Obama proclaims "The buck stops here", but still blames all problems on George W Bush

[Little-Acorn]

Thomas Sowell nails it again.

How long can the Democrats continue to mess up the country and get away with it by (falsely) blaming Republicans?

Will we finally get the answer, this Nov. 2?

----------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/09/07/political_fables/page/full/

Political Fables

by Thomas Sowell

President Barack Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.

The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills but Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

Having created this scary situation, President Obama now says, "Don't give in to fear. Let's reach for hope." The voters reached for hope when they elected Obama. The fear comes from what he has done since taking office.

"The worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that created this mess in the first place," he said recently. "In November, you're going to have that choice."

Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.

These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.

Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats-- notably Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.

At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.

If we are going to talk about "the policies that created this mess in the first place," let's at least get the facts straight and the names right.

The current policies of the Obama administration are a continuation of the same reckless policies that brought on the current economic problems-- all in the name of "change." Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still sacred cows in Washington, even though they have already required the biggest bailouts of all.

Why? Because they allow politicians to direct vast sums of money where it will do politicians the most good, either personally or in terms of buying votes in the next election.

[namvet]

so now he thinks he's Harry Truman

http://i49.tinypic.com/2d6vdzm.jpg


the buck starts where ???

[darin]

Obama is proving to be kind of a shit bag. PURE political opportunist and driven NOT for what's best, but for his ideology.

[Palin Rider]

Neither Congressional Democrats nor Republicans care about making good policy anymore. Their time in office has become all about directing "vast sums of money where it will do politicians the most good."

[SassyLady]

I love Sowell!!

Politicians are so focused on campaigning for the next election cycle that they have no time to make good sound policies. Look how hard the Dems pushed the Health Care and the Financial bills .... because they needed to spend the rest of their time in office running for the next election.

I think term limits should be the highest priority .... or, the people will set their own term limits. Holding a political office should not be a full time job or a career.

[darin]

The problem is, MSKP, large portions of voters are stupid. Remember the 80/20 rule? I wouldn't be surprised if 80 of voters are stupid when it comes to what is REALLY harming the country - they are self-centered and feel entitled.

[Palin Rider]

The problem is, MSKP, large portions of voters are stupid. Remember the 80/20 rule? I wouldn't be surprised if 80 of voters are stupid when it comes to what is REALLY harming the country - they are self-centered and feel entitled.

Or they just don't care how much the country gets harmed, as long as they get what they want.

[SassyLady]

The problem is, MSKP, large portions of voters are stupid. Remember the 80/20 rule? I wouldn't be surprised if 80 of voters are stupid when it comes to what is REALLY harming the country - they are self-centered and feel entitled.

I've said it before, I have to thank Obama for helping my daughter get her head on straight. She used to be a Democrat, now she is Independent. She is disgusted with the whole process. She called me on election night railing at me because I lived in CA and she felt it was our fault that he won. I just laughed and said "welcome to my world"....I live here with the nuts!

[Palin Rider]

I've sometimes said that the biggest problem is that the voters want what they can't possibly have: no taxes and lots of goodies from the government.

[SassyLady]

I've sometimes said that the biggest problem is that the voters want what they can't possibly have: no taxes and lots of goodies from the government.

One of my daughter's friends kept saying to me "if my neighbor is starving it is the government's responsibility to feed them". I said, if my neighbor is starving I would invite them over to dinner. He said "no, it is their responsibility, not ours". I said, "how stupid can you be .... we are the government!" He still didn't get it ... so I said, to put it in simple terms....

1. your neighbor is starving
2. government takes money out of your pocket and gives it to your neighbor and keeps a little bit for themselves to cover their overhead
3. so why don't you give the money to your neighbor directly and he or you can keep the government's cut

He finally got it!

[Palin Rider]

One of my daughter's friends kept saying to me "if my neighbor is starving it is the government's responsibility to feed them". I said, if my neighbor is starving I would invite them over to dinner. He said "no, it is their responsibility, not ours". I said, "how stupid can you be .... we are the government!" He still didn't get it ... so I said, to put it in simple terms....

1. your neighbor is starving
2. government takes money out of your pocket and gives it to your neighbor and keeps a little bit for themselves to cover their overhead
3. so why don't you give the money to your neighbor directly and he or you can keep the government's cut

He finally got it!

