Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
David Harsanyi :: Townhall.com Columnist
Now You Own It, Mr. President
by David Harsanyi
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


There are few things more satisfying than unloading your righteous rage on one of those insatiably greedy Wall Street bankers.

We have Gordon Gekko to blame. Barack Obama has George W. Bush. So while the president is busy radically centralizing the nation's economy, he, in a superbly eloquent and inspirational pitch, always reminds us that nothing is his fault.

If Washington had a buck to spare, it still wouldn't stop at the top. But let's, for the sake of argument, concede that presidents trigger recessions. Well, then, we also must concede that nearly every initiative enacted in the first 50 days by the Obama administration has exacerbated what Bush started.

Isn't it too early to judge? It would be if Obama had not accelerated the timeline with his "ambitious" agenda, including the partisan trillion-dollar project masquerading as a stimulus bill and the deficit-busting budget. It would be if Obama had not worked early to support agenda-driven omnibus pork bills, job-killing cap and trade schemes, and union assaults on workers' rights, to name just a few of his priorities.

Obama can do anything, apparently, except properly staff the Treasury Department. Aren't those guys supposed to be "fixing" the economy or something?

Then again, it also should be noted that if Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, whose gibberish-infused explanation of the administration's bank bailout non-plan knocked the Dow Jones down 4 percent in one day, is indicative of "staff," maybe Obama is doing us all a favor.

The Dow Jones industrial average, actually, has reacted to Obama by plunging nearly 20 percent since he became president. That's an obliteration of wealth that no stimulus bill will recoup. Since Election Day, the market has lost nearly 30 percent of its value -- trillions of dollars, not from CEO bonuses, as you may have hoped, but from your 401(k) and the private sector.

"The stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. It bobs up and down day to day, and if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong," Obama recently explained.

You know, Mr. President, not everything is like politics.

The market is a forward-looking entity, indeed, but it is driven by the decentralized actions of millions of investors every second. It's the opposite of politics. And this setup surely offends the sensibilities of the statist planners occupying Washington. Unlike politicians, markets don't lie. And this market has been in freefall for a year.

So, what to do? Obama, who promised not to raise taxes during a recession, now plans to raise nearly $1 trillion in new taxes directly from the investor class. He plans to raise capital gains taxes (a disincentive to investment), corporate taxes (for you, the consumer, ultimately to pay) and on the "rich" (which the nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates will affect 1.3 million small-business owners).

This recession already has passed the 15-month threshold, the historical average for downturns. Most presidents helped ease us out of those tough spots by easing the burden on Americans. Obama has engaged in the opposite. That's his gamble.

And most polls show the president's approval rating at about 60 percent, which is similar to other modern presidents' ratings at this point in their presidencies. But now that Obama has used his political capital to further ideology rather than economic growth, one thing is clear: He owns this mess.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ahenobarbus

Well, Justin keeps using the blame a sector
of society mantra with no credible sources.
Allow me if you will:

1: The Austrian School attempts to place
economics, which is a quantitative discipline
that has to use SOME math formulas to establish
its point, on par with psychology, sociology, etc; a "feel" or qualitative discipline. That is
why it is not recognized by many of its peers in the field of economics; does not use any
empirical evidence whatsoever. Kinda like trying to convict a person based on "beliefs"
or "feelings" and not cold evidence.

2: You said that major newspapers have an axe to
grind. While that may or may not be true,
what is true is certain publications and
organizations have an OBVIOUS slant. This
leads me to ask, what is the substantive difference between Justin and some Chomsky spouting professor, whom, when pressed for an actual source to support their claims, fall back on the old "official
sources are corporate sponsored propaganda designed to induce support of policies that
benefit wealthy multi-national corporations..."
cannard? Yet, Chomsky himself is not a
historian or political scientist; his core area
is linguistics. Creates an echo chamber, does it not.

I listened to the arguments about the CRA and
thought that because of desires of Clinton and
Bush to increase ownership, there may have been
something there. The evidence put forth by
credible sources say that if the CRA was in any
way a factor, it was as a ruse by both
Presidents to dergulate the financial sector
and liberalize the credit markets. Why? While
both pushed for increase ownership (Bush's American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act),
they did not follow through with regulations
or enforcement to insure transparency and
an up & up operation....

Mod Mark
The CRA is one of those various political footballs that no one really wants to touch. It's a good idea to get rid of it, but doing so is pretty much political suicide. Anyone that attempts to get rid of it will have to live out his career with the types of Al Sharpton constantly beating on them for being racist.

The CRA is a piece of social engineering that provides a great deal of political feel-good. Even when it is completely unnecessary and doesn't exactly accomplish anything but add regulatory expense (Government hires people to keep up on CRA requirements with banks), no one will get rid of it. When it's an accomplice to a financial meltdown, those who get high on the political feel-good will protect it to the death. GWB, like Clinton before, vastly expanded the CRA and the home-ownership push from the Federal end. CRA is a bi-partisan baby, proof that getting different parties to agree doesn't exactly provide any kind of control on bad decisions.

BTW
Since Randall Kroszner was cited as an authority on the subject, I've found that he has also said this:

"... Unfortunately, the available data on loan performance do not let us distinguish which specific loans in lower-income areas were related to the CRA. ..."

Not that this information is dispositive, but it means that all the evidence is not yet in.

Brandon
I didn't say "real" argument; I said "real" familiarity. Your argument is still based on "those who agree with me are disinterested and objective; those who do not are partisan axe-grinders." They are all axe-grinders. Even the Wall Street Journal is liberal; only its editorial page is conservative.

Your comparison of opposing points of view to Hitlerian technique does not strengthen your case. This is not honest inquiry. It is a naked attempt to command the terms of debate.

P.S.S.
As a pre-emptive strike against the "Heritage Foundation is a right wing talking point", same info from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7814704.stm

BBC tends to be a lot smarter and more detailed than the organizations many in this nation call "journalists".

P.S.
Bush didn't deregulate anything:

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/23/did-deregulation-cause- the-wall-street-crisis/

Just to shoot that joke of a claim that deregulation caused the problem. Researching based exclusively on paid bureaucrats, especially from regulatory boards, is a very bad idea.

Mod Mark Pt. 3
The ultimate joke on society here is that the CRA was never necessary to begin with. There never existed a huge conspiracy to deny minorities home loans. Minorities just happen to live more frequently in urban areas with few to no buying opportunities, even for wealthy individuals. CRA was justified because things like 30% down and stable income were considered racist policies and that somehow every location, regrdless of situation or environment, needed an exact same level of loan funding. Government really needs to stop trying to regulate the market. If there's money to be made, the banks will loan, if there isn't, they won't. If there isn't anything out there hedging against risks, especially tax funded hedges, then fewer banks take risks. It's not that hard to figure out. The broad banking industry did not pick up on messed up mortgage packages unless A) risk was percieved to be eliminated or B) they had no choice in the matter. It happens to be C) all of the above.

To put it simply:

CRA is the butterfly flapping the wings, Frannie, Freddie and the Fed is the wind, the buffalo stampede that flattens a village in Vietnam is the housing bubble bursting.

But then again, this isn't an "official" source, so it will just be ignored out of hand.

Mod Mark Pt. 2
Back on track. The CRA is a major culprit NOT (as the straw man Brandon keeps trying to hammer on) because of loan origination but because it politically threw out of balance market equilibrium forces. People are renters and buyers due to economic realities. CRA placed pressure on the buying end. With a limited supply, when the demand increases, prices will follow. However, without Fannie, Freddie and artificial interst rates, the end result would have been an increase in home building and interest rates would have increased to match the increased demand on capital and banks would have not been so hasty to put forth crazy schemes without some major entity backing them up. If anything, the CRA would have failed without Fannie, Freddie and fractional reserve banking as it would have done little more than create a bunch of banks that failed CRA tests because the interest rates would have been out of reach of the new demand.

