« Putting The "Loco" In "In Loco Parentis" | Main | "This was an era of American greatness" »

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.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41419.

Comments (94)

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA [R... (Below threshold)
kevino:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA [ROFL]

Pot, this is Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

From one moor to another.</... (Below threshold)
epador:

From one moor to another.

Do as I say not as I do. M... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Do as I say not as I do. Maybe that is what obama should have had woven into the border of the oval office carpet.

Barry rules by attrition. <... (Below threshold)
914:

Barry rules by attrition.

Like he had any idea about ... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Like he had any idea about how to govern in the first place.

Rule, yes.
Lead, not so much.
Govern, completely clueless.

Seriously?I mean, ... (Below threshold)

Seriously?

I mean, do I even have to point out how, after an incredibly divisive 2000 election which Bush numerically *lost*, Bush did NOT AT ALL act as the President of all America? But basically acted as if he had received a mandate to do as he wanted, and *only* be answerable to those who voted for him?

I guess I do need to point it out.

Why are so many conservatives' memories so short?

And today Barry is going to... (Below threshold)
Pile of Pooh:

And today Barry is going to lecture us on fiscal responsibility. Think you can manage to remember why that's so ironic, jim x?

That damn Electoral College... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

That damn Electoral College is a bitch, ain't it, Jim X? If it hadn't been for that, we'd have had Al Gore in office, and we'd all be riding government-mandated bicycles and limiting ourselves to 3 25 watt bulbs in our houses at night!

(BTW, there wasn't ANY valid recount of Florida that showed Gore as the winner, but nice squirrel, Jim!)

Why are liberal memories so damn selective?

"I mean, do I even have to ... (Below threshold)
914:

"I mean, do I even have to point out how, after an incredibly divisive 2000 election which Bush numerically *lost*, Bush did NOT AT ALL act as the President of all America? But basically acted as if he had received a mandate to do as he wanted, and *only* be answerable to those who voted for him?"


Yeah, thats why he won in 2004 right? I really don't see your point other then to try and change the subject from O bama's hypocrisy? But then, that is the point isn;'t it jimx.

Jim X,Can you give... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Jim X,

Can you give us an example of President Bush telling some other President to do the exact opposite of what he himself regularly did?

No? Well then your point is not valid for this discussion.

Get it? Obama telling President Ouattara "to govern on behalf of all the people ... including those who did not vote for him" is like you telling a blog commenter to only make comments that are logically valid and relevant to the post.

PBunyan, can you point out ... (Below threshold)

PBunyan, can you point out the writer of this article?

Is it President Bush? No, it appears to me it's some guy named Rick. Would you agree?

That being the case, it is Rick I am disagreeing with.

Perhaps the point I'm making wasn't clear. Here's what I'm saying:

If it is wrong for President Obama to not do what those on the Right want, just because he wasn't elected by them -

Wouldn't it also have been wrong for President Bush to not do what those on the LEFT wanted, just because he wasn't elected by them?

Yes or no?

Do you get what I'm saying now?

JLawson, you appear to be h... (Below threshold)

JLawson, you appear to be having arguments with someone else, 'cause none of those even point at what I said.

My point is, George Bush didn't even have an actual majority behind him - and yet he still ignored what the Left wanted because the Right voted for him.

If Obama does the same thing, but is just voting for what the Left wants and ignoring the right - isn't that really just the same?

Yes or no?

All of which is besides the point, because Obama is not really delivering what the Left wants at all - he's just successfully using the Right to make the Left go along with a corporate centrist path. But so many here somehow think Obama is a socialist that I won't even attempt that argument...

And today Barry is... (Below threshold)
And today Barry is going to lecture us on fiscal responsibility. Think you can manage to remember why that's so ironic, jim x?

Sure. What's ironic about that is how conservatives suddenly care about fiscal responsibility - but only if it can cut programs they don't like.

By far the quickest actual road to deficit reduction would be just returning the tax rates to where they were under Bill Clinton. Do that and close some corporate tax loopholes that we all are paying for, and we could be back on the road to a second budget surplus.

Why aren't all these conservative deficit hawks arguing for that, do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

"If Obama does the same ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"If Obama does the same thing, but is just voting for what the Left wants and ignoring the right - isn't that really just the same?

Moral equivalence! Isn't he a SMART squirrel!

Just when you think Hussein... (Below threshold)
914:

Just when you think Hussein could not be any more of a hypocritical fool, he ups the ante.


Moral equivalence!... (Below threshold)
Moral equivalence! Isn't he a SMART squirrel!

Avoiding the point isn't defeating it. FYI.

