Posted by Tina
I’ve noticed that since President Obama took office headlines and reporting have changed dramatically from those awful eight years under the Bush administration. One biggest issue facing Americans over the last three years has been the state of the economy and yet, have you noticed, most news outlets attempt to put a positive spin in their reporting. The media is propping up the President, and in doing so, letting the people down.
The Bush years, like the last three plus years under Obama, included a number of events that gave us economic challenges. Bush inherited recession resulting from the blow up in the dot.com sector> Bush faced a dramatic economic hit on September 11th and that sparked a very difficult war. Katrina and other natural disasters followed. These events were both costly and emotionally gut wrenching but we managed to work our way through and keep Americans working. The economy, though not exciting or dynamic, remained steady and unemployment was surprisingly low. How did the media report was economic news during this time? How did our media inform the citizens of this country?
In 2005 an MSNBC headline read: “Retail sales expected to grow modestly”. Gosh that sounds pretty bad, right? But just how modest were sales expected to grow? From the article:
Retail sales are projected to increase a modest 4.7 percent this year, much less than the 6.1 percent gain in 2005 as higher energy prices, a still shaky labor market and a slowdown in the housing market dampen spending, the National Retail Federation said Monday.
Sounds pretty bad all right: modest growth, shaky labor market, slowdown in housing and a slowdown in retail spending. Depressing…and worrisome!
In contrast, let’s see what the AP had to say about retail sales yesterday. The Detroit News headline reads: “U.S. retail sales rise at healthy 0.8% pace”.
Hmmmm…retail rose only 0.8%. And that is considered healthy? From the article:
U.S. retail sales rose at a solid pace last month, pushed up by higher sales of electronics and home and garden supplies. The increase suggests consumers aren’t pulling back on spending in the face of higher gas prices.
Whoopie…did you catch the dazzling prose? Sales rose at a solid pace!! And that miniscule 0.8% rise in retail sales is deemed healthy!
Ladies and gentlemen the media is definitely still spinning the news and their spin machine will become even more outrageous as this election year moves ahead. We cannot trust that they will be honest and simply give us the facts without the spin.
How can we judge the economy in this important election year if we can’t rely on the media? Simple. Ask questions!
Ronald Reagan famously asked, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”
There are more questions to ask: Are all of my friends and relatives working. Are prices going up or coming down? Is there new business moving into town…stores opening up at a healthy pace? How about businesses closing? Do my friends who own a business have a positive outlook for the future? Are they worried about taxes and regulation? Will the government extend the Bush tax cuts or let them expire. (Save up for 2013 in case they expire). Yep, the best indicator is right there in our own lives and neighborhoods.
These are the things we can notice ourselves at grass roots. But we have another tool at our disposal. Examples such as those above can be mined on the web to help you discover men of vision and to help you evaluate the media spin factor.
Still revising, I see … or attempting to.
We will not forget. Bush’s unregulated marketers spawned the catastrophe Obama has been, more-or-less, trying to wipe up.
We will not forget.
It’s the same old song! Libby there are plenty of regulations…regulators were asleep at the wheel and Barney Frank would not even consider Bushs warnings! Also…marketeers don’t answer to anyone but themselves…Bush had NOTHING to do with the crash. If anything he attempted to get Congress to do something about the problems that eventckedgiv detailsually led to the crash. We have posted numerous stories and video to back all of this up. But, be assured…be very assured…
We will not forget the legislation Carter/Clinton put in place that poisoned the pool…nor will we forget Barney Frank protecting all that money for the entire Bush presidency even though Bush kept warning Congresss to do something about the pending financial problem. We will never forget the money being squeezed out of FM by democrats. Franklin Raines was part of an accounting scandal at FM and in 2004 agreed to settle along with others with the government (see below). And how could we ever forget Jamie Gorelic who paid herself millions in bonus money and bragged about bundling securities:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/former-clinton-official-paid-26-million-fannie-mae-taxpayer-bailout-now-obama-shortlist
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004358433_webraines18.html
The reason the government couldn’t do more to stop the excesses at FM under Gorelic and Raines is because bundling was LEGAL and under the laws passed under Clinton those bad loans became toxic in the securities market.
Gorelic, you may recall was also responsible for constructing the infamous “wall” to keep agencies from sharing information and protecting the US from terrorists on 911.
How do you spell CORRUPT in the housing scandal? It starts with a D and ends with a rat.
