by Frank James
Some of President Barack Obama's comments Monday when he met with participants of his fiscal-responsibility task force seemed to be previews of remarks he's likely to make tonight to a nationally televised joint session of Congress on the issues of bipartisanship and fiscal responsibility.
For instance, in response to a question from Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) Obama, who asked the president to use his influence on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to get her to allow the Republican minority to participate more fully in the bill-writing process, Obama warned the Republicans against obstructing merely for the sake of obstruction:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, with regard to that, I think you're making an important point. And you know, my response, first of all, is I'm not in Congress, so I don't want to interject myself too much into Congressional politics.
REP. BARTON: We'd love you to interject yourself. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: But -- but I do want to make this point, and I think it's important. On the one hand, the majority has to be inclusive. On the other hand, the minority has to be constructive. And so to the extent that on many of these issues we are able to break out of sort of the rigid day-to-day politics and think long-term, then what you should see, I think, is the majority saying, what are your ideas?
The minority has got to then come up with those ideas and not just want to blow the thing up. And you know, I think that on some of these issues, we're going to have some very real differences. And you know, presumably the majority will prevail, unless the minority can block it.
But you're just going to have different philosophical approaches to some of these problems. But on the issue that was just raised here, on procurement, on the issues, some of the issues surrounding health care, the way it cuts isn't even going to be Democratic- Republican.
It's going to be -- you know, there may be regional differences. There may be a whole host of other differences. And if that's -- if we can stay focused on solving problems, then I will do what I can, through my good offices, to encourage the kind of cooperation you're encouraging.
So expect to hear during tonight's speech some version of this, that the minority, just like the majority, has the responsibility to be constructive and to offer practical ideas, not just poison pills it knows Hill Democrats won't accept. That's the view from the White House, at least.
Of course, Republicans believe they did bring ideas, everything from tax cuts for businesses and a payroll-tax holiday for both employers and workers to 4.5 percent interest mortgages.
So the president is likely just antagonizing them more, whether he means to or not, by accusing them of not bringing ideas to the negotiating table. Republicans have a more basic point: they weren't even at the table in a significant way when the economic stimulus legislation was being written.
Towards the end of his comments yesterday, Obama again rehearsed a notion likely to be heard in tonight's speech. It wasn't inconsistent to try and deal with the yawning deficit and to do economic stimulus, bailouts and guarantees to the tune of trillions of dollars to fight the scariest economic downturn since the Great Depression.
And he also made the case that he's no reflexive, big-government, tax and spend liberal, that he's acting not from ideology but from an abundance of practicality. Throwing money at the economy is what the experts said needed to be done so that's why he's doing it, no more, no less.
OBAMA: ...I was reading some of the newspapers today, and there was the sense of a -- that maybe we were doing a pivot because we had just moved forward on the recovery package; now we're talking about fiscal responsibility. How did those two things match up?
I just want to be very clear about this. I've said it to the governors this morning, and I've said it to my staff in the past.
We chose to move forward on a recovery package because there was a strong sense among the vast majority of economists that if we did not try to fill a $1 trillion-a-year hole in demand because of the drastic pulling back of businesses and consumers, that the recession would get worse, unemployment would increase, and as a consequence tax revenues would go down, and the long-term deficit and debt projections would be even higher. That was the basis for the decision. It was not ideologically driven. I have no interest in making government bigger for the sake of it. I've got more than enough on my plate, as Lindsey knows, between Afghanistan and Iraq, and issues of terrorism, that if the private sector was just humming along and we could just make government more efficient and not have to worry about this financial crisis, I would love that. But that's not the circumstance we find ourselves in. So I made the best judgment about the need for us to move forward on a recovery package.
There were some differences, significant differences, between the parties about this. I would suggest that if you look at the differences, they amounted to maybe 10 (percent), maybe 15 percent of the total package. There wasn't a lot of argument about countercyclical payments to states to make sure that people had extended unemployment insurance or food stamps. There wasn't a lot of disagreement about some of the infrastructure that needs to be repaired, and there wasn't a lot of disagreement on the tax cut front. Fifteen (percent), 20 percent of it, there were some disagreements about.
