Posts tagged ‘John McCain’

New study confirms economy was destroyed by relentless policies of Democratic Party

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=5513

ECONOMY
DECEMBER 21, 2012
BY: ROBERT MOONS

A new study from the widely respected National Bureau of Economic Research released this week has confirmed beyond question that the left’s race-baiting attacks on the housing market (the Community Reinvestment Act–enacted under Carter, made shockingly more aggressive under Clinton) is directly responsible for imploding the housing market and destroying the economy.

The study painstakingly sorted through failed home loans that caused the housing market collapse and identified an overwhelming connection between them and CRA mortgages.

(And is the main reason Barney Frank and Chris Dodd conveniently disappeared from the political scene. How about a genuine in-depth, independent prosecutor review to put these crooks in jail – hardly adequate punishment for the immense trouble they have caused us and in which Obama relishes and his father’s dreams are fulfilled) jsk

Let’s review:

-President Bush went to Congress repeatedly for years warning them that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to destroy the economy (17 times in 2008 alone). Democrats continuously ignored him, shut down his proposals along party lines and continued raiding the institutions for campaign contributions on their way down.

-John McCain also co-sponsored urgently critical reforms that would have prevented the housing market collapse, but Democrats shut that down as well, along party lines, and even openly ridiculed anyone who suggested reforms were necessary…to protect their taxpayer-funded campaign contributions as the economy raced uncontrollably toward the cliff.

-No one was making bad loans to unqualified people until Democrats came along and threatened to drag banks into court and have them fined and branded as racists if they didn’t go along with the left’s Affirmative Action lending policies…all while federally insuring their losses. Even the New York Times warned in the late 1990s that Democrats continuing to force banks into lowering their standards would lead to this exact catastrophe.

-Obama himself is even on the record personally helping sue one lender (Citibank) into lowering its lending standards to include people from extremely poor and unstable areas, which even one of the left’s favorite blatantly partisan “fact-checkers,” Snopes, admits (while pretending to ‘set the record straight’).

-Even The New York Times admitted that there is “little evidence” of any connection between the “Republican” deregulation measures Obama blames, like the Gramm-Bleach-Liley Act (signed into law by a Democrat), and the collapse of the housing market.

But now the media have spent years deliberately and relentlessly inoculating people against the facts, training them to mindlessly blame Bush for being in charge when Democrat policies destroyed the economy. So here we sit, to this day, still watching Obama excuse and shrug off endless economic failures, illegal government takeovers and utter national bankruptcy with zero accountability.

Reader comment Dec.25, 2012

Report is so accurate. Frank Ranes, Pres. of Fannie May was a big abuser of dumbing the system down.

It was like Christmas Cheer for so many that really could not afford their homes, only here there were consequences.

Best Regards,
Bob

I Obama’s Make-Believe Life January 2, 2010

II The “Worst President ever?” July 30, 2012

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=4235

By Alan Caruba

JANUARY 2, 2010

I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he’s led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? “Dreams of My Father” was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The “Audacity of Hope” followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a “communist with a small ‘c’” was the real author.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley’s formidable political machine at his disposal.

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed “cool” in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska. It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984’s Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, nearly a full year into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to “wish away” some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain.

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign “world tour” were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party’s hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an “obstreperous” Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against “jumping to conclusions” about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted “Allahu Akbar.” The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber “an isolated extremist” only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual’s life.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

We laugh at the ventriloquist’s dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America?

II The “Worst President ever?”

July 30, 2012

By Alan Caruba

You have to know how poorly Barack Hussein Obama has performed in office when the phrase the “worst President ever” has already become a cliché.

Obama’s first term is frequently compared to the devastation of Jimmy Carter’s first and only term. It left Carter a rejected, embittered man, frequently critical of those who succeeded him.

What did President Reagan do to create an economic boom in the wake of Carter’s sorry record?

Peter Ferrara, the Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for The Heartland Institute, who served in the Reagan White House Office of Policy Development, writing in 2008 cited Reagan’s (1) tax cuts to restore incentives for economic growth, (2) spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget, (3) an anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth, (4) deregulation that by 2008 had saved consumers an estimated $100 billion in lower prices, and (5) free trade in the form of worldwide agreements to reduce tariff taxes.

Citing tax cuts, Ferrara noted that “Reagan was not the first or last to adopt sweeping tax cuts to boost the economy. It has happened four, perhaps five, times in the last century, with virtually the same results every time.”

Obama has never stopped talking about raising taxes and his signature legislation, Obamacare, had more than twenty increases in taxes embedded — hidden — in the more than 2,000 pages that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said had to be passed in order “to find out what is in it.”

In contrast to Reagan, Obama has spent his years in office blaming George W. Bush and even the Clinton years for the economy he “inherited,” but which more accurately stated, was an economy he campaigned to fix, promising hope and change.

In January of this year, looking back over the first three years of Obama economic policies, an Indiana University study noted that 46 million Americans are living below the poverty line — up 27% since the start of the recession dated back to 2006. The report stated that “The Great Recession has left behind the largest number of long-term unemployed people since records were first kept in 1948. More than four million Americans report that they have been unemployed for more than twelve months.”

For those who still think Obama can be reelected, it is worth noting that the most severely affected states are Florida, Nevada, and Arizona which have been badly hit by the housing foreclosure crisis, and Michigan and Ohio that have seen the collapse of traditional manufacturing. These are all key states Obama would need to win.

On July 27, The Washington Post reported that the U.S. economic growth had slowed to 1.5 percent annual rate in the second quarter as consumer spending weakened. “The growth estimate Friday from the government suggested that the U.S. economy could be at risk of stalling three years after the recession ended.” While the official unemployment rate is 8.2 percent, it is widely believed to be above 10 percent.

“No president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, in the depths of the Great Depression, has been reelected when the unemployment rate exceeded 8 percent,” said the Associated Press report. “Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were ousted when unemployment was well below 8 percent.”

At this point, the Obama campaign, unable to run on his economic record, has devoted itself to depicting Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who grew wealthy investing in companies, a felon who continued to run Bain Capital after leaving to save the Salt lake City Olympics (a job for which he took no pay), and for failing to release his tax returns going back many years. Not mentioned is the fact that Obama is a multi-millionaire or his total lack of experience in the private sector.

Repeating all the errors of the Carter years and exacerbating the 2008 financial crisis by spending billions in taxpayer funds on failed “stimulus” programs, Obama compounded the crisis by waging war on the nation’s energy sector, wasting more billions on “clean energy,” and using executive orders to circumvent immigration and welfare laws on the books.

The result has been the highest levels of federal deficit and debt in the history of the nation. He has, indeed, exceeded the damage Jimmy Carter inflicted during his only term in office. He is, indeed, the worst President ever.

Alan Caruba is a commentator on issues ranging from environmentalism to energy, immigration to Islam, Alan Caruba is the author of two recent books, “Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy” and “Warning Signs” — both collections of his commentaries since 2000 and both published by Merril Press of Bellevue, Washington.

(Sorry, I am a little late posting this but,  I love the title and the advice given is in play until, at least,  Nov. 6. 2012 (election day) jsk

By Peter Parisi

The Washington Times

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=2720

December 22, 2011

The meek may indeed inherit the earth, but the Republican presidential nominee won’t inherit the White House in 2012 if he or she heeds the weak-kneed advice of at least one GOP consultant in what is becoming a deja vu of 2008.

While President Obama was busy in Osawatomie, Kan., on Dec. 6, declaring class warfare, the Tarrance Group, a Republican polling firm, was counseling something akin to unilateral disarmament in a Republican conference.

Republicans on the private call with allies warned that party surrogates should refrain from personal attacks against Mr. Obama because such a strategy is too hazardous to the GOP.

“We’re hesitant to jump on board with heavy attacks” personally against Mr. Obama, said Nicholas Thompson, vice president of the polling firm the Tarrance Group, on the call.

How did that timidity work out for Sen. John McCain, who treated Mr. Obama with kid gloves in 2008, going so far as to excoriate a talk-radio host emceeing a campaign event for him in Cincinnati – merely for using the then-Illinois senator’s middle name, Hussein, in a derisive manner? “Whatever suggestion that was made that was any way disparaging to the integrity, character, honesty of Sen. Obama was wrong,” Mr. McCain said in the February 2008 incident. “I condemn it, and if I have any responsibility, I will take the responsibility, and I apologize for it.”

Mr. McCain called Mr. Obama a “man of integrity” and said the Illinois senator was someone he had come to know “pretty well, and I admire.” (Huh?)

Following his boss’ lead three months later, Mr. McCain’s chief advertising strategist, Mark McKinnon, announced that he was resigning, following through on a vow he had made months earlier not to work against an Obama candidacy because of its “historic” nature. In an interview with Cox News Service, Mr. McKinnon had said of Mr. Obama: “I think he has a deep character and good judgment. I also think he’s wrong on some fundamental issues. But I believe he is honest and independent.”

That hopelessly naive view was embraced by the McCain campaign despite the fact that Obama consigliere David Axelrod – whom the New York Times dubbed Mr. Obama’s “hired muscle” – had plumbed and utilized divorce records, first against Mr. Obama’s 2004 Democratic primary opponent and then against his Republican opponent, to get his man into the Senate. Does anyone at the RNC really think Mr. Axelrod won’t again stop at nothing to get him re-elected in 2012?

That GOP obsequiousness continues to this day, even as Democrats continue to blame former President George W. Bush, now three years on, for all of the economy’s ills in seeking to exculpate themselves of any responsibility. Mr. Bush is legitimately to blame, at least in one respect – he has allowed them to get away with doing so unchallenged.

The problem with Mr. Bush’s laissez-faire indifference about his presidential legacy is the collateral damage sustained by other Republicans in allowing the Democrats’ narrative of how Mr. Obama “inherited” the recessionary economy to take root in the public consciousness. As Democrats and liberals have taught us, albeit in another context, “Silence equals assent.”

Such timidity continues apace for Republican presidential hopefuls when, for example, at Dec. 10’s GOP debate on ABC, Mitt Romney averred that he is “not a bomb-thrower, rhetorically or literally.” While it’s understandable that he doesn’t want to get down in the gutter with his opponent if he’s the nominee, he will need to learn – and learn quickly – that you don’t abide by the Marquis of Queensberry rules when you’re in the ring with Ultimate Fighting Championship brawlers like Mr. Obama and Mr. Axelrod. Or when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi telegraphs Democrats’ intentions regarding the upcoming campaign when she claims to be in possession of confidential ethics committee material on Newt Gingrich to be deployed, if he’s the GOP nominee, “when the time is right.”

Simply put, Republicans cannot allow their nominee to again bring the proverbial knife to the gunfight in 2012, as Mr. McCain did in 2008. If anything, the knife/gun paradigm understates the problem ahead, when you consider that Mr. Obama is expected to bring a $1 billion war chest to his re-election campaign, to say nothing of the additional hundreds of millions of dollars his Big Labor allies are likely to spend on his behalf. The better analogy might well be: Don’t bring a BB gun to a bazooka fight.

If any of the would-be nominees is not willing to use every weapon at their disposal against “the Chicago way,” he has no business seeking the GOP nomination. It won’t be asked in one of the debates, but that’s a question that needs to be put to the candidates sooner rather than later.

Peter Parisi is an editor at The Washington Times.