Oh my: New lefty ObamaCare message drops promise of cost-cutting, vows to “improve” law

posted at 5:36 pm on August 19, 2010 by Allahpundit

I’m going to go ahead and accept this as an answer to the question I posed earlier. Why, yes, it was indeed insane to think that ObamaCare would be a boon to Democrats in the midterms.

This one’s for you, Missouri!

Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit, and instead stressing a promise to “improve it.”…

The confidential presentation, available in full here and provided to POLITICO by a source on the call, suggests that Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. Instead, the presentation is designed to win over a skeptical public, and to defend the legislation — and in particular the individual mandate — from a push for repeal…

The presentation also concedes that the fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed…

The presentation’s final page of “Don’ts” counsels against claiming “the law will reduce costs and deficit.”

The powerpoint comes from a lefty shop called the Herndon Alliance, which “partners” with ObamaCare shills like the AFL-CIO, SEIU, MoveOn, etc. I’m not sure how much of this is revelatory: Two weeks ago Claire McCaskill responded to the anti-mandate vote in Missouri by saying there’s still plenty of work to do on the provisions of the law, which is vague enough to mean virtually anything. For instance, no doubt plenty of House progressives want to “improve” it by passing a public option. But even so, the fact that they’re now so far in retreat that they’re willing to make rhetorical concessions even on their idiotic core plank about bending the cost curve shows just how worried they are that the GOP (a) will be making big, big gains in November and (b) might just have the public support needed to get a serious pro-repeal movement going among the electorate. This is pure defense. Flashback exit quotation via Jim Geraghty: “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done… that is a fight I want to have.”

Update: From Ace, a plea on turnout:

Either way, liberals will be taught a lesson this year.

But they can learn one of two lessons:

1, America doesn’t mind a little socialism and the electoral condquences for pushing it are minor and livable, or

2, My God What Have We Done.

We need the lesson to be 2.

If it’s 1, we lose something forever.

Update: From the comments: “So, their big argument for why they should be re-elelected is that they promise to fix the horrible legislation they lied to us about and passed over the public’s very vocal objections. Good luck with that.”

Update: I’ve given you the “Waterloo” video a dozen times so let’s try this one instead.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

We can see that all men are created equal.

The problems of the flesh, however, are not amenable to equality as we are each granted positives and negatives to our equality of spirit via the flesh. No government can set that right. No government can make equal the problems that the flesh are heir to. When we are handed our failings of the body, we must recognize this and that our liberty, our freedom, and the support that we get from our fellow man is far, far better than seeking for government to try and set aright what the flesh makes unequal.

Is it worth bankrupting all to help the few? For that is what we seek to do when those who are ill are attempted to be made equal to the healthy by government fiat. Is government now so powerful that it can mandate equality of the flesh for all? If so I would like to see the magical tomes utilized in that doing as there is no power in heaven nor on earth that can change such things via government: we are given the means, the wit and the ability to make tools and design better ways to help each other overcome these problems. That means the responsibility is personal, not societal.

If you wish to see the poor and sick tended to then do so! That will make you a better person, you will create a better society and you will have convincing proof to your fellow man that you are unwilling to shirk your duties to your fellow man by letting a bureaucrat do it for you. Government taxes all of our liberty when it is asked to do that. You create greater liberty and a better society when you do that, and admit that you are of the flesh and that no government, no matter how rich nor how powerful can do this for you. That is the heart and soul of charity. How awful we have people wishing to roast that on the spit of equality of the flesh so they can feast on the liberty of others to temporarily assuage their own hunger when it is so easily done to provide it for yourself.

We can, as individuals and a society, tend for the poor, the sick, the elderly and the infirm.

The moment you ask anyone else to do that for you, then you admit to the poverty of your own spirit and unwillingness to sacrifice from yourself what you ask others to sacrifice for you.

I do wish there was equality of the flesh as well as of the spirit, but that is not the way of the world and it is we who have to tools to ameliorate those problems. The whip of government is not suited to those ends… and no sweet words nor spreadsheets will ever make the lash of the whip the succor to the sick and the poor. You and I can do this to build that society we want. Lets keep the lashmarks out of it and stop impoverishing those who are doing so that they may build with the fruits of their labor, as that lash does not fall equally to all. And there is no good, at all, in that.

ajacksonian on August 20, 2010 at 7:15 AM

Wow, talk about ignorance. The current mess started allll the way back during Clinton’s term by way of the CRA, Barney Frank and Janet Reno threatening banks to make loans to people who had no chance of paying them back.