The Things You Learn By Watching The News
http://www.lifemaybehazardoustoyourhealth.com/2011/11/11/things-you-learn-by-watching-the-news/
Four years of mostly failed Obama economic policies and another five trillion in debt and the faithful are still grasping onto the BLAME BUSH narrative.
Well, what do you expect? These same people are still trying to blame Reagan 23 years later.
Too funny. Lately we have had the condom wars, the women wars, now the dog wars. The desperation is palpable.
Obama voters wear blinders and have little or no grasp of reality. Hear no reason, see no reason, speak no reason. And the media plays a large role in this as Tina has adeptly pointed out.
The question to be be put forward this election cycle is — are we better off today five trillion more in debt with a petulant, petty, divisive, inept, race-baiting narcissist occupying the Oval Office?
you’re becoming a broken record Libby.
I won’t forget the day (in fact, I wrote it in my journal) when Obama quit saying he’d provide “health care” for all and started saying he’d provide “insurance” for all.
Hey … it is what it is. Tina repeatedly trys to re-work recent history to suit an utterly baseless world view. And whenever it suits me, I will call her on it.
And you don’t really think I (or any other progressive) am going to defend the OA’s appalling collapse over the healthcare legislation. Goddamn heartbreaking is what that was. And we’re looking at, easily, another twenty years of misery before the electorate (might possibly) come to its senses and put single payer on the books.
“Well, what do you expect? These same people are still trying to blame Reagan 23 years later.”
Well, of course. That’s how long it takes, generally, for policy changes to take effect. Reagan commenced this clever business where you pander to the morons by cutting taxes, but not spending, … and here we are.
Likewise with energy policy. For the last 30 years, any talk of “energy independence” has been just that … talk. Because serious consideration of such a thing involves $8 gas, for a start … and the morons ain’t having it … and so here we are.
Now, twenty years from now … if medical care is no longer recompensed on a fee-based, but rather an outcome-based model, if Medicare reimbursements have plateaued, and another 30 percent of the citzenry have healthcare coverage … that you can nail Obama for.
Libby: “Reagan commenced this clever business where you pander to the morons by cutting taxes, but not spending, … and here we are.”
In fact the gentleman’s deal Reagan made with the very powerful democrat Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neal, in a democrat controlled congress, was $1.00 in higher taxes in exchange for every $3.00 in spending cuts. What was the result of this agreement? Taxes were increased and the cuts in spending never materialized. Tip O’Neal was a lout!
We are here because liberals have given us bigger government, unsustainable programs, and massive debt for at least seventy years. DEMOCRATS PANDERED to the citizens, promising free this and that, to win elections and keep themselves in power. THEY DIDN’T CARE THAT THE POLICY WAS FISCALLY UNSOUND!!!! EVERY TIME THEY HAD A MAJORITY they gave us another BIG EXPENSIVE program. Republicans, mostly in the minority, went along in a BIPARTISAN attempt to MAKE PROGRESS. When republican presidents attempted to veto expensive unsustainable legislation democrats threatened to shut the government down (union thug tactics)…. and HERE WE ARE.
Democrats are the big spending, big government party. Republicans are not without fault or responsibility BUT they are the only party that has attempted to negotiate for smaller government, reforms that would cut waste and fraud, and lower taxes for ALL Americans.
“Likewise with energy policy. For the last 30 years, any talk of “energy independence” has been just that … talk. Because serious consideration of such a thing involves $8 gas, for a start…”
More BS. Liberal fears mongers and liberal greens have made certain that clean energy from nuclear plants were denied as an alternative since the sixties. Al Gore flew an energy guzzling jet around the planet scaring people (even kids in school)with trumped up horror stories based on faulty science so he could make piles of money for himself and Obama has jumped on that lie and shut down the oil industry (and jobs) just to promote green alternatives that couldn’t possibly replace oil…ever!
“…that you can nail Obama for”
If we don’t “nail” Obama now we won’t have the country we love anymore…period. Elites will have great healthcare, good pay, good food and water, and trips to Hawaii and Vegas…the rest of us will live in poverty as slaves to the state.
It is really dumb to think that the state can deliver anything less expensively, or more abundantly, that the private sector. It is really dumb to think you can take all the wealth out of the private sector and still create jobs and enough revenue to feed the hungry wasteful big government beast.
Re: Libby’s: “Well, what do you expect? These same people are still trying to blame Reagan 23 years later.”
Well, of course. That’s how long it takes, generally, for policy changes to take effect.
Oh really? Care to back that up with some facts? I mean instead of the usual nonsense you regurgitate? HAH! FAT CHANCE! That really is some bizarre fantasy land you live in, Libby. Just how is it dark in there?.
