When someone brings up the "fact" that Geo. W. Bush is to blame for the fiscal mess just quote this:
This from a Yahoo “green shoots” article commenter:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the
Congress:
Congress:
At the time:
1. The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
2. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
3. The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
4. George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember the day...
1. January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House
Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
2. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of
the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
3. Thank Congress for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6%
Unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans
on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco’s! (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy, but no one was listening).
Unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans
on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco’s! (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy, but no one was listening).
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? (Obama)
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie???
(OBAMA and the Democratic Congress.)
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007....
Then we have THIS!
z
Then we have THIS!
This is sheer genius
In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by
federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because,as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained,
"passage of such a requirement would restrict home
ownership to only those who can afford it."
z
102 comments:
You can add to that the date October 1st, 2007, the start of the federal fiscal year when all of the newly 2006-elected Democrat majority's financial rules and regulations went in to effect.
The stock market plummeted from 14,000+ and has NOT recovered since.
According to the Messiah Obama's prophecy, since we passed the stimulus bill in 2009, we should be at around 7% unemployment and dropping.
Maybe he hasn't inflated the tire enough.
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie???
(OBAMA and the Democratic Congress.)
Yep.
The blame-Bush meme has worn thin except for the loony left.
Beamish...and you rarely hear anybody, even the Right, discuss this, that the Democrat majority screwed things up. OR that Bush and Cheney warned so many times about Freddie and Fannie. OR that Obama's continuing with that nightmare loser scenario.
Always....they just don't get it. And they have the media covering for them
this morning, there are rumors of Geithner and maybe Summers (I'm not sure what other name I heard was) are being ousted.
More October Surprise?...too little too late, or will Americans actually think "Oh, look! Obama's cleaning house, NOW he'll be a good president", which is probably the WH goal. Throwing EVERYONE under the bus to keep their party in power.
wait for it
Don't you wonder what is happening to our country? I found Bill Clinton's remarks pretty ironic this morning when he said to give the Dems a little more time, and if we still didn't like the way they were doing things, we could vote them out. I yelled at the TV and said, "We can see November from our windows!"
Z, you need to add the part on your blog where we can repost on FB! Please?
Linda.."Z, you need to add the part on your blog where we can repost on FB! Please" REPOST ON FROG BURGER?
What do you mean? I'm sorry, I'm not following you! Then, your wish is my command :-)
I can't remember how I did it, but at the bottom of my postings, there is a place to share the page with a number of different places.
I did it through the dashboard. It is on a number of different blogs. Maybe someone out there can help my poor memory about how I did it. It is really nice to be able to repost things, and it goes right to the original page.
Guess I'm not much help after all.
I just shamelessly copied your post and posted it on my blog, and then linked it on FB. Thanks!
Not FROG BURGER...Face Book! LOL!
FACE BOOK! Of course (oops!) I finally got that JUST before reading your final comment!
Thanks for posting it, Linda...I'm not too techie, glad you do better than I! (and I don't do Face Book, either..
That quote is fantastic. What a moron.
FB also stands for fake buddies, the other Facebook acronym.
You are right, the problem cannot be laid soly at the feet of Bush as former Reagan Budget Director points out in his August opinion piece.
It makes for an interesting read for both parties...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html
The wacko lefties go to sleep at night whispering the 'Blame Bush' mantra to themselves.
Silvrlady
Most Americas are too focused on the Lady Gaga vs. "Knuckles" McCain bout on DADT.
What would be nice is if Americans could think long term and not be so abysmally ignorant as to think that you can pick a cutoff date and think that fiscal policy caused an abrupt swerve.
It would be beneficial if mot Americans knew how long it takes fiscal police to generate change or even understand what fiscal policy is.
The greatest benefit comes when we are able to look at long term policy goals and decide how best to implement them without generating this R vs. D dichotomy.
Being able to understand that when the market is overheated at 14000+ and returns to a more rational valuation is a simple concept but one that free lunch Republicans can't understand.
Beamish, you sound like someone who bought NASDAQ futures at 5,000. Can you spot today's asset bubbles? (Hint: Get the bleep out of treasuries and gold). The Average American is just sitting there waiting to be suckered and the fool thinks it's an R vs. D question.
We are a sorry people.
Being able to understand that when the market is overheated at 14000+ and returns to a more rational valuation
Glad you agree with Libertarian principles of laissez-faire.
Ducky you are so full of contradictions, it's not even funny.
Do you do self-assessment sometimes?
It would be beneficial if mot Americans knew how long it takes fiscal police to generate change
Ducky thinks the Democrats are the "fiscal police". Freudian slip?
Most Americas are too focused on the Lady Gaga..
Who? By "most Americans" did you mean the Democrat controlled Congress that held hearings on the steroid content of Barry Bond's piss?
is a simple concept but one that free lunch Republicans can't understand.
I thought you wanted to look at this subject without creating an R v D dichotomy?