CRA caused housing prices to rise, the Federal Reserve added fuel to the fire, Frannie and Freddie were enablers. Attempts at Government trying to be altrusitc backfire pretty much every time, most of which we don't notice as we assume that's just part of reality (like inflation and involuntary uneployment).

Mod Mark Pt 1.
The problem with this 2,000 word cap is that it's impressively difficult for me to get the whole story out without resorting to 30 part replies. I'm fully aware of the artificial low interest rates issue as being part of the equation, but it would have had little effect on housing without the distortion of the housing market demand. Artificial interest rates are a major player in every economic recession since the advent of central banking, central banks simply lack the ability to adjust interest rates (both empirically and politically) to match the needs of the market. Mathematic models are useless as no amount of math can predict human behavior, which is the fundamental flaw of Chicago School and Keyensians and the major advantage of the Austrian School. Austrians don't try to turn economics into a math lesson, it's fundamentally a social science. This is why I can't reply with official sources because there exists no Austrian economist on a government payroll, which is what official means. Consensus is what's required to be official but consensus is not necessarily correct (see global warming, plate tectonics, Newtonian physics, etc).

Reba of 11th 12:52
Thank you for a good laugh. Actually a couple of your predictions were highly unlikely. Why would Jamaica want France?

Sourcing part 2
I did not seek out sources that confirm my
own POV. As a matter of fact, I read the
arguments about the CRA's role in the current
mess, did my own research and established
that many of the arguments that pointed to
the CRA as the main culprit were right wing
pundits who did not wish to go deeper and
look at de-regulation i.e Gramm/Leach;
opening up the markets for derivatives
and swaps and not putting the Street on
a leash; fearing that such regulations would
hamper lending activities. My argument was
also supported by an article in Business Week
in 2008 by Aaron Pressman. There simply has
not been put forth much in the way of
empirical evidence showing how the CRA
contributed to this crisis; most evidence
points to non-regulated, non-insured END
LENDERS and that many sub-prime consumers
were middle class amateur investors captivated
by the wash of real estate in 2005-2006.

At the end of 2004, according to the now
defunct New Century, a slight majority of
sub-prime borrowers were white, under 50
and an average income of $72,000. Note,
this is just one firm's customers...

A report by ComplianceTech, in concert with
the data mining service Lending Patterns, shows that out of sub-prime mortgages issued in 2006,
nearly 71 percent were by non-Hispanic white
customers; nearly 40 percent were to upper
income borrowers; nearly 28 percent were to
middle class borrowers. This article was
published in Real Estate Magazine upon
July 24, 2008. When an industry publication
puts forth those types of numbers, it shows
that blaming the CRA or minorities is too eerily similar to what the Mustached One
did in Germany in the 1930s; blame a sector
of society for its economic and social turmoil.

Sourcing
My arguments were from a prior article I had written for a local publication; hence, they
may seem cut and pasted or rehearsed. I had to
slice the article up into parts because of TH
charcter limits. But, please offer a definition of a "real" argument.
I am interested so as I may avoid seeming
rehearsed (sracasm rolls).

Of course I am going to have my arguments
down pat. Anything less is just pissing in the wind.

As far as sourcing, the reason I argue against
certain sources is the same reason I argue
against people who cite blogs or Chomsky:
The traditional media, as flawed as it may be,
has one constraint: Chain of liability. This
means that, outside of their Editorial
pages, they are responsible for their
content. If they make a mistake, they
are required to at least make some admission
of error.

In contrast, the Washington Times is owned by
the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who has supported
various far right causes. Furthermore,
the paper's quality has been questioned by
one of the nation's top journalism schools,
the Columbia School of Journalism.

Now, if Justin had cited at least the Wall Street Journal, which is a conservative publication but has generally been noted for
its quality, I might have taken his points
more seriously...



...continued
From a purely logical point of view, even if they have a rather poor record of getting to the truth, they are still capable of making a strong argument -- and therefore it is the argument which should be considered, rather than the source. Additionally, it is extremely silly to suggest that the Washington Times, for example, has an agenda and that none of its rival papers does. The New York Times? The Los Angeles Times? The Washington Post? All of them have their agendas; they simply might be invisible to those predisposed to agree with them. They are undeniably obvious to those who disagree with them. Honest debaters still must deal with the arguments they make rather than dismiss them. A challenge I regularly make to people is "If their arguments really are so flimsy, then address them directly and show us where they are flawed. If they are that weak, it should be very easy for you to do so." Dismissing them out of hand only suggests that you are afraid to address what they have to say.

Well, no. It's this...
"Ahenobarbus
What have I revealed? That I am mean and snotty?
Well, I must have learned from someone and
it was many of the posters on TH that seem
to be more than happy to call names, use
labels and ad hominem attacks upon people
who present differing points of view. ..."

Well actually, it was the dramatic shift in the level of argumentation once the talking points had been exhausted. It makes the apparent familiarity with the subject look cut and pasted or rehearsed rather than real.

As for the truth or falsity of a subject, you're resulting to an argument from authority. An argument is either factual or fallacious based on its own strengths -- as in the evidence which supports it, repeatability, corroboration, and predictive power. Naming a source off bounds simply because it espouses points of view at odds with your own is not demonstrating a commitment to honest inquiry. Quite the contrary; it rather suggests that you pick your sources based on whether or not they agree with your conclusions rather than whether or not they have a good track record of revealing the truth.

Mafia Tactics Ok With christianlib
Sir,

A moral question:

If a Mafia chieftan extorted all the neighbors and gave you the funds to employ their sons, would that be ok by you?

Does electing the chieftans make all the difference?

Some practical points:

You, like the Feds, are neglecting to account for all the projects that will not get funded because the money has been removed from private hands, then filtered through the Feds, then handed to your private-public partnership.

The dollars you received (or, rather, that the agencies received in order to pay you) will be borrowed, which will be paid for in higher taxes on your fellow citizens. Or, it will simply be printed, debasing the value of everyone's money, including yours.

Do you think this is a practical economic policy?

Ha
Sorry, this dumb-mule was a graduate of the California Public School system (how I managed to shuffle off that Marxist indoctrination is beyond me), that state next door that thought Obama, a guy whose economics experience and knowledge is limited to "me pay money, me get stuff", was a grand idea.

I'm aware of Milton Freedman, that hack thinks that as long as we, the people, continually vote in someone "competent" and "ethical", central banks and manipulated paper currency will work. Just another chump giving the free markets a bad name by stealing the terminology. Anyone that actually thinks we can just conjure up money out of nothing is a hack. Where do these Chicago School and Keyensians think resources come from? From up on high from the great God (wonder how the atheists in the room justify this one)? There's only so much to go around, take it from one, give it to another, it just makes the first guy have less, nothing more.

Hard to find a dumber person that actually thinks central banking is a good idea. Oh, right, someone who thinks that we can actually trust an individual with the keys to the press.

Justin
Well, one thing we agree on: I voted for
Harry Browne in 2000 and Mike Bednarik in 2004.

I have a (expletive) degree in International Politics, with a focus on structural reform.
Do not EVER tell me I am engaging in matters
beyond my expertise, you Midwest whiskey tango.

Read Milton Friedman and Bryan Caplan on the
Austrian School sometime. You may learn
something.

Now, I voted for Obama because by mid-late 2008,
the situation had deteriorated so badly there
was no other choice. Protest votes are for
college students. I unfortunately have had
to live through this stormy weather in a REAL
world and so I voted for the current President.

Go along and play with your tin-foil hat and
eat your little hot dogs and read your little
non-scientific, non-empirical journals.
Maybe you wack off to Justin Raimondo as well.

Ahenobarbus
What have I revealed? That I am mean and snotty?
Well, I must have learned from someone and
it was many of the posters on TH that seem
to be more than happy to call names, use
labels and ad hominem attacks upon people
who present differing points of view.