But the reason I make this point is that if we're going to be successful moving forward, it's important for us to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and our politics.
And the reason that I -- there is no contradiction, from my perspective, in doing the recovery package first but now focusing on the medium and long term is because our hope is that this economy starts recovering. We will have taken a hit in terms of our debt and our deficit. But as Bob Greenstein said, the recovery package will account for about one-tenth of 1 percent of our long-term debt. The real problems are the structural deficit and the structural debt that we've been accumulating and all of us are complicit in.
So we've got to get that taken care of. We would have had to take -- get it taken care of whether or not there was a recession. This just underscores the urgency of it. And I'm hopeful that we move forward in that spirit in the days and weeks and months to come.
Comments
Obama's empty words versus reality: Obama's House Democrats just brought in a $410 billion spending bill laden with 9,000 earmarks, including $200,000 for tattoo removal, and $5.8 million to plan the Teddy Kennedy Senate Center.
As the Modesto Bee reports:
"During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain fought vigorously over who would be toughest on congressional earmarks.
“We need earmark reform,” Obama said in September during a presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. “And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”
President Barack Obama should prepare to carve out a lot of free time and keep the coffee hot this week as Congress prepares to unveil a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that’s riddled with thousands of earmarks, despite his calls for restraint and efforts on Capitol Hill to curtail the practice.
The bill will contain about 9,000 earmarks totaling $5 billion, congressional officials say. Many of the earmarks — loosely defined as local projects inserted by members of Congress — were inserted last year as the spending bills worked their way through various committees.
So while Obama and McCain were slamming earmarks on the campaign trail, House and Senate members — Democrats and Republicans — were slapping them into spending bills.
“It will be a little embarrassing for the president if he signs a bill with that many earmarks on it,” said Stan Collender, a veteran Washington budget analyst."
Any bets Obama will stick to his pledge and veto this monstrosity?
Posted by: Inconvenient Truth | February 24, 2009 9:42 AM
The whiny crybaby Republicans continue to cry and whine. It's getting old.
Someone needs to remind John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Joe Barton, 'bug eyes' McConnell and the rest of the lot, they are now the minority party. When Democrats were the minority party, were they included in the bill writing process?? If you ask me, these Republicans are unpatriotic hypocrites who are continuing their disservice to the American people.
Posted by: Doug R. | February 24, 2009 9:51 AM
Thank you inconcievable truth for proving exactly what this thread brings out. Out of ideas, out of power, the repaliban bring nothing to the table proving why they are on the outside looking in.
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 10:17 AM
Thank you inconcievable truth for proving exactly what this thread brings out. Out of ideas, out of power, the repaliban bring nothing to the table proving why they are on the outside looking in.
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 10:17 AM
Bill R--
What a lazy post! So I am clear, your post(s) adds exactly what to the debate... and supports your position how??inconvenient truth raised facts and used logic to be critical of Obama's morph from campaigner to president.
Your posts do nothing but take what I am sure you think are clever cheap shots and are frankly pretty typical of most of the posts of any Obama supporters in this forum- how boring and disappointing.., I love to debate- but you really bring nothing worth debating...same for you doug R...
Posted by: heartburn | February 24, 2009 10:56 AM
The rhetoric continues.
It will be 2010 when the populace will decide who is elected.
Republican stand your ground regarding economics and less government intervention. You will be supported.
There are more responsible Americans than those who seek to remove liberty, take away earnings and independence.
Raise your children accordingly.
Posted by: Smith | February 24, 2009 11:03 AM
"bug eyed" McConnell, is that anything like "fish eyes" Dubin?
