Remember, our leftist president once told ABC's Charlie Gibson that he wants to raise capital gains taxes -- even though Obama conceded that historically higher capital taxes lead to less revenue. Then why raise rates at all, asked Gibson. "For purposes of fairness," said then-Sen. Obama.
This is a president determined to "spread the wealth" to deal with "the gap" between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent. To the Occupy Wall Street protestors, this is a president who said, "You are the reason I ran for office." This is a president who said, "I do think at some point you've made enough money."
This is a president who blames the Wall Street/housing meltdown on greed. As the see-no-Obama-on-the-economy Time magazine article puts it: "We got into the housing mess because we used our homes like ATMs to cover up the fact that neither incomes nor jobs have grown as much as they should have in the past two decades. It was a myth we all bought into, from the policymakers who pushed the idea of an ownership society fueled by debt to interest-rate-lowering central bankers who kept the music playing to individuals who took the mortgages they knew they couldn't afford."
This is the Obama version of events. Greed. Lack of oversight. Government policy had nothing to do with it. Banks just suddenly and for no reason started lending money to people they knew could not afford their mortgages.
Time magazine makes no mention about the central role played by laws like the Community Reinvestment Act. Nothing about the government-built and government-supported behemoths Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which changed the rules so that "underrepresented" borrowers could buy a home, too. The government told lenders to lend to high-risk borrowers -- or else. What, or else? The government actually threatened fines and held up prudent bank mergers if one or both sides did not sufficiently "lend" to borrowers who, under normal circumstances, failed to qualify.
NPR, however, took the pretzel-twisting in defense of Obama to an even higher level. When the disappointing first quarter numbers came in, NPR's Scott Neuman actually asked this question: "Common sense says high growth rates are good and slower, more modest ones are not so good. But is that always the case? After all, the 'irrational exuberance' of the early 2000s helped bring on the recession, as people borrowed and spent their way to prosperity."
So bad economic news is actually good economic news. Four more years!
Losing Jobs Over Ex-Im’s Expiration? Don’t Believe ItLosing Jobs Over Ex-Im’s Expiration? Don’t Believe It | Ed Feulner