The point of the post appears to be that Bush did not singlehandedly destroy the economy. (that is incredibly short-sighted, if you ask me)
And,
It pays to monitor the implementation of bad policy and who supported it.
I don't know who lady gaga is.
I thought you wanted to look at this subject without creating an R v D dichotomy?
I didn't even catch this contradiction.
Ducky gives so much ammunition to us, I love it.
Ducky make an effort please--it's getting to easy to deconstruct your intellect.
David, thanks...will read that when I come back this afternoon.
Ducky, we know it doesn't take months to change economic woes...that's why we know it was you guys who created this, largely..read my post. It was two years before Bush was out that you guys started the big spending and Bush went along with it. Just think, he couldn't have done it without your side. Sad, isn't it.
I'm STILL trying to find a country where socialism worked to make the people happy and the country prosperous...nothing yet :-(
Even ol' Castro's lost his zeal for communism; WHAT is going ON? :-)
Lady GAGA? it's not WE who follow her, it's your media.
Joe, good catch.
In the meantime, it looks like poor Geithner's kids are suffering and that'll be the official WH excuse for why he's on the ground with bus tire marks over him.
HAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
You just used fact and made Ducky's head explode, Z!
Thanks for the entertainment.
Heather "It pays to monitor the implementation of bad policy and who supported it."
True, but we need to put a more important question out there: WHO CAN SOLVE IT?
beamish..good pt about Bond's ...urine.
They're SO busy figuring out baseball problems they barely have time to slam Republican women.
Think of the SEXISM cries that would be happening if the Right were slamming every beautiful and smart Republican woman coming down the pike.
I didn't even catch this contradiction.
Ducky gives so much ammunition to us, I love it.
It just seemed an odd statement to me.
H
Brooke, thanks. I kinda liked that myself :-) !! xxx
and, let's face it, it IS as fact!
True, but we need to put a more important question out there: WHO CAN SOLVE IT?
Good question.
I hate to leave for the day...I hope you continue on the conversation.
Heather, I'm leaving it up to YOU to figure out WHO CAN SOLVE IT!! (no pressure!! ) xxx :-)
Beamish, you can help!
It was two years before Bush was out that you guys started the big spending and Bush went along with it.
-----------
Huh? What spending was that?
Yes, z, I read your posts but that doesn't preclude them being wrong.
Clinton, despite doing monumental damage by laying big pieces of the deregulation foundation did have the deficit under somewhat better control than big spender, Saint Ronnie Raygun.
So now you have decades of laissez-faire deregulation that has increased poverty and turned parts of America into looking like Beirut. Question is how to get out of it and since the Libertarians got us in the hole I would look elsewhere.
Saying that Chris Dodd (D - Cheap street walker) could have near single handedly caused this when he was just a minority committee member is foolish.
Frogy, you are fascinating. Understanding the pricing function of a market doesn't preclude belief that markets can fail and be manipulated.
They do serve a necessary pricing function but it's short sighted to believe we can allow them to continue in their current deregulated state without more negative events.
Understanding the laissez-faire disaster is not quite the same as accepting it, surely you have that level of understanding
Ducky you're a fool. Markets, if not regulated, are overly inflated by the Fed and your lefty goons injecting money via back doors. So it's not the lack of regulation, it's socialism in Wall Street that prevails these days.
So yes, I'd rather have a crash than keeping up the virtual American economy sponsored by the State.
Should the regulations apply to government then?
What fascinates me about the leftists --and I've seen it in France under Mitterrand in the 80-90s -- they criticize market principles for the ups and downs, yet they implement policies that inflate assets or product prices (rent control increasing rents, fed injecting money in Wall Street). Then they bitch against the market and the fact that speculation or over-valuation happens.
This utter lack of intellectual honesty and logic really irritates me.
Everything you say Ducky is in line with that.
Again, any self-assessment sometimes? Any objectivity about your own thoughts? Does it ever happen to people on the left to analyze things rationally instead of wanting to be the good guys, being loved and cool like in highschool?
Maybe the left should learn math, statistical analysis and things like that instead of being gaga about Lada Gaga.
Heather, I'm leaving it up to YOU to figure out WHO CAN SOLVE IT!! (no pressure!! ) xxx :-)
Beamish, you can help!
Can I just privately bribe him for answers?
My thoughts currently kind of echo Frogburger's statement...
I'd rather have a crash than keeping up the virtual American economy sponsored by the State.
From my perspective, it seems as though the American economy resembles one of those ratty 70's-era trailer houses that would be better off torched than repaired.
Heather, when I came to the US, I told my dad that something was a bit off. The economy was booming but I couldn't understand why people could buy houses they could not afford from a debt / income ratio standpoint. (That's why I didn't buy a house even though my wife and I were making really good money in the Sillicon Valley at some point.) Two years before the crash I remember telling my dad that it would crash big time.
I am no genius--it's just simple math. And yet the left keeps repeating the same mistakes. They say they want to help the people and at the end their policies artificially inflate assets and prices while lowering income in actual value.
