Is The President Trapped?

Strategy should dictate tactics. When the strategy is ever changing can you execute effective tactics? Does the strategy change based on conditions or does the strategy attempt to define conditions? Can the tactics keep up with strategic changes?

Benghazi is unraveling. The potential for this story to blow up on the President is imminent. The strategy was to blame it on a video. No one with the possible exception of the NY Times buys that communication strategy now, the facts are slapping it down. Reports indicate the White House is in semi panic mode over what could hit the news next.

Dissembling. Pending new, harsher, EPA regulations have been put off until after Election Day. Addressment of the Fiscal Cliff has been pushed off till after Election Day. The Benghazi investigation; yup, results after Election Day. The President’s plan for another four years will not be fully realized until after Election Day. Will undecided voters accept an unspecified future that is defined only after Election Day?

The Ground Game. The much discussed ground game for the President’s reelection campaign may or may not be as solid as reported. The President has, in most cases, bypassed existing ground game options. He has not tied himself to existing political structures and voter lists maintained by Governors, Congressman, Senators or local political organizations. Gov. Romney has embraced those pre-existing structures. Take a hard look at President Obama’s campaign stops compared to Gov. Romney. Local officials are, relatively, absent at the President’s events; they populate Romney events.

The media. There is little question that the majority of the MSM operates in support of the President; no surprise, fully expected! But, the credibility of the media continues to decline. Foot dragging on Benghazi could be the point of crystallization that collapses their general narrative in support of the President. If the facts demand that they turn on the President, those who still rely on the MSM for their news will be shocked into reconsideration.

War on women. Recent numbers indicate this strategy has been a comprehensive failure, yet the theme continues to be prevalent in the campaign. Despite slow movement from pro-choice to pro-life over time the base directed appeal has moved the overall women’s vote to a near tie from a 16 point lead. The fundamental assumption seems to have been that contraception and abortion are the key issues concerning women. No addressment of economics and jobs. Women have suffered mightily over the past two years in the jobs market; the numbers indicate that economics not contraception and abortion dominate women’s thinking. This is a surprise to no one outside of the President’s campaign. Women are not one dimensional; they are smart and perceptive, that is what defines the change in the numbers related to women. The campaign’s focus evolved into a left-handed insult to women’s intelligence; never a good idea.

Credibility. In the last days of the campaign the 46% to 48% on either side is fairly well entrenched. Benghazi is a major credibility problem and it’s getting worse. Of the 4% to 6% that remain, theoretically, undecided the attempt to dissemble Benghazi will hurt the President. When the President did make a definitive statement about ‘fixing’ the impending Sequestration; “it won’t happen”, his campaign backed off the statement the following day. Hard to fathom moving the President away from a declarative commitment!

Defining Romney. Tens of millions of dollars were spent to, as the campaign stated early on, ‘kill Romney’. One debate was all it took to waste those dollars. The Governor, his wife, family and those he touched gave lie to the ad campaign attempting to define him as a dangerous reactionary.

Upon reflection. Blaming Bush, if only by implication, four years after the fact is weak and getting weaker. Some may remember that six of the eight Bush years saw a stable growing economy that survived an early recession, Katrina and 9/11. Some may remember that Bush attempted to correct the overreach by Fannie and Freddy that was so instrumental in the housing and subsequent economic crash.

Economy. The President cannot make a strong case for the economy. He can only attempt to convince us that it could have been worse;. We have all, at one point in time or another said ‘it could have been worse’ we usually say that when things are bad. The argument is tired and lacks resonance; the President has trapped himself within its confines. The President’s new pamphlet essentially guarantees even more spending, there is nothing new here.

The 50% equation. A candidate under 50% at this point in time has never won. President Reagan, as a challenger to President Carter was well behind the incumbent at this point in time. Carter was leading but not above 50%. Romney is much closer than Reagan was at this point in time.

The contradictions. You can’t escape the irony. The Left depends, to a significant degree, on youthful ignorance and energy. The irony is that despite being dependant on youthful ignorance the Left insists on doing everything possible to limit production of the young.

