Obama Speaks to the House Republicans – Video
I was just watching the second half of Obama’s comments and Q&A with the House Republicans and have come away with a view that it will provide an important crossroads in political gamesmanship in weeks and months ahead. The problem is it’s not clear to me whether it will be a positive or negative development. With his strong command of the issues and his eloquence in expressing his positions Obama is in his element when he gets to speak off the cuff and address a roomful of questioners. Questions were delivered with little tact or respect for the office of the President but Obama didn’t back off from answering in a similar vein. He was VERY blunt in many of his comments and tried to be equally critical of Republicans and Democrats alike in assigning blame for a poisoning of the political climate. Unfortunately he took one last question from a Texas congressman and that exchange will undoubtedly become the highlight (lowlight?) of the meeting. He may have crossed a line that will stiffen Republican spines or he may have sufficiently embarrassed legislators of all political stripes to enable Congress to move away from campaigning and into governing for long enough to actually make some progress.
On the positive side I applaud the Republicans for inviting and Obama for 
accepting the invitation. Much of the conversation focused on jobs and the economy beginning with Obama’s announcement of a program of $33 billion in tax credits for new hiring; but Mike Pence seemed overly interested in forcing Obama into a corner about across-the-board tax cuts. That tactic suggests to me the Republicans are now about to overplay the hand they were dealt with the Brown election in the same way Dems regretfully overplayed their political numerical advantage since the 2008 election. Of course the President isn’t going to agree to an across-the-board tax cut! Pence’s play was simply political fodder for interim elections. What Obama came back with, both to Pence and to other subsequent questioners, was a declaration of the inherent dangers of political gamesmanship and, specifically, the obvious ratcheting up, by both sides, of the volume of attacks. He said something like “we all know this is politics but the folks back home hear this stuff and actually believe it…..and it leaves us all in extremely difficult negotiating positions — because when we subsequently reach a compromise our constituents want to know what happened to our previous strong statements where we drew a line in the sand.” I thought this was the strongest statement of the day and it was one Obama reiterated several times and was careful to apply to both sides. To me it was an appropriate olive branch and warning to both sides to lower the temperature and get back to passing laws that will help the American people.
On the negative side came some of Obama’s criticism of Republicans for “knowingly” mischaracterizing his positions and record including that of the budget deficit and health care reform (which he said the GOP often characterized as “some Bolshevik plot” when the vast majority of the program nearly mirrored a plan proposed last year by a group including Bob Dole and Howard Baker – hardly two men cut from a socialist cloth.) He bluntly told the GOP the American people want to see a functioning government and that they weren’t sent to Washington to engage in a no-holds-barred cage wrestling match. He expressed a cynical comment about GOP leaders stranglehold on members who find themselves in 80-90% agreement with a White House or Dem proposal but are prevented from negotiating on or voting for the legislation.
The final exchange I mentioned earlier arose from a question by Jeb Hensarling of Texas who prefaced his question on the budget with an extensive monologue on whether the President, in his upcoming budget message, would continue with reckless spending that has already allowed the deficit and national debt to triple. Obama interrupted him toward the end and asked if there was a question coming because he was politely listening to a political speech for the folks back home and he disagreed with at least half of what “Jim” was saying. When Hensarling finally finished Obama took his question and turned it into a case study of what’s wrong with the political process today and specifically with GOP election tactics. He then gave a brief history lesson about the budget deficit starting with where it stood in 2000, noted the unfunded Bush tax cuts, the unfunded Bush drug plan, the unbudgeted wars, and the stimulus package and noted that by far the greatest portion of current and projected deficits occurred well before he became president. This is 
exactly the point I made in my comments to Larry’s post about the SOTU and his view that the president needed to stop blaming Bush. No, it’s time for the GOP to stop distorting the record.
The important thing is whether these last comments will undo much of the goodwill generated by Obama’s visit to the GOP meeting. In my view the Brown victory may be a strong boost to political compromise that will result in better legislation that can get passed by a genuinely bipartisan majority. Health care should be doable now but only if the GOP will allow it; but my sense is that ANY health care package is unacceptable to Republicans because in some way that would be counted as a Dem “victory” and that is not acceptable. That’s a HUGE problem because the only way to deal with our ballooning budget deficit is to address health care reform. Obama did a great job of parrying a central point in the GOP health care reform proposal he was handed when he arrived by noting that it would “freeze” Medicare/Medicaid payments. Well, that’s effectively a “cut” in benefits and the GOP blasted the Dem package over proposals to limit Medicare Advantage plans because they would constitute a cut in benefits to the elderly. That, he said, is the kind of thing we need to stop doing – speaking out of both sides of our mouths depending on who’s in the audience and where the ideas originate.
