Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

a short 'history lesson'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • a short 'history lesson'

    just got this one in my inbox and was curious what the comments/reaction to it might be around here - since i know of no better place to get The Real Facts on matters of economics.

    and.... just because its election season, thot it appropriate...

    comments?

    Originally posted by unknown writer

    History tends to be quickly forgotten. Thought this might be interesting to review.

    It is funny that they never, ever, talk about what happened on 1/2/2007.. It ISa matter of record....... but then you have to be able to read to understand what happenedon that disastrous day in our country s history.

    This is just a History lesson. I am sending it to all regardless of party.

    The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 2nd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

    The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

    For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

    January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
    The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
    The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
    The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
    George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

    Remember that day...

    January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

    The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
    BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

    THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney Frank ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOS!

    (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).Barney Frank blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!)

    And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? - OBAMA
    And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? - OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially
    BARNEY FRANK!!!!

    So when someone tries to blame Bush...

    REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
    Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel, while they were driving the economy into the ditch.


    Budgets do not come from the White House... They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

    In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush, though belatedly, got tough on spending increases.


    For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running and to increase government spending until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.


    Andwhere was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
    If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.


    If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

    In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."


    The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
    posted here by
    A THIRD OPTION VOTER
    and a 'small r' type who's looking for answers, NOT the opposing propaganda

  • #2
    Re: a short 'history lesson'

    I could barely stomach reading the article because it's obviously written by a person who always votes Republican no matter how rotten the candidate. Let me point out a few things that the article conveniently warps.

    • The 52 months of job growth in the Bush presidency were largely the result of the housing/credit bubble.
    • In trying to exonerate Bush of culpability for the housing bubble ("stopping" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whatever that means), the article ignores the fact that Bush had the opportunity to fire Alan Greenspan in 2002 and the ability to appoint someone other than Ben Bernanke in 2006. Instead, with two opportunities to appoint a Federal Reserve chairman with guts who would shut down the housing bubble, Bush's two appointees seem to have bubble-blowing as their greatest skill. [The Federal Reserve absolutely, positively could have shut down the mortgage fraud, which was a main contributor to the housing bubble. Since 1993 or 1994, the Federal Reserve has had special powers to shut down mortgage fraud through HOEPA.]
    • Regarding budgets, Bush unilaterally launched a war against Iraq based on specious claims of weapons of mass destruction. I won't bother to look up the official numbers but I'm guessing that the U.S. has squandered about $1 trillion so far.


    And to show that I'm no Democrat (I actually lean more conservative than liberal), let me add the following:

    • All the praise given to Clinton for job growth and a balanced budget were due largely in part to massive deregulation and a credit bubble leading to the Internet stock crash. In other words, a lot of the economic gain during the Clinton administration was fictitious.
    • The war against the Taliban in Afghanistan after the attacks on the World Trade Center appear justified. I doubt many Americans disapproved of revving up the war machine to capture Osama bin Laden.
    • Obama is, in my opinion, is a worse president than G. W. Bush, impossible as that sounds. The only "change" he has brought is that there is a different person in the presidency. The same rotten decisions being made when Bush was president are the same rotten decisions being made now that Obama is president.


    Finally, it doesn't matter if Clinton/Bush/Obama are Democrats or Republicans. They're all garbage (although some are more entertaining than others.) The various Republican versus Democrat "dialogues" are a waste of time because they're not addressing the issues that really matter.

    Whomever the next president is, does it really matter if he or his political party is capable of assigning blame for the Internet and housing bubble crashes? Shouldn't we be more focused on electing a president and Congress, regardless of political party, who will stamp out the corruption in the U.S. and craft legislation that will be to the benefit of the country and its honest, hard-working citizens long-term?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: a short 'history lesson'

      Originally posted by lektrode View Post
      posted here by
      A THIRD OPTION VOTER
      and a 'small r' type who's looking for answers, NOT the opposing propaganda
      I think that quite simply the TARP vote can be a bit of a proxy on the matter. The FIRE economy is bipartisan as we've said here a number of times. The resistance to it is also bipartisan. Anti-FIRE = fringe usually. This can't be looked at as the Ds fault or the Rs fault. Look how bipartisan TARP really was (you almost never see votes fall quite like this on social issues, but it's somewhat normal for issues that effect finance).

