Much as Bush-hating media members conveniently ignore historical events that led to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, their current finger-pointing at the White House, John McCain, and all Republican politicians for the collapse of the financial services industry lacks any honest assessment of decades-old legislation that laid the groundwork for today's problems.
In particular, 1977's Community Reinvestment Act which required banks and savings institutions to make loans to the lower-income areas in the communities they served.
Despite how integrally tied the current crisis is to this bill enacted by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by Jimmy Carter, no major media outlet other than Investor's Business Daily and National Review Online mentioned it during last week's market meltdown.
Going against the grain was a highly-informative editorial by IBD Thursday (emphasis added, h/t NBer Gary Hall, photo courtesy About.com):
To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.
Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.
These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans. [...]
Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was. [...]
In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.
Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.
That's how the contagion began.
With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.
Readers are strongly encouraged to review this entire fact-filled piece to not only better understand the roots of today's financial crisis, but also to get a sense as to just how absurd media accusations of this all being Bush and McCain's fault are.
That said, from 1989 through 1995, I managed branches for two savings and loans: Imperial Savings, which got taken over by the Resolution Trust Corporation during the S&L bailout, and; Great Western Bank which eventually was purchased by Washington Mutual.
The pressure to comply with CRA was astounding, especially at Great Western as it was expanding throughout the country. Its ability to acquire other institutions was directly related to its CRA rating.
With this in mind, IBD's views concerning this matter are spot on raising a very important question: if the role of news media is to inform the public, why does a LexisNexis search indicate that as this crisis came to a head last week, its connection to CRA, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton was almost completely ignored?
Would such a revelation make it difficult for Obama-loving press outlets to point fingers at George W. Bush and, more importantly, John McCain?
Yes, that's a rhetorical question.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Interesting; but...
September 20, 2008 - 16:17 ET by DanSchwartzNoel, your take as a branch manager is enlightening.
But, then it begs this question: In the period between 20 January 1981 and January 20th, 1993, who was strictly enforcing the CRA?
...And, if I recall correctly, the bulk of the bad S&L loans were for commercial real estate loans (like shopping centers), not subprime mortgages.
[All that being said, I hope Congress repeals the CRA as part of the big bailout package... I don't like the bailout to begin with; but at least they throw us a bone by getting rid of the bad policy.]
Addendum 1:Yes, it's the Executive Branch that enforces -- or not enforces -- the laws of the land. Case in point: their dangerous undermining of our immigration laws and control of our borders.
Addendum 2: ...And which team controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency from 2001-2007, when on 9/11/2003 the NYTimes wrote,
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae"
And in 2005 when John McCain sounded the alarm about Fannie & Freddie?
We can't duck our team's responsibility in this mess, either.
Please visit my Home Page at http://users.snip.ne...
Dan
September 20, 2008 - 16:46 ET by Noel SheppardDan,
Did I suggest FSLIC collapsed because of CRA? Please show me how.
As for CRA under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, I haven't researched it. As they both operated with Democrat-controlled Congresses, I'm not sure what they could have done to change this Act if they wanted to. Furthermore, I think both had MUCH MORE serious issues to deal with than CRA. Do you disagree?
As for what Congress did after Bush's September 2003 proposal, I'm still researching that. An op-ed in the Hartford Courant last week pointed fingers at Democrats including Obama. However, as it was written by former Bush administration officials, I'd like some confirmation about that before I share it. Make sense?
That said, I don't believe crises like this one can be blamed on one party. My point with this article was to address what a dishonest media are hiding from the public in order to make it look like Bush and McCain are to blame. Since there's no question in my mind that CRA IS VERY MUCH at issue here, it strikes me as absurd that no major media have addressed it as a huge part of the problem.
This is clearly what we see as bias by omission. ns
Thank you for the clarification...
September 20, 2008 - 17:08 ET by DanSchwartzNoel, first off, you're 100% correct to highlight the MSM bias against anything that besmirched their St. Jimmy Carter.
Now, on to your paragraph where you state,
You already did research it between 1989 and January 1993 (under GHWB), because you stated it when you said you were a manager between 1989 and 1995 and saw the enforcement of the CRA up close & personal.
As I pointed out with the comparison to the chaotic immigration mess, there are laws on the books, and then there is the enforcement of those laws... Or, in the case of the CRA, the choice of enforcement of a Bad Law by the Executive branch. [And, thank G-d President Reagan ignored enforcing the Bolen Amendment in 1986; but I digress...]