Did Obama help or hurt today? It will be extremely interesting to see the reactions from GOP leaders in coming days and weeks. Watch for cooperation on economic issues that address jobs and budget deficits and GOP willingness to discuss approaches including, but not limited to, tax cuts. If they can’t find any common ground on fiscal issues then the “party of no” will be pilloried by Dems and the public will hold them responsible for the legislative logjam. I find this a great opportunity for progress on fiscal issues. I just hope both sides find the political will to make it happen.
Compromise???? I am a firm believer that no laws are better than poor laws forced by an urge to compromise and present something to the voters who are tired and disgusted with the deals struck in Washington.
Mr Obama has been in campaign mode since he took office and he has the nerve to critize others for daring to do what he does daily, Ha!
Ron Russell´s last blog ..Protracted Conflict and the Systemic Revolution
Mike,
I am glad the House Republicans invited President Obama to their conference and I am glad he accepted. Maybe it will do them all good. I do find it odd that you would mention how disrespectful the questions seemed to be, considering how the Democrats showed a total lack of respect towards George W. Bush during his time in office.
Concerning the growing budget deficit and the President’s tendency to blame Bush and the Republicans, let me say again, what I have said before.
George W. Bush had a lot to deal with during his presidency. When he took office, the dot com bubble was going pop and then there was 9-11 and the subsequent wars. During his eight years in office, he did increase the budget deficit, coupled with the Republicans in Congress who did not do the job they were sent to Washington to do. Therefore, spending was not held in check and that certainly did not help matters, in the least.
Where I disagree with President Obama is in his insistence that the growing budget deficit is largely the fault of Bush and the Republicans. Mike, you state that the Republicans are distorting the record. While I wouldn’t put it past any politician to do that, I contend that President Obama is not being honest about his part in the deficit growing in such leaps and bounds.
If you look at this chart from the CBO, you will find they have calculated that the deficit for 2009 had more to do with Obama’s spending than anything else. The numbers tell a different story than what the President is telling.
The democrats did not obstruct Bush’s programs in a way that would give the republicans credit for an accomplishment, as in the tax cuts he asked for and got. Now with the tables turned, the republicans want to obstruct ANY accomplishment in the name of politics. The best respect you can show an opponent is to work with them to better the country.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
Every American President has a lot to deal with as leaders of the free world…
In reference to the deficit, I never heard the president say that his polices were not part of the growing deficit. I think he was very honest about spending the taxpayer’s money in an attempt to save a crashing economy. In fact, I believe he has been more honest than most.
And the reason the President must remind citizens like yourself, the media, politicians and others, about President Bush’s involvement in our governments pre-existing deficit is because different groups have selective memories. So the notion that the current administration is totally responsible for the government having a deficit is unfounded, untrue and unfair.
If our previous president was allowed EIGHT years to send our government in a down spiral, I think this President should be allowed the opportunity to turn it upward and that is going to take more than one year and some hard decisions will be made and more money will be spend.
Critics RELAX… Your comments are becoming tiresome… Give this President the opportunity he deserves to clean up this economic mess.
Franklin,
First of all, thanks for taking the time to comment on Political Realities. I do appreciate you taking the time to do so.
I do not believe I, or anyone else for that matter, has said that President Obama bears total responsibility for the current budget deficit. For us to do that would be to deny the plain and simple truth. I am a Republican, but that does not change the fact that the Republicans did not attempt to contain spending while they were in control of Congress.
I understand that it will take more than one year to turn our country’s economic spiral from down to up, but I am deeply concerned about the amount of money this administration continues to spend. I can not help but wonder how it will all be paid for.
LD, I would like to thank you for your reply and allowing me to engage in this discussion.
FYI, I had been a republican all my life and support many republican views but I recently change parties because I completely disagree with the manner in which republicans are handling this administration. I’ve been at the meetings were fear tactics were used and other means of discouragement. I understand that this is traditional politics but when in crisis, Americans must come together in order to progress and manage the problem faced.
I also would like to answer your question a simple as possible.
“…how it will be paid for?”
History has shown that future generations have often been responsible for cleaning up the economic mess of the previous generation. The reality is that the current taxpayers and our children will have to pay the debt occurred in our generation. And this often includes increased taxes.
But some of the things we can do is to ease this reality is to attempt revitalize the economy as best we can through job creation and gradually decrease government spending. We also need to equip the younger generation with the tools and education to be more prosperous in the future. Remember, these are only some of the things we can do.