Socialism is social in its intent but not social at all in its results. That's why I am fighting it.
This info needs to be read by everyone in the country.
don't expect much from the lib clueless is in crowd Z..informative one ..thank u!
May be we should all copy this and send it to every liberal we know as well to the White House, senate and congress.
The "blame Bush" rhetoric is getting rather tiresome.
Blame Barrack! His party owned Congressional majorities in both the House and Senate when disaster struck. And where was Barrack? On permanent campaign 4 president.
FrogBurger,
You're right, something's been off here for quite a while. America's been on a long stretch of "peaceful prosperity", with easy credit offering the chance to live beyond one's means without much thought as to the final accounting.
We took out a modest building loan about 8 years ago, and our monthly payments, including taxes and insurance are actually lower than what we'd pay for rent. God was good to us through the financial wreck, so we've been able to stay put for now.
But we don't see ourselves as "homeowners" so much as long term renters, especially after the govt bank bailout.
HA! We're renting from the govt, now....but that would still be an indirect possibility even if we were renting from someone else, I guess.
We've just resigned ourselves to trying to be good renters.
Part of the problem in finding a solution for our nations problems are in acknowledging that neither party is exclusively to blame for our mess.
Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama did not cause this problem any more than GW Bush, Phil Gramm, Ronald Reagan, and Mitch McConnell did.
The constant blame game, played in part by us, and also by our politicians at our behest, is poisoning the well for real structural solutions.
Those type of solutions will take a type of bi-partisan courage that we seldom see these days because for many, compromise is seen as capitulation.
Believe me, if our politicians saw that the American people wanted them to work together, in a give and take method to solve this, it would get done.
But what are seeing now are partisans whose real desire is to maintain party purity on both sides of the aisle.
How does this foster the type of atmosphere where people feel safe enough to tackle the tough issues?
Froggy, the chief culprit in inflating the money supply was hardly a leftist. Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand's cabana boy, was hardly a conservative.
You do ignore his statement that he was wrong, MARKETS FAIL. Now we could go back to perfect market conditions as we had in 1929, I suppose.
At any rate, this insane screed from the Libertarian sandbox is growing a good deal more manic in its desperation.
I'm not sure what you want to accomplish through an economic system but unless you want a last man standing social Darwinism I don't understand what laissez-faire offers you. It has a serious history of failure n the 20th century, not the least of which, certainly, is the failure of the gold standard and its importance as a major cause of WW I.
Frog, did the CRA force Lehman brothers to leverage mortgage derivatives at 50 to 1 or are you going to expose your gross ignorance even further and say that didn't have anything to do with the crash.
The overwhelming volume of mortgages were being issued by non regulated companies like Countrywide.
Your boy, Greenspan, Ayn Rand's cabana boy, just kept the money spigot open and it finally tipped but you have such a pathetic grasp of economics that you think we couldn't have covered the volume of defaults from CRA, which was a rather small number.
Loans to people who couldn't afford them? Bull, everyone could afford the junk paper they were pushing.
Bravo Dave, that's a start. What we need to do is decide what a truly democratic industrial-technological state would be.
The right wing fringe seem to think they can propose Libertarianism which doesn't even have a sound mechanism for resolving conflicts of interest.
Frog, did the CRA force Lehman brothers to leverage mortgage derivatives at 50 to 1 or are you going to expose your gross ignorance even further and say that didn't have anything to do with the crash.
Who forced the lending to people who couldn't afford it? Freddy and Fanny. So the gov created a situation that inflated the market and allowed the creation of those risky assets.
And you're not addressing the fact the Fed is injecting money in the stock market on a regular basis.
Gross ignorance maybe but at least I have the intelligence to look at the root of the problems and what caused the situation and created the market opportunity: gov intervention for socialist policies.
But the left always looks at the symptoms and never the causes. You just proved it.
Better have less knowledge and a brain that can think than one full of knowledge that can't do a + b = c.
The right wing fringe seem to think they can propose Libertarianism which doesn't even have a sound mechanism for resolving conflicts of interest.
This sounds so stupid. Why don't you say Libertarianism doesn't have a sound mechanism to resolve divorces across the nation?
There's more conflict of interest in highly centralized and big gov than an open system. Ask the French about Chirac, Mitterrand, Pasqua, etc...
Ducky for an old man, you're not very wise. Haven't you figured out you can't make life perfect? Shit happens. Let people fix it, not the intelligentsia. Especially if if it's an intelligentsia of your kind who can't get logic straight.
Heather: "From my perspective, it seems as though the American economy resembles one of those ratty 70's-era trailer houses that would be better off torched than repaired."
I couldn't agree more ...well said.
FB...yes, imagine people who can buy homes without being able to pay...
Thanks to Chris Dodd and his ilk.