Yes, you and I are the government, but I'm betting that you and I (despite our best efforts) would suck at paving roads, building libraries, and checking cars trying to cross the border. :laugh:

[Dante]

Obama proclaims "The buck stops here", but still blames all problems on George W Bush

Thomas Sowell nails it again.


A nail in the foot is a terrible thing to behold.

the problem is this: "Obama proclaims "The buck stops here", but still blames all problems on George W Bush"

fact: Obama never said all problems were caused by Bush. :slap:

[SassyLady]

Yes, you and I are the government, but I'm betting that you and I (despite our best efforts) would suck at paving roads, building libraries, and checking cars trying to cross the border. :laugh:

Or defending terrorists.....like our current government. :coffee:

I'm actually quite good at paving (if you mean the person who holds the stop sign); I can build a library with help (helped hubby build our rental cottage and our home) and I would have no problem checking cars crossing borders.....I was a mom, so I'm really good at enforcing rules and consequences.

[SassyLady]

A nail in the foot is a terrible thing to behold.

the problem is this: "Obama proclaims "The buck stops here", but still blames all problems on George W Bush"

fact: Obama never said all problems were caused by Bush. :slap:

Oh, really? You've heard him assign blame elsewhere? When and which problem? Cause I must have missed that one. I'd like to print it and frame it.

[Palin Rider]

I'm actually quite good at paving (if you mean the person who holds the stop sign); I can build a library with help (helped hubby build our rental cottage and our home) and I would have no problem checking cars crossing borders.....I was a mom, so I'm really good at enforcing rules and consequences.

Are you implying that you want to run away with me and secede?

I might take you up on that, depending on how much you could move into the new treasury. :laugh:

[SassyLady]

Are you implying that you want to run away with me and secede?

I have two acres!!! :coffee:




I might take you up on that, depending on how much you could move into the new treasury. :laugh:


Not much .... my tax rate is too high.

:salute:

[Dante]

Oh, really? You've heard him assign blame elsewhere? When and which problem? Cause I must have missed that one. I'd like to print it and frame it.

Obama didn't push the economy into a ditch. Mentioning how we got to where we are is what responsible adults do.

Ronald Reagan and GW Bush blamed Carter and the Democrats from decades earlier for every wrong. So your argument if true would be a double standard. But your argument is false.

Blame for not accomplishing things fast enough is what Obama took credit/blame for. Obama did not blame Bush for the slowness of his policies and the Republican obstructionism.

[SassyLady]

Obama didn't push the economy into a ditch. Mentioning how we got to where we are is what responsible adults do.

Ronald Reagan and GW Bush blamed Carter and the Democrats from decades earlier for every wrong. So your argument if true would be a double standard. But your argument is false.

Blame for not accomplishing things fast enough is what Obama took credit/blame for. Obama did not blame Bush for the slowness of his policies and the Republican obstructionism.

So, Obama is giving himself a backhanded compliment....what a surprise. :rolleyes:

Seriously? How about he accepts the blame for a policy he's put in place that is totally screwed? Hmmmmmmm...can't see a narcissist ever doing that.

[Dante]

So, Obama is giving himself a backhanded compliment....what a surprise. :rolleyes:

Seriously? How about he accepts the blame for a policy he's put in place that is totally screwed? Hmmmmmmm...can't see a narcissist ever doing that.

The effect of his policies can be debated. Your personal attacks are ridiculous. They serve absolutely no purpose on an internet message board except to flame. They are devoid of argument.

Narcissism is most likely a prerequisite for running for President. You remind me of the crazy people who criticized Kerry ofr being arrogant. Like any Presidential candidate in Us history was not arrogant. :laugh:

[red states rule]

The effect of his policies can be debated. Your personal attacks are ridiculous. They serve absolutely no purpose on an internet message board except to flame. They are devoid of argument.

Narcissism is most likely a prerequisite for running for President. You remind me of the crazy people who criticized Kerry ofr being arrogant. Like any Presidential candidate in Us history was not arrogant. :laugh:

There is no debate. Obama's policies have failed. After the "stimulus" bill, several "jobs" bills, Cash for Clunkers, and Obamacare - the economy continues to sink. Millions have lost their jobs.

