Well, Obama is doing it again. Since he can’t play the “blame Bush” card every day, he occasionally pulls his “Republicans are the party of no,” card from the bottom of the deck…
Read entire story in my latest piece for San Diego News Room
Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and columnist. Details of his show can be found at www.bobsiegel.net.. Comments to posts are discussed by Bob over the air where anyone is free to call in and respond/debate. Call in toll free number: 1-888-344-1170
Listen To Most Recent Show:
9-5-10
Comments 17
Some one has to keep reminding us how we got into this mess. Put the blame where it rests….on the Bush administration and now the Party of No.
Let’s call a spade a spade.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED at the above use of racial language
in relation to our first Black president.
Looks like our original liberal Troll has finally popped
her cork! It’s just sad.
I am tired of this myth that Bush created “this mess”. What specific policy of President Bush turned the real estate market sour? Can’t name one, can you?
Let’s review some actual facts:
-In 2000 Bush was handed a recession in the form of a major market correction after the “irrational exuberance” of the dot com bubble. So he lowered taxes and increased limits on retirement accounts. The economy turned around quickly.
-Our most recent recession was caused by the real estate crash. Banks being forced to lend to people who could not afford to own a house, by expanding the Community Reinvestment Act, caused the real estate crash. The expansion of the CRA did not just kinda happen under Clinton, it was a pet project of Clinton’s. Not Bush.
-Few banks take on any real risk when it comes to home loans anymore. Banks rarely loan their own money. Instead the loan goes to Freddie or Fannie. The bank does the work, gets paid a commission, and then dumps the risk onto Freddie or Fannie (aka. the government and the tax payer). What motivation do the banks have to make sure the borrower is qualified for a loan if there is no risk to the bank making that loan?
-Freddie and Fannie were vehemently defended by Sen. Lott and Rep. Frank over and over and over again. Sen. McCain (and other Republican leadership) tried hard in the first years of the Bush administration to bring the problems with Freddie/Fannie to light.
– So banks were forced by the CRA to sell loans to people who could not afford them, but it didn’t worry the banks because after the transaction they dumped the risk onto a government agency anyway. Not a Bush idea.
– Meanwhile, investment firms were selling Collateralized Mortgage Obligations becoming nothing more than agents of Freddie and Fannie. The investment firms were told officially that unofficially the government would step in and back these assets if they ever became toxic. This is also something that was fostered under Clinton’s plan. So with Democrat Pelosi at one helm and Reid at the other, they took a bad situation and made it worse by forcing more debt onto banks, telling them the money is a reward, making unobtainable minimum requirements for customers to borrow the money, and then blaming the banks for not lending more. This was not Bush.
– Democrats have raised the debt of our country so far that inflation is horrendous. Don’t believe me about inflation? Just compare how much gold $1000 could buy in 2005 (around two ounces) compared to now (not even one ounce). The funny thing is that it was runaway spending that was arguably the #1 issue on voters’ minds in the 2006 and 2008 elections that ushered in Democrat control. This lack of good government fiscal policy has weakened an already injured economy. The damage done by the Democrats to our national debt since 2006 is not the cause of our economic heart attack, but it is the reason for such a long, jobless recovery. Not Bush.
There are other factors to blame outside of the universe of politics. (Greedy borrowers, dishonest brokers and appraisers, incompetent executives) But the enablers were clearly the elected and the elected were clearly Democrats. It is my hope that the Republican Party continues to be the party of “no” when it comes to standing up to bad Democrat ideas.
Dear Shocked One,
That’s what happens when you don’t keep your mind open and your mouth shut…especially when demonstrating your knowledge of racist slang. You are now revealed. You fell for it. LOL 🙂
Uh Yeah….that’s the Ticket….it was just a Trap
to see if anyone recognized the racial phrase.
Part of a crafty master plan.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Gwen, we didn’t just fall off the proverbial turnip truck. Look before you leap, it is said. No different than “Think before you speak.”. Wouldn’t it be better — as well as a lot more honest — to just admit a poor choice of words and that you didn’t mean anything racial, instead of now try to weasel out of it by pinning it on the reader instead of the writer (you)? You are showing very bad form.