“The reality is, if I am making more money I don’t mined paying a little more in taxes to ensure and sustain my way of life and the comfort of my family.”
Our politicians need to stop playing games with their constituents and try to genuinely solve the problem at hand. That includes both democrats and republicans.
Thanks for your comments Franklin. I agree with much of what you said particularly about selective memories and the need to abandon strict partisanship in the face of national economic distress. But you lose me when you quote our history of passing the buck to future generations which you imply is appropriate since it’s worked to this point in time. That has worked because our economy has had sufficient periods of enormous economic growth. I don’t see how we can rely on that in the future to bail out future generations. We need to deal with it now.
Great comment Larry. Nicely done. I agree.
Dominique´s last blog ..Searching for my memory
That’s a very interesting chart Larry but I wonder if you’ve taken a close look at it and thought about what it says. Look at the 2009 line and the breakdown of contributions to the deficit: the bright red line is the 2008 deficit (created under Bush), the pink line is $313 billion additional projected increase in the deficit (so that would be a function of Bush programs as well); the green line is the $238 billion increase in the deficit due to the takeover of Fannie and Freddie which occurred in September 2008 under Bush; the purple line represents the $180 billion increase in the deficit due to TARP which was introduced in October 2008 under Bush; and that leaves the $185 billion contribution to the deficit due to the Obama stimulus program. Thank you for helping to make my point.
Actually, I do not think I helped you make your point, Mike. I have said all along that Bush is partially responsible for the increased budget deficit. A lot of things happened on his watch over which he had no control. He gets blamed for the housing market bottoming out, yet it was the Democrats who refused to allow new regulations that would have prevented Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from taking some of the risky actions they took.
As it stands now, President Obama simply refuses to take any responsibility for the size of the budget deficit, yet it has been under his watch that spending has increased to 24.7% of GDP in 2009. He has promised to freeze spending in 2011, but this is only after increasing spending two years in a row, to unprecedented levels.
The Wall Street Journal has a good piece that details what I have just mentioned and they end their article with a very relevant paragraph.
The truth is, President Obama does bear part of the responsibility for the largest budget deficit in the history of America. All of his denying the facts can not take that away.
Well said Larry. The president and his supporters seem to think that if they say it enough, it will be come true. Revisionist history will not save them.
“He gets blamed for the housing market bottoming out, yet it was the Democrats who refused to allow new regulations that would have prevented Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from taking some of the risky actions they took.”
Larry, in believing this, you show your willingness to swallow the talking points set up by the republican strategists. The crash of the housing market was due in fact to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
David,
This has nothing to do with Republican talking points. There was legislation that the Republicans attempted to pass that would have further regulated these two companies. Barney Frank shot it down and would not let it proceed. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act may have played a part, but so did the Community Reinvestment Act, which Clinton used to force banks to provide mortgages to people who had no hope of paying them back.
Larry again…..the real reason the financial sector collapsed was NOT due to Barney Frank or the Community Reinvestment Act…..this was a drop in the bucket in the greater scheme of things. The reason things went south was because of the deregulation investment bankers and Wall Street enjoyed under Gramm-Leach-Bliley. This led to the ability to bundle the junk bonds that were composed of the risky refinances of people’s home equity loans. How many TV adds have we seen urging Americans to refinance?
But the Republican talking points used our friends Barney Frank and Clinton as the excuse to cover for their patrons who enjoyed the lack of restraint Gramm-Leach-Bliley afforded them. “The Community Reinvestment Act, which Clinton used to force banks to provide mortgages to people who had no hope of paying them back” IS the republican talking point on this matter, and it has been quite effective at diverting the American public’s attention from what actually occurred. Fox News has repeated this lie so often that is is touted as fact by most conservatives i have spoken with. This is the nature of propaganda…….repeat a lie enough, and it will become true.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
I don’t know why you guys even bother to argue with Mike and Laurie. You aren’t going to convince them that Obama is anything other than a saint. This is like the 2nd Amendment stuff. They are going to contradict anything and everything you say.
And you can’t lay the housing crash at Bush’s doorstep. That took place because of stuff that Clinton put into effect on his watch.
Hi GD – Nice to meet you!
Dominique´s last blog ..Searching for my memory
“They are going to contradict anything and everything you say.”
-Let’s see some examples Mr. Jackson.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
Whoaaa!!! I am not an Obama or Democrat apologist and I absolutely resent being characterized as such. I have given withering criticism of Reid and Pelosi who I believe rank among the worst majority leaders in my memory. I have always been a fiscal conservative and have on numerous occasions criticized Democratic party and Obama supported initiatives that add to the budget deficit. I have regularly emphasized the unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (without assigning blame) and noted the singular importance of getting our ballooning deficits under control. I refer you to my post Fiscal Discipline and Proposed New Taxes for my comments about Obama’s refusal to support his “no earmarks” pledge.