Ducky, don't be ridiculous...you know I made perfect sense in suggesting it's not only 1 1/2 years of disaster from the Obama types...it's taken 3 1/2 yrs to get us here in this disaster and that's compliments largely thanks to Fannie And Freddie..do your homework and look up some of Dodd's comments. Watch the Daniel Mudd video where he promises the Black National Congress (Obama in the crowd as a new senator), promising that EVERYBODY CAN BUY A HOUSE!! Who needs money? He looks like a deer in the headlights..it's almost pathetic to watch.
Also, Ducky, reading my posts doesn't make them right, I have never said that, but at least it'll give you a springboard from which to intelligently answer, and my facts ARE right, it's my own extrapolation you don't have to buy; nobody does.
Dave, you say "Believe me, if our politicians saw that the American people wanted them to work together, in a give and take method to solve this, it would get done."
I so wish you were right but I don't think that's true. This is all about PARTY, nobody gives a damn about the good of this country.
I am NOT saying Republican or past Dem presidents have been excellent, trust me, but I will say that, since Obama we've:
-left the whole right side of the aisle to hang in the wind as they tried to be heard and give their ideas for health care, etc; instead Obama takes McCain's ideas, Bush's projects, and takes the credit. To see them now blaming the Right for not wanting to help small business is absolutely LUDICROUS! They never tell the truth about that bill and WHY the Right can't vote for it...-
-laughed at Americans who deserve respect, like Joe the Plumber, etc...if they don't agree with Obama, they're STUPID?
-criticized sitting past presidents constantly and very belittingly for the first time in our history...no president has been quite so horrid about this than Obama
-
Well, I could go on. And yes, we CAN blame Pelosi, Reid, etc for the debt we're in now.......what Republican who YOU know wanted that huge debt to China in the way of the stimulus package? And what Republican do YOU know who wants to change 1/6th of our economy so drastically as they do with this health care nightmare that NO DEMOCRAT candidates this year are using in their stump speeches because they know the PEOPLE DO NOT WANT IT..
etc etc etc etc
Cube, as if we had a media interested in the truth? Doesn't fit their leftwinger objectives.
Ducky ,by the way..if it's so 'insane' and distasteful to you here, GO.
Bi-partisanship? The Left wants bi-partisanship NOW????
Didn't Barrack run on TRANSCENDING politics, and then locked the Republicans out of the room?
It's a little late to be offering bi-partisanship after we offered you John McCain, and you pushed him out of the room.
Don't worry, we won't have OUR 60 seat Senate majority until 2012. You'll get "bi-partisanship" until then.
In 2012, you and the other Democrats get to go sit in the cloak room until the ADULTS get finished conducting the Herculean business of dismantling the Barrackian Augean Stables established in the name of "federal" government.
I love riding a high horse. ;-)
Pure Kenyan neo-colonial hubris.
SUMMERS IS OUT
Dave, you tell me how an American Constutionalist works with a Marxist. One believes in the rights of the individual the other in a Social collective.
One is a capitalist the other a socialist. How do you compromise the two? You don't.
Most of us know, if you sit on the fence, you can get caught in the crossfire.
The current administration with it's czars, is filled with radicals who are true believers in socialism. Statism.
Your Senator Harry Reid, whom you think is so good for Nevada obediently went along with the far left at every turn, like a puppy following his master.
He voted for socialized medicine.
He tried this week, to include The Dream Act(amnesty), in the Defense Bill which fortunately failed today, at least for the time being.
He called the war in Iraq, "lost", while our troops were on the front line risking their lives, and dying, in Iraq.
He'll vote for Cap and Tax.
He voted for bailout after bailout.
Perhaps most shocking, the entire liberal Majority including old Harry, abdicated their responsibilty to represent their constituents, bowed to the executive branch, and smiled as the administration has grabbed power even from the Congress, making them irrelevant.
So, I submit, if Nevada isn't embarrassed, and angry, at Senator Harry Reid, they're incapable of being embarrassed.
Pris
Z, I doth protest...
Have any of you read the Stockman article? Clearly, the architect of the Reagan tax cuts has a different take on our financial situation than anyone commenting here, save maybe Ducky.
Now I am not sure, so I'll ask...
Anyone here ever head up the Office of Management and Budget for the Federal Government? This guy knows of what he speaks.
I think he is probably a little more well versed in the nuances of federal budgeting than any of us, certainly more than me.
As for President Obama dissing President Bush, maybe you all forgot that right up until the 1982 elections, President Reagan was still blaming, that's right blaming President Carter for the 1981 recession.
Looks to me like Obama still has a few more months to go before he passes The Great Communicator, President Reagan in this category.
Look, TARP was passed with bi partisan support and signed into law by President Bush.
The bailout plan was passed and signed into law almost exclusively by Democrats.
But here's the big one for conservatives, the single largest line item expenditure in that bill was for individual tax cuts.
Over 240 billion dollars in tax cuts and credits.
You can verify that here...
http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-plan-taxcut-list
Where are the GOP calls to extend those tax cuts and credits for hard working Americans?