Not ONE Dem who voted for Obamacare is running campaign ads boasting about that vote

Many Dems do not want Obama to campagn for them. After all, Obama is what 1 and 4 with his endorsements?

All Obama and the Dems can do is try to pass the buck to someone else.

[SassyLady]

The effect of his policies can be debated. Your personal attacks are ridiculous. They serve absolutely no purpose on an internet message board except to flame. They are devoid of argument.

Narcissism is most likely a prerequisite for running for President. You remind me of the crazy people who criticized Kerry ofr being arrogant. Like any Presidential candidate in Us history was not arrogant. :laugh:

Uhm......whatever. :rolleyes:

[Palin Rider]

So, Obama is giving himself a backhanded compliment....what a surprise. :rolleyes:

Seriously? How about he accepts the blame for a policy he's put in place that is totally screwed? Hmmmmmmm...can't see a narcissist ever doing that.

Dante has at least one point: the "narcissist" label is pretty weak. I doubt that it was ever possible for a non-narcissist to win a presidential election.

[Missileman]

Obama didn't push the economy into a ditch.

This is probably correct. However, he and his cronies have marched into the ditch, poured sand in the block, removed all the tires, cut the axles in half, and set the damned car on fire. I sure as hell don't feel obliged to give him a "good job" for that.

[red states rule]

and now the voters see Obama for what he really is. A tax and spend liberal who can't govern and only knows how to campaign

Rasmussen now has Obama's approval index at -24

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/september_2010/obama_approval_index_september_9_2010/377054-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_september_9_2010.jpg

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[SassyLady]

Dante has at least one point: the "narcissist" label is pretty weak. I doubt that it was ever possible for a non-narcissist to win a presidential election.

So, you don't deny that he is a narcissist?

As for the label being weak ... perhaps I should have said ... the "most narcissistic president that I've ever experienced"? Would that have been a stronger stance to take?

[Dante]

1) There is no debate. Obama's policies have failed. After the "stimulus" bill, several "jobs" bills, Cash for Clunkers, and Obamacare - the economy continues to sink. Millions have lost their jobs.

2) Not ONE Dem who voted for Obamacare is running campaign ads boasting about that vote

Many Dems do not want Obama to campagn for them. After all, Obama is what 1 and 4 with his endorsements?

All Obama and the Dems can do is try to pass the buck to someone else.

1) The job loss was stemmed. How many people were losing their jobs daily before Obama's policies? You can either be fair or wingnutty, you're choice. (wingnutty is not an insult as it is not a noun):thumb:

2) Popularity contests about things do not make very good measures of effectiveness of policies. A policy can be unpopular yet effective. *sigh

3) The rest of your post is far too juvenile and immature to respond to tonight. Maybe after a few cups of caffeine?

note: is condescension a crime?

[Dante]

Quote Originally Posted by Dante:
Obama didn't push the economy into a ditch.


This is probably correct. However, he and his cronies have marched into the ditch, poured sand in the block, removed all the tires, cut the axles in half, and set the damned car on fire. I sure as hell don't feel obliged to give him a "good job" for that.

His cronies? my oh my aren't we literate?

[red states rule]

1) The job loss was stemmed. How many people were losing their jobs daily before Obama's policies? You can either be fair or wingnutty, you're choice. (wingnutty is not an insult as it is not a noun):thumb:

2) Popularity contests about things do not make very good measures of effectiveness of policies. A policy can be unpopular yet effective. *sigh

3) The rest of your post is far too juvenile and immature to respond to tonight. Maybe after a few cups of caffeine?

note: is condescension a crime?

OK, class is in session son. Please take notes a test will be given on November 2

Fact: About 4 miilion jobs have been lost on Obama's watch despite his "stimulus" bill and Obama's promise unemployment would not go above 8% if the "stimulus" bill was passed

Fast: Obama has spent more in 18 months then Pres Bush spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina COMBINED. Obama and Dems ran on Bush's spending and deficits and they have made Bush look like Ebenezer Scrooge

Fact: Cash for Clunkers did nothing to help the auto companies. All that happened was to ytake sales that would have been made anyway and caused them to made early. The csot to the taxpayer per car? About $45,000 per car. Not only that but the price for used cars has risen since Obama said the clunkers had to be destroyed

Fact: Under Obama's "stimulus" the cost per job "created" for the US taxpayer is about $250,000

Fact: Dems claimed passing Obamacare was the landmark accomplishment for them. yet not one Dem running for reelection is touting their vote in campaign ads. Not one. Yet there are some Dems boasting about their NO vote. In fact, one Dem here in PA is running ads on TV proudly telling voters about his no vote

Fact: In elections held so far Obama's choice lost in VA, MA, NJ, and in PA. Not very good results for the Chosen One

Not juvenile or immature it is the truth.