That’s right, somehow Barney Frank and Janet Reno forced all the banks to give people terrible loans. That’s exactly what happened. Don’t you remember the banks complaining about this on a regular basis? They were saying, “Gosh, we sure don’t want to give these people loans, but since a Congressman is somehow forcing us to, I guess we might as well turn those into collateralized debt obligations, not reveal the basis of the bond to the bond rating agencies, but threaten to go to another bond rating agency and force Moody’s and S&P’s hands so they give AAA ratings to bonds which consisted of mortgages with teaser interest rates that were going to go way up in 2 years and then lead to tons of foreclosures?

Gee, why wasn’t Ken Lewis or Lloyd Blankfein complaining about that in 2005, if that were actually true?

I can’t go into this further right now, but I guess you sorta missed all that.

As others point out, dems took over congress in 2007 and made matters worse by blocking any attempt to look into fannie and freddy. There’s plenty of video of Barney saying what great shape they were in and there were no problems.

dogsoldier on August 20, 2010 at 7:06 AM

LOLOLOL. YES! That’s the problem all along! Fannie and Freddie caused the collapse. OK. Here’s a tip: Go read up on what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually do, and then apologize to me, and then never ever talk about anything you don’t understand again.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 7:18 AM

It doesn’t matter when it began or who started it – what matters in the minds of voters is that Obama and his cronies promised that their policies would fix it, and well, they haven’t.

Correct.

In fact, one could argue quite credibly that had they not passed one stinking bill since January ‘09, that we’d be better of than we are now.

Incorrect. You could argue that. You could not credibly argue that.

Obama and the Dems have made our problems exponentially worse, and anyone that would argue otherwise is a moron or delusional as there is no third choice.

Ad hominem fallacy.

You’ve said before that you’re a lawyer, so unless you work for the Feds (my apologies if true) it is a FACT that you WILL make less money in real dollars under Obama’s policies.

So far, I’ve actually made more money both in income and in cap gains.

You WILL pay higher taxes under their legislation and you WILL see a decrease in your net worth. Period. And that’s why their losses will be epic.

DECREASE in net worth? Excuse me? There is a difference between making less money per year and a decrease in net worth. You can’t be serious. Unless you’re arguing that Democrats were somehow responsible for the housing bubble, but also responsible for forcing poor people to buy homes, they just wanted poor people to by really expensive, overvalued homes.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 7:35 AM

We can, as individuals and a society, tend for the poor, the sick, the elderly and the infirm.

The moment you ask anyone else to do that for you, then you admit to the poverty of your own spirit and unwillingness to sacrifice from yourself what you ask others to sacrifice for you.

ajacksonian on August 20, 2010 at 7:15 AM


Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! You have most elegantly summed up the heart of the American spirit and identified what is truly wrong with our country today.

For this, I thank you.

jackal40 on August 20, 2010 at 7:45 AM

ajacksonian on August 20, 2010 at 7:15 AM

Spot on and very well written! Thank you!

ya2daup on August 20, 2010 at 8:28 AM

That’s right, somehow Barney Frank and Janet Reno forced all the banks to give people terrible loans.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 7:18 AM

That’s right … people have absolutely no responsibility. They’re stupid, they sign anything. Why should they apply for a home loan knowing full well they can’t afford it? And those mean old lending institutions … no, they weren’t coereced to give people these loans, no, not at all.

To top everything off, Fannie bought all the “bad” loans stamping them with that good old stamp of guarantee … the United States Taxpayer.

Yep, why I actually saw a bank employee forcing people to sign their loan contracts! Yep, a gun to the head and threats of killing the first born. Man, I’m telling you … those people didn’t want to sign, but what choice did they have?

You’re absolutely right Mr. Rino.

darwin on August 20, 2010 at 8:44 AM

That’s the problem all along! Fannie and Freddie caused the collapse. OK. Here’s a tip: Go read up on what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually do, and then apologize to me, and then never ever talk about anything you don’t understand again.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 7:18 AM

Uh … you’re not aware that Fannie and Freddie bought all those loans and bundled them for sale around the world?

If Fannie and Freddie hadn’t existed, the housing bubble never would have happened, or popped.

Here’s a tip: Businesses unencumbered by government regulation and coercion typically don’t want to commit suicide.