Jim X, I'm not an ... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Jim X,

I'm not an Obama voter. I got your point. You, as an Obama voter, clearly missed my and Rick's point.

We're talking about the hypocrisy of what Obama said to President Ouattara.

Now the point Obama was trying to make was pretty stupid. And your question (which is totally irrelevant to the point of the original post) is also stupid: "If it is wrong for President Obama to not do what those on the Right want, just because he wasn't elected by them - Wouldn't it also have been wrong for President Bush to not do what those on the LEFT wanted, just because he wasn't elected by them?"

Were I to accept your premise then I'd answer "yes", but your premise is moronic besides being irrelevant.

Let me try and re-state my point in a simpler form so maybe you can understand:

Is Obama being a hypocrite for telling President Ouattara to do the exact opposite of what he himself regularly does?


Just so it is **completely*... (Below threshold)

Just so it is **completely** clear to you all,

What I am doing, once again, is pointing out how something you are so incensed about and outraged about, and are characterizing as an objective moral wrong that no true American should ever do -

Is something that was apparently **Completely** fine and ok when those doing it were on your side.

This is typically known as "hypocrisy". You may also wish to call it "moral equivalence" - whatever you mean by that.

Actually, I'm interested in that. When you say "moral equivalence", what do you mean? How is what I'm saying "moral equivalence", and if so, how does that mean I'm wrong?

And again Jim X, please poi... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

And again Jim X, please point to an actual example of "our side" being "fine and o.k." with someone on "our side" being a complete hypocrite.

"What I am doing, once agai... (Below threshold)
914:

"What I am doing, once again, is pointing out how something you are so incensed about and outraged about, and are characterizing as an objective moral wrong that no true American should ever do -"


Poppycock! What you are doing is trying to appear smarter then everyone in the room. And I for one am not mad. Just simply noting as Rick so poetically does, Barry's penchant for hypocrisy.


Do as Barry says, not as he does...

I got your point. ... (Below threshold)
I got your point. You, as an Obama voter, clearly missed my and Rick's point.

Then you, as an apparent Bush voter, should have addressed my point. Rather than apparently expecting me to read your mind, and insert responses you did not make.

I clearly understand you are talking about what you term hypocrisy on Obama's part.

I am pointing out the apparent hypocrisy, of complaining this is hypocritical when Obama does it, but not minding when Bush did it.

Are we agreed at this point so far?

Were I to accept your premise then I'd answer "yes", but your premise is moronic besides being irrelevant.

And I say your response is moronic as well as being irrelevant. Also, nyah nyah. Now, if we can go back to being adults - thank you for at least acknowledging that would be hypocritical to accept something Bush did, but oppose something Obama did that was essentially the same - just with the shoe on the other foot.

Now, is Obama being a hypocrite in telling Qattara to govern on behalf of all of the people? No - because Obama **is** attempting to govern America on behalf of all the people. A bit too much, in my opinion - but nevertheless that's the case.

The Left wanted health care that was basically an expansion of Medicare, or if not at least with single-payer, or at least a public option. We got none of 'em.

The Left wanted restrictions on Wall St. in return for the bailout needed to save our economy. We didn't get it.

The Left wants reductions in unneeded military spending. We haven't gotten that either.

Now we have a budget that's all cuts on programs the Left likes, with even returning to the tax rates under Clinton as off the table. What's coming up next from Obama will probably be concessions on Medicare and Medicaid - which the Left will abhor and struggle against, and many here will probably say don't go far enough.

I don't like what Obama's doing, but I think it's pretty hard to look at what he's doing objectively and say he isn't listening to the Right. He is in fact going as far as he can to placate the right and still have any base at all.

I don't expect to convince you of this; but that's my answer.

However, a further answer is - I don't think Bush was necessarily wrong in an objective sense for trying to please those who voted for him. I actually wish Obama was doing more of that.

As I recall, Bush reached o... (Below threshold)
Hank:

As I recall, Bush reached out to the dems when he was elected, very specifically the Kennedy's who were invited to the WH and shortly thereafter when he worked and compromised with Ted Kennedy on the No Child Left behind act which had overwhleming bi-partisan support.

as to the topic, Obama might as well send "my people" Holder to represent him in The Ivory Coast. Holder represents perfectly Obama's outlook on governing all the people.

914, don't be mad if it's y... (Below threshold)

914, don't be mad if it's your choice to try and appear dumber than everyone in the room.

And again Jim X, p... (Below threshold)
And again Jim X, please point to an actual example of "our side" being "fine and o.k." with someone on "our side" being a complete hypocrite.

OK, sure. Do you like Ronald Reagan as a President?

And do you think the American Constitution should be respected?