You see, people want to believe the narratives they want to believe and stick with them.
Somehow we have been conditioned to think that only the GOP is for Tax Cuts. Well if that is so, why are they not fighting to make the Obama Tax Cuts permanent?
I'll tell you why, because they have a vested interest in demonizing the Dems, just like the Dems have a vested interest in Demonizing the GOP.
And most of the people hollering in America are going right along with it.
People can choose to believe that all of our debt, both here and in China is a result of the Obama administration, but it is just not true.
Maybe one day we will wake from this Alice in Wonderland dream where each of us thinks that "our" politicians are pure as the driven snow and somehow not as bad as the other.
I sure hope so...
Pris,
I respectfully submit that your views are but one view.
As in watching a train wreck, 4 people will see the same accident and 4 conflicting stories.
How is that possible?
How can two people read the exact same passage in the Bible and come away with different interpretations?
It is all because of our personal biases.
There is just no way we can get away from those biases when we look at and interpret things.
By the way, how many GOP politicians are on record as being against farm subsidies?
They've existed in our country since the 1930's.
One might think that if people were really up in arms about Socialism, that they might start with a repeal of longest lasting direct government intervention in private business that we have in this country.
Would you agree that any elected leader, or person seeking the Presidency who doesn't oppose these subsidies is a Socialist?
Why or why not?
As for President Obama dissing President Bush, maybe you all forgot that right up until the 1982 elections, President Reagan was still blaming, that's right blaming President Carter for the 1981 recession.
lol! Reagan spent all his political capital actually FIXING the economy in his first term... unlike President Obama who threw universal health-care gasoline on the economic problem and fiddled as Rome burned.
So what is Barack promising to do to end the "already ended" recession? Nothing. It's already over.... just ask the "economic experts" you tout.
Stupid is as stupid does... Barack Gump
z, why do you harp on Fannie/Freddie?
How many mortgages did they write?
Were they responsible for the inevitable drop in home prices?
Did they force Lehman's to leverage derivatives at 50 to 1?
Were they pushing interest only no-no's through Countrywide?
... or were they just a piece of the puzzle. I get the impression that a lot of the far right think the melt down was caused because we couldn't cover the home mortgage defaults rather then realizing that the inevitable price drops and over leveraging were the prime movers.
And are you saying that home prices would have continued to rise but for something (something imaginary) that Chris Dodd did in 2008?
... or was this just a repeat of the boom and bust cycle that regulation had made some progress taming and came back with a vengeance after the Reagan/Clinton/Bush rescinding sensible regulation?
Boom and bust the bane of capitalism and the Libertarians want it back with a vengeance.
Joe, are you saying that President Reagan did not continue to blame President Carter for the recession well into his first term as President?
Kwaki, Freddy and Fanny illustrate an overall policy of lending to insolvent buyers. A policy that was put together by various administrations through low interest rates and too easy lending.
Your logic is equivalent to opening the lions' gate at the zoo and then blame the lions for killing people.
I don't want to get into the debate of the ethics of the stock market. That's a different topic.
Also what's wrong with the drop in home prices? That technically makes them more affordable to the folks. That makes prices more in line with incomes.
That's the other thing that pisses me off about you leftist. You denounce speculation all the time and now you're bitching about high prices YOUR policies created.
Again, leftism is not social.
Should've been clearer and said:
"That's the other thing that pisses me off about you leftist. You denounce speculation all the time and now you're bitching about high prices going down as the result of YOUR policies that virtually inflated the market."
Again, you are so full of contradictions, it's unbelievable.
or was this just a repeat of the boom and bust cycle that regulation had made some progress taming
That's right, you people can't deal with ups and downs of life. You want to tame the economy's cycles.
Well Europe has pretty much succeeded at it: they've had a flat line for 30 years and the little of growth they had was driven by the US.
Ducky do you ever learn from looking at historical data and statistics or do you learn economics through movies?
Joe, are you saying that President Reagan did not continue to blame President Carter for the recession well into his first term as President?
Reagan didn't cause the stagflation that his 21% interest rates cured. And the recession was over in '82 by election time... only not quite "just" like the current one's over now. His recession was actually "over." :)
Dissin' Reagan ain't gonna win any votes for Democrats OR Obama. The tape tells the tail.
Reagan 1, Obama 0
Cute Joe, but you did not answer the question...
Give it another try, or did you look it up and learn that he did and just do not want to acknowledge it?
I'll await your answer...
Joe, BTW, the recession of 1981 was caused by the feds tight money policy designed to put an end to rampant inflation.
You can argue that it was good policy, and it, at least on the surface seems to have worked, but it under President Reagan that the recession of 1981 began, and ended, not Carter.
Just for the record...
lol! Better go get your friends to modify history to match your story, Dave. What happened between Jan and July of '80? They're obviously falling behind on their work over at the MiniTru.
...just for the record!