Noel didn't mention S&L,
September 20, 2008 - 19:18 ET by zfNoel didn't mention S&L, and his take is right on. I just wish he had spoken sooner about his experience about how intrusive CRA was, why so slow Noel? <g>
As for S&L, the roots of that problem was spawned also by Big Government. A 1934 New Deal act called the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation spawned a sister agency the FSLIC (Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation) that encourged risky investments by owner and managers. Shades of Fannie and Freddie, no?
"I hope Congress repeals the CRA as part of the big bailout package."
I wouldn't count on it, I'm afraid.
Classic social engineering fiasco
September 20, 2008 - 16:22 ET by Edward LeeSo, social engineering inspired regulation is to blame, and more regulation to counter that regulation is the fix. That's what they mean by "the ever-expanding role of government".
At least with the bailout, the gov't will effectively own the foreclosed houses to cut its losses. Obama's strategy is to tax "the rich" even more and give it to the "poor" (even those who pay no taxes), and hope they use some of it to pay their mortgage bill.
If you were a landlord, what do you think would be a better strategy if a tenant stopped paying his rent? Evict him and start over, or start sending him checks with a note asking him to pretty please use it to pay his rent?
Regulation?
September 20, 2008 - 16:29 ET by DanSchwartz"So, [social engineering inspired] regulation is to blame to begin with, and more regulation to
counter that regulation is the fix. I guess that's what they mean by `the ever-expanding role of government'." [Bracketed contents added reflect Edward Lee's edited comments.]
No, it was a bipartisan effort of government to enforce the wrong side of the "CRA vs reserve ratio requirement" conflict of regulations.
Now, getting back to MSM coverage of the financial mess (which is what NewsBusters is for, after all!) , I have yet to see a sober, unbiased analysis of the situation.
Dan Schwartz
Sayreville, NJ
Regulation?
September 20, 2008 - 17:48 ET by Edward Lee"No, it was a bipartisan effort of government to enforce the wrong side".
This is the first I've heard of CRA in connection to the current crisis (thank you, Noel!), so I will be the first to admit unfamiliarity with the historical details. But, why does this contradict my statement? I didn't say it was one party's doing, and enforcement (right or wrong) is part of regulation.
"Now, getting back to MSM coverage"
I think this is on topic. Clarifying the historic facts which MSM is avoiding is part of newsbusting.
I concur regarding thanks to
September 21, 2008 - 09:01 ET by BDI concur regarding thanks to Noel for the information and insight. This is an area in which I have not been studying.
I also agree that no pain shall be brought to St Jimmuh by the press who will simply blame evil capitalism for what is really a governance failure by the liberals.
Hold a Democrat Responsible?
September 20, 2008 - 17:29 ET by ChasvsNow you must be kidding!
They NEVER get held responsible for ANYTHING that goes wrong!
They'll quickly grab the credit for something that goes right, but accountability for aDomcrat? Not on your life.
Stop Barack Obama from DESTROYING our Country NOW!
Hold a Democrat Responsible?
September 20, 2008 - 17:31 ET by ChasvsNow you must be kidding!
They NEVER get held responsible for ANYTHING that goes wrong!
They'll quickly grab the credit for something that goes right, but accountability for aDomcrat? Not on your life.
Stop Barack Obama from DESTROYING our Country NOW!
What's the future of
September 20, 2008 - 17:54 ET by suzycreamcheeseWhat's the future of mortgage loans? Will it be harder for deadbeat types to get loans? Will it truly be based on credit history and ability to pay, like in the past when banks scoured a person's history and habits and then approved or denied a loan based solely on those things?
And then ask for 20% DOWN...
September 20, 2008 - 18:21 ET by upcountrywaterWhen is all this going to happen? Monday?
My Government SHOVES a TRILLION bucks into the stock market, It better go up a thousand points.
Nope it just flatlines.
Gee I was waiting for some deals in stocks, butt no.. My Government using my unwilling money, against me; is my most obnoxious competitor..
I guess it's the price to pay, to stave off a planetary wide PANIC.
Will it last to Nov. $ th? I mean Nov. 4 th?
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
Carter and today's financial crisis
September 20, 2008 - 18:01 ET by nandrelliWhenever anyone at work tries to call Bush the worst President in history (I am outnumbered about 20-1 by liberal Democrats) I always jump in with "21% interest rate, 15% inflation, 9% unemployment, Communist insurgents running rampant through Central America, malaise, windfall-profits tax, gas lines, Iran hostage crisis", etc.
