Obama to new President of Ivory Coast: "govern on behalf of all the people…"

… including those who did not vote for him“:

The United States welcomes the decisive turn of events in Cote d’Ivoire, as former President Laurent Gbagbo’s illegitimate claim to power has finally come to an end. This represents a victory for the democratic will of the Ivoirian people, who have suffered for far too long through the instability that followed their election.

For President Ouattara and the people of Cote d’Ivoire, the hard work of reconciliation and rebuilding must begin now.

President Ouattara will need to govern on behalf of all the people of Cote d’Ivoire, including those who did not vote for him.

That’s pretty rich commentary coming from Barack “I won” Obama.  If only the man would take his own advice.

Insty gets the tip of the fedora.

"This was an era of American greatness"
Putting The "Loco" In "In Loco Parentis"
  • retired military

    The next thing you know Jim x will try to tell us that Obama didnt say he was going to close GITMO within a year of taking office.

  • No we are not agreed, as you have yet to produce an example of President Bush telling someone not to do what he himself regularly does.

    OK, great. I’m glad you answered that, so I can see that’s where we’re stalled in this discussion.

    It continually blows my mind how quickly people can forget the same past that we all lived through.

    Tell you what – here are *three* examples of Bush’s hypocrisy.

    1. Here’s where Bush criticized China for holding citizens as prisoners without trial – while continuing to keep US citizens as prisoners without trial:

    http://article.wn.com/view/2008/07/30/Bush_meets_with_Chinese_activists_p/

    2. Here’s Bush declaring that it’s shameful to aid the enemy by revealing secrets in a time of war – after his administration publicly outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent who was working on Iran’s WMD program:

    My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. …But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States Government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=65077#axzz1JLNO7SFu

    A crime for which no one was actually convicted, of course – but Scooter Libby was convicted for 3 counts of perjury and one of obstruction of justice. For which Bush then made sure never paid a fine or faced a day in jail.

    3. Here’s an example from a conservative newspaper, on Bush’s demand that Israel remove their soldiers from the West Bank – while of course presiding over the occupations of two nations:

    http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin14.htm

    President George W. Bush has joined the United Nations in demanding that Israel withdraw its troops from the West Bank. He is so determined to enforce this demand that he dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Middle East to meet with Israel’s prime minister to deliver the ultimatum personally. In light of America’s response to acts of terrorism committed against this country, it seems the height of hypocrisy to make such a demand. After all, the United States has sent troops across the world to defend its interests against terrorists. Would he deny Israel the right to do the same thing in its own backyard? Apparently so.

    Note that with all of those, the Bush administration’s actions are known facts – and the Bush administration’s words are also known. When the two conflict? That’s hypocrisy.

    You originally asked for a broader proof, so I’m still waiting for your response re: Reagan on that front.

  • Never mind the fact the America public oposes Obamacare by a 2:1 ratio (thus refuting the whole point you’re trying, so poorly, to make about Obama not giving the left what it wants),

    …except that those polls always skip over the fact that most of the American public want MORE from Obamacare. They don’t like it, because it doesn’t do ENOUGH.

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/12/29/majority-either-like-healthcare-law-or-want-it-more-liberal

    Thus confirming the point I’m making, that you’re trying to refute so poorly.

    Next?

    Really? How many 1000’s of pages of new regulations and restricts have come about because of the new financial bill that passed the Dem House and Senate and was signed into law by Obama last year?

    What’s that got to do with whether or not the Left likes the amount of regulation, or whether there should be more?

    Note that whether or not YOU think there are enough regulations is not the discussion here. It’s whether or not the Left thinks it’s enough.

    So, show me a poll on that issue which shows the Left thinks there are enough regulations. Can you?

    We have a budget that has increased by over a trillion and a half dollars …Boo fuckin hoo for you.

    Great! Thanks for proving my point. You’re right, the Left didn’t get what it wanted. Obama placated the right as much as he possibly could and still keep his base.