If the answer to both of those is yes, I'll continue.

Jim x, you either miss the ... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Jim x, you either miss the point deliberately or through stupidity, but it probably doesn't matter.

Obama is telling the new government of Ivory Coast to reach out to govern for all the people. Yet, he declined to reach out to the opposition here when he took office. Hypocrisy.

That is it, the whole point of the post.

Nothing to do with Bush. Nothing to do with the Democratic Congress failing to make its base happy. Nothing to do with the results of the 2010 election.

Do your medications need adjusting again?

#23Appearan... (Below threshold)
914:

#23


Appearances can be deceiving. Barry appears to be a Harvard grad, constitutional scholar and first Afro/American president. He is however, none of the above.

He is an socialist plant.

JimX,I disagree with... (Below threshold)
Eric:

JimX,
I disagree with you about Bush being so partisan when he became President. Bush did a far better job of reaching across the aisle than Obama ever has. Many of Bush's initiatives ended up passing with Democratic support and weren't party line votes. That happens when both sides are willing to work with each other.

For all of his big talk, I didn't see that coming from Obama during his first two years in office. Remember in his first meeting with the Republicans he told them "I won". He then went MONTHS before he met with the Republican leadership again. That is not reaching across the aisle.

Hank, it appears you are fo... (Below threshold)

Hank, it appears you are forgetting quite a lot of other things that happened.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-11-05/news/17452522_1_bipartisan-effort-and-results-democracy-in-iraq-afghanistan-social-security

President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence that Americans embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the tax code, curb lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday to work in a bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals."

...Bush spoke of building a bipartisan consensus...Yet he made plain that he had no intention of moderating his agenda to reach that goal.

Giving someone something you don't want to, in order to get something you want, is what compromise actually is.

Getting someone to agree to do what you want, without actually making any concessions, is not.

Jim Addison, what you don't... (Below threshold)

Jim Addison, what you don't seem to realize is that I find the point of the post itself to show hypocrisy - because I don't recall Bush's non-bipartisanhip to have even come up for discussion.

That's the whole point of my response.

If that's beyond you to understand, then please feel free to soothe yourself with the projected medication of your choice.

He is an socialist... (Below threshold)
He is an socialist plant.

Sorry that you think so, I don't know how to convince you otherwise.

I'll tell you what though - sometimes I wish Obama WAS a socialist. Just so you lot would actually have something to cry about.

28Once agai... (Below threshold)
914:

28


Once again jim x, this thread is not about BUSH!! Much as you would like to change the subject, the subject remains Barry's inability to see the error of his upbringing in foreign lands and his low IQ that is in the way of learning.

Once again, 914, my comment... (Below threshold)

Once again, 914, my comments ARE! Much as you would like to avoid the points I raise, because that might force you to actually admit the faults in your own worldly outlook. Which probably come from errors in your own upbringing in domestic lands. I don't think there's a low IQ in the way of your learning, to be fair. Just an ideology you've bought into, that apparently remains viable as long as those who hold it can refuse to connect the dots, and see the logical holes within it.

Jim x, I was referring to B... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Jim x, I was referring to Bush in 2001, you rebut with Bush in 2004. And by the time 2004 came around, after the way the dems and media treated him, there was no sense whatsoever to reach out to the other side; a complete waste of time.

914 an others, apologies for being off topic.

" Yet, he declined to reach... (Below threshold)
419:

" Yet, he declined to reach out to the opposition here when he took office."

You lie.

In all honesty jim x, it is... (Below threshold)
914:

In all honesty jim x, it is YOU with the flawed ideology. What do we know of Barry? Mysterious history, shady allegiances and tutor's. We make determinations based on what is, what we know and what we see. What we see is not American capitalism.. It is European socialism.

It makes sense if You are of the soviet block mindset. We cannot overcome Americas military might or economic might. So we undermine them from within. That is why Barry whatever his name has a blank past.

Now have some more kool aid and stick your head back in the sand.

Hank, I thought you were re... (Below threshold)

Hank, I thought you were referring to Bush as a President, period. However, I'm happy to narrow the focus to 2001.

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.

Bush couldn't get enough Democratic votes to make it pass. So, what did he do? Compromise with the Democrats in a bipartisan fashion? Give up a bit of what his side wanted, in order to get something everyone liked? Nope, he got together with the GOP Senate and Congress and passed it through a legal loophole instead.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/04/alan-grayson/bush-tax-cuts-were-passed-reconciliations-50-votes/

That's not bipartisanship, is it?

Now to be clear - I don't think it's a President's duty to be bipartisan. My opposition to Bush is that I think it's pretty clear his policies were awful for the nation.

