The Democratic Blame Game
As I have stated before, there is enough blame to go around for all those in congress, but it is frustrating when the Democrats continually point fingers at Republicans for the current financial turmoil. Luckily in this internet age, we have factual evidence that shows the Democrats should carry more of the blame.
Nancy Pelosi’s grandstanding on the House Floor last week as she blamed Republicans for the financial turmoil and accused them of refusing to allow regulation was more likely a calculated way to shift the blame and attention away from where it should lie.
In this eight-minute video on YouTube the facts are obvious about which party wanted changes and which party did not.
In 2004 Chairman Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.) predicted the collapse of Fannie Mae if nothing was done and he called for more regulation, something Democrats claim Republicans never wanted.
The leftist York Times also got it wrong when it accused Republicans of engaging in “free markets-above-all ideology” as President Bush had called for more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in his first year as president.
You will hear Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) state; “We do not have a crisis at Fannie Mae and in particular Freddie Mac under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines.”
And you do recall that it was Raines (Obama's Economic Advisor) who took close to $100 million in “compensation” from Fannie Mae during his tenure as its chief executive officer.
Then in 2004, Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) called the investigation that found illegal activity at Fannie Mae a “lynching,” referring particularly to the fact that both Clay and Raines are African American. Talk about “race-baiting”!
The democrats who wanted this rescue bill rushed through congress were likely doing it in an effort to cover up the multitude of wrong decisions they have made which contributed to the crisis.
Even the statement from Bill Clinton on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Sept. 25 indicated the problems with the Democratic Party. Clinton said, “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have 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.”
Barney Frank is another worthless Democrat who was pegged perfectly by the The Wall Street Journal when they correctly noted in a Sept. 10 editorial, “[Frank’s] record is close to perfect as a stalwart opponent of reforming the two companies, going back more than a decade. The first concerted push to rein in Fan and Fred in Congress came as far back as 1992, and Mr. Frank was right there, standing athwart. But things really picked up this decade, and Barney was there at every turn.”
The Democrats should be carrying a lot of the responsibility for this mess as they continually were the opponents to reform all while being there for the handouts and big payments. Help for the little guys has never been their objective.
Personal responsibility is not in their vocabulary!
Nancy Pelosi’s grandstanding on the House Floor last week as she blamed Republicans for the financial turmoil and accused them of refusing to allow regulation was more likely a calculated way to shift the blame and attention away from where it should lie.
In this eight-minute video on YouTube the facts are obvious about which party wanted changes and which party did not.
In 2004 Chairman Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.) predicted the collapse of Fannie Mae if nothing was done and he called for more regulation, something Democrats claim Republicans never wanted.
The leftist York Times also got it wrong when it accused Republicans of engaging in “free markets-above-all ideology” as President Bush had called for more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in his first year as president.
You will hear Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) state; “We do not have a crisis at Fannie Mae and in particular Freddie Mac under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines.”
And you do recall that it was Raines (Obama's Economic Advisor) who took close to $100 million in “compensation” from Fannie Mae during his tenure as its chief executive officer.
Then in 2004, Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) called the investigation that found illegal activity at Fannie Mae a “lynching,” referring particularly to the fact that both Clay and Raines are African American. Talk about “race-baiting”!
The democrats who wanted this rescue bill rushed through congress were likely doing it in an effort to cover up the multitude of wrong decisions they have made which contributed to the crisis.
Even the statement from Bill Clinton on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Sept. 25 indicated the problems with the Democratic Party. Clinton said, “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have 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.”
Barney Frank is another worthless Democrat who was pegged perfectly by the The Wall Street Journal when they correctly noted in a Sept. 10 editorial, “[Frank’s] record is close to perfect as a stalwart opponent of reforming the two companies, going back more than a decade. The first concerted push to rein in Fan and Fred in Congress came as far back as 1992, and Mr. Frank was right there, standing athwart. But things really picked up this decade, and Barney was there at every turn.”
The Democrats should be carrying a lot of the responsibility for this mess as they continually were the opponents to reform all while being there for the handouts and big payments. Help for the little guys has never been their objective.
Personal responsibility is not in their vocabulary!
posted by Anonymous at 5:46 AM
13 Comments:
Interesting...all I've heard from the "party of personal responsibility" is that this was Bill Clinton's fault. Although that one congresswoman from Minnesota had an interesting take on it...she blamed blacks and other minorities.