Posted by: vla | February 24, 2009 11:04 AM
Sorry, that was Durbin, not Dubin, just want to clear,
Posted by: vla | February 24, 2009 11:07 AM
billy r, billy r, did you listen to this photo op? Charlie "no report income" Rangle discussing tax loopholes. Turbo Tim still without a known plan. Mac-Muc-Cain and his query of the helo golden goose. Discussions on being non-partisan. Obama lecturing on not controlling Pelosi and Reid. Some of the Pzez"s comments were confusing and (being off the cuff) contradictory. Everyone was graceful and pandering for the most part. I missed Rahm, holding his steak knife, altogether. My first order of fiscal responsibility would take away all the perks and privileges of Congress, make them clock in and work tirelessly (with cots,food,water brought in) to create legislation for all Americans. Lobbyists and outside influence would be banned. Dueling pistols would be allowed. After a couple of weeks the whole shenbang would look different. Just a thought, cause I for one am fed up, mad as hell, and can't that this BS anymore.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | February 24, 2009 11:08 AM
heartburn....and thanks for your 2 cents. Did you happen to read the title of this thread? Please in your abundant wisdom tell me what inconcievable truths' idea was.......somehow I missed it.
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 11:16 AM
Barack your kidding right? When the Republicans put forth ideas in the House, good old Nancy Pelosi shut the door on all of their ideas. While at the same time bragging about bringing the parties together. She is a total waste, and a liar to boot.
Posted by: Paul | February 24, 2009 11:17 AM
used logic to be critical of Obama's morph from campaigner to president.
Posted by: heartburn | February 24, 2009 10:56 AM
Critical we've heard...ideas we haven't.
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 11:22 AM
heartburn....and thanks for your 2 cents. Did you happen to read the title of this thread? Please in your abundant wisdom tell me what inconcievable truths' idea was.......somehow I missed it.
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 11:16 AM
You didn't miss it- you intentionally ignored it in your rush to take your verbal shot...
Obama is trying to sell himself as fiscally responsible a week after almost doubling the US deficit with a bill loaded with earmarks that he himself had campaigned against last September... so, where is the "line item" review he promised you in September to get your vote? Don't you want to hold him accountable for at least that? In the real world adults are accountable for promises they make-- why do you feel that Obama should be different?
Posted by: heartburn | February 24, 2009 11:34 AM
In the real world adults are accountable for promises they make-- why do you feel that Obama should be different?
Posted by: heartburn | February 24, 2009 11:34 AM
I don't know...I always thought that in the "adult" world, one might expect more than what, 36 days to deal with the enormous bowl of poo left behind by the republicans. That would be 2 wars and an economy in the toilet. Funny how it seems all of the rabid right seem to forget these challenges left behind by their hands. It is quite obvious that the ones looking for a "messiah" is the right. I think the American people will hold him accountable in the ballot box...it seems they have with the republicans. The trusty republicans added 5 trillion to our debt....IN GOOD TIMES........
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 12:49 PM
For all you Kool-Aid chuggers who still refuse to acknowledge that the current economic downturn was caused by liberal manipulation of the housing market via Fannie/Freddie, I offer you the smoking gun.
In 1999, columnist Steven Holmes, writing for that ultra-right-wing rag, the New York Times, told us rather prophetically all we need to know. Here's the link for the full story: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Some of the highlights:
"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans."
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
"By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings. Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites."
Can't wait to see the rebuttals.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspirator | February 24, 2009 1:05 PM
One transportation stimulus is building rail lines...sounds expensive, but more importantly, will involve the taking of private property...eminent domain.
Say goodbye to private property.
Sorry, they'll need your land to build affordable homes, homeless centers, centers of ex prisoners.
Sorry we need your home, sorry we need your property for the good of the cause.
Say goodbye to individual rights.
Say hello to high taxes.
Share the money and land you earned and bought with everyone.
So sorry, Goodbye USA.
It starts with this and will eventuall take away individual rights.
Be scared Americans. Vote!