      Here's the roll call from the Senate:

      Grouped By Vote Position
      YEAs ---74
      Akaka (D-HI)
      Alexander (R-TN)
      Baucus (D-MT)
      Bayh (D-IN)
      Bennett (R-UT)
      Biden (D-DE)
      Bingaman (D-NM)
      Bond (R-MO)
      Boxer (D-CA)
      Brown (D-OH)
      Burr (R-NC)
      Byrd (D-WV)
      Cardin (D-MD)
      Carper (D-DE)
      Casey (D-PA)
      Chambliss (R-GA)
      Clinton (D-NY)
      Coburn (R-OK)
      Coleman (R-MN)
      Collins (R-ME)
      Conrad (D-ND)
      Corker (R-TN)
      Cornyn (R-TX)
      Craig (R-ID)
      Dodd (D-CT)
      Domenici (R-NM)
      Durbin (D-IL)
      Ensign (R-NV)
      Feinstein (D-CA)
      Graham (R-SC)
      Grassley (R-IA)
      Gregg (R-NH)
      Hagel (R-NE)
      Harkin (D-IA)
      Hatch (R-UT)
      Hutchison (R-TX)
      Inouye (D-HI)
      Isakson (R-GA)
      Kerry (D-MA)
      Klobuchar (D-MN)
      Kohl (D-WI)
      Kyl (R-AZ)
      Lautenberg (D-NJ)
      Leahy (D-VT)
      Levin (D-MI)
      Lieberman (ID-CT)
      Lincoln (D-AR)
      Lugar (R-IN)
      Martinez (R-FL)
      McCain (R-AZ)
      McCaskill (D-MO)
      McConnell (R-KY)
      Menendez (D-NJ)
      Mikulski (D-MD)
      Murkowski (R-AK)
      Murray (D-WA)
      Nelson (D-NE)
      Obama (D-IL)
      Pryor (D-AR)
      Reed (D-RI)
      Reid (D-NV)
      Rockefeller (D-WV)
      Salazar (D-CO)
      Schumer (D-NY)
      Smith (R-OR)
      Snowe (R-ME)
      Specter (R-PA)
      Stevens (R-AK)
      Sununu (R-NH)
      Thune (R-SD)
      Voinovich (R-OH)
      Warner (R-VA)
      Webb (D-VA)
      Whitehouse (D-RI)
      NAYs ---25
      Allard (R-CO)
      Barrasso (R-WY)
      Brownback (R-KS)
      Bunning (R-KY)
      Cantwell (D-WA)
      Cochran (R-MS)
      Crapo (R-ID)
      DeMint (R-SC)
      Dole (R-NC)
      Dorgan (D-ND)
      Enzi (R-WY)
      Feingold (D-WI)
      Inhofe (R-OK)
      Johnson (D-SD)
      Landrieu (D-LA)
      Nelson (D-FL)
      Roberts (R-KS)
      Sanders (I-VT)
      Sessions (R-AL)
      Shelby (R-AL)
      Stabenow (D-MI)
      Tester (D-MT)
      Vitter (R-LA)
      Wicker (R-MS)
      Wyden (D-OR)
      Not Voting - 1
      Kennedy (D-MA)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: a short 'history lesson'

        Originally posted by lektrode View Post
        ... looking for answers, NOT the opposing propaganda
        Then you'll need to make do with just the one propaganda

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: a short 'history lesson'

          +1

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: a short 'history lesson'

            +1 Nice thoughtful response without the over-the-top hyperbole that permeates most other forums.
            In fact there is no difference between Obama, Bush, and any other candidate paraded in front of us (aside from style and rhetoric) because as EJ posted elsewhere "If you want to know who runs our government, find out who wrote the hiring specification for Greenspan's replacement.”

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: a short 'history lesson'

              Originally posted by milton kuo View Post
              i could barely stomach reading the article because it's obviously written by a person who always votes republican no matter how rotten the candidate. Let me point out a few things that the article conveniently warps.
              • the 52 months of job growth in the bush presidency were largely the result of the housing/credit bubble.
              • in trying to exonerate bush of culpability for the housing bubble ("stopping" fannie mae and freddie mac, whatever that means), the article ignores the fact that bush had the opportunity to fire alan greenspan in 2002 and the ability to appoint someone other than ben bernanke in 2006. Instead, with two opportunities to appoint a federal reserve chairman with guts who would shut down the housing bubble, bush's two appointees seem to have bubble-blowing as their greatest skill. [the federal reserve absolutely, positively could have shut down the mortgage fraud, which was a main contributor to the housing bubble. Since 1993 or 1994, the federal reserve has had special powers to shut down mortgage fraud through hoepa.]
              • regarding budgets, bush unilaterally launched a war against iraq based on specious claims of weapons of mass destruction. I won't bother to look up the official numbers but i'm guessing that the u.s. Has squandered about $1 trillion so far.
              and to show that i'm no democrat (i actually lean more conservative than liberal), let me add the following:
              • all the praise given to clinton for job growth and a balanced budget were due largely in part to massive deregulation and a credit bubble leading to the internet stock crash. In other words, a lot of the economic gain during the clinton administration was fictitious.
              • the war against the taliban in afghanistan after the attacks on the world trade center appear justified. I doubt many americans disapproved of revving up the war machine to capture osama bin laden.
              • obama is, in my opinion, is a worse president than g. W. Bush, impossible as that sounds. The only "change" he has brought is that there is a different person in the presidency. The same rotten decisions being made when bush was president are the same rotten decisions being made now that obama is president.
              finally, it doesn't matter if clinton/bush/obama are democrats or republicans. they're all garbage (although some are more entertaining than others.) the various republican versus democrat "dialogues" are a waste of time because they're not addressing the issues that really matter.

              Whomever the next president is, does it really matter if he or his political party is capable of assigning blame for the internet and housing bubble crashes? shouldn't we be more focused on electing a president and congress, regardless of political party, who will stamp out the corruption in the u.s. And craft legislation that will be to the benefit of the country and its honest, hard-working citizens long-term?
              +1.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: a short 'history lesson'

                mr k - thanks for the comeback, as always, a pleasure to read you sir.

                cant say i disagree with anything you wrote and i appreciate the balanced POV in response (why i hang around here and am willing to stick my neck out, as it were, in an effort to gain better understanding of whats going on in The US - the lamestream media is an abject failure in this regard and why its worth every penny of the price of admission to the 'tulip... and never mind admission to EJ's brain ;)

                while i dont consider myself to be a member of any party, being a former resident of The Live Free or Die State (NH, who grew up in MA and saw the diff tween the 2) i consider myself to be a 'small-r' republican and lean in the direction of the ideals of the Republicans (small gov, limited intrusion into personal/local matters, the antidote to the nanny state) but they have let us down just as badly as the dems have over the past 20-30 years.

                and i agree that they are all garbage, who have sold US out for their own re-election - why i say TERM LIMITS NOW is the only answer; elimination of the job title of career politician and the lifetime benefits that go along with it is The ONLY way to fix our rotten-to-the-core federal goverment. (as well as most of the states)

                the state of NH is run by a part time legislature, who earns $100 per annum for their SERVICE - in other words, THEY HAVE TO WORK FOR A LIVING just like the Rest of US and after the 2 month leg session is over, they go back to their communities and have to behave just like everybody else - vs the entitlement/royalty mentality that seems to infect the political class the moment they get to washington - and my obs is that the true public servants tend to get disgusted by this and quit, when they realize what a losing battle trying to fix/reform the twisted system that the 'careerists' have created and the big money interests perpetuate.

                but... tho i'd appreciate the oppotunity to go on here (and on and on and on and on... - i have this nagging bad habit: i gotta go to work

                more later, to address dc's excellent output (he always trys to keep me/us honest in these discussions, why i appreciate him too)

                Comment

                Working...
                X