    Obama wants to get re-elected. He can’t 100%please the far left Marxists/Communists and still fool enough “average Joes” into voting for him like he did in ’08 when he had no record to run on.

    Great! Thanks for agreeing with me and proving my point again. Obama is in fact placating the right and not giving the Left what they want.

    So why are we even arguing?

    I see at the end of this post you did indeed respond to my question about Reagan. So, answering that next.

  • So, Reagan is held up by conservatives as a great President.

    The US Constitution is also, and more rightfully, held up by conservatives as a document that should not be violated.

    Here’s how President Reagan either violated the US constitution – or **allowed people in his administration** to violate it on his authority, with no repercussions whatsoever:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_contra

    Let me just give you the bullet points of Iran-Contra:

    1. Reagan illegally and in violation of the Constitution, sold weapons systems without informing Congress

    2. to our publicly sworn enemy, Iran

    3. and used the funds generated from these sales to fund an illegal war, also in violation of the Constitution, in South America.

    This, by the way, is all documented fact.

    Oh, and as a side note the Reagan administration was fully aware that the Contras they supported were deeply connected to drug trafficking. Which also makes them hypocrites for pushing “Just say no,” while being just fine with giving money to people who were selling a lot of the junk that ended up in the US.

    For an actual conservative’s take on this, I refer you to

    http://alternativeconservative.com/2008/05/26/ronald-reagan-breaking-the-constitution/

    Yet Reagan, in the midst of this hypocrisy against alleged conservative values, is still held up as a great President.

    Why is that?

  • No, that made President Bush a leader. Unlike Obama who has to go so far as to bribe and/or extort members of his own party.

    Actually untrue. Bush also bribed, extorted and even lied directly to members of his own party. That’s how the Medicare giveaway to Big Pharma happened, remember? I’ll dig that up if I have to, if you can’t google that one for yourself.

    but let’s say that was true. That’s also besides the main point – whether Bush was a bipartisan compromiser.

  • PBunyan

    RE #52: Your points 1 and 2 are based on false premises and lies and therefore not valid. #3, if true, would be a valid example and finally something relevant to the post.

    So you believe that if one person does something wrong and bad that it’s o.k. for everyone else to the same wrong and bad thing? Personally I disagree.

  • Fact: The Buch tax cuts were for everyone.

    Relevant Fact: the tax cuts for the wealthy in particular punched a crater in the SURPLUS Clinton handed Bush. Like I said.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/the-bush-tax-cuts-and-the-deficit/

    So if the deficit matters, they’re bad. If they’re bad for the deficit, they should be repealed, right?

    I mean, if the deficit is much more important than poor people getting oil heat for the winter, then the deficits should be more important than 3% in taxes for the wealthiest, right? Especially since that the wealthy were able to get along just fine paying that rate under Clinton?

    Yes or no?

  • PBunyan

    RE # 53: “Great! Thanks for agreeing with me and proving my point again. Obama is in fact placating the right”

    No, Obama is not placating the right, he’s trying to fool the middle again. It’s interesting how far left you must be to consider the middle to be the right.

    And yes, I understand that Obama has the far left upset because he hasn’t yet gone full Communist. It’s a good thing for you leftists that your leaders are a lot more patient and understand that the America public would revolt if you revealed your true plans and motives. Your leaders understand that “fundamental transformation” of America must proceed in stealth and at a slow pace. It’s evil, but so far it’s working for you.

  • You’re the only one here who’s making that argument.

    Actually, I think that argument is implicit in this article. Because once again conservatives are saying Obama is terrible and the worst President ever, for doing something that Bush did at least as often.

    But let’s say you’re right.

    That makes me wrong, how exactly?

    That is a logical fallacy known as a “strawman”.

    No, it’s not a strawman. It’s a separate argument. I’m attacking an implied premise in the article, you see.