Posted by: Land takeaway | February 24, 2009 1:28 PM
I have a different philosophical approach too, and because of this I coined a new phrase this past election cycle that goes like this “One man's genius is another man's jive.” I wondered why any intelligent person would contemplate running for the presidency with all that's going on today. Somehow, I just didn't get the same sense as others that Obama's run was altogether altruistic, if you know what I mean.
But after the election, I got the sense that the people had elected the right man, because for while, there was none of the usual “I'm moving to Canada ” as we had in the past. America was proud of what had occurred.
Now I feel that the opportunity to parlay that into something grand is passed and it's back to business as usual. It's not just President's Obama's fault but let's face it, you know where the buck stops, or do you still think it stops with George Bush like many Americans do?
Something grand is what was, and still is needed. Not enough attention is paid to the psychological aspects of what got the US out of the Great Depression. It's always “The New Deal” or “military spending” that is responsible.
Well, I submit that we are still at war and all over the world there are those that are qvelling with what they are seeing taking place here today. It was a major part of their plan to ruin the economy of the US and just like with 9/11 the results far exceeded their expectations. Whereas they don't deserve all the credit by any means, don't think that they aren't happy with themselves in the fact that 3 out 4 Americans are worried about the future. Is this a good time to strike again? Who knows, they must realize that a tremendous amount of collateral damage has occurred worldwide and there would be a risk to that too.
Listen, I admit I'm a bit tired and cranky from my new nightly routine of waking up and lying in bed contemplating what's going on and how to change it, for hours on end. What can I do to help? And while I'm awake, I get up and check on my kids to make sure that they have the covers pulled up tight and that they are warm on these cold Vermont nights. And sometimes, I get a little teary eyed when I kiss them on their foreheads gently, knowing that I am not doing as much as I can to safeguard them and their future. I further extrapolate that my government does not believe in me and my fellow citizens' abilities and instead chooses to insult me with the manner in which this stimulus bill was enacted. Well, I got some news for them. I don't have any confidence either, in people who are charged with upholding the laws of our country when they actively engage in either breaking or circumventing the very laws that they enact. From avoiding taxes to allowing illegal immigration to you name it, what have we become? How do I teach my children anything meaningful in this environment that is honest?
I was hoping to be a bit more inspired by now into starting the process of rebuilding America and I was mistaken to expect that such inspiration would come from anywhere but myself.
I've got to wrap this up because I could write volumes on these matters of the heart. But these are just the matters of my heart and it is only through our willingness to compare notes and compromise on solutions together that our politicians will have the clear sense of what they need to do.
So, then Senator Obama, was right when he asked at a campaign stop of the audience, “So ya'll know where change starts right? And after the crowd roared he said, “It starts with you”.
And I believe that is right. It's not just jive.
Posted by: Rob | February 24, 2009 1:34 PM
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 12:49 PM
Lots of blame to go around for the state of the economy- and the 2 wars have nothing to do with this topic...
How does any of that have to do with us expecting him to do what he said he would do in his campaign? You are avoiding the issue- Obama promised you many things- nobody, including the MSM that was in his backpocket for two years, wanted to ask him exactly what he stood for specifically. NOW he and his admin have this deer in the headlights look- frankly, I think he was surprised that he won... caught him completely off guard.
Posted by: heartburn | February 24, 2009 1:39 PM
Can't wait to see the rebuttals.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspirator | February 24, 2009 1:05 PM
What a laugh...ha ha ha ho ho ho...CRA....Read the act Vast...IN the bill it specifically says that banks are not to change good bank lending practices. If you are serious enough to believe this and it was such a threat.....where the hell were the republicans in 2000-2005? What a joke.....
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 1:41 PM
Vast Right Wing Lunatic:
So?
Proves nothing; shows no causation or relevance whatsoever to 2009.
Posted by: rupert | February 24, 2009 1:45 PM
"where the hell were the republicans in 2000-2005?"