One of the reasons people under 40 prefer 0bama is that that they are totally unaware of Carter's existence. The MSM is like the old Soviet history books, that just airbrushed political enemies out of existence. According to the MSM, history pretty much began in 1993 with Clinton, with occasional "pre-historic" digs at Reagan. The "youngsters" just do not know about Carter, and about Obama's similarity to him in terms of policy.
Just like the Dems are calling McCain Bush's third term, we really need to convince people that 0bama is Carter's second term. When people finally realize the similarities, it will scare the crap out of them.
Interesting...
September 20, 2008 - 18:07 ET by UberconThanks for showing where to put the blame, Noel. It must have been hard for the Republicans to take a different course of action as in reversing some of these boneheaded mistakes by Carter and Clinton. If only they had enough time over the past 28 years to possibly be able to turn this country onto a better financial path instead of allowing it to go off the cliff. Now that we're all Socialists by Presidential decree, what's your solution, as an economist, to the myriad of complex financial problems that exist today? I'm not an economist, so, I'm willing to listen to someone like yourself with experience and knowledge well beyond most everyone here at NB. I thank you for taking the time to explain the solution to us all...I hate being compared to the Europeans and their socialist systems and would love to go back to being part of an American capitalist system.Your take on being a Socialist?
Ubercon
Ubercon
September 20, 2008 - 18:22 ET by Noel SheppardUbercon,
American socialism is almost 76 years in the making, and though Democrats historically are much more responsible, Republicans are by no means innocent...especially this current breed.
My take? It makes me very sad, and maybe more important, leads me to believe that most baby boomers (my generation) will never be able to retire, and their children are likely doomed to a significantly less affluent lifestyle than their parents enjoyed. ns
Noel... Truer words were
September 20, 2008 - 18:42 ET by Clear thinkerNoel...
Truer words were never spoken. I think you are dead-on accurate on this one. Sad, but true! Sometimes I feel as if Conservatives are the only ones putting their fingers in the dike and we are about to get drowned.
Liberals Hate-Filled Life
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
CT
September 20, 2008 - 18:57 ET by Noel SheppardCT,
Are we putting our fingers in the dike? Let's understand that Reagan's Social Security reform in 1983 expanded this socialist program, correct? That wasn't conservatism's finest moment, was it? Reagan's tax hike in 1987 wasn't conservatism's finest moment, nor was Bush 41's in 1990.
A Republican president with a Republican Congress expanding Medicare to include prescription drugs also wasn't conservatism's finest moment. The fiscal irresponsibility of this White House with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress during five of its eight years wasn't conservatism's finest moment.
Honestly, with Conservatives like these, who needs liberals? :-) ns
Noel... I admit that
September 20, 2008 - 19:09 ET by Clear thinkerNoel...
I admit that Conservatives have not been perfect, but on the whole, they do less damage to our country than liberals.
Plus, please understand that I don't equate Conservative with Republican. The modern GOP has proven that.
Liberals Hate-Filled Life
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
CT
September 20, 2008 - 19:13 ET by Noel SheppardCT,
I know. I was being a little snarky because what happened this week sickens me. ns
Noel...
September 20, 2008 - 19:29 ET by Clear thinkerSnarky is good. I do it all the time!
Hell, I'm not even close to being an economist, and I'm sick at what happened also.
Liberals Hate-Filled Life
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
CT
September 20, 2008 - 19:53 ET by Noel SheppardCT,
Well, it sickens me because it all could have been avoided, and now having gone through a stock market crash in '87, an S&L crisis in '90, another stock market crash from '00-'03, a housing slump, and now a banking crisis, I'm just disgusted that we continue to make the same mistakes as a nation.
None of this had to occur. We had clear warning signs beginning in 2003 that Freddie and Fannie were cooking their books. Their malfeasance isn't a surprise to anyone in DC -- trust me! Yet, for the most part, nobody did anything to stop it.
And now, the Party likely with the most blood on its hands is actually getting away with blaming the potentially more innocent one. In particular, pointing fingers at McCain is absurd.
Likely the worst aspect of liberal media bias is how Democrats can always blame everything on Republicans, and press members will echo their talking points regardless of how absurd the accusations. With our media, it's always "Blame Republicans First, Ask Questions Later...or maybe not!"