Folks are seeing the results of Obama's policies and more results are on the way.

The cost of their healthcare will go up as premiums shoot up. Unless something is done, masive tax increases are set to clobber the middle class as the Bush tax cuts expire and the tax increases in Obamacare take effect

Obama's policies are unpopular and ineffective. Period.

[red states rule]

Obama didn't push the economy into a ditch. Mentioning how we got to where we are is what responsible adults do.

Ronald Reagan and GW Bush blamed Carter and the Democrats from decades earlier for every wrong. So your argument if true would be a double standard. But your argument is false.

Blame for not accomplishing things fast enough is what Obama took credit/blame for. Obama did not blame Bush for the slowness of his policies and the Republican obstructionism.

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/167628.jpg

[Missileman]

His cronies? my oh my aren't we literate?

Oh my! Aren't we evasive?

[Palin Rider]

So, you don't deny that he is a narcissist?

Hey, I don't mind being explicit about it: of course he is. As all presidents have been.


As for the label being weak ... perhaps I should have said ... the "most narcissistic president that I've ever experienced"? Would that have been a stronger stance to take?

Yes, but (considering your age) it would be totally inaccurate. :laugh:

I doubt that Obama would even be among the top 40% among the 44 presidents on a "narcissism" scale.

[SassyLady]

Hey, I don't mind being explicit about it: of course he is. As all presidents have been.

Yes, but (considering your age) it would be totally inaccurate. :laugh:



Considering my age??? What does that have to do with it? Are you saying that there was another one that was more narcissistic than Obama? Let's see...which one would that be ....

I remember Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama....that quite a few years of experience.


I doubt that Obama would even be among the top 40% among the 44 presidents on a "narcissism" scale.


Can any of them top this? And this was just his first year:



SPEECHES, COMMENTS & REMARKS: 411
• Includes 52 addresses or statements specifically on his health care proposals.
• He used a TelePrompTer at least 178 times. (Technically, it was 177 ? . On July 13, 2009, one of the teleprompter screens on the left side of his lectern fell to the ground and broke shortly after he began speaking. So he was left with half a TelePrompTer.)


NEWS CONFERENCES: 42
• Of which 5 were formal, solo White House Q&A sessions. Four were in prime time. His last one was July 22, 2009. (seen at left)
• Nearly all of the other press availabilities were joint appearances with foreign leaders at which as few as 1 question was taken by Mr. Obama.
• Predecessor George W. Bush did 21 news conferences his first year of which 4 were formal, solo White House sessions. Only 1 was in prime time.

INTERVIEWS: 158.
• This is a striking number of interviews and far more than any of his recent predecessors in their first year. Ninety of the sessions were TV interviews. Eleven were radio. The rest were newspaper and magazine. The number reflects the White House media strategy that Mr. Obama can best respond to questions in an interview setting.



DOMESTIC TRAVEL: 46 out-of-town trips to 58 cities and towns in 30 states
• Most frequently visited state by Mr. Obama: New York* (excluding Maryland & Virginia, which border DC and to which visits are more local than out-of-town).
• President George W. Bush made appearances in 39 states during his 1st year.
• President Clinton visited 22 states in 1993, his first year.

FOREIGN TRAVEL: 10 foreign trips to 21 nations (4 of them twice).
• Mr. Obama made more trips abroad in his first year than has any other U.S. President.
• Next most frequent foreign traveler during first year in office was President George H.W. Bush: 7 trips to 14 countries.


POLITICAL FUNDRAISERS: 28
• The events raised at least $27.25 million. (3 of the events Mr. Obama attended declined to disclose how much was raised.
• George W. Bush did 6 fundraisers his 1st year raising over $48 million.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6119525-503544.html

[Palin Rider]

Considering my age??? What does that have to do with it? Are you saying that there was another one that was more narcissistic than Obama? Let's see...which one would that be ....