They were in front of the House Banking Committee in 2004 trying to warn left-wing nutjobs like Barney Frank and Maxine Waters that Frank Raines was cooking Fannie's books and that Fannie and Freddie were going to implode and take the rest of the economy with them.
The response from the libs? "There is no crisis under the EXCELLENT leadership of Mr. Raines." "There are no safety and stability problems." "We need to focus on investigating the regulator." The Republicans were waving red flags and sounding alarms, but the libs and their propagandists kept it quiet so as not to disrupt their flow of campaign dollars from the libs running Fannie and Freddie.
The audio of these hearings is out there for plain public consumption, for those who are intellectually honest enough to listen to them. You, of course, are not such a person. You're too intoxicated by the Kool-Aid.
Idiot.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspirator | February 24, 2009 1:53 PM
You libs are so predictable. I'll bet if Obama told you the sky is chartreuse, you fight to the death to defend the proposition. The intellectual dishonesty of it all is simply staggering. How do you manage to function with any semblance of rationality?
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspirator | February 24, 2009 2:03 PM
"Proves nothing; shows no causation or relevance whatsoever to 2009."
Are you kidding, Rupert? This article predicted exactly where we are today, ten years before it happened. Step away from the Kool-Aid, big guy.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspirator | February 24, 2009 2:17 PM
heartburn....I can't give you anything more. The ridiculous argument that you want to badger someone in office 36 days doesn't even deserve an answer. You're like the child that keeps yelling....are we there yet??????
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 2:20 PM
"the repaliban", an obvious reference to the terrorist group called Taliban.
heartburn, anyone who is willing to call fellow Americans terrorists, because of the freedoms and different opinions provided by the West, doesn't deserve the respect of responding to any or all posts.
This person has a character flaw. I won't even use this persons name, dirt is what it is, dirt.
Posted by: PG | February 24, 2009 2:25 PM
"Vast" is the one drinking kool aid. That didn't cause the economic downturn you idiot. "Prophetic" of what?
Posted by: Flo | February 24, 2009 2:27 PM
"Are you kidding, Rupert? This article predicted exactly where we are today, ten years before it happened."
You're reading something into that that isn't there Vast Idiot.
That's like saying a broken turn signal caused an entire car to fall apart. Stop the mythology..
Posted by: rupert | February 24, 2009 2:50 PM
Go crawl back under your rock, Flo. You serve the public interest much better that way.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspirator | February 24, 2009 2:58 PM
Go crawl back under your rock, Flo. You serve the public interest much better that way.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspirator | February 24, 2009 2:58 PM
There "is" one vacant Flo....Vast isn't using it anymore. Keep blaming the minorities for all your problems there spaz.....it is obvious you are a sandwich short of a picnic.
PG.....Kiss my a$% where the hell were you 2 years ago when that was all the right could say about Iraq.
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 3:39 PM
No, Vast Moron Conspirator, I would serve your interest better if I crawled under a rock; Fannie and Freddie were a small player in this mess, not the cause of the entire problem. You guys repeat the same lies so often you start to believe them; CRA, Barney, Dodd. A quote from Peter Wallison in 1999 is not a smoking gun.
Posted by: Flo | February 24, 2009 3:40 PM
heartburn....I can't give you anything more. The ridiculous argument that you want to badger someone in office 36 days doesn't even deserve an answer. You're like the child that keeps yelling....are we there yet??????
Posted by: bill r. | February 24, 2009 2:20 PM
And your like the child that keeps saying " I don't get it"...
If you would read my post- my issue is not with what has or has not been accomplished..(at least for this conversation) it is with how Obama has already violated a number of very specific commitments he made while he was campaigning- one of those being that he would review line item by line item spending bills to be sure no unnecessary spending is included ( like earmarks) he broke that commitment ...and apparently your ok with that..I'm not.