But if bipartisanship and compromise is supposed to be some sort of gold standard for Presidents, then Bush fails **at least** as bad as Obama does. And I think an objective look at the record shows Bush is far, far worse.

What do we know of... (Below threshold)
What do we know of Barry? Mysterious history, shady allegiances and tutor's.

No, 914. That is 100% in your mind, and not in reality. Seriously.

Barack Obama's history is 100% known, and not at all mysterious in any way. We know when and how and where he was born, and to whom, and we know where he grew up, where he lived, and what he did along the way.

And what you see is absolutely 100% American capitalism. Reagan bailed out Chrysler, remember? Reagan and Bush Sr. bailed out banks after the Silverado S & L scandal, remember?

Now, some people who want to not believe things can choose not to believe anything. The mind is powerful like that. Some people choose to believe that they can be healed through watching televangelists on TV. Some choose to believe the Earth is flat. But that doesn't make them any more right.

JimX, Are you serious?<br /... (Below threshold)
NJ Mike:

JimX, Are you serious?
No Child left behind?
Medicare prescription expansion?
UN authorization to attack those who attacked us?
To say that Bush acted as if his mandate was for only those who voted for him is a true example of you having an absolute mental disorder.
As far as many of us conservatives are concerned, W's biggest FAILING was to kowtow to the left.

NJ Mike, because Bush was a... (Below threshold)

NJ Mike, because Bush was able to get the other side to do things his way doesn't make him bipartisan OR a compromiser.


What did Bush *want* to do, that he *did less of* in order to get something else that he *did* want?

Or, what did Bush *not want* to happen, that he agreed to *let happen* in order to get something that he *did* want?

That is what makes a President a bipartisan compromiser.

Shall I accuse you of having a mental disorder for not understanding this?

#39I blame Bush!</... (Below threshold)
Sarah the Impaler:

#39

I blame Bush!


Could've saved 20 posts by being honest.

#40Bush is never t... (Below threshold)

#40

Bush is never to blame for anything!

Could have saved yourself a post there, Sarah.

Jim X: "...not minding w... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Jim X: "...not minding when Bush did it. Are we agreed at this point so far?"

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.

Jim X: "The Left wanted health care..."

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), you'd have to be blind not to see that were Obamacare allowed to take full effect it would immediately destroy the private insurance industry so the government can step in and replace it with single payer-- which is exactly what you leftists wanted all along. It's a horribly dishonest and evil way to get there, but that is what Obama did.

Jim X: "The Left wanted restrictions on Wall St.... We didn't get it."

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? Sure it stopped slightly short of a complete Communist take over of ownership of all private companies, but it was only just short of that. Still the left didn't get what they wanted, you say... hmmm... So you wanted a complete Communist takeover. Well thanks for admitting that-- not that it's a surprise to me.

Jim X: "Now we have a budget that's all cuts on programs the Left likes"

We have a budget that has increased by over a trillion and a half dollars since the left took power in congress in '07, and Obama and the Dems gave back 38 billion. Boo fuckin hoo for you. Plus you didn't loose funding for the left's blessed sacrament- abortion. Obama was willing to shut down the govenment rather than give that up- which again refutes the point you're trying to make.

Jim X: "I actually wish Obama was doing more of that."

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.

Finally, Jim X: "OK, sure. Do you like Ronald Reagan as a President? And do you think the American Constitution should be respected?"

I know I shouldn't but I'll take the bait. It really does amuse me so to get glimpses into Marxist thought processes--So my answer is yes, I liked Reagan as a President and yes, I believe the Constitution should definitely be respected.


"yes, I liked Reagan as Pre... (Below threshold)
914:

"yes, I liked Reagan as President and yes, I believe the Constitution should be respected."

Ha hahaahahahahahaha... I agree and I like Cheney and Sarah Palin too.

Everytime Obama does or say... (Below threshold)
John:

Everytime Obama does or says something stupid the liberals only response is he's just like Bush, is that the change we're looking for?

Jim X: "The Bush Tax cut... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Jim X: "The Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy,

Fact: The Buch tax cuts were for everyone. The biggest tax breaks were for those with the lowest incomes. In fact millions of poor households who experienced tax increases under CLinton and the Dem Congress in the early 90, had their tax burden totally eliminated.

Jim X: "which are stilling carving a huge whole in the budget"

Fact: Until the left took power in Congress in '07 federal tax receipts were at record levels.

Jim x: "with no discernible economic benefit"

You mean other than record tax reciepts, pulling us out of the Clinton recession, and creating over 5 million new jobs to replace the 2.5 million jobs that were lost during the Clinton recession, and years of sustained economic growth (until we started to feel the effects the policies of the leftist Congress that came to power in '07)? Yeah I guess other than that it would be hard to discern the economic benefits.