I remember Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama....that quite a few years of experience.
Can any of them top this?

Kennedy, Nixon, and Dubya all are or were MUCH more narcissistic than Obama. LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton at least come close.

I doubt you want to get me started on some of the metrics. :laugh:

[red states rule]

Considering my age??? What does that have to do with it? Are you saying that there was another one that was more narcissistic than Obama? Let's see...which one would that be ....

I remember Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama....that quite a few years of experience.



Can any of them top this? And this was just his first year:

The PR convoy took a direct hit with that post :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Kennedy, Nixon, and Dubya all are or were MUCH more narcissistic than Obama. LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton at least come close.

I doubt you want to get me started on some of the metrics. :laugh:

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/103347.jpg

[SassyLady]

Kennedy, Nixon, and Dubya all are or were MUCH more narcissistic than Obama. LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton at least come close.

I doubt you want to get me started on some of the metrics. :laugh:

Well, yes I do. I love learning new things, so I'll be waiting for those metrics. :laugh:

[red states rule]

Well, yes I do. I love learning new things, so I'll be waiting for those metrics. :laugh:

Hope you packed a lunch :laugh2:

[Palin Rider]

Well, yes I do. I love learning new things, so I'll be waiting for those metrics. :laugh:

Hm. Okay, cool, but I think that's the subject for a new thread. I'll put it in the History section and PM you when the OP is up.

[Modus Ponens]

Thomas Sowell nails it again.

Thomas Sowell is a slick liar. Let's take another look at his dog-and-pony show:



----------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/09/07/political_fables/page/full/

Political Fables

by Thomas Sowell

The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats

Of course Sowell conveniently neglects to mention the Republican dominance of the Legislature for 3/4 of Bush's presidency. That kills his credibility, right out the gate.


The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

This is mostly a coincidence (and the remainder of it, we shall see, is the responsibility of Republicans). The surplus was a result of Clinton-era tax rates (higher than in the Reagan-Bush years) plus the additional revenues generated by the dot-com boom. Clinton also acted early in his administration to restrain the growth of discretionary spending and to limit the growth of deficits. Indeed, success in these areas, as figures like Alan Greenspan have attested, set the stage for the boom of the latter half of the decade.


The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills.

Well, this claim is rubbish. Again he takes a hit to his credibility. Has Sowell never heard of the President's annual budget to Congress? Through it, the President's voice in crafting legislation is powerful, if indirect.


President Bush did not veto enough spending bills but Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

You can count the number of bills that Bush vetoed on one hand. The grand total for his first 4 years in office? You know, when there was no Democrat-controlled house of Congress to be found? Zero.


Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

Having created this scary situation, President Obama

Look at this! This is simply a flat-out lie. Sowell here is speaking of the national debt as a "situation created by" President Obama, when the simple plain fact of the matter is that it has been decades in the making - and by far the lion's share of it has been generated under REPUBLICAN rule!


Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.

Mmn-Hmm. That's right, Tom. And pray, just who were those "politicians"? You got it - Gingrich-era Republicans like Phil Gramm. It was in the second half of the Clinton administration that the Republicans took the crucial steps eliminating oversight and conflict-of-interest prohibitions, that resulted immediately - in 2002 and in 2008 - in a wave of Wall Street scandals.

I just love the bait-and-switch that the Cons pull on the Independents. When government is shown to be corrupt or dysfunctional, the Cons will if at all possible pin it on the Democrats: but if they're the one's who are the crooks - even when they're caught dead to rights! - then they turn and rail against "government." Throw in a few charges of class warfare, some Godgunsandgays politics, and the Independents, like sheep go straight back into the voting booth and vote for their corporate masters, again. Have to hand it to you Cons. It's a damn brilliant scam you've got running.


These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.

Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats-- notably Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.

At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

The Democrats are complicit in the mess, it's true. But without the lifting of the prohibitions on risky lending practices in the first place, the banks would not have been issuing the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie ended up serving as surety for. The problem all goes back to Wall Street greed, and their bought and paid for conservative politicians.


When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.