Now, wanna go for a trifacta of economic '80-81 recession stupidness? Please, go right ahead. Tell us why a 13.5% rate of inflation wasn't a problem and why Reagan should have ignored it just like Carter had.
It's the Google Age Dave. Lefty lies don't stand up to it. Go back to the steam room at Les Hot Gay. I'm sure Harry's ready to give you your rubdown now.
FB,
Ducky make an effort please--it's getting to easy to deconstruct your intellect.
You've seen Ducky's intellect? Where? Did you call Mythbusters?
C'mon be serious. Ducky raises the average IQ of every room he leaves.
Clinton, despite doing monumental damage by laying big pieces of the deregulation foundation did have the deficit under somewhat better control than big spender, Saint Ronnie Raygun.
With "projected surpluses" that never materialized and never could have because they were comprised entirely of tax increase fantasies for future administrations. Clinton didn't do a thing for the economy except sign budgets passed by a Republican controlled Congress. As for "big spending Reagan," Obama has already spent more and created more debt in the 19 months of his misadministration than all Presidents Washington through Reagan did in 200 years.
200 years of defecit spending expanded American territory, brought an end to your fellow left-winger Adolf Hitler's labor movement, put men on the moon, and folded up the Soviet Union.
Obama's spending sent his wife to Spain for the Dr. Zira look-alike contest.
I think we can put to bed the "Reagan was a big spender" nonsense.
Eat your crap, Ducky.
No, I'm not, Ducky...I'm using that as one example of the nightmarish actions of Democrats who got us into this situation.
You can quote all the facts you want to the left, it won't make any difference cos it bounces right off their thick skulls.
Frog, let's go real slow. Freddie/Frannie DO NOT issue loans. Got it. The fact that you do not know that and insist on going down this "loan to those who can't afford it" road indicates you're not ready to sit at the grownups table.
z, what Dem policies. Can you point to legislation initiated by Dems that caused the meltdown or are you going to continue to blow smoke?
Joe, thanks for the e-mail, cagata.
read the post, Ducky.
Look, anybody who says this was all the Dem's fault is a lunatic, who doesn't know that? Bush got 'big government' too there at the end, we all know that and we resented and criticized it as it happened, vociferously.......(Republicans are honest enough to criticize their own, it's a good thing)
But, yes, Frank, Dodd, Mudd, the Black National Congress, TARP (Bush), the leftwing perception that everybody has a right to own a house whether one can afford it or not...those aren't Conservative attitudes, trust me.
Dave, I see you have the same disease Ducky has. I call it bait and switch.
If you can't address the subject, you switch it. Now I'm supposed to take the bait, but I'm not biting.
You're the one who brought up bipartisanship not me. The subject of discussion was current political positions. I responded to you. I wasn't talking about train wrecks or the Bible.
Nice try!
Pris
Freddie/Frannie DO NOT issue loans. Got it. The fact that you do not know that and insist on going down this "loan to those who can't afford it" road indicates you're not ready to sit at the grownups table.
Freddie and Fannie were a huge part of the problem. Freddie and Fannie were intended to create liquidity by buying mortgages on the secondary market, pooling them, and selling them as a mortgage-backed securities to investors on the open market. This secondary mortgage market increases the supply of money available for mortgage lending and increases the money available for new home purchases.
In short, Freddie and Fannie backed loans to people who had no tangible means of paying them back, created a bunch of worthless paper, and would have taken the hit if not for the courageous efforts of the American people eating their loss against our will. You could by Freddie stock at 50 cents a share when it was delisted. At least there's some use for that paper if you need a wick for the barbecue grill.
Ducky, the grownup table needs more tea.
Joe, the article you cited, and I quote says "The most comparable recent recession in terms of length and severity was the one that started during the Reagan administration in 1981.
It seems as if there was in fact a recession during the Reagan Admin, to go alongside of the Carter Recession of 1980.
In all of this, you seem to be unable to grasp my point. I have acknowledged Reagan as a leader. I have acknowledged that his policies led to an end of the recession.
What I am asking you has nothing to do with those facts.
Part of the original post was asking why President Obama continues to blame Bush for our current financial mess. This is a frequent complaint of those on the right, saying Obama is unable to accept the blame or responsibility for this recession.
It is said that the evidence is in his constant criticism of Bush, saying no other President have done this.
I have asked you repeatedly if Reagan did this during his first two years in office before the mid term elections of 1982.
You seem unable to acknowledge the fact that yes he did. As you said, we are in the google age.
And this is the problem within politics.
Even when faced with evidence, people tend to not look at that evidence because it may contradict their previously held worldview.
BTW, have you read the Stockman article yet?
It seems as if there was in fact a recession during the Reagan Admin, to go alongside of the Carter Recession of 1980.
Ah. So, there was a "Carter recession" in 1980, that ended before Reagan took office in January 1981, and then a another, wholly unrelated "Reagan recession" that came later?
Congratulations, Dave. You've managed to post something even more stupid than Ducky. No mere feat.