Posted by: heartburn | February 24, 2009 4:16 PM
CRA truth:
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
Posted by: Flo | February 24, 2009 4:56 PM
Flo, I added this link http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=fannie+mae+1990's+expand&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
The search was: fannie mae 1990's expand
Posted by: PG | February 24, 2009 1:16 PM in another Swamp forum, take a peek, http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/obamas_address_fate_of_the_uni.html.
It shows more than just a quote.
Posted by: PG | February 24, 2009 4:59 PM
Heartburn:
Unless you're saying you voted for Obama in reliance on his (supposedly broken) promises, you really don't have "standing" to complain about the promises, one way or the other. You should criticize him on the substance all you want, but it's just snarky to complain about "broken" promises that you never relied on in the first place.
-------------
I do think a degree of candor is appropriate here. This world is not the one that Obama and McCain campaigned about. As Obama said himself, stepping into the office to immediately spend $800 bn was not exactly what he had in mind.
I personally think Obama ought to bring in Mitt Romney for help in resolving. The outcome will be the same and at least at that point the Republicants will have some responsibility for cleaning up the steaming dump they left Obama.
Posted by: A Blinkkin | February 24, 2009 5:35 PM
Sorry PG, don't see your point. Your link seems to be to a google search page.
Posted by: Flo | February 24, 2009 8:01 PM
Right Winger......thanks for your post with link.....that is as rare as frog hair from the pugs on this site. Still does not mean that you have a point thogh, but your attempt it valid.
As usual, you fail to look at the macro picture. Let's assume your drivel is correct, that by the government wishing moderate income buyers to buy houses, that they did.
First off, the banks would still have to abide by their lending "standards" and practices to qualify applicants. The greedy pug bankers failed everyone and cashed in on the lending/ closing/ origination fees and sold off the risk. http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/mortgages/20030825-barta.html
Secondly, what did these greedy b@stards scalp their customers with......ARM loans of course. Hell, why go with tradition when we can use all these new products that probably come with 20 pages of fine print. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_37/b4000001.htm
And why are these pigs allowed to conduct whater business they want using whatever standards they want, with little oversight and less regulations? Well, you have your kind to thank for that. Here is a link for you to study and understand just the tip of the iceberg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
Thirdly, the people that bought these homes. I hate to remind you, but a home purchase ends up being one of the proudest moments of anyone's life (unless you own 8 or so), and thus I believe 99.9% of Americans would want to pay the bills for their proudest asset. So, what causes people to not be able to afford their homes? Well, how about you loose your job. How about higher medical costs. How about your employer axeing your insurance. How about that ARM loan readjusting higher. How about your investments in the stock market turning to poo. http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/06/06/americans-net-worth-falls-1-7-trillion-in-q1/
So, it is the culmination of the perfect "financial storm" that has beset us. You would be a very stupid man indeed to pick out one singular thing and say "look this is what caused the mess". I want you to read each one of these links to the end. If a light does not go on upstairs as to which party has destroyed this country, then maybe your light bulb is broke.
Posted by: Xcellentform | February 24, 2009 10:34 PM
Well said, Xcellentform.
Maybe the vast rw lunatic will get a clue.
Posted by: rupert | February 24, 2009 11:48 PM
"A quote from Peter Wallison in 1999 is not a smoking gun."
Flo, I should've been more specific, yes, a google search page showing many articles about what happened. An example-caption from the first site-NYTimes, "By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to ... exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. ..."
I thought I'd do a wide search, (I didn't know what it'd pull up) pulling up many articles showing an expanded roll the Government had in the mess we are in now. That's all. I don't have a dog in this race. Except we're all losing money.
That's why I did:The search was: fannie mae 1990's expand.
What I see is Government changing rules, Mortgage Brokers/Banks etc.. taking advantage of these rules, and the people also taking advantage of those rules change.
I didn't pull an article with views from the right or the left. I did a wide search showing many articles from the left and the right, "Saying the same thing". I hope that clarifies my view. Thanks flo.
Posted by: PG | February 25, 2009 1:02 PM