  • Ok, and now we’re about to get into arguments that I have thoroughly debunked elsewhere. The financial collapse was not caused by Fannie Mae, but you won’t believe me no matter how many times I point out that Fannie Mae didn’t hold a gun to banks’ heads and force them to invest in credit default swaps, or force them to sell their own customers’ on investments the banks knew were shaky and then bet **against their clients** privately.

    But retired military, please remove the foot from thine own mouth before you worry about mine.

    Is the deficit a problem or not?

    If it is, then why shouldn’t we put the taxes back where they were under Clinton? AND sure, cut the budget too.

    I expect I know the answer – taxes are Always Bad, and programs that feed the poor and invest in our children’s future are even worse.

  • No, Obama is not placating the right, he’s trying to fool the middle again. It’s interesting how far left you must be to consider the middle to be the right.

    Yeah, I do this thing where I look at polls and see that the middle actually wants “Obamacare” to do more, not less. And the middle also actually wants taxes raised on the wealthy. But hey, prove me wrong. Show me some nonpartisan polls that prove otherwise.

    it’s interesting to me how far to the Right you all are, that you somehow still think Obama is a Leftist. But that’s how it is, don’t think I’ll be able to change that any time soon, no matter how many facts I bring up.

  • Re: # 56 – nope, you don’t get to just say something is a lie or a false premise. You have to explain why. Otherwise I could just declare your entire post a lie without explaining. Should I be able to do that? No.

    So, please show how what I said was a lie or based on a false premise.

    Re: # 3 – so, look it up and confirm to your own satisfaction whether or not it’s true.

    As for whether or not someone else being bad makes someone good, I don’t think it does either. I just want the same yardstick applied. If person “x” is going to be blamed or criticized for doing something, then person “y” should face the same blame or criticism. Party, ideology or likeability should all be completely irrelevant.

  • retired military

    Jim X is rewriting history.

    Bringing up every tired old canard and liberal mime there is.

    Lets pick one.

    Plame.

    Who outed her? Why an antiwar govt employee whom the left didnt touch after it became known that he did it. THis after threatening to jail the leaker.

    It had nothing to do with Bush or cheney.

    Next he ignores the truth about the revenue brought in by the Bush Tax cuts. and quotes avowed leftist Krugman to “prove his point”

    next he doesnt even think that Obama is a leftist.

    The man is as delusional as Lee Ward ever was.

  • retired military

    Jim X

    “don’t think I’ll be able to change that any time soon, no matter how many facts I bring up”

    Here let me fix that for you

    “don’t think I’ll be able to change that any time soon, no matter how many facts I MAKE up”

  • Retired military, sure I could be rewriting history.

    You also could be wrong.

    How do we see who’s wrong and who’s right? We look at the statements of experts who are as impartial as we can find.

    Is there any particular statement that you’d like to see me back up with impartial experts? I’m happy to do so, if you will agree to change your opinion once I show you such backup.

    All we have to do is agree on an impartial source. Tough, maybe, but not impossible. The CBO perhaps? Or even the Wall Street Journal? YOu tell me.

  • Retired military, please show ONE statement I’ve made today that is “made up”.

  • retired military

    Jim X

    ” The financial collapse was not caused by Fannie Mae, but you won’t believe me no matter how many times I point out that Fannie Mae didn’t hold a gun to banks’ heads and force them to invest in credit default swaps, or force them to sell their own customers’ on investments the banks knew were shaky and then bet **against their clients** privately.

    You are right no one did. And it was the left like Frank and Dodd who protected them and wouldnt let changes be made which may have averted some of this mess. Fannie and Freddie former execs high nice cushie jobs in the Obama administration now.

    Yes the deficit is a problem. But taxing is not the answer. CUTTING SPENDING IS.

    Show me the last year that the budget was balanced and congress did not overspend what was taken in and Social Security was not factored in. Was it maybe the 50s???