The truth is there was one "double-dip" recession that lasted from January 1980 to November 1982, and it had to do more with the management of the Fed under Volcker than either Carter or Reagan.
Carter's "malaise" came from adding windfall profits taxation atop Nixonian price controls, a volatile mix of stupid.
Throw in two oil crises and 14 nations defaulting on debts to the United States in the Carter years as they fell under Soviet communism's creep and then you have a more clear picture of what Reagan's leadership fixed.
Keep it honest, Dave.
It seems as if there was in fact a recession during the Reagan Admin, to go alongside of the Carter Recession of 1980.
A-HA! Now how did Carter "fix" HIS recession? He "inflated" his way out of it (for the election) and THEN handed THAT empty bag to Reagan. Wow! What a "superior" ex-president! What a "recession fighter!" How BRILLIANT is Carter? Not much.
I was there, Dave. I KNOW what happened. I was trying to buy a house when the interest rates were 21%. YOU were in diapers sucking on you mommies teats.
I was there, Dave. I KNOW what happened. I was trying to buy a house when the interest rates were 21%. YOU were in diapers sucking on you mommies teats.
I was there too, but a little bit older. I was snacking on spoonfuls of vegetable oil margarine because Mom's job and Dad's 3 jobs didn't quite pool up enough money for groceries in a timely fashion.
The joke then was government cheese blocks were spare tiles for the Space Shuttle. When there was electricity in the house, you could melt a chiseled off chunk of it in the microwave if you had a half hour to spare.
With a little luck (and a REPUBLICAN Congress) the Obama "double dip" recession that's ALREADY IN THE CARDS AND DEALT (See the Housing Market and the Fed's 0% Prime monetary needle stuck on EMPTY) can be turned around and not lunge us into A MUCH DEEPER DEPRESSION. The Fed will have to RAISE interest rates, of course, and force MILLIONS of homeowners into foreclosure. Then (and only then), we can begin to get the government to buy up (and DESTROY housing or allow millions of new "rich" immigrants in) until all the excess housing capacity is OUT of the market and prices stabilize. There will be NO CONFIDENCE in the real estate markets UNTIL this happens. None. And there will be NO CONFIDENCE in the securities that banks are holding and underlie these securities until this happens. THAT is "economic reality". THAT is confronting [Reagan] (vice avoiding [Carter/ Obama]) the problem entails.
Democrats will NEVER "cause" a small/manageable problem to SOLVE a larger "unmanageable" one.
There's a forest fire out there in the housing market. We need to initiate a "controlled burn" to SAVE the REST OF THE HOUSING FOREST! Barack doesn't have "the stones" needed to light the match. The Republicans (if Reagan is truly their model) DO!
Now, take the info you have just learned here about how the Republicans are going to force millions of homeowners into foreclosure and RUN through your DNC village screaming, "The Republicans are coming, the Republicans are coming!" You've got six weeks to get the message out.
You little political pussies make me sick.
*spit*
Beamish and Joe, it doesn't matter whose recession it was. I don' t care.
I am focused on a single point, and you guys are fundamentally unable to grasp it.
Did President Reagan, or did he not, after he took office blame his predecessor, President Carter, rightly or wrongly, for the recession America was in right up until the midterms?
Yes or No?
The answer is yes he did.
Which leads to my point.
WHen people today act as if President Obama is the first President to continue to blame stuff or put responsibility for current problems on past administrations, they are being intellectually dishonest.
Most of our presidents do this and most will continue to so in the future.
As an aside, economists are divided over where blame lies for the recession of that time.
I suspect Democrats place blame on the GOP and the GOP places the blame on the Fed or the Dems.
Far be it from either political party or their partisans to actually take responsibility for it...
PS... Read the Stockman article...
Dave,
What policies has Barack Obama initiated to restore the housing market to health?
Answer - 0
And THAT is the point, NOT who's to blame for the recession.
You're looking to make debate points, we're looking to solve actual problems.
Thanks Beamish for the specifics. I get too emotional vs this moron and I am often unclear.
C'mon be serious. Ducky raises the average IQ of every room he leaves.
When the room was empty.
The fact that you do not know that and insist on going down this "loan to those who can't afford it" road indicates you're not ready to sit at the grownups table.
I'm not an elderly yet so I'll wait on that.
Joe, the problem is that no one is willing to listen to each other or work together to solve problems.
Your seeming inability to acknowledge that conservatives have any culpability in this is a good example.
Z is lamenting the constant "blaming" of President Bush for our recession.
I pointed out that this is an issue that really riles up conservatives, but I believe unnecessarily so, as other presidents, both Democrat and Republican have done it.
And yet we still have people acting as if Barack Obama is our first President to have done this.
It is that kind of blind partisanship that, much like the idiots on the left who blamed President Bush for 9/11, has poisoned the well.
As I have said many times, unless and until both parties can get past blaming each other and calling each other names, the atmosphere will not exist for real solutions to come to the forefront.