Reagan annihilated the ever increasing stagflation of the Johnson-Nixon-Carter years in his first term in the presidency. After that is was a long slide back into failed Hayekian nonsense (amongst other things).
Libby, everything that comes out of your head and lands into Post Scripts is garbage.
The Department Of Energy was created under Jimmy Carter. It was created with the specific promised of making the US energy independent. 30 years and billions of tax dollars later it hasn’t achieved a damn thing.
Now THAT is how long it takes policy to have NO effect! (No doubt because of the evil Republicans, right? Yeah, and monkeys may fly out of my butt.) Yet the legions of pinheads who think government is the ultimate answer still cling to government.
So it goes. There is your Obama voter for you, folks. The don’t ever let facts get in the way of a false, ignorant, and stupid narrative.
This opinion piece by a macroeconomist makes a good case that unregulated private lenders, not Fannie and Freddie or the CRA, were chiefly responsible for the financial crisis.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-39741513/fannie-freddie-and-the-cra-are-not-responsible-for-the-financial-crisis/
By Mark Thoma
If we want to minimize the chance of another financial crisis, it’s important for us to understand how it happened. If we get the causes wrong, our attempts to fix the problems in the financial sector are unlikely to be successful.
That’s why I was so disappointed to see the new book by Gretchen Morgenson and Josh Rosner, Reckless Endangerment, blaming the financial crisis on Fannie, Freddie, and Democrats. The book has been highlighted recently by George Will and David Brooks, and it joins a chorus of conservative voices promoting the idea that government policies to encourage home ownership among middle and low income households is at the heart of the financial crisis.
The dispute over the cause of the financial crisis breaks down along standard ideological lines. Democrats generally argue that the crisis can be traced to misplaced faith in the ability of markets to self-regulate. According to this view, economists, regulators, and politicians on both sides of the aisle came to believe that large, economy wrecking financial meltdowns were a thing of the past. This misplaced faith in markets led to deregulation of the financial sector, less enthusiastic enforcement of the rules that remained on the books, and government inattention to important market failures in the financial industry.
The second explanation, one pushed by free market advocates, is that government involvement in housing markets to encourage home ownership caused the financial market problems. In this story of the crisis, the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie and Freddie, Democrats promoting home ownership, and the middle and low income households that received home loans they couldn’t afford are cast as the villains. Had government stepped out of the way and pursued laissez-faire policies, the crisis would not have happened.
However, the evidence does not support the second explanation. First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA’s rules and regulations. For example, “Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.” The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA.
Second, even if the banks themselves were subject to the CRA, not all loans that they made were covered by these rules. Even in banks where the CRA applied, most of the problems were in loans that did not fall under the CRA’s jurisdiction.
Third, the CRA has been in existence since 1977. If the CRA was responsible, why didn’t the crisis occur sooner? The timing simply doesn’t match up.
Fourth, the CRA only applies to domestic firms, but the crisis occurred in many countries. If the CRA is the problem, why did countries that had nothing like the CRA experience similar problems?
Fifth, even if this story had any validity, both parties promoted an “ownership society,” so blaming Democrats alone is about politics, not reality.
Thus, the evidence against the claim that the CRA was an important factor in the financial crisis is quite strong and, turning next to Fannie and Freddie, the evidence here is also compelling. First, during the important years in the build up to the crisis, from 2002 until late in 2006, Fannie and Freddie were losing subprime market share to private sector firms. For example, as noted by McClatchy News, “More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions,” and “Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.” The loss of market share ended in late 2006, but by then the crisis was already set in motion.
Second, one of the reasons that Fannie and Freddie lost market share is that they faced more restrictions on their activities than firms in the unregulated shadow banking sector. Fannie and Freddie eventually found ways around these restrictions as they moved aggressively to prevent further loss of market share in late 2006, but prior to that time the restrictions were effective. If firms in the shadow banking sector had been subject to similar rules and regulations, and had the rules and regulations been enforced aggressively, things might have turned out very differently.
Third, the targets for home ownership that supposedly led to Fannie and Freddie’s aggressive entry into subprime markets were set in 1992. If these targets were the problem, why didn’t the crisis occur sooner?
Fourth, if Fannie and Freddie had never existed, securitization would have likely happened anyway. As Barry Ritholtz notes, “securitized credit card receivables, auto loans, small biz loans, etc. took place without GSEs. I assume there would likely have been a private sector version for conforming loans, the way there was a private sector securitizing response to the demand for non-conforming (sub-prime) loans.”
The bottom line is that the case that the CRA, Fannie, and Freddie ?” and by implication Democrats supporting these institutions ?” were key players in the crisis is at odds with the evidence. Don’t get me wrong, there are lots for reasons to be concerned about Fannie and Freddie, and I’m not trying to defend them or their choices, but the idea that support of these institutions caused the financial crisis is wrong.
On a related note about media spin, God I love James Taranto. The dog wars should crack you up. I may have got a hernia from laughing so much. Maybe you kids will get a kick out of it too —
Bam Bites Dog
The political perils of personal attacks.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303425504577351893528082610.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet
More evidence:
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/bloombergs-awful-comment-what-can-we-say-for-certain-regarding-the-gses/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/things-everyone-in-chicago-knows/
“The Department Of Energy was created under Jimmy Carter. It was created with the specific promised of making the US energy independent.”
How long was Carter in office? And how many Repug administrations have we suffered since?
Nice try. You and Tina both are batting bumpkiss.
But you just keep on at it! It’s entertaining … if nothing else.
Tina: “It is really dumb to think that the state can deliver anything less expensively, or more abundantly, that the private sector.”
No, it’s dumb to believe such an absolutist position. The private sector is better at delivering some things, and worse at delivering others. The post office has it’s problems, but no private organization will ever be able to replace it.
If you really believed what you were saying here, you’d advocate total privatization of fire and police departments. But even you would recognize that as crazy. You understand that such jobs are better served by the government than by private enterprise.
Background information, video, and articles in support of my original assertion:
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/fannie-mae/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-history-and-housing-bubble
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac: History and the Housing Bubble
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/the-government-i-did-i-cause-the-housing-crisis-my-response-to-rep-barney-frank/249903/
Peter Wallison – Member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and codirector of financial policy program at the American Enterprise Institute
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137220550562585.html
Fannie and Freddie are “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), chartered by Congress. As such, they had an implicit promise of taxpayer backing and could borrow money at rates well below competitors.
Because of this, the Bush administration warned in the budget it issued in April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged. Their failure “could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity” well beyond housing.
Mr. Bush wanted to limit systemic risk by raising the GSEs’ capital requirements, compelling preapproval of new activities, and limiting the size of their portfolios. Why should government regulate banks, credit unions and savings and loans, but not GSEs? Mr. Bush wanted the GSEs to be treated just like their private-sector competitors.
But the GSEs fought back. They didn’t want to see the Bush reforms enacted, because that would level the playing field for their competitors. Congress finally did pass the Bush reforms, but in 2008, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed.
When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut successfully threatened a filibuster. Later, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed, Mr. Dodd asked, “Why weren’t we doing more?” He then voted for the Bush reforms that he once called “ill-advised.”
But Mr. Dodd wasn’t the only Democrat to heap abuse on the Bush reforms. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts defended Fannie and Freddie as “fundamentally sound” and labeled the president’s proposals as “inane.” He later voted for the reforms. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York dismissed Mr. Bush’s “safety and soundness concerns” as “a straw man.” “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” was the helpful advice of both Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware and Rep. Maxine Waters of California. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York berated a Bush official at a hearing, saying, “I am just pissed off” at the administration for raising the issue.
Democrats had ready allies among lenders accustomed to GSEs buying their risky mortgages. For example, Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial, complained that “an overly cumbersome regulatory process” would “reduce, or even eliminate, the incentives for the GSEs and their primary market partners.”
It took Fannie and Freddie over three decades to acquire $2 trillion in mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Together, they held $2.1 trillion in 2000. By 2005, the two GSEs held $4 trillion, up 92% in just five years. By 2008, they’d grown another 24%, to nearly $5 trillion. They held almost half of all American mortgages.
The more the president pushed for reform, the more they bought. Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute and Charles Calomiris of the Columbia Business School suggest $1 trillion of this debt was subprime and “liar loans,” almost all bought between 2005 and 2007. This bulk-up in risky paper made it possible for banks to lend imprudently on a massive scale.
Some critics blame Mr. Bush because he supported broadening homeownership. But Mr. Bush’s goal was for people to own homes they could afford, not ones made accessible by reckless lenders who off-loaded their risk to GSEs.