Not about the numbers anymore. We all know the economic numbers; it’s not about the numbers anymore. It’s about the plan. The President’s plan has not changed in any fundamental aspect other than to double down on his economic views. More of the same is one thing; the President is essentially promising a lot more of the same.

Energy. Not approving the Keystone Pipeline is illogical to most. Shutting down Coal production carries the same perception. A suit has been filed to expose pending EPA regulations that could further damage domestic energy production and will not be released until, wait for it……………after Election Day.

The President’s words. Ads featuring the President’s own words have been the most effective ads on the air. Not a good position to be in.

Actions speak louder than words. The President is reported as advising his field organizers in Florida that perhaps it would be better if they moved to Ohio. The President’s problem is that he also has to consider advising them that they may also have to move to Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and New Hampshire. That’s a lot of ground to cover. Ground that no one in the President’s campaign anticipated having to fight for. Fund raising in the first half of October is comprehensively in favor of Governor Romney. People are voting with their dollars; actions speak louder than words. The money is indicative, the surge is clear. I know specifically of individuals who can’t afford to contribute, they have done so anyway. I receive the President’s fund raising pleas. They grow more desperate sounding by the day inclusive of whining and complaining. In the last days of the campaign according the Obama campaign manager Jim Messina the Romney campaign has a $4 million dollar a day advantage. Who thought that would be the case eight months ago?

One party rule. The President’s signature accomplishments: Health Care, Stimulus, Dodd Frank were all passed with no or insignificant Republican support. The President, when faced with significant opposition has reverted to regulation and Executive Orders to move his agenda. The American electorate has, historically, tended to flee from one party rule and to accept it only on a temporary basis. They understand, at a gut level, the necessity for conflicting pressures.

The President, as an incumbent should be, will either be elevated or trapped by his record, his words and his demeanor. At the bottom line the harsh reality of the economy, the strategic changes, the absence of new messages, the unwillingness to change course argues for trapped as opposed to elevated.

  • Bill Hedges

    Liberals don’t let FACTS interfere with your beliefs. Speak loud and shove the truth under your security blanket…

    Author writes “Local officials are, relatively, absent at the President’s events; they populate Romney events”. WE KNOW WHY. There in lays the smell of FEAR the democrats have of mass extermination of democrats; come changing of the guard. Same scent as Nov. 2, 2010. Like then, democrat passed legislation that could fit on a postage stamp before THE STORM (my hope).

    If running you want buma on stage with you discussing bumcare ? Over FOUR YEARS for full compliance of the magically CURE ALL related to HEALTH CARE & monetary destruction ? IN A PIG’S EYE and liberal’s wet dream is that ! They must hide it under a blanket, wait until AFTER PRESIDENTIAL, & SPRING IT on they American people. IF such a SILVER BULLET why the wait ? Such SLOW implication of ALL THINGS GOOD ? The Ryan heath plan was crushed by liberals. with such fantasy land remarks like being pushed over the CLIFF. CBO shows buma does the crashing on the rocks below. buma’s crowning jewel come this election with be strutted out to voters like a closet relatives of ours sent off on long vacation in a secluded location without media. MANY, many, many things could have BEEN FORGOTTEN had this wet dream saved the devastation of illness & financial ruin was TRUE. The poor child who was thrown into the gutter because of a uncaring $$$ millionaire & $$$ billionaire Republican party. Those darn TEA creeps !!! Every single one of them believe buma wasn’t born a American citizen. NO liberal thought that of McCain ??? I want buma by the side of every democrat running for office. I want a child in rags asking him with cameras running, WHY haven’t I had ALL of my bumcare soup (sorry Charles Dicken) ???

    Big in 2008 ALL Bush’s fault. Ever try to get a liberal to explain ? Be specific ? Prove ? IMPOSSIBLE !!! I guarantee most with dismiss your links but not disprove. Provide NUMBERS contradicting ours HARDLY EVER. Now will discuss the BIGGEST, most ascenine Holy Grail belief for liberals. Republicans only care for the $$$ millionaire & $$$ billionaires. Special interest ***BUY THEM*** GIVING them the farm with TAX CUTS FOR RICH. I shall debunk (sorry Gen. Douglas MacArthur).