Here’s another tip: Virtually every problem we are facing today has been caused by government.

darwin on August 20, 2010 at 8:50 AM

Here’s another tip: Virtually every problem we are facing today has been caused by government.

darwin on August 20, 2010 at 8:50 AM

And, it is fair to say that both parties have blame for this mess. Bush pushed for more lending to riskier individuals in his “ownership” society push. But, when Bush and the GOP wanted to reform Fanny and Freddie, the dems stopped them. Now, again in fairness, the GOP failed to do this when it controlled the congress.

Monkeytoe on August 20, 2010 at 8:54 AM

The government should not be involved whatsoever in the mortgage business at all.

Monkeytoe on August 20, 2010 at 8:56 AM

DECREASE in net worth? Excuse me? There is a difference between making less money per year and a decrease in net worth. You can’t be serious. Unless you’re arguing that Democrats were somehow responsible for the housing bubble, but also responsible for forcing poor people to buy homes, they just wanted poor people to by really expensive, overvalued homes.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 7:35 AM

Wow – and yes, I’m quite serious. Have fun at the placement office junior – the coffee and donuts in the corner are still free, for now.

volnation on August 20, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Wow – and yes, I’m quite serious. Have fun at the placement office junior – the coffee and donuts in the corner are still free, for now.

volnation on August 20, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Whatever. There’s always money to be made, son, no matter who the president is. It’s just a matter of whether or not you’re willing to do the work to make it.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Uh … you’re not aware that Fannie and Freddie bought all those loans and bundled them for sale around the world?

darwin on August 20, 2010 at 8:50 AM

Oh, is that what happened. Then explain why Bear Stearns collapsed. And Lehman Bros. And why Merrill Lynch, RBOS, HBOS, AIG, Fortis, et al all collapsed too, because if only Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the ones making ABSs out of the mortgage loans, then I don’t see why they would have also collapsed. And explain why Fannie and Freddie managed to make Moody’s and S&P rate mortgages people couldn’t pay as AAA bonds, too, because those banks never would have collapsed if they hadn’t become overleveraged by buying too much into the subprime bond market.

Here’s a tip: Businesses unencumbered by government regulation and coercion typically don’t want to commit suicide.

They don’t, but they’re not always rational, and they don’t always make good decisions, and collective action problems still exist even without government intervention.

Here’s another tip: Virtually every problem we are facing can be blamed on government, regardless of whether it actually is to blame or not.

darwin on August 20, 2010 at 8:50 AM

Fixed.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 10:24 AM

The whole health care fiasco is case study #1 for why Democrats should be kept away from the levers of power for at least a generation.

I think our job is to educate as many people as we can about how awful the health care legislation is, and how it was created, advanced, and eventually passed. The whole process was a hideous example of everything that is wrong with Washington. Many people who voted for Obama wanted to fix the system; but he relied on the system to get his signature bill.

hawksruleva on August 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM

That’s right … people have absolutely no responsibility. They’re stupid, they sign anything. Why should they apply for a home loan knowing full well they can’t afford it? And those mean old lending institutions … no, they weren’t coereced to give people these loans, no, not at all.

darwin on August 20, 2010 at 8:44 AM

Interesting that you’re only concerned with the personal responsibility of the consumers who bought houses they couldn’t afford, and not the personal responsibility of the banks who gave them loans without credit checks or income verification. Those people are to blame, but so are the banks. Bank of America wasn’t forced to give people terrible loans without researching whether or not those people had a remote chance of paying off that loan, and Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns weren’t forced to bundle those mortgages into ABSs and then not have any idea what was in those securities, and then basically put all their money into the subprime market.

Businesses don’t commit suicide? No, not intentionally.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM

That’s right, somehow Barney Frank and Janet Reno forced all the banks to give people terrible loans. That’s exactly what happened. Don’t you remember the banks complaining about this on a regular basis? They were saying, “Gosh, we sure don’t want to give these people loans, but since a Congressman is somehow forcing us to

Wowow Double down on your ignorance Rino. Yes, Janet Reno threatened to “investigate” (persecute) lenders who didn’t buckle under to the CRA. And yeah, the banks complained, threw up their hands and lent tons of money to people who had no hope of paying it back, rather than face the DoJ.

Jan 4, 1994
Janet Reno
“No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

But this all happened before you were born it seems.

Uh … you’re not aware that Fannie and Freddie bought all those loans and bundled them for sale around the world?

If Fannie and Freddie hadn’t existed, the housing bubble never would have happened, or popped.