What is relly ironic is that I once thought
name calling and hatefulness was monopolized
by lefties (the REAL left wingers) who,
when pressed on an issue, could only quote
the talking points easily found in ANY
of Noam Chomsky's books or the writings
of Michael Parenti. They use arguments like
Israel's disprortionate response but cannot
define proportionality in any real world
manner and instead break out the Chomsky
points about how Zionism is a crime.

Here, I have learned there is not a dime's
worth of difference between right wing-nuts
and left wing-nuts. Someone asks for
something, you make it seem like I am
asking for your bank account and your home and
cars. Gee, all I have asked for is
a credible citation that does not come from
a source of questionable credibility. Even
Milton Friedman, the Don of neo-liberal
market economics was critical of the Austrian School:

"The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false."

From The Optimal Quantity of Money and Other Essays. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 261–284.

Bryan Caplan,professor of economics at George Mason University, no friend of Marxism,
rejects the Austrian School because it
does not use mathematics or the scientific method; rather, relying on anecdotal evidence
rather than empirical testing.

Brandon
Can't read apparently. Illogical and illiterate when convenient. Mises is not a right wing think tank, they're libertarian. Huge difference, but not to those who are incompetent in the world of politics (there are more than two sides to this ya know). 8 years of Bush bashing came out of them, including the "everyone loves Bush" period just after 9/11. You'll find us Austrio-Libertrians were that 10% who disapproved of grand Bush-man after 9/11.

P.S. - Voted for Badnarik in 2000 and 2004. Get your ducks in a row before trying to argue with people above and beyond your IQ range. We predicted this mess two decades ago, you still think Government can save us.

Interesting
Brandon, you've revealed far more than your realize. Thank you for pulling back the curtain.

Official citations(?)
The Mises Institute is a right wing economic think tank. Not surprisngly, people like Justin cannot cite any article beyond
that of an institutioon that already confirms
what he believes.

To answer another poster, I am off today; my schedule was backended. So, I hope that answers
that.

All I am asking for is a citation from an official source; a newspaper (not the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard or
any publication devoted to right wing talking
points. Even the WSJ will suffice as
a source); a source that is not slanted
or has an agenda.

I am sorry if Justin feels I have no credibility. But, what are YOUR credentials?
Other than citing the Mises Institute,
you have failed to rebut statistically or
quantitatively anything put forth by
Mr. Kroszner or provide an objective
rebuttal.

In sum, you're likely just another space wasting mouth breather who lives in a single
wide and are now disowning Bush when you
cheered him from 1/20/01 until he left
office. People like you convince me that
people should have permits before being
allowed to reproduce; weed out the inbred,
mouth breathing population of the nation.

ChristianLib
"economy turning
i am small business owner in a construction related field.

the money from the stimulus package has already had an effect on my business.

the local school district had deferred or stopped millions of dollars worth of construction projects because of the budget shortfall.

millions of dollars arrived two weeks ago and now i have more business than i can handle ..."

That is astonishining. So far, from what I've read, none of the money has yet been spent. Education disbursements, for example, aren't scheduled to occur for another 4-6 weeks. Is this actual money that has arrived, or is the state of California spending money it doesn't have in anticipation of money it expects to receive?

One Final Thought
Written December 2001:

http://mises.org/story/859

Since I know that most folks here can't be bothered to read:

"The government and its GSEs strive to make it easy for Americans to buy homes by providing a ready market for mortgages and subsidizing the industry with tax advantages and its implied guarantee. The GSEs now hold more than half of domestic mortgages, for example. Most people seem to believe that it is best for everyone to own their homes, costs and risks aside. The consequence of this type of thinking is, of course, more debt."

"Is it not obvious what the fatal weakness of such a scheme is? Once begun, it cannot be stopped until it reaches its gruesome natural end. Garrett writes, "when creditors fail to present themselves faster than old creditors demand to be paid off, the bubble bursts." This seems to be where we are now. The average American consumer is a debt-laden mule. Easy credit and more debt will not help him."

Prophetic, 100% correct, but will never show up in any official sources. It is to the detriment of the officials.

I'm glad someone else noticed this.
I've thought it was a bit of an irony that a President who tried to convey such a take-charge, no-more-business-as-usual approach during the campaign would spend so much time reminding people that he "inherited" the economy from the previous administration, again & again & AGAIN, both explicitly and implicitly in little indirect barbs. This pettiness creates a bizarre cognitive dissonance when combined with that pompous, moralistic tone he takes in his speeches.

Brandon
Your citations, please? Going beyond the single reference to a member of the Fed Board of Governors, of course, since your assertions have gone far beyond what you gathered from that source, and since you are calling on Justin to produce his own citations. I am gathering from what I've seen that a reference must have an "official" capacity and not an "export" one, since his Mises foundation reference was disregarded.

Sorry if this is a bit rude, but I always get suspicious when I see a series of detailed and lengthy posts in the middle of a workday. I myself would love to engage in that level of debate, but my work absolutely precludes my ability to do so. At best I can jot out one lengthy post a day at lunch or after 5:00 p.m. Are you in the lending industry? Retired? Working for a political staff or a rival blog? Perhaps it's simply my frustration that I don't have time to adequately respond to many of the arguments I see here, but I don't think its unreasonable to be skeptical of someone who seems to have unlimited time and apparently pre-prepared arguments.

Brandon
I won't even bother to read the second and third rebuttal parts because you asked me for an "official" source, ie, generated by a Government or Government backed economist. That immediately killed any sort of credibility you may have had and all I can assume at this point forward is you just got lucky with the stuff you got right. It is not in this government's best interest, prior administration or current, to ever admit that its policies created this mess. You've asked for the impossible. Many of your official sources not only promoted these damaging policies and organizations but created them as well.

Read the articles in the following site:

http://mises.org/

This is NOT a GOP platform or face, just to kill that argument right up front. They spent the last 8 years talking down the GOP and Bush on their immense stupidity regarding economic policy. Mises has articles pre-dating these problems predicting them, among other Austrian economists. The prior article I pasted here links to a newspaper editorial with the economist saying the CRA was going to cause a huge problem. The date of the prediction? 1998.

Official sources are the ones that made the mess in the first place. I don't listen to them. I didn't listen to them when Bush took office, I won't listen to them today. And since you only take your information from official sources, I won't listen to you either.

Have a good one.

Suspect
I find it odd that the only person on this thread that says the stimulus is working is a BO supporter from liberal CA.

Not saying anyone is lying - but why is only CA feeling the relief?

Maybe because it's a liberal state? Naw ... BO and congress wouldn't discriminate would they?

If there was any doubt
Today prove he owns it. He had every opportunity to correct what he calls an inherited problem. If the bill today was his predecessors fault and he planned on correcting his predecessor, why didn't he? Because a propagandized scam is an opportunity too good to waste. This lightweight thinks you're stupid. If you don't oust your dim representative just on the grounds that they haven't stood up to this travesty you are fools. And you should at least call or email them and tell them that you are going to do it.

Justin. part 3
You said many originators were simply brokers
for a CRA entity. Once again, citation.
Most actual end lenders who dealt in these
products were non-regulated institutions.
IndyMac, American Home Loan Corporation,
Bayview Financial and others were non
regulated end lenders who derived deposits
from institutional and individual investors.

Now, Fannie and Freddie stepped out of their
core subject expertise and decided to take
advantage of the new and supposedly dynamic
loan programs being pushed by brokers and
mortgage bankers and competing with the
Street for investors.

Outside of the actual commercial banks and
depository institutions, AIG, Merrill Lynch and
other Wall Street casino banks and brokerages
should have been allowed to fail. People who
do business with those companies know exactly
why they are doing business with them and
should be smart enough to know investing
in paper backed by nothing but the good
faith of homebuyers is a gamble; much like
playing the Executive Game. If you lose, you
lose. That's that.

