Good stuff from today in Golden,CO.
…So let’s be clear: what we’ve seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has
completely failed. And I am running for President of the United States because the dreams of the American people must not be endangered any more. It’s time to put an end to a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy. It’s time for change that makes a real difference in your lives.
…Make no mistake: my opponent is running for four more years of policies that will throw the economy further out of balance. His outrage at Wall Street would be more convincing if he wasn’t offering them more tax cuts. His call for fiscal responsibility would be believable if he wasn’t for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and more of a trillion dollar war in Iraq paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. His newfound support for regulation bears no resemblance to his scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement. John McCain cannot be trusted to reestablish proper oversight of our financial markets for one simple reason: he has shown time and again that he does not believe in it.
What has happened these last eight years is not some historical anomaly, so we know what to expect if we try these policies for another four. When lobbyists run your campaign, the special interests end up gaming the system. When the White House is hostile to any kind of oversight, corporations cut corners and consumers pay the price. When regulators are chosen for their disdain for regulation and we gut their ability to enforce the law, then the interests of the American people are not protected. It’s an ideology that intentionally breeds incompetence in Washington and irresponsibility on Wall Street, and it’s time to turn the page.
Just today, Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book – you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem. But here’s the thing … we know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I’ll provide it, John McCain won’t, and that’s the choice for the American people in this election.
Erin Burnette knows more about the market than Obama does. He has not clue what risks the investment banks did to put us in this mess nor did he do anything of note to try to stem the tide. Nor does he offer any kind of explanation for exactly what the Republicans did that allowed it, other than not watch over their shoulders. And now he says he has solutions to fix it, but he offers up none other than oversight.
Socialist bromides. Music to the ears of his audience and the sycophants who repeat them.
Since I can’t be bothered to read the proposals that Obama has thoughtfully prepared on his website, I will vote for 4 more years of the same disasterous policies that put us in this hole. That, and Erin Burnett is hot.
Nor does he offer any kind of explanation for exactly what the Republicans did that allowed it,
“His call for fiscal responsibility would be believable if he wasn’t for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and more of a trillion dollar war in Iraq paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. His newfound support for regulation bears no resemblance to his scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement.”
You need expenditure sheets, or what?
I would like to hear Obama tell us why raising taxes on anyone is going to fix things.
I would like to hear Obama tell us why raising taxes on anyone is going to fix things.
Because it worked through the Tech bubble, it surely will work through the recession he seems he seems to be hoping for.
Socialist bromides. Music to the ears of his audience and the sycophants who repeat them.
Oh stop it, you’re killin’ me!
I would like to hear Obama tell us why raising taxes on anyone is going to fix things.
I’d like to hear McCain–or any Republican–tell us why borrowing billions of dollars every year from foreign governments is a sustainable financial policy.
I continue to be amazed by the rot that infects Republican brains. To state it simply, there is a massive imbalance between Federal tax receipts and spending. It has been happy sailing on the sea of debt for the past 25 years because the other leading industrial economies believe we we are going to pay our debt and stabilize the imbalance. Under Democratic regimes, we actually do, whether it means economic shock therapy or higher taxes. That’s leadership. Under Republicans, we don’t. That is a failure of leadership.
LOL,
Obama is right about the final verdict regarding a failed economic philosophy but he is pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Here’s an interesting link for those of the reality based community who have at least a basic grasp of economics.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
Say did any of you notice who is #2 on the Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac political payoff list? Not too bad for a freshman senator with no Senate record or accomplishments to his credit. Perhaps he was singled out because of his proven real estate dealmaking ability.
“Under Democratic regimes, we actually do, whether it means economic shock therapy or higher taxes. That’s leadership”
Good point, I understand that a fine example of Democratic leadership regarding higher taxes is the current chairman of the Ways and Means committee.
You just can’t make this stuff up, too funny!
You just can’t make this stuff up, too funny!
Maybe you can’t, but Investors Business Daily can.
Obama, speaking today:
Ah, FINALLY he names the guy.
I simply don’t understand the idea that mentioning your opponents name somehow benefits them. It makes the speaker sound evasive. Like they want to speak only in generalities, not use a specific name, so they have wiggle room in case someone tries to pin them down.
Say the damn name. Let people hear over and over again that John McCain is a liar, that John McCain is a hypocrite, that John McCain is totally lacking in ideas, that John McCain has no better clue about what to do than Bush did on 9/11.
AMused observer: . Here’s an interesting link for those of the reality based community who have at least a basic grasp of economics.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
.
IOW, yeah, I pulled the trigger and shot the guy, officer. But the fault really lies with them damned Chinese who invented gunpowder in the first place and made it possible for me to shoot a bullet.
LOL Quaker,
Which part of the article would you refute? Which part would you claim is not true and why?