Jim X: "But if bipartisa... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Jim X: "But if bipartisanship and compromise is supposed to be some sort of gold standard for Presidents"

You're the only one here who's making that argument. That is a logical fallacy known as a "strawman". Say, you aren't actully Obama posting under a pseudonym are you? He employs that same logical fallacy on a regular basis, too.

Jim X: "Barack Obama's h... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Jim X: "Barack Obama's history is 100% known"

Reeeeeeeeally?

Who did he meet with when he traveled to Pakistan while in college? Who paid for the trip? What were his grades in college? Why did he and Michelle surrender their law licenses? Who was this "Frank" that Obama called his mentor in his first book? Why was Obama given a social security number that should have been issued to a Connecticut resident in 1977, when Obama lived in Hawaii?

Do I need to go on? Or are you going to admit how foolish that statement was.

Jim X"The Bush Tax... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

"The Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy, which are stilling carving a huge whole in the budget "

You mean the tax cuts that resulted in the greatest amount of revenue in history to come into the US treasury.

What caused a huge hole in the budget was the Fannie and Freddie crisis (thanks Barney Franks and Chris Dodd) and Obama wanting to bail out all his cronies (hat tip to the unions).

Obama has increased the debt more in less than 3 years than Bush did in 8.

As for your unsaid "tax the rich mime"

Let's see
Total income tax revenue for 2010. $1.39 (call it $1.4 trillion )

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/


Top 25% of tax payers (those making about $67k agi) paid 86.34% of those taxes.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

that means that out of $1.4 trillion they paid about $1.21 trillion of that $1.4 trillion.

That means that if we double the income taxes of EVERYONE who made more than $67K AGI you still wouldnt MAKE UP FOR THE DEFICIT FOR THIS YEAR ALONE.

Once again, Common sense dictates we dont have a low tax problem. We have an OVERSPENDING PROBLEM. Dont let facts get in the way of the foot in your mouth.

Jim X: "because Bush was... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Jim X: "because Bush was able to get the other side to do things his way doesn't make him bipartisan OR a compromiser"

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.

That means that if we doubl... (Below threshold)
retired military:

That means that if we double the income taxes of EVERYONE who made more than $67K AGI you still wouldnt MAKE UP FOR THE DEFICIT FOR THIS YEAR ALONE.


should read

That means that if we double the tax revenue to the govt revenue from folks making 67k+ agi you still wouldnt MAKE UP FOR THE DEFICIT FOR THIS YEAR BY ITSELF.

The next thing you know Jim... (Below threshold)
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 agre... (Below threshold)
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 fac... (Below threshold)
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 co... (Below threshold)

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 Pres... (Below threshold)
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.

RE #52: Your points 1 and ... (Below threshold)
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... (Below threshold)
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?

RE # 53: "Great! Thanks ... (Below threshold)
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 on... (Below threshold)
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 ... (Below threshold)

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 p... (Below threshold)
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 ... (Below threshold)

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.

Jim X is rewriting history.... (Below threshold)
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.

Jim X"don't think... (Below threshold)
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 co... (Below threshold)

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 sh... (Below threshold)

Retired military, please show ONE statement I've made today that is "made up".

Jim X" The financi... (Below threshold)
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 o... (Below threshold)
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. ret... (Below threshold)

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

Jim If the dems ha... (Below threshold)
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: ... (Below threshold)

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 ... (Below threshold)
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.

Wow jim x... 30 posts and n... (Below threshold)
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... (Below threshold)

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

JimI understand ho... (Below threshold)
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.


"Fortunately, facts are mor... (Below threshold)
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.

JimIn ref to the S... (Below threshold)
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 fac... (Below threshold)
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.

I can see it's pointless. ... (Below threshold)
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".

Jim"The Bush Tax c... (Below threshold)
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.

jim x,OK, I'll pla... (Below threshold)
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?

JimSince you want ... (Below threshold)
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?

And Obama wants to raise ta... (Below threshold)
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 )

Boy from the NY TIMES NO LE... (Below threshold)
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"

Hillary/Bammi - two sides o... (Below threshold)
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.

Getting Barry to cough up a... (Below threshold)
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.

The last thing we need is T... (Below threshold)
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.

Yes, no reruns from 2008 pl... (Below threshold)
914:

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

JimX,"NJ Mike, becau... (Below threshold)
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 t... (Below threshold)
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 ... (Below threshold)
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, yo... (Below threshold)
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 anyon... (Below threshold)
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... (Below threshold)

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.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy