HIstory and Bush/Obama

by free2beme 42 Replies latest jw friends

free2beme

I find it funny, that as time is passing, history is now showing it is not the men who are causing the times ... as much as history is having a mind of it's own. Now people are pretty much seeing Obama in the same approval and blame, as Bush did. Basically, the economy sucks, neither man could fix it and all they could do was blame the other's party. Which from a fix standpoint, is 100% useless and yet it is their #1 tool. So to all future presidents, and I feel we will get a new one in 2012. You should expect 1.) A lot of young people thinking they will do as they promised and believing. 2.) People thinking their party will find a way.... then, in 2014 you should expect, 1.) People thinking the president has worried more about polls then action. 2.) Their approval rating will be below or near 50%.
It is the pattern now, what you should expect. I only wonder now, when will the next civil war come about in this country and how solid is the future of the union? It now seems conceivable in my life time, to see an end to the United States. I also think the economy has even worse times ahead.
DaCheech

you have broken the #1 rule on this board: blaspheming the name of Obama (god).
you will find the wrath of them heavily upon you.
BizzyBee

I agree with much of what you say, free2.
However,
Now people are pretty much seeing Obama in the same approval and blame, as Bush did. Basically, the economy sucks, neither man could fix it and all they could do was blame the other's party. Which from a fix standpoint, is 100% useless and yet it is their #1 tool.
You're saying both men were equally unable to fix the economy and that blame is useless. Blame may be useless, but determing the cause of our current problem is not. Starting a war under false pretenses and deregulation of financial markets did not just happen to Bush - he orchestrated these events. And - he inherited a reasonably good economy plus a healthy surplus. Obama inherited a messed up economy and two wars.
So to all future presidents, and I feel we will get a new one in 2012.
Doubtful. But if we do, it won't really be someone "new." It will be someone from the current available crop of candidates - a legislator, a governor, etc., likely someone who was already rejected by the voters in the past.
All of which is why I think Obama will be around another couple of years. Voters may have short memories but they're not comatose.
BurnTheShips

Basically, the economy sucks, neither man could fix it
I agree with you, Free2beme. It is the height of hubris to think that a man could "fix" what is in essence the trillions of discrete economic decisions made by hundreds of millions of individuals. The best any person could do is to not hinder individuals in their pursuits. In other words: get out of the fricking way.
And - he inherited a reasonably good economy plus a healthy surplus.
He also inherited a recession which took a huge bite out of the projected surpluses. In his first year in office, we had the largest terrorist attack in US history.
Starting a war under false pretenses and deregulation of financial markets did not just happen to Bush
Reasonable people can disagree on the wars. It is not clear to me that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. However, Bush did not start a war under false pretenses. He operated under the best intelligence available, and many prominent Democrats agreed with the assessment of the situation.
Also, regulation did not decrease during the 00s. It increased. I would not have had a job from 2004-2008 if it were not for the Sarbanes-Oxley act. Regulatory compliance at a wealth management firm required IT staff to ensure it.
On more than a dozen different occasions, Bush petitioned Congress to address the financial regulatory situation relating to the housing market.
The cancer started at the government-sponsored enterprises: Fannie and Freddie. And even more so, it started at our central bank: The Federal Reserve.
Prominent Democrats like Dodd and Frank did everything they could to frustrate attempts to resolve the problem.
Incidentally, since we are on the Bush subject, during his time in office, we had the second longest period of job growth in US history.
Also, Democrats took Congress in 2006 with a 4.5% unemployment rate.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html
Taxpayers face a tab of as much as $200 billion for a government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the formerly semi-autonomous mortgage finance clearinghouses. And Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has the gall to ask in a Bloomberg Television interview: "I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."

We will save the senator some trouble. Here is what we saw firsthand at the White House from late 2002 through 2007: Starting in 2002, White House and Treasury Department economic policy staffers, with support from then-Chief of Staff Andy Card, began to press for meaningful reforms of Fannie, Freddie and other government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs).
The crux of their concern was this: Investors believed that the GSEs were government-backed, so shouldn't the GSEs also be subject to meaningful government supervision?
This was not the first time a White House had tried to confront this issue. During the Clinton years, Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Treasury official Gary Gensler both spoke out on the issue of Fannie and Freddie's investment portfolios, which had already begun to resemble hedge funds with risky holdings. Nor were others silent: As chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan regularly warned about the risks posed by Fannie and Freddie's holdings.
President Bush was receptive to reform. He withheld nominees for Fannie and Freddie's boards -- a presidential privilege. While it would have been valuable politically to use such positions to reward supporters, the president put good policy above good politics.
In subsequent years, officials at Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisers (especially Chairmen Greg Mankiw and Harvey Rosen) pressed for the following: Requiring Fannie and Freddie to submit to regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission; to adopt financial accounting standards; to follow bank standards for capital requirements; to shrink their portfolios of assets from risky levels; and empowering regulators such as the Office of Federal Housing Oversight to monitor the firms.
The administration did not accept half-measures. In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie's lobbyists set out to weaken it. The bill was rendered so toothless that Card called Oxley the night before markup and promised to oppose it. Oxley pulled the bill instead.
During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, Dodd -- who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 -- actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.
The president's budget proposals reflected the nature of the challenge. Note the following passage from the 2005 budget: Fannie, Freddie and other GSEs "are highly leveraged, holding much less capital in relation to their assets than similarly sized financial institutions. . . . A misjudgment or unexpected economic event could quickly deplete this capital, potentially making it difficult for a GSE to meet its debt obligations. Given the very large size of each enterprise, even a small mistake by a GSE could have consequences throughout the economy."
That passage was published in February 2004. Dodd can find it on Page 82 of the budget's Analytical Perspectives.
The administration not only identified the problem, it also recommended a solution. In June 2004, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Samuel Bodman said: "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision."
Bush got involved in the effort personally, speaking out for the cause of reform: "Congress needs to pass legislation strengthening the independent regulator of government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so we can keep them focused on the mission to expand home ownership," he said in December. He even mentioned GSE reform in this year's State of the Union address.
How did Fannie and Freddie counter such efforts? They flooded Washington with lobbying dollars, doled out tens of thousands in political contributions and put offices in key congressional districts. Not surprisingly, these efforts worked. Leaders in Congress did not just balk at proposals to rein in Fannie and Freddie. They mocked the proposals as unserious and unnecessary.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the following on Sept. 11, 2003: "We see entities that are fundamentally sound financially. . . . And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn't bail them out."
Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.), later that year: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
As recently as last summer, when housing prices had clearly peaked and the mortgage market had started to seize up, Dodd called on Bush to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" reform proposals. Frank, now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that the president's suggestion for a strong, independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie was "inane."
Sen. Dodd wonders what the Bush administration did to address the risks of Fannie and Freddie. Now, he knows. The real question is: Where was he?

BTS
BizzyBee

It is not clear to me that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.
A masterpiece of equivocation. Now, with eight years hindsight to your advantage, what do you think? Good idea/bad idea?
However, Bush did not start a war under false pretenses. He operated under the best intelligence available, and many prominent Democrats agreed with the assessment of the situation.
There are literally mountains of evidence now available proving that Bush had information that there were no WMDs pprior to the invasion. He went forward with the invasion anyway because war on Iraq was part of an agenda that had been in the making for years.
and many prominent Democrats agreed with the assessment of the situation.
This is disingenuous, but true. The salient point is that Bush was privy to information not available to those 'prominent Democrats'- facts that would have indicated against an invasion based on the presence of WMDs.
Portraying Bush's actions as just 'an honest mistake' doesn't wash.

BurnTheShips

Google: "Clinton Iraq 1998"

Such short memories, or at the very least, corruptible memories.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

and (which I will excerpt in full)

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0804/0804quiz.htm

Did Bush lie? A short quiz

Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? Did Bush make up this story to justify going to war with Iraq? Was the story about WMDs in Iraq a right-wing-conservative-republican-warmonger conspiracy designed to mislead the American people?

Who made the following statements? (Answers given below)

1. "[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. … And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."

2. "We owe it to America's parents and our country's troops … to have our decision on going to war with Iraq informed by the latest threat assessment that cross-analyzes agency intelligence about Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction."

3. "I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq …"

4. Saddam Had Used WMD And Intended "To Do So" Again. "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

5. "Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction."

6. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

7. "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq… Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors… The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again… I have ordered a strong sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors… The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of this region, the security of the world… He will make war on his own people. And mark my words; he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them."

8. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face, and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

9. "When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security…."

10. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

11. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

12. "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

13. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people."

14. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

15. "I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to, but it's not September 11th, folks, and the fact is that what we've learned is that the war on terror is much more of an intelligence operation and a law enforcement operation."

This is only 15 quotes, yet there are many, many more.

If Bush lied about WMDs, how did he pull it off? How did he convince so many American people that his lie was true?

In addition to intelligence gathered by the CIA regarding, at least 3 other intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion – Britain, Italy, and Isreal. Did Bush convince the CIA and three other countries' intelligence agencies to support his lie? What about Egypt and Jordan? Both of these countries warned General Tommy Franks that Iraq possessed and would use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against US troops. Did Bush twist their arms?

How did Bush get Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq? Did he coerce the members of congress, of which a majority voted to authorize force against Iraq, to go along with his lie?

Colin Powell wrote in The Washington Post,

One year ago, when President Bush brought his concerns about Iraq to the United Nations, he made it plain that his principal concern in a post-Sept. 11 world was not just that a rogue regime such as Saddam Hussein's had WMD programs, but that such horrific weapons could find their way out of Iraq into the arms of terrorists who would have even fewer compunctions about using them against innocent people across the globe.
In the interim report, Kay and his team record the chilling fact that they "found people, technical information and illicit procurement networks that if allowed to flow to other countries and regions could accelerate global proliferation." …
President Bush was right: This was an evil regime, lethal to its own people, in deepening material breach of its Security Council obligations, and a threat to international peace and security. Hussein would have stopped at nothing until something stopped him. It's a good thing that we did.

Now read the answers to the quiz. It should make you reconsider whether or not Bush lied about WMDs.

Answers:

1. (Senator John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)
2. (Faye Bowers, "Iraq's Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons Called ‘Unrelenting'," [Salt Lake City] Deseret News, 9/18/02)
3. (Senator John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00) In 2000, After Eight Years On Intelligence Committee, Kerry Cited Threat Of Iraq's WMD.
4. (Senator John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)
5. (Senator John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98)
6. ("US: [Bill] Clinton Says Diplomatic Solution Preferable In Iraq," AAP Newsfeed, 2/5/98)
7. ("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)
8. ("Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary Of Defense William Cohen And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Participate In Town Hall Meeting," Federal News Service, 2/18/98)
9. (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10174)
10. ("Remarks By Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) At The Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies," Federal News Service, 9/27/02)
11. (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)
12. (Sen. Bob Graham And Others, Letter To President George W. Bush, 12/5/01 as quoted in Dennis Jenkins, Letter To The Editor, The Bellingham Herald, 10/2/03)
13. (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On U.S. Led Military Strike Against Iraq," Press Release, 12/16/98)
14. ("Text Of Remarks By Former Vice President Al Gore At The Commonwealth Club, San Francisco," Federal News Service, 9/23/02)
15. (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted On NPR's "All Things Considered," 3/19/03)

...and finally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

There was bipartisan agreement on the threat.

BTS

Farkel

burn,
Don't waste your time on intractable fools. They are unwilling to learn or hear anything that disagrees with their made-up minds. I was an even bigger fool for even trying to do that and reason with them. Don't follow my lead. They don't reason. Reason means nothing to them. They aren't worth it. When you try to wrestle with a pig, you get pig dirt all over you and the pig actually likes it.
It was Mark Twain who said that. I like Mark Twain. Mark Twain wasn't fond of wrestling with pigs. I should have listened to him a long time ago.
Farkel
DaCheech

farkel, that's why I'm trying to not even express ANY opinion............. they'll gang up on you like locusts
DaCheech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KGlBHyVeYU
LV101

burn --- love your post. the housing holocaust goes all the waaaay back to Pres. Carter.
NV1

HIstory and Bush/Obama

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

Share this