    As we know from JFK to Bush tax cuts did not apply just for the rich. For the sake of not writing a boring novel and the fact the longer I write a liberal will pick my most WEAK POINT to respond to, throwing the rest of my writing under the train of obscurity. The less than richest of us PAY LESS TAX supplemented by the more-rich of us. Will prove this in a very un-liberal way WITH FACTS. Using % which growth of GNP nor inflation is a contributing factor. Plain & SIMPLE because of tax cuts for $$$ millionaire & $$$ billions More-poor pay less taxes, 40% pay NO TAXES, and MANY get CASH for making SO LITTLE. RICH make up for this generosity by paying for taxes by investing their $$$ creating jobs causing LONGEST BULL MARKET in our history. Raising MORE REVENUE FOR GOVERNMENT. Making us the envy of THE WORLD:

    NOTE_ This link has substantiating link proof for data in blue. Taking you to original government numbers BY WAY OF Congressional Budget office. Better REAL NUMBERS I can not give. Nor ANYBODY. even a liberal IF they ever TRIED numbers (like they would. Ha-ha).

    “Who Really Benefited From the Bush Tax Cuts? ”

    “Many believe the Reagan and Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. However, data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that poor and middle income Americans have benefited more than the wealthy.”

    “In 1979, the poorest 20% of earners paid no income tax. By 2007, that same group had a negative income tax rate of 6.8%. In other words, they took home 6.8% more than they paid in to the federal government. Middle income Americans paid an effective income tax rate (the amount paid after deductions) of .5% in 1979. That rate was cut to .3% in 2007, a drop of more than 50%.”

    “What about those dastardly one percenters? Back in the days of Jimmy Carter, Americans in the top one percent of earners paid an effective tax rate of .8%. The effective tax rate fell all the way to … wait for it … %.”

    “Even when taking into account all federal taxes, the poor and middle class have benefited more than their wealthy counterparts. In 1979, the total effective federal tax rate (including payroll taxes, excise, capital gains, estate, and corporate taxes) was % for the poorest Americans and 18.6% for middle income earners. Thanks to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, those rates fell 50% and 23%, respectively. The top one percent of earners had their total effective tax rate fall 21% over the same time period.”

    “The tax code has also become more progressive. As indicated above, the top 1% of earners now pay an effective income tax rate of 19%, nearly six times the percent paid by middle income earners (3.3%). In 1979, the differential between the rate paid by the top one percent was less than three times that of middle class earners.”

    “Not surprisingly, the wealthy are also paying more of the tab now than they did 30 years ago. In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue, while the bottom 50% paid 7%. By 2009, the top 5% of earners paid a whopping %, while the bottom half of earners paid just 2.25% of the total pie.”

    “The wealthy also pay more than their representative income would dictate. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, the top 1% earned 17% of the total income in 2009. Meanwhile, they paid 37% of all the taxes paid. The bottom half of earners took in 13% of the 2009 total taxable income, yet paid just 2.25% of the total tax revenue.”

    “But haven’t all these tax cuts blown a hole in our budget? The answer is no. Despite across the board tax cuts, revenues remained at or near historic levels as a percentage of GDP until the financial collapse in 2007. In fact, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was exactly the same in 1979 as it was in 2007: .5%. With the recession, tax revenue has dipped to 14.9% of GDP, while spending has risen to 25%, which accounts for our widening deficit.”

    “If current tax rates are left in place, the CBO projects that tax revenue will return to historic levels by 2021, while spending will remain well above historic levels, 26% of GDP. The picture gets even worse with time. The CBO predicts spending to reach % of GDP by 2035. It would be impossible to collect 34% of GDP in revenue without steep tax increases on all Americans; including the poor and middle class. There simply aren’t enough rich people to pay the bill. To put this in perspective, in order to close the budget gap in 2010 solely on the backs of those making more than $250,000, the two highest tax brackets would have to rise to percent and 142 percent. Of course, it’s impossible to tax individuals more than 100%; even if it were desirable.”