  • You are right no one did. And it was the left like Frank and Dodd who protected them and wouldnt let changes be made which may have averted some of this mess. Fannie and Freddie former execs high nice cushie jobs in the Obama administration now.

    No, retired military, please read what I said again.

    Frank and Dodd did NOT “protect” the banks selling credit default swaps – they **could not have** protected them, because those banks **weren’t** connected with Fannie Mae OR Freddie Mac in the selling of those swaps.

    Sheesh.

  • OK, I’m done for a bit. retired military, believe what you’d like to believe.

  • retired military

    Jim

    If the dems hadnt protected Fannie and Freddie than the banks wouldnt have had the swaps to sell.

    cart horse.

    ———-

    You have to get SPENDING UNDER CONTROL. Congress has proven that it cant no matter what the tax law takes from private citizens. No congress has yet to balance the budget (without including social security taxes) in like 60 years. All you do when you raise taxes is give the govt more reasons to spend money.

    If you want to grow the economy the multiplier effect of dollars in private hands vs govt hands is much higher and produces much greater revenue. The Bush tax cuts PROVED THIS by bringing in more revenue than ever before in history even during the .dot com boom in the 90s.

    The only problem was that CONGRESS continued to spend like mad sailors on both sides of the aisles and when the dems came in late 2006 they went totally out of control and then went apeshit even more when Obama got into office.

    Deficit spending was so bad dems wouldnt even try to pass a budget last year with a huge majority in the house, a super majority in the Senate and Obama in the WH.

    In addition, as shown by the numbers in my post above you cant freaking TAX your way out of this. Unless of course you want to do a 90% income tax bracket again (Which Liberals would love to do and even then they wouldnt balance the budget because they would say “well we lived with deficitis for this long we can live with it for a little longer). YOU HAVE TO CUT SPENDING.

    Overtaxation KILLs ECONOMIC growth.

  • Retired military:

    – any taxation at all isn’t overtaxation
    – the government provides goods and services which are vital to a healthy society
    – the economy was far better for more of America under Bill Clinton than it was under George Bush – and the wealthiest paid 3% more taxes.

    Under taxation is also bad for America’s growth – if that means it results in less investment in America’s poor and middle class, who are the workforce that produces the next round of innovation AND commerce that fuels our economy.

    What you are missing is the entire aspect of taxed resources being an **investment** – AND an investment in ventures which private institutions probably WON’T make because they won’t see the results in the next financial quarter.

    The economy is not a zero-sum game. Just as a loan taken out for college results in a far greater amount of money made over the course of a lifetime; and just as taxes put into a road mean a far greater amount of commerce generated for all the communities on it; and just as the Internet itself has paid of the initial government investment made into it’s humble beginnings.

    Do you see how taxes can work as an investment?

  • If the dems hadnt protected Fannie and Freddie than the banks wouldnt have had the swaps to sell.

    cart horse.

    No, once again Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had absolutely no involvement in creating or selling credit default swaps. This was an entirely separate thing, that banks would have done if Mae or Mac had never existed. The only thing that would have stopped them is proper regulation – including the actual Glass-Steagall act. Now, there was a true bipartisan screwup, because Clinton passed that law’s repeal by the GOP.

  • 914

    Wow jim x… 30 posts and no +’s? You have convinced no one much less yourself.

    My guess is you should forget about ever becoming a lawyer.

  • Maybe not, 914. Fortunately facts are more important to me than the approval of those here.

  • retired military

    Jim

    I understand how taxes can work as an investment. Noone said NO Taxes. Of course we have to have taxes.

    We dont have to have taxes to pay for Abortion, Planned parenthood, bailing out the unions via GM, Obama’s contributors via restructuring of GM, NPR, studies on the effect of insects mating with relation to the effect it has on adolescent males watching porn, the bridge to nowhere, etc etc etc.

    Congress (on both sides) has shown it wants nothing more to do than spend money to stay elected. Is some of that expense warranted? Of course. Is all of that expense warranted? Not even close. Has congress proven that if they collect more in taxes that the would spend the same amount or even less? NOT ONLY NO BUT HELL NO.