If press members weren't so quick to echo Democrat talking points concerning every crisis, maybe Democrats would have to work harder to prevent them. I'm not kidding. The media are basically a safety net for Democrat corruption, malfeasance, and negligence, for anything a Dem does wrong he or she can easily blame a Republican and some press member will report it that way. Isn't that special? ns
Bush's fault Yes and No
September 21, 2008 - 00:29 ET by PopularTechI completely agree that blaming McCain is sheer lunacy. McCain for much of his career has done much to prevent excess spending and has no control of the Federal Bank's monetary policy.
Bush on the other hand wants to fund a war and take care of everyone through government handouts, foreign aid ect... The sheer madness of his reckless spending policies and trying to create more credit made the problem worse. No he did not create Fannie and Freddie but he is now not letting them fail to protect his final days in office, which they should of been allowed to do a long time ago if they were dumped directly into the market with no special financing arrangements. I was happy to hear they failed as we could finally be rid of them once and for all and the market could liquidate them. But no now Bush has set the stage for the second great depression. More regulation or bailouts are not going to fix this only liquidation can. People must live within their means.
Silence of the MSM
September 22, 2008 - 01:19 ET by nofateNoel, thanks for this article and the links. I have attempted to explain to a number of people how this crisis was set up and get looks as if I were wearing a tin foil hat. They will actually take the word of IBD though, so that is a real help.
Earlier, you said: "American socialism is almost 76 years in the making." That would put it at about 1932, and I would argue that it has been going on a lot longer than that, especially if you take into account the "progressive" elements active in our country prior to 1900 that led to the progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt and his trust busting ways, and the near statist Woodrow Wilson. I base this mainly on the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, as well as other reading of some of the references he gave and some articles at American Thinker, here, here, here, and more.
You then said: "And now, the Party likely with the most blood on its hands is actually getting away with blaming the potentially more innocent one." And this is unfortunately nothing new. It is a longterm strategy discussed here at AT in an article called Cultural Marxism, and here, and included a theory to "pathologize what was to be destroyed" (i.e., the right):
This is how we get Bush as a fascist and conservatives, who are the farthest thing from it, as nazis.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Agreed...
September 20, 2008 - 18:45 ET by UberconÜbercon
Yes, but Noel, listen to the
September 20, 2008 - 19:17 ET by MrShyYes, but Noel, listen to Wise Man Joe (referring, of course, to Joe Biden) who reminds us all that there is nothing more patriotic than forking over some of your stash to the less "fortunate" when you're simply making too much of it yourself.
It's not socialism, it's..... patriotism. :)
EDIT: "...it's time to jump in... time to be part of the deal..."
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
Correct, Noel, in all your
September 20, 2008 - 23:51 ET by KarmaCorrect, Noel, in all your points. I don't like it either, but I'm more resigned than sad. The Obama's, the Pelosi's, the Ubercon's, the J.Frank Wilson's don't see the big picture hanging on my wall. They have their own artwork.
I'm of the same generation as you and no, I will never be able to retire. Happily, I don't fret it at all. It's a guess as to if my children will be better off than what I had/have it. So far they are doing quite well in relation.
Rhetoric aside, I see little difference between where a Republican or Democrat controled White House or Legislature has led this country in my lifetime. Both bad. When it comes right down to it, that really is all that matters. My lifetime. What say do I have after that? I, not "a village", was/am responsible for myself and my children and, as adults, they are more than capable of fending for themselves. Verbal crap like, "what about the children!", etc... makes me puke. Except when the execution of the defenseless and innocent is involved.
My philosophy: Have I gained something today? Materially; fine. Spiritually; even better. A negative day, possibly in both regards? Yeh; it can happen, but it's definately not the norm.
What the Democrat party is all about, and the Republican party has helped bring about, mostly by wanting to at least keep up with the hollow promises of the left to buy votes and power, is socialism.
Like I said, I'm more resigned than sad. Did the Revolutionary War bring sadness and nothing else? Did anything good come of the Civil War? Are we immune to violent internal conflict on a National scale? Probably many many years or decades ahead, but it WILL happen again. And our future generations will be better for it. But that really doesn't matter to me in the here and now; I believe they will be more than able to fend for themselves. Who are we to think we have the right to decide for future generations how they will live? My utopia is a socialists' nightmare. And vice-versa. How can we applaud, in the name of freedom, the break-up of the Soviet Union into independant states without seeming, at least a litle bit, hypocritical?
I am paying for the Bailout of the Poor Minority Housing crisis
September 20, 2008 - 18:43 ET by JayTeeIf I am paying (tax payer) for the Poor minority home mortgage Defaults as part of the 1 Trillion bailout. . . . . THEN, I ain't VOTING for a Minority Candidate for President so HE can Take MORE of my money for the Poor Disadvantaged Minority Home Owners who can't pay their Mortgates . . . What would they want next ? ?
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
Wow...
September 21, 2008 - 18:07 ET by UberconMinority? Not for long, my friend. As for bailing out minority homeowners, I believe you have sadly mistaken those who have trailer homes for those who acquired a second piece of real estate worth a few million. I would consider the difference pretty substantial. Besides there were loans for all types of things besides houses...businesses, buildings, cars, boats, planes...etc. besides most of the trailer park types are probably renting instead of owning. This bailout by us, the taxpayer, are for those smart investment banker types who will continue to enjoy their extravagant purchases. So, take your anger and use it by demanding more of your elected officials...the ones you voted for have done a heck of job!
Übercon
Thanks, Noel
September 20, 2008 - 18:48 ET by d1carterThis is the first time that I have seen anyone clearly show the cost of some of the laws forcing "home ownership for all Americans". As a retired banker with thirty years in the business, I agree with your analysis completely. The first time I read the summary of the CRA, I thought to myself, this just does not make one bit of business sense. How can we run a business that forces us to make loans to people that do not qualify?
I am not sure this is the only thing that has caused the current problem, but there is no doubt, that CRA contributed to it. Thanks for your work on this.
The Democrats are awfully
September 20, 2008 - 19:21 ET by kgThe Democrats are awfully mum on this problem. I smell a rat.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
By the way, blame Clinton and the Democrats
September 20, 2008 - 19:57 ET by wdhorningBy the way, Clinton, in 1999, signed the bill passed by Congress, that let Wall Street get into the mortgage business and eventually the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae low-doc, no-doc and false-doc mortgages. But in May 2005 and Jan 2006, John McCain co-sponsored a bill to add specific regulation to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It never got a vote on the floor of the Senate. Too many Democrats, and even some Republicans, opposed the Sen Hagel bill (McCain co-sponsored).
John McCain and the other 3 Republican Senators wanted the additional regulations because:
The Main Stream Media (MSM) is dead quiet about all this, because they now want to see Obama be elected, and with both houses controlled by Democrats, do additional damage to the economy with socialized medicine, instead of finding ways to get money into poor people's hands for medical expenses, including helping them to move up the economic latter a bit.
The MSM is essentially, as far as I am concerned, communists, hell-bent on destroying this country as we know it. They have to know how dangerous for the economy all of this has been and will be if Obama is President, and yet they help him. Pathetic!!! What is great is to hear that awful Democrat, Pelosi, had $2 million in AIG stock, that dropped to only $90,000. Of course, some other "good people" lost money too.
Blame the whole mess entirely and squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats, who, instead of trying to work with Republicans to raise income levels of poorer people, worked to destroy the home mortgage business by insuring that people, who had no business having a mortgage they could not afford, got one anyway.
WD
September 20, 2008 - 20:07 ET by Noel SheppardWD,
The bill you're talking about from '99 is Gramm-Leach-Bliley. However, let's be honest: this was passed by a Republican Senate and House with huge bipartisan support. As such, blaming this on Clinton is a stretch. ns
Carter
September 20, 2008 - 21:48 ET by TheAssessorDoes anyone ever remember the Iran hostage crisis? And Jimbo Carter's handling of THAT? Carter was responsible for the fall of the Shah, who though not exactly a fuzzy guy, kept his finger on the loony clerics and locked them up. The rest of them were happily silenced by a small (approx. $1,000 a month) token to keep them in their caves. The rest of the country had good jobs, a great educational system, equality for women and was growing the nation into one the world could work with. Then came Pious Jimbo Caretaker and he said, "OH NO! Look at those prisons! How awful..We have to let them out!" And he cut off the funds to the loony clerics and helped to topple the Shah. And then came Kohmeni and here we are. Good job Jim. The last thing the Shah said as he left the country in tears was, "The Middle East is lost". He was prophetic. Jimmy Carter has been cozy with the basest crazies in the world ever since. Thank God Reagan came in, but the dam was already leaking and has been ever since. Obama is a Carter clone. He will open the flood gates so he can hear his favorite evening prayer song from his mosque.
