bugfatty300]

It is a bit telling to hear crickets chirping in place of all the hoopla that people like Holder were espousing a year ago about the need for new assault weapon bans and closing so-called "gun show loopholes" Seeing as the BATFE is responsible for arming Mexican criminals with thousands of AK-47s is it possible that a 2011 National BATFE Ban will be drafted as well?