Here’s a tip: Businesses unencumbered by government regulation and coercion typically don’t want to commit suicide.

darwin on August 20, 2010 at 8:50 AM

Darwin, you’re absolutely correct.

dogsoldier on August 20, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Jan 4, 1994
Janet Reno
“No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

Well, this one quote, taken completely devoid of any context, really shows the error of my ways.

Here’s a question: Why didn’t the people who were forced, according to you, to make these loans and then forced, somehow, to turn them into ABSs and then forced to present them dishonestly to Moody’s and then forced to overleverage their firms so that they were totally dependent on loans from millions of people who couldn’t possibly pay those loans – which they were well aware of, since they didn’t want to do it and were being forced to – why didn’t they purchase credit default swaps (which, by the way, they sold, willingly) to groups like Scion Capital? Wouldn’t that have at least protected their investments? Wouldn’t that have prevented them from collapsing or needing to get bailed out? I thought they didn’t commit suicide, right? So answer that question and then we can start really getting into the details here.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Whatever. There’s always money to be made, son, no matter who the president is. It’s just a matter of whether or not you’re willing to do the work to make it.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Sure is! Obama, and friends worked hard to pocket all that unaccounted for stimulus money. ;)

That’s right, somehow Barney Frank and Janet Reno forced all the banks to give people terrible loans. That’s exactly what happened.

Sure is! CRA was legislation, aka LAW! Lest we forget ACORN going into banks, literally pressuring banks to make riskly loans, because they knew they could. Banks were forced to do this, against standard banking procedures, and common sense. Would you loan money to a friend, knowing they were a high risk at paying it back? I doubt it!

capejasmine on August 20, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Well, the proof is out there now. The Dimwits passed this debacle, and for now, we’re stuck with it. Now, they admit it’s a failure, and needs a lot of work. Yet some here, still refuse to see the truth.

Hang on to that hope and change folks. It’s pretty much all you’ll have left come next year.

capejasmine on August 20, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Lest we forget ACORN going into banks, literally pressuring banks to make riskly loans, because they knew they could. Banks were forced to do this, against standard banking procedures, and common sense. Would you loan money to a friend, knowing they were a high risk at paying it back? I doubt it!

capejasmine on August 20, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Wait a second, ACORN? Are you freaking kidding me? ACORN was brought down by some idiot with a camcorder, and you’re telling me that they were pushing Bear Stearns around?

You say banks were forced “to do this.” Well, what is “this,” exactly? Because the housing crisis itself is really secondary to what happened in the bond markets, and that’s what caused the collapse in i-banking and very nearly the collapse of the global economy as we knew it.

If these were just a bunch of bad loans, all that happens is that the banks get the houses back. If the houses are devalued, then they lose some money, but hey, who’s fault is it that the banks gave them all that money? CRA didn’t require that banks give loans to people without income verification or give them unlimited amounts of money. Find the provision in the law which says that it did, because that’d be news to me too.

But OK, let’s just say that that’s what happened with the CRA, and the banks *had* to give out these loans, even though that didn’t happen. Doesn’t explain what happened in the bond markets, does it? How did Barney Frank do that?

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Well, the proof is out there now. The Dimwits passed this debacle, and for now, we’re stuck with it. Now, they admit it’s a failure, and needs a lot of work.

capejasmine on August 20, 2010 at 10:58 AM

We’re not stuck with it. There are lots of ways to correct the error known as health care reform, and we now have the advantage of some Democrats realizing how bad the bill is.

hawksruleva on August 20, 2010 at 11:03 AM

according to you
Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Um no, not just me.

BTW for the record Reno made that speech in ’95.

Rino, try these and try to catch up.

http://www.roubini.com/financemarkets-monitor/255258/cause_and_effect_-_government_policies_and_the_financial_crisis

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html

As for taking Reno’s speech out of context, I didn’t. Clinton, Reno and Frank accused banks of “redlining” minorities.

Banks at that time required borrowers to be able to pay back their loans. I know, because I bought mine just before this crap came down, using my GI bill.

So yeah as increduluous as the idea seems to you, the government forced banks to make bad loans. Upon researching this I was a little surprised to see Acorn involved.

dogsoldier on August 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM

You know what’s interesting – if the banks were really doing all this stuff against their will, and they’d been doing so for the past 35 years, why didn’t they ever kick up a fuss about it until now?

Maybe it’s because investment banks don’t have any political power, and that, obviously, explains why we essentially wrote them blank checks in 2008 so that they wouldn’t collapse the entire world economy.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM

dogsoldier on August 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Why not answer my questions?