    “In sum, the tax cuts enacted by Reagan and Bush have benefited the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. Their taxes have been cut more drastically than wealthy Americans, and many have been taken off the tax rolls altogether. In 2009, a majority of Americans paid no federal income tax. The poor and middle class also pay a far lower percentage of the total revenue pie now. Despite across the board tax cuts, revenues have remained essentially constant. Unfortunately, our spending has ballooned, and is only projected to increase with time”

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/3701/who-really-benefited-from-the-bush-tax-cuts

    “According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total”

    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/18278

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

    Darn those TEA !!! CUT SPENDING. CUT TAXES. CBO says THEY ARE CORRECT. Such a extremist group of radicals ?????????

  • JD McAfoose

    As mentioned before, I believe the president did speak to his base well in the last parts of this election process and I think there are going to be people who show up who were once saying “yes I voted for Obama in 2008 but I don’t care about this election any more.”

    So it isn’t about converting but motivating his base. This election has always been about the party numbers. Which side has more loyal members. I don’t believe this election cycle has been about about the few independents out there.

  • Bill Hedges

    YES I agree “there are going to be people who show up who were once saying “yes I voted for Obama in 2008 but I don’t care about this election any more.” I simple disagree with your conclusions. You think they will or have changed their mind. LOOK AT THE POLLS…

    Broken records don’t work and neither did buma’s agenda. His change WASN’T. The lowering of unemployment is due to folks dropping out of job market, out of unemployment paycheck edibility, and full/part time lower pay job employment.

    buna was a unknown before and voters were eager for a minority in WH. His change went kaput. buma didn’t lower debt a dime, instead, we long for Bush debt that recession inflated. Bush had it going well as my previous comment showed. No reason to believe Bush caused recession. Bush warned and Barney frank DENIED.

    buma has disillusioned the base he had in 2008. *** Clearly illuminated Nov. 2, 2010 ***:

    1. “motivating his base”

    With what ? Buses will not be loaded at Universities to be bused to voting booths ALL DAY election day repeatedly full of HOPE. That’s been shattered by BUMA REALITY.

    2. “election has always been about the party numbers”

    Explain away 2 terms for Bush ? 2010 election results ? loyalty with crossover and/or independents.

    3. “Which side has more loyal members.”

    “The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 50% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 46%. Two percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and another two percent (2%) are undecided. This is the fifth consecutive day that Romney has been at the 50% level of support. He has enjoyed a three- or four-point edge on each of those days. See daily tracking history.”

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

    Final analysis. What would make voters vote for buma ? Like you said, “there are going to be people who show up who were once saying “yes I voted for Obama in 2008 but I don’t care about this election any more.” Those folks won’t vote or vote like they did Nov. 2, 2010. Appeal of buma died with his political reality familiarity.

    Democrats could not EVEN cut funding for Harry Reid’s COWBOY POET SOCIETY for goodness sakes.

  • Bill Hedges

    Correction…

    Will vote like they did Nov. 2, 2010…

  • Bill Hedges

    California doesn’t want to cut the spending BUT raise taxes. As I am always saying raising taxes on cigs doesn’t increase revenue:

    “Editorial: California leads all states in public debt”

    “By whatever measure, it seems clear. California is living beyond its means. The Register’s Editorial Board agrees with Mr. Laffer that ratcheting up taxes worsens economic conditions. Ironically, a corrective step was proposed by Mr. Brown when he ran unsuccessfully for president in 1992 – a flat tax.”

    “Mr. Laffer notes that for 20 years, rising tax rates tended to push people from California. “During the extraordinarily high tax year of 1994, for example, about 450,000 people fled the state,” he said. “Many of them moved to Colorado, where voters had just approved a constitutional amendment that severely restricted the state’s power to raise taxes.”

    “To prevent further outmigration and accompanying tax-base deterioration, “state leaders should throw out the current tax structure and replace it with a flat tax,” Mr. Laffer said. We agree.”

    “A single tax rate for individual taxpayers and businesses could ensure no one is punished disproportionately when income rises. People would be less likely to underreport income or move out of state. A flat tax also could end California’s “yearly revenue roller-coaster, where the stock price of the latest IPO makes or breaks the state budget,” as Mr. Laffer put it.”

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/state-372854-california-tax.html

    THAT’S THEIR *** HOPE ***. Will a new cooperation move to California on that bet or move ro safer Colorado or maybe Arizona ??? I’m betting ANYWHERE nearly but CA. Deep in the heart of Texas is a great place to go.