Completely the libs fault
September 20, 2008 - 21:51 ET by usbeefI believe that we have to blame the libs for this whole thing. The facts are all well known now and the democrat party is 99% responsible for this based on the facts. Look at the timeline:
"Push back the liberal hordes!!" - Mark Levin
This isn't Football - Bush is an Economic Socialist
September 21, 2008 - 00:38 ET by PopularTechSpending and spending and spending, creating credit, more credit and more credit, then bailiing and bailing and bailing does not make this a football game.
I think that historians
September 21, 2008 - 09:20 ET by BDI think that historians will look back on this era and see that Bush essentially had two choices.
It is the classic "Guns Versus" butter conundrum but with a twist. THe twist being not the money being spent but the attention being paid.
I cannot imagine the dems allowing the administration to fight the GWOT if it meant cuts to even the most unworthy social program.
Can you see it
Even with all this, I am amazed we were still able to hold a decent economy DUE to these programs.
We had other choices
September 21, 2008 - 22:28 ET by sinz52In World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt was faced with the same problem: How to pay for the war?
He undertook a mix of three actions:
1. Taxes
2. Sell plenty of war bonds
3. Indefinitely postpone all major domestic projects till the war is over
Now let's compare that to how Bush dealt with the Global War on Terror:
1. Instead of raising taxes to fight the war (a special surtax earmarked ONLY for warfighting), Bush cut taxes across the board. Bush forgot that Reagan's supply-side economics was done in peacetime, and that war is not a supply-side activity. War is the antithesis of supply-side economics: Instead of increasing supplies of stuff, you're blowing up stuff.
2. Bush never asked Americans to buy war bonds.
3. Instead of postponing domestic projects, Bush pushed through Congress a $200 billion prescription drug benefit for seniors and the No Child Left Behind programs. As long as the GOP controlled Congress, Bush never vetoed a single spending bill, no matter how much pork was in it.
1. Instead of raising taxes
September 21, 2008 - 22:49 ET by BD1. Instead of raising taxes to fight the war (a special surtax earmarked ONLY for warfighting), Bush cut taxes across the board.
Bush forgot that Reagan's supply-side economics was done in peacetime, and that war is not a supply-side activity.
War is the antithesis of supply-side economics: Instead of increasing supplies of stuff, you're blowing up stuff.
2. Bush never asked Americans to buy war bonds.
3. Instead of postponing domestic projects, Bush pushed through Congress a $200 billion prescription drug benefit for seniors and the No Child Left Behind programs.
As long as the GOP controlled Congress, Bush never vetoed a single spending bill, no matter how much pork was in it.
BD....nuking the asshat is a bit much!
September 21, 2008 - 22:55 ET by BlondeA mere conventional weapon would have sufficed.
But...carry on. It's always so much fun to see the enemy's trolls obliterated.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
THank ya much. I doubt we
September 21, 2008 - 23:03 ET by BDTHank ya much. I doubt we will hear from him again. Just a drive by who never notices the spankings....
The bots are Heinleinesque
September 21, 2008 - 23:08 ET by BlondeMarching little trollsters....dropping by and depositing little (never mind....edited for good taste)....stuff.
Smash them all. They don't deserve the white space they take up on this blog.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
The fundamentals of this economy...
September 21, 2008 - 23:44 ET by UberconBD,
You stick to those sound principles and thoughts. They are beautiful gems of economics. The vroom-vroom of economic engines- great metaphors of sound economic policies...
700,000,000,000 dollars should help keep that rusted out chevy on the White House lawn running for a little while at least. I almost forgot the war has already cost us...500,000,000,000 dollars or is it a little more? What a wonderful capitalist world we live in now, take as much from the taxpayer and fuel the economic engine we've built...sounds like socialism to me. Viva la revolution! Maybe we should have Bush call on Hugo for some tips on how to nationalize the oil companies! (sarc on- full throttle)
Übercon
Ubercon: Please compare the
September 22, 2008 - 08:28 ET by BDUbercon:
Please compare the DOD Budget for the years 1953 - 1989 to the years 2001-2008 on a per year basis. Even with the war going on you wil see outlays for DOD related expenses were comparable on a percentile basis.