As to your links – if you actually read the whole article in the first link, it makes a lot of my points for me, it’s just that the final conclusion does not follow from the facts. He blames everything on the feds, and then talks about state laws, global laws, and “declines in underwriting standards,” and he just passes those things off like those things were as natural as a summer rain. Furthermore, he says that fed regs created incentives to create a bubble – and that might be true. We’ve had a few housing bubbles since the CRA existed.

But no global financial crisis (at least not one related to the housing market) until 2007. Why? What changed in the CRA that made this time different?

Your second link is some partisan BS. Real sources are better. Stick with those.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM

The Commie scum at Businessweek have an interesting take on it.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 11:23 AM

But no global financial crisis (at least not one related to the housing market) until 2007.

Fannie and Freddie started buying up and bundling mortgages in 2005

FTA:

The decline in underwriting standards is clear in the financial disclosures of Fannie and Freddie. From 2005 to 2007, Fannie and Freddie bought approximately $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, amounting to about 40 percent of their mortgage purchases during that period.

And yeah Aaron Pressman is a liberal.

dogsoldier on August 20, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Fannie and Freddie started buying up and bundling mortgages in 2005

Yep, so did Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, HSBC, RBOS, et al et al et al.

Still, banks didn’t start to collapse until 2007. That’s what I meant. I’m glad you focused on the date of when the crisis started and whether Aaron Pressman is or isn’t a liberal instead of the questions I raised. That kinda says it all, doesn’t it.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Fannie and Freddie started buying up and bundling mortgages in 2005
Yep, so did Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley,

HSBC, RBOS, et al et al et al.

Still, banks didn’t start to collapse until 2007. That’s what I meant. I’m glad you focused on the date of when the crisis started and whether Aaron Pressman is or isn’t a liberal instead of the questions I raised. That kinda says it all, doesn’t it.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Banks don’t do high risk things unless they have a safety net. They don’t buy up high risk derivative funds unless there is a safety net.

They had two safety nets:
1) A promise from their Congress critters to bail them out
2) A promise that Fannie and Freddie would underwrite the mortgages. And then F and F started actually pulling the high risk stuff off the banks’ books because they saw the writing on the wall as all those adjustable “liar loans” were changing to 7, 8, 9%.

No, lots of banks weren’t “forced.” But Obama himself bragged that as a lawyer in Chicago he worked with the DoJ on a “redlining” case, liberal speak for “a bank wouldn’t do a high risk loan.” ACORN packed bank lobbies and shut them down for the day if they wouldn’t do high risk loans. Fannie and Freddie changed their underwriting standards.

And we did for the banks exactly what we promised: we bailed them out for participating in all this chicanery. And despite Bush warning 23 times beginning in 2001 that the high risk lending would cause an asset bubble and crush the economy, Obama and his MSM minions will continue to blame him for allowing it to happen.

Yes, Democrats and Republicans are both at fault, especially in Congress, for not stopping the madness. It was RINO Grahamnesty that helped repeal Glass-Steagal and allow banks to ALSO be investment houses and put their customers at risk. But Clinton pushed it through and signed it.

PastorJon on August 20, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Rino,

The crisis started back in the 90′s with the CRA. The issues with fannie and freddie that started between 200 and 2007 pushed by your lib friends put us in this mess.

You referred to the folks at Business week as commies, which I found kinda harsh, so I researched the guy who wrote the opinion article you linked to.

But OK, let’s just say that that’s what happened with the CRA, and the banks *had* to give out these loans, even though that didn’t happen. Doesn’t explain what happened in the bond markets, does it? How did Barney Frank do that?

And I answered. A couple times.

dogsoldier on August 20, 2010 at 12:25 PM

PastorJon on August 20, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Excellent summary, sir.

Yes, Democrats and Republicans are both at fault, especially in Congress, for not stopping the madness. It was RINO Grahamnesty that helped repeal Glass-Steagal and allow banks to ALSO be investment houses and put their customers at risk. But Clinton pushed it through and signed it.

Bush might have done a little more than issue warnings.

dogsoldier on August 20, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Don’t say:

the law will reduce costs and deficit

Why not? For 2 years, that’s all they would say about it. Now, it’s verbotten.

Huh. I wonder if they shouldn’t say it is because its

“He lied?”

BobMbx on August 20, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Here’s another tip: Virtually every problem we are facing today has been caused by government.

darwin on August 20, 2010 at 8:50 AM

The crabgrass in my backyard is the governments’ fault?