Gwendolyn: Please. When you get yourself in a hole, stop digging.
If a prominent conservative uttered the phrase at the wrong time, every liberal in the country would be calling for a head. You don’t think liberals “recognize the racial phrase”? Yeah right. I don’t fault Gwen for using it, I fault her for not owning up to the mistake of wrong time, wrong place. Hypocritical if you ask me.
Sorry…. nice try to dodge the “revealing” interpretation made by Mr. Sills.
If you re-read my statement, my point is made using the phrase “call a spade a spade’ has the meaning:
To “call a spade a spade” is to speak honestly and directly about a topic, specifically topics that others may avoid speaking about due to their sensitivity…”
This was appropriate use of the common statement.
What is amusing and sad is that the interpretation was given a racial slur interpretation, revealing the mindset of the person interpreting my statement. Now we know where your minds are.
You have revealed your mind sets in regards to President Obama.
Dear Michael,
I read your statement with interest and note that there are some glaring omissions from your argument. But, then I realized these facts would not have helped your argument.
1) According to the CBO Congressional Budget Office, the Clinton administration had a balanced federal budget and also erased the federal deficit. See http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html (updated: Congressional Budget Office, “Historical Budget Data,” undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010.)
This is the economy that the Bush Administration stepped into.
2) At the end of the Bush Administration our Country was on the verge of financial collapse. According to the CBO http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2004/biggest_deficit_in_history_yes_and_no.html
“The federal deficit for fiscal year 2004 (which ends Sept. 30) is projected by the President’s Office of Management and Budget to be $521 billion. The Congressional Budget Office is predicting a somewhat lower total of $477 billion. But either would easily exceed the previous record deficit of $375 billion set last year. That in turn broke the previous record of $290 billion, which was reached under Bush’s father in 1992.”
There was no mention of the causes of this increase in the deficit, but can imagine that becoming involved in two clostly wars was a factor.
3) Since the Obama Administration has taken the helm, President Obama has been trying to stimulate growth in jobs in the private sector through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Financial Regulatory Reform, the Credit Card Reform, and others.
These programs are still young for their full impact to be felt.
The point here is that it took many years for the Republican run Congress to drive us into the financial ditch. It will probably take years, noting that the Republican portion of Congress is still dragging its feet on reforms.
Gwendolyn,
The deficit did not ruin the economy. The real estate crash did. As I mentioned. Unless you can find multiple mainstream economists who say that the stock market crashed, banks failed, and millions of people lost their jobs due to deficit spending from 2000 to 2008, then nothing you write applies to the economy.
Again, this “weakened an already injured economy”, but it was not the cause of the bad economy by causing inflation. Inflation is making it more difficult for companies and individuals to spend money (which results in jobs). And no run up in the national debt has been anything close to the Democrat led spending spree from 2006 to 2010.
Now stop making racist remarks about Obama and go read a book on economics.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, Barry J.
Gwendolyn has put down the shovel and brought
in a back-hoe…. We can JUST see the top of her
head now.
Sometime words are just not enough to get across a point. So here are some visuals to illustrate. Please go to:
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm.
The charts show Unemployment, Job Creation, Stock Market, Budget Surplus/Deficit, and real GDP growth from GH Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama, and shows the Recession.
Then, let me know what you see and think. If you can tie certain pieces of legislation to the ups and downs, you are ahead.
Dear Bob and Company:
Am I to assume that you’ve all given up your argument that Bush left our economny in a mess after checking out the stats from http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm ?
Author
A reminder to my readers: At the bottom of my articles there appears some info, including my way of responding to comments:
Comments to posts are discussed by Bob over the air where anyone is free to call in and respond/debate. Call in toll free number: 1-888-344-1170
Gwendolyn, sorry, we are all busy working at jobs to pay for all the unemployment benefits that have to be distributed out thanks to the Democrats and their crack staff of economists. No time to waste our time trying to teach pigs to sing right now.