And who controlled the House when Bush made this courageous complaint? Looks like Tom has already forgotten the point the started with: that Congress is front-and-center when it comes to responsibility for this current mess.


If we are going to talk about "the policies that created this mess in the first place," let's at least get the facts straight and the names right.

It'd be good for him to at least start taking his own advice.


The current policies of the Obama administration are a continuation of the same reckless policies that brought on the current economic problems-- all in the name of "change." Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still sacred cows in Washington, even though they have already required the biggest bailouts of all.

And what, exactly did the Republican-controlled Congress try to do - they had twelve years, remember! - about these two sacred cows?!


Why? Because they allow politicians to direct vast sums of money where it will do politicians the most good, either personally or in terms of buying votes in the next election.

I love it! Here we are, back to "the politicians," again. But you really can't blame the Cons, when the Independents buy the lies hook, line and sinker.

Sowell is supposed to be smart man, but you see, to be a Con is to check your brain at the door and pick up your credentials as a professional hypocrite.

[red states rule]

Thomas Sowell is a slick liar. Let's take another look at his dog-and-pony show:



Of course Sowell conveniently neglects to mention the Republican dominance of the Legislature for 3/4 of Bush's presidency. That kills his credibility, right out the gate.



This is mostly a coincidence (and the remainder of it, we shall see, is the responsibility of Republicans). The surplus was a result of Clinton-era tax rates (higher than in the Reagan-Bush years) plus the additional revenues generated by the dot-com boom. Clinton also acted early in his administration to restrain the growth of discretionary spending and to limit the growth of deficits. Indeed, success in these areas, as figures like Alan Greenspan have attested, set the stage for the boom of the latter half of the decade.



Well, this claim is rubbish. Again he takes a hit to his credibility. Has Sowell never heard of the President's annual budget to Congress? Through it, the President's voice in crafting legislation is powerful, if indirect.



You can count the number of bills that Bush vetoed on one hand. The grand total for his first 4 years in office? You know, when there was no Democrat-controlled house of Congress to be found? Zero.



Look at this! This is simply a flat-out lie. Sowell here is speaking of the national debt as a "situation created by" President Obama, when the simple plain fact of the matter is that it has been decades in the making - and by far the lion's share of it has been generated under REPUBLICAN rule!



Mmn-Hmm. That's right, Tom. And pray, just who were those "politicians"? You got it - Gingrich-era Republicans like Phil Gramm. It was in the second half of the Clinton administration that the Republicans took the crucial steps eliminating oversight and conflict-of-interest prohibitions, that resulted immediately - in 2002 and in 2008 - in a wave of Wall Street scandals.

I just love the bait-and-switch that the Cons pull on the Independents. When government is shown to be corrupt or dysfunctional, the Cons will if at all possible pin it on the Democrats: but if they're the one's who are the crooks - even when they're caught dead to rights! - then they turn and rail against "government." Throw in a few charges of class warfare, some Godgunsandgays politics, and the Independents, like sheep go straight back into the voting booth and vote for their corporate masters, again. Have to hand it to you Cons. It's a damn brilliant scam you've got running.



The Democrats are complicit in the mess, it's true. But without the lifting of the prohibitions on risky lending practices in the first place, the banks would not have been issuing the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie ended up serving as surety for. The problem all goes back to Wall Street greed, and their bought and paid for conservative politicians.



And who controlled the House when Bush made this courageous complaint? Looks like Tom has already forgotten the point the started with: that Congress is front-and-center when it comes to responsibility for this current mess.



It'd be good for him to at least start taking his own advice.



And what, exactly did the Republican-controlled Congress try to do - they had twelve years, remember! - about these two sacred cows?!



I love it! Here we are, back to "the politicians," again. But you really can't blame the Cons, when the Independents buy the lies hook, line and sinker.

Sowell is supposed to be smart man, but you see, to be a Con is to check your brain at the door and pick up your credentials as a professional hypocrite.

So when you can't counter Dr Sowell you fall back on personal attacks. A sure sign a liberal is beaten in the debate

Obama and the Dems have flipped off the voetrs by ignoring what thye been saying for the last 2 years, and when it is clear Dems are going to suffer heavy losses Dems turn their anger on them

The Blame Bush excuse is no longer working 2 years into Obama's only term

Keep up the good work!