    To serious attack the debt CA UNIONS must be economically chopped down to size. Arnold was a tough, strong Governor but he couldn’t get past the democrat lawmakers (only his wife _ joke). Those UNIONS there are a impressive force…

  • Mike R

    Landreaux:

    I’m glad to see you’re thinking about strategy, if only political horse race strategy. At this point, I don’t find the race very interesting. It’s all about whipping the bases to the polls.

    Your post covers a lot of ground, so I’m going to respond to just one observation. You mention “the overreach of Fannie and Freddy that was so instrumental in the housing and subsequent economic crash”.

    Now I don’t deny that the CRA and Fannie and Freddy played a role in the housing bubble; they clearly did. I fail, though, to see what role they played in the ensuing global collapse. And I find no evidence that they were the prime mover in the bubble itself. They were more than a drop in the bucket, but they weren’t the whole bucket. They were nowhere near half the bucket.

    Ideology is a lens that magnifies what we want to see and blurs the rest of reality. A liberal will fail to see the role of government interference in the market; a conservative will fail to see the role of irresponsible and unregulated banking. So we divide up and throw bricks at one another while the problem goes unexamined and unsolved.

    From discussions with conservative friends and perusal of commentary on the internet, I am convinced that the average conservative believes that the global recession happened because the government forced banks to loan to irresponsible poor people, the irresponsible poor people didn’t meet their debt obligations, the banks were left holding the bag so the banking system failed.

    This view serves the ideology. Government is the one and only culprit. All we need to do is make the government leave the bankers alone and the system will run as smoothly as silk ribbon off a spool. The ideological lens blurs a range of important elements:

    A decades old ‘credit card culture’ which has encouraged irresponsible borrowing and denigrated thrift, producing a negative savings rate. Banks have encouraged it.

    Elimination of Glass Steagle, which misalined the interests of lenders and borrowers. Commercial banks became less interested in the ability of borrowers to pay when they could sell mortgages to hedge funds and finance banks.

    The growth of a huge shadow banking industry, opaque and entirely unregulated, that bundled these mortgages and sold them on the world market.

    Rating agencies, responsible to no one but the institutions they were supposed to be rating, which stamped these securities AAA and took big fees for doing so.

    The emergence of mortgage farms like Countrywide, that sold their products to this shadow banking system and encouraged us to see houses not as places to live, but as investments to ‘flip’ and profit from.

    An ideological lens which blinds us to these elements, tells us that the only threat to our freedom, prosperity and happiness is government, is not just a lense; it’s a blinder. An ideology that convinces us that we the people have no right to regulate financial markets through our elected government would leave us helpless victims of the next collapse.

    I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, or attribute to you ideas you have not espoused. All you said was that Fanny and Freddy were instrumental in the crisis. As usual, I’m just looking for broader discussion and common ground.

  • Landreaux

    There is a lot of blame to go around for the financial collapse. But Fannie and Freddy seemed to escape the Lion’s share of their part in it and now, right NOW the pressure to return to policy that helped crete the crisis is back in play. Fannie, Freddy, greed on the part of institutions and Wall Street all played a part. None of the financial ‘reforms’ really touchd Fannie and Freddy. Add to the mix Congressional responsibility which also went begging. I’ve spent enought time researching the issue to come to the conclusion that blame is widespread but ‘punishment’ was not.

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike R. _ ******* …“17 times President Bush would call on Congress to regulate GSEs. The proposed regulations would have averted the worst national crisis since, well, 9-11…had they been inacted.” ******* Cut off the bad loans being bought by F/F, no sub-prime loans for example, soon no bad loans are handed out then sold to Wall Street…

    “I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” – Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008

    Talk about understatement _ “ put some standards and tighten up a ** little ** on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

    “Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.” – Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) , September 30, 2008

    Oh brother this guy Artur Davis (D-AL) was in denial. “…concerns raised by their regulator in 2004”. Bush was continuously warning long before 2004. Can’t give Bush credit for that correct D-AL ???