    Has it been shown that taking money out of private hands and putting it into govt hands for the purpose of unnescessary spending actually hurts the economy? YES. It is called the multiplier effect. It is estimted that a dollar in private hands generates somewhere around 3-5 dollars in the economy. A dollar in govt hands generates about 1.2 dollars or less in the economy.

    I am not against keeping up the roads, keeping the country safe from terrorists, spending a reasonable amount on schools, etc. I am against unnesccessary spending and congress has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will spend more money than we have no matter what and generally it is to keep them in office and enrich their contributors.

  • 914

    “Fortunately, facts are more important to me then the approval of those here.”

    If you had any facts you would have the approval of those here.

  • retired military

    Jim

    In ref to the Swaps. Yes it could have happened if Fannie and Freddie didnt exist. The thing is the lending code was WAY to lax (giving loans to people who didnt have the credit to support it) and Fannie and Freddie along with the banks were instrumental in that as well.

    Yes it is a complicated subject which woudl take way more space to adequately go into than we can here. Yes the banks were part of the problem and Fannie and Freddie were also part of the problem (you may disagree).

    People were given loans they couldnt afford, werent providing adequate documentation and as a result housing bubble occurs. Banks refused to turn down loans because they knew they could sell them and why take the chance of getting accused of prejudicial lending. Yada yada yada. This mess started with Carter got worse with Clinton and got even worse as it grew when Bush was in office.

  • If you had any facts you would have the approval of those here.

    As I usually do, at this point I will ask for you to point out any single thing I’ve posted here which is wrong.

  • PBunyan

    I can see it’s pointless. I give up Jim X. You “win” (in the Charley Sheen sense of that word). I’ve been having this same basic discussion since 2004 when I first started reading political blogs. Isn’t the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? (On the plus side, no one’s brought up Hitler yet…)

    And I guess it’s all just a matter of perspective. To someone like me Iran Contra, while an admitted wrong, is about equal to the amount of wrong that Obama does during the average 15 minutes of his regime. From my perspective, if I ever posted anything even 1/2% as hypocritical as pointing out the unconstitutionality of Iran-Contra while defending the hisoric, unprecidented, collosally unconstitutional (not to mention hypocritical) power grab of the Obama regime, why I’d be too ashamed to ever post on the net again.

    From my perspective, “Constitution stomping” Ronald Reagan once told a timeless truth: “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

    Waaaaaaay over there on the left–what with your own set of facts and values and all–maybe the same things looks completely different, I don’t know. But I do know that Americans can take heart. There is hope. You are now “19-percenters”.

  • retired military

    Jim

    “The Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy, which are stilling carving a huge whole in the budget with no discernible economic benefit, were passed in 2001.

    Well going by your link it states

    “But the tax cuts were across-the-board rate reductions for all tax filers, a detail that Grayson omitted when describing them as being “for the rich.”
    It’s true that the wealthy tend to pay the most taxes and thus saw the biggest drops to their tax bills. But many other taxpayers saw declines in their tax bills as well. Our previous reporting indicates that the tax cuts for the middle class during the Bush years were more costly than the tax cuts for the highest incomes, because the middle class outnumbers the very wealthy.”
    Your ascertation that the tax cuts “blew a hole” or whatever you called it in the deficit was IMO false as well.

    As stated we were in a recession, on top of 911. The tax cuts increased revenue to record heights. Unfortunately Congress went on a record spending spree.

    Also if you do research you will see that the Bush tax cuts caused a few million people to drop off the tax roles and they no longer paid income taxes (and no I am not talking about the rich).

    As I stated above I have an issue with your Plame statement. You made the broad statement “Bush Administration” when in reality there is no proof that Armitage (spelling) was acting on anyone’s orders along with the fact that he was antiwar. In addition, as I stated you had the dems calling for heads to roll , frogmarches in handcuffs, etc until they found out who actually leaked the name and then they STFU.