Very Important - Computers Hacked

Very Important - Computers Hacked

If you have made any political donations to Conservative or Republican candidates or political organizations, please be advised that there is a whole lot of hacking going on. I just got off the phone with a reporter from a Minneapolis newspaper, who interviewed me in connection with a donation that my company made to the Coleman campaign. wikileaks.org has a database online with all the information of the donors, i.e., names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, credit card numbers, etc.

Please check the database and CANCEL YOUR CREDIT CARD, NOW!!!

The tenacles of the Anti-Prop 8 LibNazis are a'spreading.

Please pass this along and post in EVERYWHERE.

Thanks, denise

Justin
Please provide a link to some type
of official statement, quote, report;
from an official source or person that
had primary privity to what you are stating.

As I wrote; it seems as if less than 10 percent
of toxic mortgages were CRA related. Most were
issued by non-CRA regulated lenders. I am
in real estate (albeit the commercial
side) but during the period in question,
many of these so-called off the books
mortgages were pushed by mortgage brokers,
who worked in concert with non-bank
lenders. A mortgage broker gets both
up-front origination points and points
on the back, called a Yield Spread
Premium. This is achieved by upselling the
rate.

Once the actual end lender has issued the
loan, it is sold off. Some were sold to
Fannie and Freddie; others to Wall Street.
All of them bastardized the loan by slicing
them into permutations and then investors,
both personal and business bought these
nicel little things.

Now, Fannie and Freddie were NOT loan insurers.
Fannie (prior to this decade) BOUGHT
Federally insured loans-VA, FHA, etc. Freddie
mainly bought uninsured conventional loans;
often called "A" Paper.

However, in this decade, the two decided to
step outside of their core mission because
of their implied government status and
backing and buy loans that had no vetting
or vouching whatsoever.

To be continued...

GOSHAWK
Reference: "Did I persuade a potential employer to hire me?" Persuade may have not been the correct word, but I do remember having to sell myself to be hired for the first job I had at age 17, because I had no prior experience at that time. With an education and experience and a chosen career field, getting jobs was never a problem for me. I have always owned my own mistakes and believe each mistake we make in life is a learning experience. I have tried to teach that to children and personnel.

To the present, I have spent over 20 years in management and have studied many different management techniques. My observation is that Obama's lack of management ability and leadership is showing in almost everything he does. However, his objective is clear.

I agree totally with you that his objective from the very begining was to move the USA into Socialism. 90% of his actions thus far have been to achieve that direction, not to fix the economy. "Can't let a crisis go to waste" is an apt statement uttered by Rham Emanuel, using the economic situation to push forth his Socialist agenda and scare tactics to reinforce them to a more rapid conclusion.

I have read many of Alinsky's writings and can see the parallel between how Obama and his administration in manipulating the Media and the American people, just as Alinsky proposed.
This is what scares me most because it a deliberate effort using radical techniques.

I love my country and mourn for the loss of our unity, values, pioneer spirit and inegrity, especially in our leaders.



Brandon Pt 2.
Since banks today don't actually hold mortgages, they all get bought up by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, they were more than happy to loan out to the speculators. There was simply no risk to the major banks. Smaller banks got in on the deal and, even though some may have identified it as a Ponzi practice (housing prices can't go up forever), they had to match the speculative lending or be put out of business by those working the system. The artificial demand increased dictated by the CRA, specifically the 1995 jump, started the ball rolling.

Another problem is that many of what you call a non-CRA entity is actually a middle man working FOR a CRA entity, but because they originated the loan, not the CRA entity, on behalf of the CRA entity, it fell outside of the CRA definition.

http://mises.org/story/2963

Thus, the whole mess is highly complex but it is clearly traced back to the 1995 CRA amendments and coupled with very bad Federal policy regarding guaranteeing mortgages. The CRA may not have its name tagged on the bulk of the defaults (again, not disputing this fact), but it is still the primary culprit behind the whole situation. A screw is a small thing, but it can start the cascade of events that results in a bridge collapsing.

Brandon Pt 1.
Pay attention for a moment. You're trying to argue against the CRA originating the bad mortgages, I don't argue with this. I'm looking on this on a much deeper level, mainly a supply issue and price inflation.

When the CRA was given extra teeth beginning on 1995, we can see the housing prices start to climb FASTER than the growth in average wages. 1995 was the date the CRA was given a quota aspect. Banks were now pressured to get lending out in equal amounts in all markets, most specifically, markets where primary living conditions were traditionally rentals. Banks had to start advertising to these renters that buying was a more prudent choice of action even though where they lived (ie S. Cali or Florida) didn't have the necessary housing available. This inflated market started adding pressures to increase prices. More people looking to buy housing through lower interest loans but the supply simply did not exist. It takes time to build a house, you know.

When the housing prices started to rise, this caught the attention of investors. It doesn't take long for an investor to notice. Now comes the toxic combination. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created as mortgage guarantee entities. Up until the housing prices started to creep up, we had a significant absense of speculative buyers. Buying a house as an investment is a recent phenomenon.

(continued)

CRA and the Mortgage Mess
"Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions--that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.6

Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.

Of course, loan originations are only one path that banking institutions can follow to meet their CRA obligations. They can also purchase loans from lenders not covered by the CRA, and in this way encourage more of this type of lending. The data also suggest that these types of transactions have not been a significant factor in the current crisis. Specifically, less than 2 percent of the higher-priced and CRA-credit-eligible mortgage originations sold by independent mortgage companies were purchased by CRA-covered institutions."

Randall Kroszner: Federal Reserve Governor

Link:http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm

Please read more than Malkin (anchor child)
and Hannity (doughboy)

Where I Disagree with the President
I also question his move of escalating in Afghanistan. Iraq was a debacle by Bush;
a blatant violation of his own stated
principles to never engage in a poorly
defined mission without an exit plan. Iraq
ended up being a mission with changing and
contradicting reasons-WMDs, ties to AQ and
then creating democracy (read: nation building, which Bush campaigned AGAINST). The success
of the surge was based upon bribes; paying
local Sunni leaders anywhere from $1,000
to $10,000 per month to change sides. Loyalty
that can be leased is not loyalty at all.

Escalation in Afghanistan may end up creating
a similar headache for Obama. There has never
been a coherent nation state of Afghanistan,
save the period of the monarchy from the
1930s until 1973, when the Soviet backed
PDPA took control of the country. The Red Army,
with their puppets in Kabul and their
jackboot tactics failed to control that
country. The matter of apprehending
and dealing with AQ, bin Laden and his
henchmen is a matter for the CIA, NSA and
the special forces; not a conventional
army that moonlights as a social welfare
agency.

Lastly, the assault weapons ban: What is
the definition of an assault weapon?
Often, assault weapon is a term that
refers to a design or cosmetic feature
but is not that different from a semi-automatic
pistol; user has to fire one shot
at a time.

Also, would there be a prosecution for
a person who does have a rapid fire
weapon because they live in a bad
neighborhood infested with gangs and
drug dealers who have such weapons?
What is the criteria for such a ban?

Justin
Where is the proof that the CRA was a major
factor in the current crisis. I provided
a statement and link to an entire report
by a Fed Reserve governor?

I repeat that the majority of the sub-prime
loans were made by institutions outside of
CRA regulations. The CRA primarily
pertained to depository institutions or
commercial banks.

Stated income, stated assets loans (SISA)
were issued by non-bank entities.

Another contributor to the mess was the
repeal of Glass/Steagall by Gramm/Leach.
This allowed a mixing of commercial and
investment banking activity. This act
allowed banks that otherwise would
have to conform to Fed regulations to
engage in activities best reserved
for separate, specialized investment
banks.

Whites constituted 72 percent of sub-prime
mortgage holders; African-Americans
roughly 16 percent and Hispanics only a
tad over 6 percent.