    Is rare I read a well thought out comment on this subject as you have done. I am impressed. This is a subject I have done a lot of studying the facts on. You have too it sure appears. With a bare minimal of INSULTING my side; I will respond to some areas I differ with your comments. You left some facts out and misrepresented some as well:

    Mike R. I highly recommend you read all of the following link if you only read one of my links:

    “Republicans Move Swiftly and Strongly”

    “In the wake of the Enron scandal, President Bush put his Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, in charge of a team to investigate potential GSE mortgage market problems. Mr. Card led a joint White House – Treasury Department team that recommended the President not reappoint any directors to either GSE board; that Fannie’s accounting methods needed to be thoroughly scrutinized, and that GSEs needed much stronger regulatory oversight. HUD Secretary, Mel Martinez, got Fannie Mae to raise the downpayment requirement on newly constructed houses from only 3% to 10% — if a house was appraised at $500,000, the builder would have to commit $50,000 to the project instead of just $15,000.”

    “On September 11, 2003, President Bush sent Congress a sweeping GSE regulation proposal; the first of what U.S. News & World Report counted was ******* 17 times President Bush would call on Congress to regulate GSEs. The proposed regulations would have averted the worst national crisis since, well, 9-11…had they been inacted. ******* Let’s let the New York Times tell the story, as it reported the day of the White House proposal”

    “In August 2003, Barney Frank (D-MA) — ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee and the person who generaled the Democrat strategy with regard to GSE regulation — argued strongly to make it easier for people/speculators to get new house construction loans while putting less money up as collateral. In a mid-August letter to Fannie Mae, Mr. Frank urged Fannie to withdraw the underwriting guidelines that the Bush Administration had successfully gotten Fannie to strengthen (raising the principal/collateral commitment from 3% to 10%). He wrote, the Bush-inspired “changes could make manufactured housing too expensive for many Americans.” Mr. Frank was successful; Fannie announced in February 2004, it would lower the capital requirement from 10% to 5%… the move became effective December 1, 2004, two weeks before the SEC released a scathing report on Fannie’s improper accounting. Easy money on new house constructions ***** turned out to be one of the prime causes of the housing overexpansion that helped define the bubble *****

    http://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

    1. Now I don’t deny that the CRA and Fannie and Freddy played a role in the housing bubble; they clearly did. I fail, though, to see what role they played in the ensuing global collapse. And I find no evidence that they were the prime mover in the bubble itself. They were more than a drop in the bucket, but they weren’t the whole bucket. They were nowhere near half the bucket.

    I don’t get into the global, just USA. Provable is key reason for this. Adding global brings in too many variables. There is ENOUGH variables just in this country. F/F I don’t place a % of the problem. BUT IS HIGH. BUT F/F was doing the bidding of Democrats. Again, difficult to judge %. Too argumentative to my liking. I prefer clear cut analysis. % is in the eye of the beholder.

    2. “Ideology is a lens that magnifies what we want to see and blurs the rest of reality. A liberal will fail to see the role of government interference in the market; a conservative will fail to see the role of irresponsible and unregulated banking. So we divide up and throw bricks at one another while the problem goes unexamined and unsolved.”

    I don’t even try to say what a liberal thinks. I talk for myself. Am conservative & Tea. Democrats had that recession as part of their family.

    Bush WANTED banking regulations changed. Barney Frank said NO PROBLEM with F/F. I am not against GOOD BANKING regulation. Dodd-Frank bill does NOT even address F/F. Another possible recession is in the making. Democrats voted down what Bush & Mc Cain wanted to add in regulation to stop/reduce this recession. Democrats saw NO NEED for new regulations. They wanted & got less. Bush warned many times of problems in our banking system but Democrats in control said everything was Hunky-dory:

    “Pelosi Caught In Major Lie- Says Bush Didn’t Warn Congress About Financial Crisis… Records Show He Warned Congress 17 Times in 2008 Alone”

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/05/pelosi-caught-in-major-lie-says-bush-didnt-warn-congress-about-financial-crisis-records-show-he-warned-congress-17-in-2008-alone/

    3. From discussions with conservative friends and perusal of commentary on the internet, I am convinced that the average conservative believes that the global recession happened because the government forced banks to loan to irresponsible poor people, the irresponsible poor people didn’t meet their debt obligations, the banks were left holding the bag so the banking system failed.