    Then we have the piece by Krugman whom has no creditibility in my book at all.

    I could go on but why bother. YOu wont change your mind and I seriously doubt I will change mine.

  • Kenny

    jim x,

    OK, I’ll play:

    As I usually do, at this point I will ask for you to point out any single thing I’ve posted here which is wrong.

    Well, lets see, you posted

    The financial collapse was not caused by Fannie Mae

    Which is wrong, you then go on talking about the CDS, but conveniently ignore that Fannie and Freddie did indeed hold a gun to bankers heads and force them to make loans that the banks knew would fail. All in the guise of ‘social justice’. How quickly you ignore the fact that fannie and freddie set targets each year for the banks that certain percentages of home loans had to go to low income households. You’re a complete idiot if you can’t realize that targets of 50% of mortages to low income households are a recipe for disaster.

    And yes, then the banks created CDS to get rid of this worthless paper, And the federal regulators did nothing to stop them.

    Care to admit you were wrong?

  • retired military

    Jim

    Since you want to use Krugman I will use Sowell.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_liberal_housing_crash.html

    and barney fudd

    http://daytontribune.com/barney-frank-defender-of-fannie-mae-before-housing-market-collapse-now-wants-to-abolish-the-government-agency/75929/

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received $150 billion dollars in taxpayer bailout money back in 2008 when the democratic congress passed a bill that then president Bush signed saving the agency from collapsing. Between Fannie and Freddie and the Federal Housing Administration they back 90% of all new home loans.

    Frank stated that “not everyone should be a home owner” and that the federal government should not be used as a “backstop” for the mortgage crisis.

    Franks stance on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a stark turnaround from his position back in the Bush presidency when he and fellow democrats vigorously opposed the Bush administration’s efforts to rein in Fannie Mae who was forcing banks to give out loans to people who couldn’t afford them.

    Back in September of 2003 Frank told the NY Times “These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

    Then in October of 2003 Frank said ”he worried the Treasury Department “would sacrifice activities that are good for consumers in the name of lowering the companies’ market risks.” When Republicans introduced a bill to Congress in 2005 to regulate Fannie Mae democrats led by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd killed the bill which ultimately led to the collapse of the housing market and eventually sent the country into a recession.

    Of course you might argue that dems are wiz kids as far as money matters go.

    Geithner – Cant pay his taxes

    Rangel – Chairman of house weighs and means committee – cant pay his taxes

    John Kerry – dodges paying taxes on his yacht
    but says that he doesnt need a tax cut.

    shall I go on?

  • retired military

    And Obama wants to raise taxes right on cue

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/04/obama-prepares-to-revive-tax-cut-debate/1

    Anyone want to bet the only cuts the dems want are in defense spending (in the middle of 3 wars )

  • retired military

    Boy from the NY TIMES NO LESS

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/g-d-p-forecast-for-first-quarter-slides/

    At a time when the economy should be rebounding the latest GDP number for the first quarter of 2010 shows that the Obama economic policies have failed.

    When 2011 began, Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting company, expected that America’s economic output would shape up to rise at a 4.1 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the highest pace in over a year.

    But economic reports coming in over the last few months have been increasingly disappointing.

    Today, after an especially weak report on February’s trade deficit, the group’s economists lowered their first quarter G.D.P. estimate to a sorry 1.5 percent annualized. If borne out, that rate would be slower than each of the last two quarters, at a time when the economy desperately needs to be rocketing forward so that companies will hasten their hiring.

    The Commerce Department will release its preliminary number for first quarter G.D.P. on April 28.

    Gee bad when a dem president loses the NY Times. I think they are jumping on the “Lets draft Hillary or we are gonna get creamed bandwagon”

  • PBunyan

    Hillary/Bammi – two sides of the same coin. But you’re prolly right RM at least they can pretend Hillary will be a “change”. It might work. Especially if the leftist press selects the Republican nominee again and if Trump pulls a Perot.