Liberals are full of feelings, reasons… not so much.
But… but… IT’S CLINTON’S FAULT!
Are you guys fucking kidding me right now? Clinton hasn’t been in office for eight years. Seriously. You’re fucking delusional.
I’m glad that Pavlov did his experiments with dogs instead of conservatives, because you all are too stupid to see a basic A–>B relationship.
AO, you can stand behind IBD, but you cannot hide. Republicans used to point to increased home ownership in the U.S. as a sign of the quality of the Bush economy:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040902-5.html
It was a joke and many of us realized it was a joke 5 years ago because we knew the increase in home ownership was not accompanied by any increase in personal savings rates or middle class income. Quite the opposite…
And how was this increase in home ownership “accomplished?”
I dunno, maybe you could ask McCain advisor and General Prick, Phil Gramm, who spearheaded the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act.
Which part of the article would you refute?
You mean the IBD editorial? Just about every last word, including “and” and “the.”
Let’s start with this:
“Obsessed with multiculturalism” is just silly name-calling. The IBD editorialist is referring to the Clinton administration’s revision of the 1977 Community Redevelopment Act. The act was passed by Congress to put an end to the practice of redlining, or systematic denial of credit in entire neighborhoods regardless of the qualifications of the prospective borrower. Neither the act nor the revision “dictated where mortgage lenders could lend.” Just the opposite, the act prevented lenders from excluding qualified borrowers because they live or do business on the “bad” side of town.
The Clinton-era revisions forced banks–those covered by federal deposit insurance–to prove their compliance with the act.
Now comes the slippery part of the editorial:
The writer wants us to believe that the loans encouraged by the CRA are the ones that precipitated the subprime meltdown. But pay attention to the weasel words: “originally helped create…”
In fact, most subprime loans were issued by independent lenders–institutions NOT covered by the CRA. These loans were not made to conform with the Clinton administration’s “obsession with multiculturalism,” but for a far more mundane objective–to make money.
Independent lenders loaned money to unqualified borrowers, then turned and sold the loans to investors. In a real estate market where greedy investors assumed prices would go up forever, the collateral of real estate more than outweighed the risk of default.
Unfortunately for the lenders, “forever” came to an end too soon.
The IBD editorial continues with smear, insinuation, and outright deception. But having lied at the outset, they’ve killed my interest in researching the rest.
Aw crap. Nobody fell for it.
ObamaMcCain, speaking today:Mr. McCain today suddenly saw the light on the hazards of lax oversight of financial markets.
Stand by, AO. My reply is stuck in moderation.
My reply is stuck in moderation.
Used to be my name and email were retained by this site so that I never had to re-type them. A couple weeks ago this changed and now I have to enter them every time I post a comment, and a typo (yeah, sometimes I misspell my own name
) means things wait in moderation.
Anyone else have this. Is there something I need to do on my side to get back to how it was?
There used to be a “Remember Me” checkbox underneath the comment box, but it’s gone now.
“Which part of the article would you refute? Which part would you claim is not true and why?”
Well, first, let’s start with the fact that the article you linked to got the name of the legislation wrong.
They refer to it as the Community Redevelopment Act.
It is, of course, the Community Reinvestment Act.
If the article’s authors can’t even bother to check this most basic fact, why on earth should we expect that they bothered to check any of the facts involved in this situation? What little actual facts are present in it, that is.
For the facts, we have to go to the reality based community:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
If you compare and contrast the IBD article to the American Prospect article and you have a classic illustration of how the right wing noise machines dupes it’s targets through the deployment of sinister and vague accusations in a fact free environment.
Hell, the IBD article doesn’t even define the institutions regulated by the CRA. in reading it, you’d never know, as others above have pointed out, that the CRA only impacted federall insured banks and thrifts and that “half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA” as noted in the American Prospect article which goes on to state:
The IBD article also only includes a single date in its entirety, (”"early 2005″)a date marking an event that’s totally unrelated to the CRA or the unfolding of the mortgage crisis.
Without a timeline, or at the very least some kind of timeframe, you can make anything seem connected. It’s much harder to do so when you actually use dates, as the American Prospect points out:
Now that’s a lot of dates that actually present a pretty clear picture of how things unfolded over time.
In the absence of actual facts about the CRA, the IBD article segues into a rant against corporate compensation for Clinton supporters after its first five paragraphs before it last six devolve into typical conservative boilerplate about the evils of the New Deal and liberalism in general. In other words, most of the article is entirely unrelated to proving its central thesis.
So, Amused Observer, you ask which part of the article I would refute? How about all of it.
Back to you.
So, Amused Observer, you ask which part of the article I would refute? How about all of it.
Back to you.
You’re not really expecting him to get back to you, I assume.
TFJs for Quaker and fafaroo. I tip my Obama cap to you.