Fannie and Freddie never were LENDERS! They
were a quasi government agency that BOUGHT
mortgages that had already been funded.
They then sold stock to the public and
those stocks' performances were gauged
by interest payments. While they
loosened their underwriting standards,
they did so partly to benefit from
the new financial products and the
variable rates that were often inherent
in such products...

Please offer something beyond GOP talking
points.

christianlib #29
Reagan and both Presidents Bush left office with Congress in the control of DEMOC-RATS. Congress spends the money. Congress causes the deficits. Democ-rats did everything they did to make Republican presidents fail.
Odumbo the Democ-rat has a Democ-rat controlled Congress, and they jointly wasted 3(?) trillion dollars in six weeks.

Brandon #47: The Obamessiah promised to fix everything in much less than 50 days. After all, he is "The Messiah".

Odumbo wants to take all the money owned by the "rich". The total isn't enough to cover his budget. Next year, when the money owned by the "rich" is long gone, there won't be any more "rich peoples'" money, so they will take the middle income peoples' money and the poor peples' money. What he will do the year after that, I have no idea.

ChristianLib

Thank you. However, there are some decisions
and policy points I disagree with the
President upon:

1: Closing Yucca Mountain via the Budget. France derives nearly 80 percent of its
energy from nuclear energy. They adopted
nuclear power as a policy following the 1973
Arab embargo. The United States decided
to slow its program after Three Mile Island;
even though that incident amounted to
a sneeze. No one died and no one contracted
any illness.

2: Tying into above: What is Mr. Obama's
energy policy. Since he has tied the costs
of foreign energy to the economic crisis,
what is his precise policy? I know he
supports wind, solar and geothermal. However,
what about days that the sun is not shining and
the wind is not blowing?

3: The Cap and Trade plan: Since most utilities
are state regulated monopolies i.e Public
Service Company of New Mexico, they will
pass cost onto customer. Furthermore, what
would be their incentive to invest in
cleaner energy if the new policy allows
a higher rate of return?

4: In New Mexico, a company called Hyperion
Power Generation, partly owned by Los
Alamos National Security has developed
a nuclear power plant the size of
a sport utility vehicle. It would only have
to be refueled every 5-10 years. At this
stage, it could power an area of 20,000
homes.

Link:http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2882418.




Brandon
While you got the facism/communism distinction correct, you've mistakenly attempted to classify the "European" system as a separate system entirely. The US government is operating quite wholesale under the fascist system and will do even more so under our new President.

You correctly stated that fascism controls quotas, price controls, subsidies and by resource allocation determination. What you missed in this is that things like Cap and Trade are direct subsidies to promote specific business. Other issues like CAFE standards, price controls on executive pay and many other things passed under Bush and passed in the recent "stimulus" bill rubber-stamped by our President are clear fascist in nature.

Also, the CRA WAS a major contributor to the current problem, not because it was the originator of the loans but because it created an artificial increase in demand that otherwise wouldn't exist. Also, to facilitate the CRA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were driven to guarantee every single loan originated in the United States. With the CRA driving up demand, which drives up cost, and the two mortgage guaranters under Federal control (they may have been called private but still took orders from Congress), this created an environment where risk was percieved to be non-existent and promoted speculative buying.

Without the CRA (which is unecessary to begin with, banks will loan to profitable applicants regardless of race) and without expressed guarantees of mortgages, there would be no problems today. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were/are major players in the credit default swaps and mortgage derivities market and even originated a large number of them (this is how they got their funding).

Yes, the CRA didn't originate the failed loans, but it did provide considerable weight to the problems on the whole.

christianlib Pt 2
you aren't operating on capital. You're operating on paper. The dollar system is dangerously close to collapse. You're expending real resources, labor and materials, in exchange for fiat currency that won't be worth the paper it's printed on, let alone the ink, in a few years. Capital requires savings, we haven't saved as a nation in decades. When (note I said when, not if) our currency inflates out of control, all those payments you got this year won't be enough to buy the materials for any future construction, assuming anyone can afford it.

Future destruction for a temporary extension of this pretend prosperity we have. Enjoy today, tomorrow will not be so great for your business.

christianlib Pt 1
It may appear that things are fine and that running huge deficites are not a problem, but there will be a point when it just stops moving. Austiran economists, the same people that predicted that this would happen years before it did, the same people that predicted the Carter-era downturn and even the Great Depression, are the ones saying that it all comes from excessive Government credit in the forms of Treasury bonds and excessive inflationary spending by central banks. Keyensians, the ones that are promoting this stimulus, have gotten it wrong at every point in history, including a major promoter, Irving Fisher, going bankrupt after believing that there would never be a Great Depression. They also failed in their assessment that the dramatic government cut-backs during the 1950s would create another depression (the US expanded at an amazingly rapid pace during this time). It also doesn't help that inflationary practices in the past always led to economic collapse from the Roman Emperors getting the great idea to "water down" gold coins with iron to the funny money that Congress flooded the market with during the Civil War. It'll just happen again, this time being driven by government debt.

Pray tell, in an era when there's a "credit crisis" (disproved, credit was never frozen any time since 1978), why does our government borrow more, taking more out of the capital markets? If they wanted to clear up capital, they'd permanently stop borrowing, permanently stop printing, cut spending and pay off the trillions they've sucked out of the markets in the form of Treasury Bonds and Bills.

Barry's ownership
The economy started to tank on W's watch but Barry has been holding the flush handle on the toilet since the Inauguration.His policies and what he advocates are a disservice to the economy and the American people.Any further deterioration of the economy is Barry's and Barry's only.No more blaming Wall Street,and most of all,no more blaming George W.He can no longer blame the white guy.That act is now played out.Time to quit obsessing about Rush Limbaugh,compiling an enemies list and holding Wednesday night parties.Time to do some real work and take some speech lessons so a teleprompter is no longer needed.

brandon
nice posts, well put together.

it is good to see someone express a logical point of view backed up with facts.

hard to come by here sometimes.

Part 7
Lastly, many Republicans need to stop claiming they support limited government unless they really mean limited government. The party's small government/personal freedom and responsibility rhetoric is often selective. It often comes across as no government help or intervention in the economy or in areas such as social mobility yet government intrusion into personal matters-abortion, gay marriage and the War on Drugs. The only Republicans who are true and blue on small government are Ron Paul and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson.

Until Republicans embrace these truths and distance themselves from the odd coalition of Wall Street, the Religious Right and the neoconservatives and return to a moremoderate brand of conservatism i.e Ike, Nixon (minus the paranoia, he was actuallyquite the moderate) and Everett Dirksen, they will likely remain in the minority for the forseeable future.

Part 6
Another falsehood being promoted by many Republicans and dogmatic right pundits such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh is that Obama will increase smallbusiness taxes. This is a red herring. Small businesses owned as sole proprietorships, partnerships, S Corporations and limited liability companies do not pay any Federal business income tax. A sole proprietorship is an extension of the individual who owns it. A partnership, LLC and S Corporation are defined by the IRS aspass through entities: Income passes through the business to the individual owners. The owners will then pay taxes on what is called taxable income. This means if the person has over $250,000 AFTER paying all wages, expenses and having factored in personal and dependent exemptions, they will have a modest tax increase to the Clinton rate of 39 percent.

Furthermore, Republicans did not address the problem of outsourcing and offshoring. While many blame unions for the loss of jobs, the issue is far more complex and the proof is in the price pudding at the retail consumer level. Many jobs and plants were shipped overseas yet the cost of goods did not decrease; therefore, concentrating much of the profit and prosperity at the top. Nike produces shoes in Indonesia at a maximum cost of $10 per pair; $1.00 per day, per worker in wages. Yet, the final retail markup price is in excess of $100 per pair; some even being $200 per pair. How is union greed responsible for jobs being lost when there is no concrete correlation between reduced labor costs and the final sales price? While we can argue local and state taxes and taxes and costs incurred by retailers, the fact remains that cheap labor does not always equal lower consumer costs.