    AGAIN, I only talk about America.

    Bill C. was pushing housing plan first started by Jimmy Carter. Unlike Carter, BIG PUSH. buma says he did not cause recession. WELL, he & ACORN were major players. Lawyer buma & Acorn won a case against Citibank. Acorn people broke into board meetings and went to bank President’s homes. Threatening to call banks RACIST if folks unqualified did not get loans. There is your sub-prime loans to get these unqualified home buyers qualified. When I heard on CNBC that bundles of different grades from junk to better were being sold to Wall Street I stopped trading. I knew this was BAD. When interest rate went up balloon burst:

    “’The Policies That Caused the Mess in the First Place’

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/the_policies_that_caused_the_mess_in_the_first_place.html#ixzz2AkTtQujc

    “Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown” video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

    “Obama & ACORN”

    http://theobamafile.com/obamaacorn.htm

    4. “A decades old ‘credit card culture’ which has encouraged irresponsible borrowing and denigrated thrift, producing a negative savings rate. Banks have encouraged it.”

    Some encourage me to jump from a airborne plane without a parachute. I do not do. I take FULL responsibility for my own actions.

    5. “The growth of a huge shadow banking industry, opaque and entirely unregulated, that bundled these mortgages and sold them on the world market.”

    Yes Democrats did not heed Bush’s warnings (regulations NEEDED). Bill C. started this RACE TO disaster.

    6. “Rating agencies, responsible to no one but the institutions they were supposed to be rating, which stamped these securities AAA and took big fees for doing so.”

    Agree. This was in the mix. But you put too much blame on banks which lawyer obams & Acorn deserve. You never mentioned *** their part***.

    7. “The emergence of mortgage farms like Countrywide, that sold their products to this shadow banking system and encouraged us to see houses not as places to live, but as investments to ‘flip’ and profit from.

    Dodds, of Dodds-Frank bill connection, was involved with questionable dealings with Countrywide as Frank was involved with F/F by way of his boyfriend’s employment. This lower standard for loans were pressed upon banks to get homes for the poor as in Jimmy Carter’s plan. Yes “flip’ and profit ” as well.

    Still the pressure of making bad loans came from Bill C., lawyer obama with Acorn. The dye was cast for this recession LONG BEFORE Bush moved into the WH.

    Loan methods of old days was 20% down, good work record (proven), good credit, etc.. This got void on Biil C’s watch. Not George Bush. Bush TRIED to STOP & democrats said NO.

    With intimidation of RACISM being screamed by lawyer buma & Acorn, Bill C. pushing Carter’s housing plan caused implosion upon us. Crown of thorns being these mix grade bundles sold to Wall Street which was THEIR DOWN FALL WHEN INTEREST RATE ROSE AND FOLKS COULDN’T PAY HIGHER MONTHY RATES ON THEIR SUB-PRIME LOANS. Are these the only factors ? No. Without this *** itch *** rest could have been avoided more or less. Things were OVERLOOKED to enable THOSE BAD LOANS SO WANTED by democrats. Republicans (NOT democrats) WANTED banking regulations as pointed out in “Pelosi Caught In Major Lie- Says Bush Didn’t Warn Congress About Financial Crisis… Records Show He Warned Congress 17 Times in 2008 Alone”.

    8. About Bill Clinton signing Glass-Steagall:

    Discuss later…

  • Bob
  • Bill Hedges

    Never fear the New York marathon goes on as planned. Instead of generators being used to open gas stations and stop the stations from charging outrageous gas prices, Democrat major decided to use those generators in Central Park for news media transmission trucks. Kick out the new homeless who went to hotels and let incoming people from non-New York to take their rooms for this marathon run.

    Comfortable in Las Vegas buma cares for the suffering ? Besides our foreign fighting military I’d have polls closed in NE area if buma wants to stop the sting in that area for his lack of caring…

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 2…

    Alabama utility workers help was turned away from NE America. WHY ? Non-union employees !!! Scabs they were called. Reminds me of Gulf oil spill. ..