  • 914

    Getting Barry to cough up a document is going to be as tough for Trump as getting Lurch’s military records released. In the end neither Lurch nor Barry had a legitimate discharge.

  • retired military

    The last thing we need is Trump pulling a Perot. Trump could be on the ticket as VP but to be honest I would take him over Huckabee or Romneycare.

  • 914

    Yes, no reruns from 2008 please. If Huckafee gets the nod it’s going to be a lot closer then it should be.

  • NJ Mike

    JimX,
    “NJ Mike, because Bush was able to get the other side to do things his way doesn’t make him bipartisan OR a compromiser.”
    If you expect me to believe that W proposing NCLB, Medi-Prescrip etc… and getting the leftist filth on board to the point of the Swimmer WRITING NCLB, your above statement shows you lack even a basic concept of the terms bipartisan or compromise.
    “Uh, John….I won………”
    Arrogance personified.

  • I’ve been having this same basic discussion since 2004 when I first started reading political blogs. Isn’t the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

    One thing which we can agree about. Well, I can’t change your mind apparently, so good day to you and thanks at least for being gracious.

  • Of course we have to have taxes.

    We dont have to have taxes to pay for Abortion, Planned parenthood, bailing out the unions via GM, Obama’s contributors via restructuring of GM, NPR, studies on the effect of insects mating with relation to the effect it has on adolescent males watching porn, the bridge to nowhere, etc etc etc.

    OK, so that’s something of a separate argument – that we don’t need taxes for things you **disagree with**. That’s fine, but we should make clear that’s separate from saying we need to cut spending because of the deficit.

    Because, as the spending of Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. makes clear, deficit spending is rarely something conservatives complain about if they like the spending priorities.

    Has it been shown that taking money out of private hands and putting it into govt hands for the purpose of unnescessary spending actually hurts the economy?

    So the key is the definition of “unnecessary”.

    YES. It is called the multiplier effect. It is estimted that a dollar in private hands generates somewhere around 3-5 dollars in the economy.

    By who? Who’s estimated this? Please show some sources for this figure.

    I realize it’s been a couple of days since I posted here, but if you respond to this thread I would really like to see the source for this.

  • Which is wrong, you then go on talking about the CDS, but conveniently ignore that Fannie and Freddie did indeed hold a gun to bankers heads and force them to make loans that the banks knew would fail.

    No, sorry. I know you all want to blame the economic collapse entirely on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because that gives a convenient way Democrats can be to blame.

    But the default rate on subprime mortgages within Fannie Mae, is FAR less than that on mortgages outside of it – sorry:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

    In fact of the top 25 lenders in the subprime market, only ONE was affected by regulations for lending to the poor. Why were all the other banks doing it? Because they saw an easy way to make money, and didn’t give a damn about the damage it could cause.

    And then some other banks took those mortgages, bundled them up and created credit-default swaps and other financial instruments and sold them – which is what took the problems out of the housing sector and into the world market.

    So, so much for that myth. That is, if you care to admit you have been proven wrong?

    But if you think you’re still right, then please explain to me how Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac is responsible for forcing all the banks who WEREN’T involved with them to sell subprime mortgages. Was it telepathy perhaps? Or voodoo mind control?

  • Sure, you’re free to use anyone you want. But Krugman is a respected source of information by mainstream nonpartisan economists, and Sowell is not. So even though you like what Sowell says, that doesn’t automatically give it weight.

    But, more to the point, notice that Sowell is basically saying “Frank is bad”, and “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are bad.” That’s got nothign to do with whether or not they were forceful enough to bring down the economy by themselves.

    All the impartial sources that I know of are clear that they were not.

  • NJ MIke, I don’t expect you to believe anything. If you somehow think Bush was a bipartisan compromiser, then cheers to you and I hope you enjoy that world you’re in.