Now You Own It, Mr. President: Part 5
Many of the consumers of sub-prime mortgages
were amateur investors who, for various reasons,
did not want to document their income. Many were
self-employed and their main source of income
was fixing and flipping or real estate investing. The companies that issued these loans often derived their funds from private
investors, both individual and institutional.


Many Republicans have a way of selectively interpreting history. While many often pine for the era of Ike and Leave It To Beaver, they forget that under Eisenhower,the top marginal tax rate was 90 percent for the wealthiest individuals. While this was a rate that was carried over from Truman, Eisenhower, a Republican,did not alter the tax rate. This is how the Interstate Highway System wasfunded and how the United States was able to meet its internationalobligations and a major factor in the United States having the middleclass and prosperity it did in the era of Elvis. John F. Kennedy reduced the top tax rate to 70 percent and it remained there under Lyndon Johnson. I do not think anyone would accuse Truman, Ike, Kennedy orJohnson of being socialists or Marxists; Truman, JFK and LBJ were standard or traditional Democrats but not socialists. And, the Coldest Warrior, Tricky Dick Nixon retained the 70 percent marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans. Nixon also supported a guaranteed minimum income via the Negative Income Tax.

Other factors that led to the prosperity and middle class growth of the Truman/Ike/early JFK era were strong union membership, which was roughly 35 percent;a 75 percent concentration of global industrial output in the U.S. and the factthat many people could graduate from high school and get a decent jobthat would allow a family to survive on one income.


Now You Own It, Mr. President: Part 4
Obama has only been in office for 50 days.
He cannot be expected to magically turn
things around. Years of bad decisions and
policies by both the Clinton and Bush
administrations and nearly 30 years of
downgrading regulations all contributed to
this current morass.

A lot of people blame the CRA for this mess.
There have been numerous links by the Federal
Reserve demonstrating that most of the sub-prime
mess had little to do with CRA obligations.

Most sub-prime or "B" side loans were issued
by non-regulated mortgage banks. Often,
mortgage banks, like the old S&Ls, are only
state chartered or regulated.

Bush's own Federal Reserve issued this statement upon December 3, 2008:

"Two key points emerge from all of our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA- related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, as I stated earlier, we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis." Randall Kroszner,
Member of the Board of Governors: Federal Reserve; Member of the Chicago School of
Economics; former member of George W. Bush's
Council of Economic Advisers.


Now You Own It Mr. President: Part 3
We have seen what the purest grade of capitalism
can do also. Just read any history on the Gilded
Age; the early Industrial Period; child labor
and factory towns. Prior to the Civil War, many
slavery supporters argued that slaves living
on plantations were better cared for than
many industrial factory workers in the North.

Many conservatives point out the drop in the Dow. On January 20, 1981, the Dow dropped 2
percent or 20 points to close at 950(+/-).
Unemployment remained high at 7.5 percent
throughout 1981. Inflation was over 10 percent
from 1981 until it fell to over 3 percent in 1983. Would any right thinking person call
it the Reagan Recession? While the media did
call it such, it was a crisis with deeper
roots; going back to earlier events; the 1973
Arab oil embargo; the stagflation of the
successive Ford and Carter administrations;
the 1979 energy shock.

Now You Own It, Mr. President: Part 2
Under its left wing variation, communism, all real and personal property and allof the means of production are owned by the state. Instead of a car company likeFord or Nissan producing cars, the car is made by the government. This iscalled a pure command or centralized economy.

Under fascism, property and the means of production are privately owned but thestate still determines the outcome via quotas, price controls, subsidies and by resource allocation determination. If the state determines it wants acompany or industry to produce a certain amount of tanks, guns and planes,then they mandate that the company make those goods and the state setsthe price. This is often called a command capitalist system. As history has shown, these sides of the socialist coin have not worked or producedany desirable outcomes that merit any further attempts.

President Obama has not signaled any inclination towards either of these extremes.At the most, he will incorporate Scandinavian/European social democratic policiesinto his education and healthcare agenda as well as his economic agenda.

don
look the major problem was the banks were not lending money to small business.

for example, in construction businesses have 90 days to pay because even if the job is finished, the building inspectors etc... have to come out and certify it.

so companies like mine have to borrow money short term to make payroll or pay for overhead.

that hasn't been happening for a while or it cost to much, but now it is getting back to normal.

one other point, citigroup is making profits again.

do you realize that they are actually going to pay back the taxpayers for the loan just like chryselor did in the 80's.

finally, thanks for the positive statement.

i am astounded at how many here don't seem to want to hear any positive news.

it's like they want the economy to fail to prove an ideological point.

that is kind of strange.

Now You Own It, Mr. President
Anyone knows that the purest grade of anything is usually not healthy or cannot evenbe consumed in light doses-pure grade heroin for example. It has to be steppedon a few times before it can be sold at the retail/street level. After all, if a dealersold pure grade heroin without stepping on it, he or she would not have many repeat customers.

Which brings me to the economic debate. Some people claim President Obama is a socialist who will raise taxes and harm small businesses. I believe they areinterpreting moderate government actions for pure grade socialism. Socialism is a system in which the government dictates the outcome of the economy.It has two pure grade variants; communism and fascism/national socialism...


christianlib
and what pray tell do you do when the money, (stimulus), runs out?

Pass another stimulus?

And where will the funds for that stimulus come from?

a) borrow the money from China,
b) print more money,
c) increase taxes on the working people,
d) all of the above.

I'm happy you have work and I truly wish you the best, but I think your logic is flawed. Perhaps it is because you have your blinders on. No business can sustain itself by borrowing and neither can the federal government!

You will get you bill in the mail along with the rest of us!

Don C

faron
before you call me a liar you had better check your facts.

here is what the article said.

"Michael Genest, director of the California Department of Finance, on Thursday told state agencies that work on 276 priority bond-funded construction projects worth about $3.6 billion can continue now that legislators have passed a budget. That list includes about a dozen Sacramento area projects such as the Highway 65 Lincoln Bypass project."

do you understand that the budget was frozen because of lack of funds and california is recieving 30 billion specifically for those type of infrastructure jobs.

trying to make the case that the two are unrelated is disingenuous at best.

second, like many you have not educated yourself on the stimulus package.

each school district got money for deferred maintenance outside of the normal state budget funds.

that is the money being used by the local school district here to begin or finish millions of dollars worth of jobs.


Tom
i wish i could.

my employees need to have specialized training.

on the other hand, the census is hiring at $20 an hour in every state for jobs that will last 2 years.

also, i have an 18 year old son who has had two friends get work in retail in the past 2 weeks.


Reba
Just curious. Did you do these things? Did you "persuade" your boss to hire you? And then did you blame those that came before you when you couldn't handle the job?

But to answer your question; No, I don't remember having done any of the above. In my earlier years I only applied for jobs that I was qualified for and was hired per those qualifications. If I did cause something to go wrong with a project. I would admit my mistake and take full responsibility for it. I learned from my mistakes and the results were an honest and solid employee-employer relationship.

Ovomit flat lied to the American people. Making the very gullible think that he would be all things to all people. He would bring into being that "Utopian Wold" the Liberals always dream about.

When all the while he knew exactly what he was doing. Once elected, he would ignore the people and proceed to use his position and congress to finish installing Socialism. He could care less what the people want. He will FORCE it upon us. That is why he is purposely destroying the economy. The first step in his plans.

2guns
right here in san diego, they are starting to hire again because money is flowing again, not only from the school district and state but banks are starting to loan money to business again.


Christianlib has Jobs!!!
If you'd be so kind as to let everyone know where these sustainable jobs are, I'm sure you'll be approached by many qualified in the fields in which you need employees. After all, no point in hiring average workers when you can have your pick of the best our nation has to offer. According to the news agencies, there are millions to choose from.