The housing meltdown is largely a story of greed and irresponsibility made possible by government privilege. If Democrats had granted the Bush administration the regulatory powers it sought, the housing crisis wouldn’t be nearly as severe and the economy as a whole would be better off. – Karl Rove
Fox News You Tube video shows timeline of Bush warnings about Fannie and Freddie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
Big government politicians are the ones that take a cavalear attitude about the people’s money. Most of them have never run a buisiness or have very minimal business experience. They don’t know what they are doing and they treat taxpayer money as their own private piggy bank to dole out for votes. makes me sick!
If the last few years have not clearly shown that government is incompetent to manage OR regulate business I don’t know what will.
Chris: “The post office has it’s problems, but no private organization will ever be able to replace it.”
Not true. Companies like UPS, FedEx, and other freight companies as well as internet, email, and messaging are replacing it. Most of the mail that’s delivered now is junk mail. Unfortunately UPS workers decided to unionize and they are no longer as efficient or reliable as they once were.
“If you really believed what you were saying here, you’d advocate total privatization of fire and police departments. But even you would recognize that as crazy. You understand that such jobs are better served by the government than by private enterprise.”
Fire and police would likely be better run by the private sector but as I have said in other comments previously it makes sense to have these services provided by local government. As many cities are discovering, however, union benefits packages have grown to punishing proportions for taxpayers and in many instances they cannot be sustained without breaking budgets and racking up debt.
Private sector business answers to the public and investors…they have to perform by delivering a wanted product at a good price in an efficient manner.
Government answers to no one. Politicians do things to buy votes and retain power. Programs and departments are grow automatically, there is no incentive to budget and save, in fact there is incentive to spend to justify more money in the next budget. Workers are not encouraged toward efficiency and in some cases are encouraged to work slowly. I have a friend who was told to read on the job because if she was too efficient the boss would have to lay of employees. Government worked a little better when the depression era employees ran things…they at least had a better work ethic and moral grounding. Today too many people just feel entitled.
Re: “The post office has it’s problems, but no private organization will ever be able to replace it.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
Now THERE is a progressive for you.
Tina: “Fire and police would likely be better run by the private sector”
Can you explain to me a way that this would work out that would not end up with only rich people’s fires being put out? Because I’m not seeing it.
“Not true. Companies like UPS, FedEx, and other freight companies”
None of these companies are as affordable as the post office.
“as well as internet, email, and messaging are replacing it.”
True, but all of these technologies exist in their current state because of massive government campaigns, so you’re sort of making my larger point for me.
Chris, you waste your time.
Fire protection was once private … which is why it is now public … an history Tina is totally ignorant of.
She and Jack both hark back to an idyllic age which never existed. They have no objective judgment and are driven entirely by prejudice … and are fed drivel by organizations that manipulate them by preying on said prejudices.
What we have to figure out is how to turn said prejudices to our advantage. Sleezy work. But we may yet come to it.
In the meantime, don’t squander your resources.
Pie, explain yourself.
The PO is wanting to make itself somewhat more cost effective by suspending Saturday deliveries. It is thus far prevented … chiefly by seniors who will not have their SS checks direct deposited, and will not wait until Monday.
FedEx is going to make these deliveries? Tell us about it.
Chris: “Can you explain to me a way that this would work out that would not end up with only rich people’s fires being put out? Because I’m not seeing it.”
I guess for you business people are a bunch of heartless ba*t#*%s that would just let peoples houses burn?
If it were possible to do, and I’m not saying it is, a private business would run better just because private business depends on happy customers. If business “A” let one house burn the townspeople would go to his competitor and business “A” would be out of business.
Fire and police are best left to municipalities for various reasons.
“None of these companies are as affordable as the post office.”
The Post Office prices are an illusion. Their employee costs are extremely high and even though they enjoy a monopolyu and certain benefits (no taxes) they are still always in financial trouble. If private under these conditions they would be out of business.
NewsBusters quotes from Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe and from the NYT:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2012/04/19/doh-dem-congressman-undermines-ed-schultzs-claim-postal-service-receiv
“…all of these technologies exist in their current state because of massive government campaigns>”
Please explain what you mean by this.
Libby: “Fire protection was once private … which is why it is now public … an history Tina is totally ignorant of.”
Fire departments were mainly volunteer and in some cases “the whole town turned out with buckets”. Public funds were often used to purchase new equipment. Most fire departments are public because it makes sense but also because volunteer firefighters petitioned to become city employees.
“Fire departments were mainly volunteer and in some cases ‘the whole town turned out with buckets’.”
That is so sweet … so idyllic … such a sop to one’s prejudices.
And then there was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire … fire fighters are paid profesionals and factory owners are fined … even on rare occasions, imprisoned.