It is an axiom of management and leadership that unless people feel safe, secure, and trust those with whom they have dialogue and work, a team, like congress, cannot accomplish much.
And contrary to your thoughts, I am looking to score debate points, life is too short.
And contrary to your thoughts, I am looking to score debate points, life is too short.
Thanks for the honesty!
...and I wasn't thinking ANY contrary thoughts. :)
btw - The man 2nd most responsible for economically destroying the country (Barney Frank being the 1st), Andy Cuomo is only six points ahead in a poll of "likely voters" in his race to become the next Governor of New York. I'm sure New Yorkers are thrilled at the prospect of gaining such an incompetent leader!
I guess I missed a typo.
Andrew Cuomo is not even in the top ten.
He came aboard long after the damage had been done to the foundations...
Typo?
I was thinking more along the lines of a Freudian slip...
He came aboard long after the damage had been done to the foundations...
Yep, well Bill Clinton and the 103rd Congress DO have a LOT to answer for.
Of course, most of those responsible in the 103rd were STILL around for the 111th Congress. Making sure they're gone by the 112th... that's the challenge we face.
Joe, the seeds of this problem pre date the 103rd, reaching at least as far back as the Nixon Administration...
If you ask your average economist, they'll give you either that, or the during the Carter/Reagan years.
I believe it was Reagan and his team that said deficits do not matter. Perhaps I am wrong on that, but certainly the more current march to deregulation was begun by both of those Presidents.
I know conservatives want to imagine that all of our current pain is the result of the Dems, but the facts say otherwise.
As a wise man used to say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts.
Great discussion though...
Dave, what?
you said "Z is lamenting the constant "blaming" of President Bush for our recession."
Yes, but as I said above somewhere, I only LAMENT because nobody ELSE gets blamed! We don't even have an honest enough media to say "Hey, Bush had a Dem congress for the last two years!" Or "Look what Dodd and Frank did to screw things up!"
Please, I don't mind being accidentally misquoted but don't misrepresent my sentiments. I don't believe Bush is blameless and I"m one of the few who admits that.
WHen people today act as if President Obama is the first President to continue to blame stuff or put responsibility for current problems on past administrations, they are being intellectually dishonest.
No, intellectually dishonest is trying to make a game of attacking a position not held by anyone.
Who doesn't remember Clinton trying to debate Reagan when he was standing across the stage from Goerge H. W. Bush?
Obama's badmouth-the-predecessor schtick isn't even original. FDR called Hoover a socialist. Be serious.
No, our point, which you dishonestly ignore, is not who said what, but rather who was telling the truth.
Beamish, don't you think that many, if not most conservatives are tired of Obama saying that our current problems are the fault of the Bush Admin, rather than just saying, "I am the President, it is my job, I take responsibility" ala Harry Truman?
I cannot count the number of times I have heard that sentiment over the last 18 months.
The general attitude of conservatives when Obama does this is to attack Obama for doing this, as if this has not been standard political practice for years.
Perhaps, unlike many of my more left leaning friends and cohorts, I would love him to do that, but that's another story.
I know Joe says he wants to focus on solutions, and so do I, but in his world, not even Nixon can be held responsible for taking us off the gold standard because it was not his idea.
If we follow that logic Joe, how can you hold Obama responsible for his handling of our economy today? Isn't he, like Nixon then, following the advice of others?
If people [Washington included] could get past the need to specifically affix blame, and everyone accept responsibility, and then act like adults sans potshots and name calling, perhaps we could move ahead.
At least I'd like to think so, otherwise, there really is, as Beth has intimated in her post, no hope, because we are too polarized.
Z... you are right about the media... because of a constant search for profits and sensationalism, we no longer have news folks doing real investigative reporting and stuff like the Dodd/Frank connection often gets under reported.
As for Bush, I am sure there will be plenty of blogs in the spring of 2016 lamenting why people are still blaming Obama for things his admin did in 2014 or 2015.
And yes, I think we can both agree that we hope this is not true, but perhaps for different reasons...
No Dave, I actually blame YOU for the crummy economy for having elected Obama. What were YOU thinking???
Now be a MAN and take responsibility for YOUR f.u.
An admission of YOUR stupidity and a general apology to every American is all you need to make restitution. I'm waiting.
Dave, I think we are too polarized...there IS no way around this.
Thanks for my next blog idea, come to think of it!!
Yes blame Bush. Just because the straw that broke the camel's back came after the Dems took control in 2007 doesn't mean they put the earlier straw there. Be factual: 2000-2008 was Bush's time to win or fail, and in my long-term memory (compared to the GOP's) his whole presidency was about cronyism.
Obama's got 6 more years...then complain if you want to.
Jonathan, after you find a president whose administration wasn't based on cronyism, let us know, okay?
By the way, what's THAT got to do with the Dem Congress and Dodd and Frank and the nightmare they put into motion (which Obama's STILL perpetrating by still giving loans to those who can't afford a home?)
Post a Comment