Short memories lead to long problems
Yes it is certainly interesting to see this video with the actual people involved.
Wonder why you never saw this on NBC or in the NY Times.
It would be a little hard to defend.
Now I know why O'Reilly was so angry at Barny Frank
Oh come on Bluegill,
read other reports on this incident.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter7.html
The Lincoln Savings led to the Keating five political scandal, in which five U.S. senators were implicated in an influence-peddling scheme.
It was named for Charles Keating, who headed Lincoln Savings and made $300,000 as political contributions to them in the 1980s. Three of those senators – Alan Cranston (D-CA), Don Riegle (D-MI), and Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) – found their political careers cut short as a result.
Two others – John Glenn (D-OH) and John McCain (R-AZ) – were rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating.
McCain acknowledges the poor judgement in the intervention, but had nothing to do with the failure of the S and L's. The failure was well into the process before McCain was involved.
Get your facts straight and quit trying to change the truth
Read Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#cite_note-az-keating-9
From Frank Rich, NYT, Sept. 27:
What we were learning — through The New York Times, Newsweek and Roll Call — was ugly. Davis Manafort, the lobbying firm owned by McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, had received $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac from late 2005 until last month. This was in addition to the $30,000 a month that Davis was paid from 2000 to 2005 by the so-called Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy organization that he headed and that was financed by Freddie and Fannie to fight regulation.
The McCain campaign tried to pre-emptively deflect such revelations by reviving the old Rove trick of accusing your opponent of your own biggest failings. It ran attack ads about Obama’s own links to the mortgage giants. But neither of the former Freddie-Fannie executives vilified in those ads, Franklin Raines and James Johnson, had worked at those companies lately or are currently associated with the Obama campaign. (Raines never worked for the campaign at all.) By contrast, Davis is the tip of the Freddie-Fannie-McCain iceberg. McCain’s senior adviser, his campaign’s vice chairman, his Congressional liaison and the reported head of his White House transition team all either made fortunes from recent Freddie-Fannie lobbying or were players in firms that did.
There is blame for everyone and no one in Washington is without some accountability.
Replace all of them and start over.
But Obama and his top aides as well as his democratic comrades are in the thick of it and Obama cannot be trusted, has no record of ever fighting any of this and he will be a disastrous president similar to Jimmy Carter
Obama cannot be trusted, has no record of ever fighting any of this and he will be a disastrous president similar to Jimmy Carter.
Lots of "facts" there, eh?
There was a reason for not fighting any of this. He accepted $130,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. The Dems are convinced more regulation is needed. Regulations will not work when those being regulated continue to pay off those overseeing the regulators.
Look at Carter's background and compare it to Palins's background. If Carter's administration was a disaster, what do you think would happen if Ms Palin had to take over?
And, even if you don't want to say it out loud, you know there is a very good chance that could happen.
Yeah, if you assume that McCain wins, and then wins again in 2012. And then you use actuarial tables taken from insurance companies (thus skewed so they're working on worst-case scenarios for their pricing), you're looking at 25-33% of a group of men like McCain would not live to see January of 2017.
However, statistics are not meant for individuals, especially not for individuals who are the most powerful men in the free world.
No one has bothered to write about the odds McCain would make it for 4 years.
You can, however, check the average age of our presidents who died by natural causes and see that it is about 71 with a standard deviation of 10 years. This includes everyone who died prior to antibiotics and the people who died of things we have a good handle on like polio and cholera.
If you only look at the last 8 presidents who died of natural causes (one of which was FDR with a polio related death), the average age is a little over 81.
Point being, it is a little unreasonable to assume McCain is going to die in the next 4 years. And irrationality is something you woudldn't want to be known for. People might think you're a democrat.
Perhaps, you might want to take into account his years in a POW camp and the toll that had to take on his body. Plus the obvious stress of being President.
We are not talking about the masses.
I included the stress of being president in the statistics about the past 8 presidents. I included the risks associated with being in a POW camp in the statistic about the 67-75% chance that McCain would live to see January 2013. That one is from the insurance companies and it even includes risks of car accidents, something that has never killed a president. I think the FACTS AND FIGURES speak for themselves.
Come to think of it, it is more likely that McCain survives 2 full presidential terms than it is for Barack to become the next president.
Given your fervor about McCain's pending demise, you must be really upset about how Barack doesn't have a chance at winning this.
Post a Comment
<< Home