Damn it…I knew it.

BobMbx on August 20, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Banks don’t do high risk things unless they have a safety net. They don’t buy up high risk derivative funds unless there is a safety net.

And yet…here we are.

1) A promise from their Congress critters to bail them out

Ask Lehman Bros. how that worked out for them. The only “promise” they had, if you can even call it that, was that everyone was involved. Goldman Sachs and Co. had to know that even if the doomsday predictors were right, they just weren’t going to let this happen.

2) A promise that Fannie and Freddie would underwrite the mortgages. And then F and F started actually pulling the high risk stuff off the banks’ books because they saw the writing on the wall as all those adjustable “liar loans” were changing to 7, 8, 9%.

Freddie and Fannie had automated underwiting which was insufficient to prevent a catastrophe. But no one was forced to make those loans, and no one was forced to to create CDOs based on those loans, nor was anyone forced to make subprime mortgages pretty much the only way i-banks were making money in the mid-00s.

No, lots of banks weren’t “forced.”

Right…

But Obama himself bragged that as a lawyer in Chicago he worked with the DoJ on a “redlining” case, liberal speak for “a bank wouldn’t do a high risk loan.”

No.

ACORN packed bank lobbies and shut them down for the day if they wouldn’t do high risk loans.

Not buying it. I’m just not buying “ACORN was shutting down the banks and forcing them to make risky loans.” Even if that were true, still doesn’t making high risk CDOs and it doesn’t excuse Moody and S&P and it doesn’t excuse i-banks for staking their entire business on whether some idiot working the register at Wal-Mart could pay off his $750k home.

And we did for the banks exactly what we promised: we bailed them out for participating in all this chicanery. And despite Bush warning 23 times beginning in 2001 that the high risk lending would cause an asset bubble and crush the economy, Obama and his MSM minions will continue to blame him for allowing it to happen.

I agree that Bush gets unfairly blamed. I don’t know where you’re getting this magical promise, but I’m sure it’s news the tumbleweeds at Lehman Bros.

Yes, Democrats and Republicans are both at fault, especially in Congress, for not stopping the madness. It was RINO Grahamnesty that helped repeal Glass-Steagal and allow banks to ALSO be investment houses and put their customers at risk. But Clinton pushed it through and signed it.

It was Phil Gramm’s bill, not Lindsey Graham’s. Gotta be kidding me. And it was a pretty straight party line vote, let’s not pretend that the fact that Clinton signed it means that the left endorsed repealing Glass Steagall.

And blaming Democrats and/or Republicans is one of the problems. When gigantic economic catastrophes happen, it’s everyone and no one’s fault, in the sense that everyone contributed, but there was no specific, one thing that happened that caused the entire catastrophe to occur. That’s sort of my point.

The problem was not that there was too much regulation or not enough regulation, but that there wasn’t the right kind of regulation. If you’re saying things like “ACORN caused this,” or “Bush caused that,” then you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 1:20 PM

but that there wasn’t the right kind of regulation. If you’re saying things like “ACORN caused this,” or “Bush caused that,” then you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 1:20 PM

I agree and would only add there was little real oversight.

The disaster grows worse now, also due to many factors. Prominent among them Obamunistcare, Porkulus and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

People and businesses are extremely frightened, cutting back and hunkering down, hoping to wait it out.

Every week another half million file for unemployment.

dogsoldier on August 20, 2010 at 1:43 PM

The disaster grows worse now, also due to many factors. Prominent among them Obamunistcare, Porkulus and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

People and businesses are extremely frightened, cutting back and hunkering down, hoping to wait it out.

Every week another half million file for unemployment.

dogsoldier on August 20, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Are you a Keynesian?

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Nope, I’m not.

dogsoldier on August 20, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Yes you are. You want to renew the Bush tax cuts in the face of a massive deficit. Cutting taxes to spur growth in times of recession is as Keynesian as stimulus spending. A lot of the stimulus spending was tax breaks anyway. We haven’t had a non-Keynesian President since at least Hoover. Let’s just be honest about the debate we’re having, which is whether spending is as good as tax cuts.

But we’re all Keynesians.

I enjoyed the conversation. Take it easy.

Proud Rino on August 20, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Yes you are. You want to renew the Bush tax cuts in the face of a massive deficit. Cutting taxes to spur growth in times of recession is as Keynesian

Um, cutting taxes to spur growth is not keynesian by anyone’s definition ‘cept yours.

C’ya.

dogsoldier on August 20, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3