Unless you're union. If that's the case, then you'll have to take whatever talent they send your way. Good luck. I've got plenty of friends running union shops that are told to take the labor (some of whom aren't exactly there to work) or get picketed.

christianlib is clueless
Any "movement" in the California construction industry is TOTALLY unrelated to Obama's actions.

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/0 2/16/daily43.html

laura
most of the jobs being generated in my area are through private contractors not unions.


inthemajority
If you were aware of Clarke's testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States - March 24, 2004, then you would know the information available was not actionable, the organizational structure was not of Bush's doing, and Clarke confirmed the issues I mentioned they dealt with concerning security during the previous administration.

Clarke's insistence that the Bush administration did not take it seriously is his opinion only. As you'll recall, Bush was dealing with a recession coming out of the Clinton era, much as Obama is dealing with one today.

By your logic, we should be prepared to hold Obama to the same fire since Biden has already warned of a serious issue that will impact our country in the first few months of this administration.

Rather than name-calling, you should really do your homework. After all, reading someone's self-aggrandizing book can hardly be called "factual" versus testimony under oath - unless you're claiming he lied under oath?

Christianlib
Just where, pray tell, have you seen the "frozen construction industry" moving?

HEADLINE: 2029
Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia, formerly known as California .

White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language.

Baby conceived naturally! Scientists stumped.

Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.

Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.

France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica . No other country comes forward to help the beleaguered nation!

Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.

85-year $75.8 billion study: Diet and exercise is the key to weight loss.

Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.

Global cooling blamed for citrus crop failure for third consecutive year in Mexifornia and Floruba.

Abortion clinics now available in every
High School in United States .

Senate still blocking drilling in ANWR even though gas is selling for 4532 Pesos per liter and gas stations are only open on Tuesdays and Fridays.

Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.

Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights.

Average height of NBA players is now nine feet, seven inches.

IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.

Florda voters still having trouble with voting machines.

DON'T YOU JUST LOVE THIS COUNTRY?

Tom
you may be philosophically correct, but practically exactly how long has this country ran a deficit.

both reagan and bush left office with the biggest deficits in history to that time.

"deficits don't matter"---Dick Cheney

this money is not a loan.
it is part of the stimulus package.

more importantly though, it has started the frozen construction industry moving again.

yes i will be able to maintain employees because the work is long term and there will be scheduled maintenance on my product.




It's all Karl Rove's fault

Yep. This whole recession was planned by the evil one, Karl Rove. It was done to embarrass the first black president. Rove did it with the full support of Dick Chaney. Chaney did it on the direct orders of George Bush.

And BIG Oil.

And BIG insurance.

And Wal-Mart.

And the Boy Scouts.

And white, Christian men who served in the military.

And NRA members.

And people who drive foreign cars, especially pick ups and SUV's.

Thanks all well and good but.....
So some union jobs are being saved. Sounds like Obummer's plan is working. How about the regular folk who don't have the government on their side like the unions do? I don't see any difference and I work for a union shop in Connecticut.

christianlib
It's nice that you have work because of a massive loan program. Is the work sustainable? Can you keep the employees around after the loan is depleted? Are you saying loans are the way to future growth in this country?

Of course not. No sensible business owner would say they can survive by taking out more money than they make. Yet, this plan leads us down the path to bankruptcy, not solvency.

Did the previous administration borrow more than we made? Yes. Is borrowing beyond our means part of what got us into this mess? Yes. Borrowing may appear to be "creating or saving" jobs. In fact, it's destroying wealth since none of the jobs you mentioned will exist once the borrowed funds are gone.

The end result of this administration's plan is massively increased spending, doubling the national debt in 1/4 the time it took to reach it's pre-Obama level, and even more jobs lost when employers must let folks go without additional loans to pay for them.

How long do you think we can "borrow" our way out of this before the U.S. defaults on the world?

Tom
Your irrational small-minded note was rather silly. Go read something about Richard Clarke and get some sleep.

My goodness, what a simple minded fool. You're so simple minded. Simple. Minded.... Sorry, reverted into Con mode for a minute. Cons and name calling are really not as much fun as you would think. Eh simple Tom? Irrational Tom? Simple minded irrational Tom.

See Tommy? Fun stuff being a Con.

O doesn't care if the market fails
or people are out of work or whether schools and roads get fixed.

The collapse of trillions means the devastation of the middle class and to make a socialist omlette, you have to break a lot of eggs.

You are worrying about the wrong end of the argument. For O, everything is peachy. Unemployment is up and wealth building is down.

Soon the gov't will employ whatever is left and you'll wait in line for toilet paper and present coupons for gas.

And then everything will be equal and fair and the US will be just like the USSR which died after 70 years of citizen torture.

The O vision of the world works no where and will not work here.

Barak may not have caused the recession
Barak may not have caused the recession but he may be making the problem worse. Increasing taxes (especially on the wealthy who can avoid most of them) is foolish pandering and shakes up markets.

He cannot fix it in 2 moths but he can make it worse in 2 days. The Libs may yet pay for their over reach in 2010. Opposition will probably take the strange form of a coalition of centrist democrats and centrist republicans as the Neo-cons and far right republicans have NO credibility and the Democrat loony left is losing what ever credibility they have.

PISTOL @ 7:22
I agree with your points. I am trusting that the American people will turn things around in 2010. Hopefully the damage done by then can be repaired. No doubt about it, we will be facing hyperinflation in two years.

I was self employed in real estate during the Carter years and it was a challenge when mortgage rates hit 20% and contractors could not guarantee a bid amount for more than 30 days. In Texas at that time we were also affected by the Peso devaluation, in some of our cities 20% of retail trade are buyers from Mexico.
Oil had dropped to $8.00 per gallon, which really affected our local economy, Savings and Loans were closing everywhere. We all got through that and still made a living. It helped to turn the economy around when Reagan came in office. unemployment was 10%. Reducing taxes was the stimulus package then. Reagan caught a lot of flack for it, but Reagonomics worked.

All our current Administration cares about now is their planned Sociatist agenda. "can't let a good crises go to waste". This will be the long term affect on all of us and our taxes will go through the roof. Guaranteed.


despite doom and gloom here
the rest of the country sees it differently.

Some 41 percent of those polled say the country is on the right track, the highest that number has been in five years. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 56 percent said they approve of the job Obama is doing in handling the economy, while 59 percent gave their approval in a Quinnipiac poll. They approve of his economic policies, including his budget. In a CNN poll, 80 percent said they believed Obama's policies would improve the economy. When he spoke to Congress two weeks ago, people told Gallup they felt more confident. Even Obama's plan for housing gets support: While people think it unfairly benefits those who behaved badly during the housing bubble, a plurality nevertheless believes it will work.

economy turning
i am small business owner in a construction related field.

the money from the stimulus package has already had an effect on my business.

the local school district had deferred or stopped millions of dollars worth of construction projects because of the budget shortfall.

millions of dollars arrived two weeks ago and now i have more business than i can handle and will commence hiring new employees next week.

it is having a an effect throughout the community as businesses who supply materials to these projects are seeing their bottom line improve.

my nephew is a union electrician and was called back to work for the first time in 9 months last week.

i know that many school districts were able to stop laying off teachers because of the extra money they got from the stimulus package.

i know it is politically incorrect at townhall to even imagine that obama's plan may be working but look around your community, folks, and i believe you will see construction projects starting up that were dead a month ago.




Reply #14
I can only speak for myself, and I say I'm not upset with PrezBO that he has not "fixed" the economy within 2 months of taking office. I would not expect that anyone could do that. It is more that Team Obama is not doing anything correctly to address the problem. And, while it is on the priority list, the economy does not seem to be at the top of the list, where it should be. The article that generated these comments does an excellent job of listing what Team Obama is doing or not doing that is causing the market and the economy to remain in a downward spiral.