Regarding the bailout, I perhaps agree with you. I am not in favor of the government interfering in the market - nor interfering in the decision to make loans such as CRA.
The CRA Scam and its Defenders
September 21, 2008 - 01:27 ET by PopularTechHere is another excellent article on the CRA...
The CRA Scam and its Defenders (Ludwig Von Mises Institute)
I can't let this pass
September 21, 2008 - 22:19 ET by sinz52Folks,
I can't let this pass. I sent an email to the editor of Investor's Business Daily setting the record straight there too. And this is part of what I said:
You can't blame a 30 year old act (the CRA), without explaining just WHY there was this huge upsurge in subprime lending and other bizarrely complex financial transactions, just in the past decade.
The reason for that is that the Congress, led by Phil Gramm, gutted Federal oversight of the complex financial arrangements known as derivatives. Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act, inserted into a huge omnibus spending bill in 2000 without even any debate, removed Federal oversight of such derivatives as subprime default swaps. And those are the derivatives whose abuses caused AIG to go under this past week and get bailed out. Those derivatives have resulted in financial transactions that no one now understands, making the ultimate cost of this Federal bailout impossible to calculate in advance.
I know what you're trying to do, but it's not going to work. You can't blame Fannie and Freddie only, since they were already bailed out before, and yet that has not stopped the collapse of the financial sector. On the stump, Obama specifically blames this deregulation of the financial industry in the late 1990s for the mess we're in now. He's going to hammer away at that point in the upcoming debates with McCain. And we had better be able to deal with that.
Even if we want to keep trying to blame Fannie and Freddie only, it begs the question of why we conservatives did not demand the reform of Fannie and Freddie as a prerequisite for deregulating the financial sector. Instead, we allowed Fannie and Freddie to remain in their current form, and deregulated everything else. That proved to be a toxic combination.
sinz
September 21, 2008 - 22:39 ET by Noel Sheppardsinz,
Interesting SN, as you apparently aren't concerned with the sin of lying. For instance, why do you blame Phil Gramm for CFMA when his version was NEVER debated on in the Senate, but instead was passed OVERWHELMINGLY in the House? As I reported months ago:
Why didn't you include this in your missive here? Too much honesty for you?
Care to debate me on this, pal? Bring it on!!!
If not, go back to Daily Kos where your irresponsible nonsense not only goes unchallenged, but is applauded by other misinformed propagandists.
Fly away little starling. Fly, fly, fly. ns
P.S. Please don't pretend you're a conservative, for it insults everyone here.
So, is it about who is to blame...?
September 22, 2008 - 00:03 ET by UberconNoel,
Still wondering about those solutions I asked of you. Is this about trying to lay blame on past policies and flame those who decide to point out the contrary and more current policies? It seems to me looking at the past 15 years or so, the Republicans need to shoulder some responsibility for this financial mess. It's a bitter pill to swallow right before the election. For those who try and lay all the blame on the dimobats for this mess, they should not be surprised by the huge blowback that will occur as the problem rears its ugly head on those who currently preside over this mess. The electorate will remember only so far back in time and the Republicans are the dominant remnants of the recent past.
Übercon
Ubercon
September 22, 2008 - 00:10 ET by Noel SheppardUbercon,
In my previous reply to you, I said the Republicans were also to blame. If I recall correctly -- and please let me know if I somehow misinterpreted your response or am misquoting you -- you simply stated, "Agreed."
Did I read into that? Please advise. ns
Ubercon
September 22, 2008 - 18:47 ET by Noel SheppardUbercon,
Crickets? ns
Scared of democRATS?
September 22, 2008 - 16:36 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou're missing the point. The evidence clearly shows that Republicans, to include McCain, attempted to head off disaster years ago but were blocked by democRATS.
In a nutshell what happened is that banking institutions were forced to extend loans to people that couldn't afford them. Then Freddie and Fannie proceeded to buy those loans from them. Odd that democRATS were the benefactors when sacks of campaign cash started going out the door. The #2 recipient: Obama.
Then there's ACORN's involvement with the extortion. It seems that a little known 'community organizer' at the time was right in the middle of it. Who could that be?
Both Rush and Boortz and some pretty good commentary on the specifics of the situation today on their radio shows.
Sometimes, as hard as it may be to take, democRATS are wholly responsible with little exception. A RINO here or there does not indicate institutionalized involvement by the GOP.
Don't be scared, let the democRATS have the blame for once.
PALIN/McCain 2008