  • Mike R

    Landreaux:

    I’m much less interested in punishment than in having financial markets that do what they are supposed to do. Two ex-CEO’s of Fannie and Freddie and four other top executives are facing fraud charges brought by the SEC. I’ve been unable to find similar charges brought against any Wall Street bankers. Perhaps you have information I don’t. The president presented plans to Congress last year to phase out the two institutions over a five to seven year period.

    You assert that these two firms deserve the “lion’s share” of the blame for the global financial collapse. I think that’s your ideolgical lens at work, but for the sake of argument I’ll temporarily accept your assertion. How were these institutions able to wreak such havoc?

    According to Reuters, Fannie and Freddie spent 170 million dollars on lobbying in the decade leading up to the collapse. They employed revolving-door politician/lobbyists from across the political spectrum to distribute their largesse in Congress—from Rahm Emanuel to Newt Gingrich. On K Street, when the money comes in the front door ideology goes out the window.

    I’ll leave it to you to find the amounts spent and the people utilized by the big Wall Street players over the same period, if your lens will allow you to see them.

    Landreaux, we don’t know each other, and we clearly have major differences. But I suspect that if we were to sit down at a table and were equipped with the resources available to congress—top-flight economists, skilled research teams, policy experts and advice from leaders of the finance industry—we could develop a streamlined and effective regulatory regime for the financial markets. There’d be plenty of head-butting, and the result would be an imperfect compromise, but it would be much better than what we have now.

    It would be better because we would have only the common good in mind. We wouldn’t have people plying us with money and favors to convince us to eliminate necessary regulations or generate unnecessary competition-stifling regulations. It would be better because it would be honest. It would have the financial markets do what they’re supposed to do—turn savings into productive investment.

    The events of 2007 and 2008 should serve as a warning to us. You don’t like Dodd-Franks. I don’t either. It’s a product of the same bribe and favor ridden system that let our financial markets degenerate into the overleveraged mess that brought on the catastrophe.

    We can continue to peer through our respective ideological lenses. We can continue to ignore the root of the problem and wait for the next economic earthquake. I ask you to step back and see the whole picture and realize that the continuation of corruption in government spells doom.

  • Bill Hedges

    1. “How were these institutions able to wreak such havoc?”

    You must of missed my “Bill Hedges Oct 30th, 2012 at 10:44 am”

    Bush warned of troubles with F/F; Barney Frank and democrats said NO PROBLEM and voted down Bush & McCain bills to halt COMING OF RECESSION.

    2. “They employed revolving-door politician/lobbyists from across the political spectrum to distribute their largesse in Congress—from Rahm Emanuel to Newt Gingrich. ”

    Newt NEVER was A LOBBYIST for F/F. Newt ADVISED Congress of F/F problems.

    3. “I’ll leave it to you to find the amounts spent and the people utilized by the big Wall Street players over the same period, if your lens will allow you to see them.”

    Maybe author will do your leg work for you I WON’T.

    4. “don’t like Dodd-Franks”

    Does not address F/F among other things. Bush & McCain bill BETTER…

  • Bill Hedges

    PART 2

    Mike R. wrote “I’ve been unable to find similar charges brought against any Wall Street bankers.”

    Those at F/F are accussed of breaking the law. What laws did “Wall Street bankers” break ??? None so far by our legal system as you write…

  • Max Weber

    Good responses with facts in them. I liked the headline “Is The President Trapped?”. And feel it is exactly right. Engineered inflation stands in the many of $Trillions in the USA. @”Bill Hedges” didn’t think people paid income tax…. but they surely pay the money printing tax. Anyone who buys groceries or gas knows. So, the “hidden tax” load on the poor and the middle class is very significant. For every action (effectively free money to investment banks) there is an equal and opposite reaction (loss of wealth from middle class and inability to save for the poor).

    So, yes, the next President is trapped in this money printing cycle. First country to return to a gold-backed currency wins this one. Or first community to make its own local currency which does not depreciate with inflation.

    But, we can continue to survive in this engineered inflation environment. We will not thrive as all profits are erased by the credit/money printing. (As long as we individually remain dollar/pound/printed-currency bound.)
    Really nice graphical website depicting what is really going on: http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/federal_reserve-qe3/money_printing-2012-2013.html
    Something on UK money printing and whom is benefited:
    http://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantitative-easing-benefits-financial-sector.html