8 months
It appears rational thought was not taught in the school attended by inthemajority. Anyone who's taken the time to read the history of the Clinton administration and the intelligence agencies will be able to understand how blinded our agencies were. Some knew "something" was going to happen but, no one said specifically what or when that "something" would occur.

It takes a simple mind to pretend a recession 15 months old is comparable to a terrorist attack. Likewise, only a simple mind would pretend the BIG 0 should be allowed 8 months to fix a problem he said he already has the solution for - the same problem on which he based the closing months of his campaign.

inthemajority

The economy started tanking once the democrats took control of congress in 2006.

Democrats had control of the economy BEFORE BO became POTUS - So your logic is flawed.




It's the President's business
Make no mistake, there's a recession and then there's the President's business. Everything President Obama reversed was purely the President's business. It had nothing to do with the recession. All of the pork in the stimulus bill for the special interest groups are nothing put pay back for their support of the Democrats. How was closing Gitmo supposed to help the recession. We may now have to house some of those detainees in this country thanks to the critics of Gitmo and the Democrats. How is a carbon tax suppose to help the economy. April 1, everyone gets $13 more in their paycheck, then gets taxed a carbon tax. We're getting nothing. President Obama is over doing it in the name of the crisis in getting nothing but left wing agendas passed and President Obama is going to inform the people the same way former president Bill Clinton did. I worked so hard, but I find I have to raise your taxes.

8 months
As we all know, if a member of the Bush economic team were running up and down the hallways screaming at the top of his lungs -- for 8 months -- that the economy was in trouble, and Obama did nothing, then:

All good Republicans would have to say that Obama couldn't have possibly seen it coming, and that he inherited the problem from Bush and previous Presidents.

You HAVE to say that, because you have been saying for almost eight years that Bush couldn't have possibly known about 9-11. How could he? He was vacationing and completely ignoring Clarke. Condi ignored his pleas to do something.

We can all safely give Obama the same eight month leeway... right? Right? No???? You mean the Republican party truly IS the party of hypocrisy? Why does the Rep party get eight months and the Dems get one or two?

At least we have someone in office that is not telling us everything is just peachy while banks are failing and mortgage are in turmoil.

No Dave
The one will never be at fault. He is special, he is the one we were waiting for, he is hope and change. He is the ONE. Bush will be blamed 4 years from now, or on a better note a new republican congress in 2010.
Kirk

BO has to own it
Continuing on this path the economy will be stagnant for years, BO will have to own it come election 2010/2012 - I can't wait.

The GOP needs to repeat the message: This is the democrats economy. They've been in charge of congress since 2006, when this all began.

Responsibility is for someone else
When you have a weak president, he blames others for where our country is and finds others to take the fall for him should his plans for success not bear the kind of fruit he was promising.
A strong President stands up, takes charge, accepts responsibility, and promotes a bright vision of success (not just change) for future generations.
You don't have to be a genius to see what kind of president we have sitting in the White House today. But, unfortunately, most people don't have the IQ of a simple farm animal and will never understand what it takes to be a leader rather than a common man.

ARE YOU AT THE END OF YOUR ROPE ?
YOU ARE NOT ALONE......groups are forming all over the US in every city.

1. View this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950

2. Then get this book (Amazon ?) and read "THE 5000 YEAR LEAP" ...(it is in short supply) and you will begin to understand what we are about to lose.

3. Then join one of Glenn Beck's "WE SURROUND THEM" groups ( forming up all over the country) and help us save our Republic before it is too late.

Follow these links to understand how this works............ you can start a group in your area or town to view the unveiling of Glenn's program this Friday or record it (Tivo- DVR) and watch it later. This may be our last chance to save America from Socialism and save our Republic.....PLEASE GET INVOLVED BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21018 /

http://wesurroundthemmap.com/

http://www.meetup.com/We-Surround-Them-in-Fort-Worth/



4. And then for a little light reading......Ayn Rand's "ATLAS SHRUGGED" and learn who John Galt is (you will be hearing more about him).

All this should bring you up to speed and you can begin to help us save our country.

Why is it all Obama ?
Hey, last time I checked, you geniuses, the CONGRESS had to write up the ding dang LAW to spend the money...
I find it quite amazing how the DEMONCRAT CONGRESS gets off the hook so easily...
All the putz has to do is get up on Tv behind his thronium speech edifice, and all you GAWKERS scream like idiot democrats is all his...
MEANWHILE the libtard congress WRITES UP THE LEGISLATION TO RAPE YOU, and you blame our new bisexual king.
You're really bright. With it. Right on target.
Yeah, his glwoing speeches did it all - and by golly the Executive Order proves it, right ?
Please, GET A CLUE !

It's not the crisis, stupid.
What is terrible to waste is American democracy. And our beloved voter registrar is doing a grand job of the latter.

Ignorance? I really don't think so.
I don't think BO is ignorant. I believe he is fouling up the country and maybe even the world on purpose...The same way Hitler did in order to get the German people to cry to him for help. Don't forget the philosophy of all liberals "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." They are ramming as much socialism down our throats as fast as they can before we, the people have time to even realize what's going on. Of course, thinking conservatives have known for some time what BO is about. His record, history, associations and even his own words in his books tell what he is all about. He wants to be king of the world. How he gets there is irrelevant to him...just as it was to Hitler.

Reba
The crucial point now is which voters believe what? Dumbo will continue to blame Bush, sabotage by Wall Street, the rich, the vast RWC, and that his effortts to save the economy be massive spending and debt failed because the effort was too small. A lot of people will believe him. They believed FDR, and many still do. But the controlling votes in this country are still with the middle class. And many voters have no criteria except that the man in the WH is responsible for anything happening NOW. These two groups may well turn against him. If he is rejected, the next hurdle is whether his ideas will be discredited enough to let the country heal itself. This can only happen if government gets out of the way.

CAN'T LAST FOREVER

Remember when you applied for a job and during the interview you persuaded your prospective employer that you could handle it. How long did you get away with blaming your foul ups on the previous employee in that same position?

Eventually your employer would come to realize that you would not take responsibility for your own actions and could not believe you were trust worthy.

Well, Mr. Obama, I don't believe you are trust worthy for the job you convinced your employer that you could handle.



I would
call him arrogant..he's a narcissist,
and it's all about him. I'd compare him to
Pharoah of Exodus..same type of personality and
he brought the then world power, Egypt to it's knees throught his arrogance and believing he was a god equal if not higher than GOD and he
learned he was just a man, when it was too late.

Ignorance displayed almost daily!
Obama, and the rest of the libs in Congress exhibit their ignorance and incompetence almost on a daily and highly regular basis. Obama is going to have to "own-up" to HIS responsibility in what's going on in the economy. The same can be said of the rest of his "partners in crime". He cannot (but undoubtedly, will) continue to blame the "previous administration" for what he has been compelled to inherit!

If he had any wisdom, which I don't believe he possesses, he would undertake the task at hand and deal with it like a "man"! As the Four Seasons used to sing, "Walk like a man"! He is a child in men's clothing!

He might have a high approval (popularity?) rating, but on the bottom line, what is his CREDIBILITY rating?! With more exhibited "ignorance" on his part and the rest of his staff/Cabinet, including his inept Press Secretary, that particular rating is going to sink lower and lower. I hope it's not at the expense of our great nation!

Nah
Obama shares the blame with Pelosi, Dictator of the House of Representatives, Reid, the rest of the Dems, George Soros, the Rs who are not conservative, and Bush. He is in charge so therefore bears the brunt so his continuous attempts to say nothing is his fault will grow very tiresome and it won't take too long for that to happen. Can you say Bush was responsible for 9/11? I don't think so. Therefore, the total blame for our economy cannot be laid on Obama's shoulders, but the lack of recovery will be totally his.

Now, now, everyone knows
that this economy failure will be Bush's UNTIL it turns around--THEN it will all be Obama's.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.