I truly wish I had been writing on this blog when Bush was President and Dems were relentlessly partisan in their criticism. I believe your comments about me today would be much different. I have NO patience for the blatant partisanship ON BOTH SIDES that brings our government to an effective standstill while all around us are massive problems demanding cooperative answers. But the subtitle of this blog is “Above all else, in search of the truth” and I express opinions that I believe honor that commitment.
I do NOT dispute Obama’s contributions to the deficit Larry and I agree with all who say his decision to freeze discretionary spending is like closing the barn door after the cows have gotten out. And I agree with much of what the Journal expressed though I think some sort of health care reform is mandatory. My argument wasn’t about what Obama has done since he became president — it is about where the deficit was when he started. Bush strongly supported the Fannie/Freddie and TARP plans and therefore he owns them. That was my point. I’m not sure how you can argue the other side of that…its the truth.
Mike,
I do remember your post Budget Deficits and Proposed New Taxes and you did make the argument that Obama was not fulfilling his promise to stop earmarks. I commend you for that.
Your point about the deficit is taken. I think we may agree on this more than this discussion is showing. It just irks me when I hear President Obama speak and it appears he is shifting the blame for the deficit entirely onto the shoulders of the Republicans. My strong assertion of this stems from the fact that George W. Bush endured so much from the liberal Democrats. I find it hard to take when I see it happening again, even though he is out of office. So, unless you have something else to add, I would call that part of the discussion good.
Let me ask another question. I have heard the President say more than once that he thinks health care reform is the key to lowering the deficit. If I recall correctly, I think you hold that same position. Can you explain why you believe that?
Hasn’t who contributed what percentage really become mote? The issue at hand no longer is who spent the most. The issue at hand is that ALL spending needs to cease. Period. I don’t care if Bush or Obama contributed more to the problem. It just needs to stop for the sake of our country.
Obama’s blaming reveals that he is unwilling to accept responsibility and that is a dangerous issue. If he is unwilling to take a close look at his part – forget about what Bush did or didn’t contribute – then we will never see an end to this.
And Obama’s Ace will always be to just Blame Bush.
Dominique´s last blog ..Searching for my memory
Dominique,
You started out strong- at this point,crazy spending should stop no matter who did what.
But you and I must be listening to different speeches. Both with the State of the Union and yesterday, Obama clearly stated where his administration has contributed. That he talks about why should no longer be construed as an attack against Bush, just an examination of how we got to where we are.
Possibly- and PLEASE- Obama has put the issue to rest and we can move on with solutions. I’ll be watching for that.
I hope so.
Dominique´s last blog ..Searching for my memory
If all spending needs to stop, i hope you mean the pentagon’s budget, because that is where the highest amount of spending can be saved, and can be done merely by eliminating waste without hurting our defense standing.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
David,
Obviously, we can not stop all spending by the Pentagon, but I am sure there are areas where it can be and should be trimmed. I think wasteful spending is one of the biggest problems our country is facing and it is perpetrated by so many special interest groups who have their fingers in the pie.
Larry, we cannot stop ALL spending by the Pentagon. But the point is, cutting just a LITTLE saves tremendous amounts of money. Do some quick research……
How much does just ONE Reagan Class aircraft cost to built, man, and outfit? Some may say we cannot afford to let our guard down. A good point but, I’d ask them just how many aircraft carriers we need to be safe. The U.S. Navy has 11 carriers I believe, and if you add up the number of aircraft carriers of ALL the navies of the world it would not equal the number we possess.
Larry, this is where REAL savings on the budget can occur. And i would suggest it is just a part of the cuts our leaders need to address in making our budget “real”.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
Very nice post, Mike. It is unfortunate that GD Jackson got personal, but since you or Larry haven’t asked me to stop commenting, I’ll try to answer you question.
I think yesterday’s exchange was a net positive for all involved. Obama came out ahead a bit, in that he shredded the tiresome GOP talking point that he is “nothing” without a teleprompter. I saw a President in command of the issues who didn’t lose his temper and who has obviously decided to stop arguing and lead. But the GOP did a great job-of course, the Conference had invited him. Then they agreed to a last minute change in format, and for the most part came with some substantive questions. There was a freshman representative (sorry-forgot who) in particular who rocked Obama a bit and busted him on a range of issues and forced him to explain. Good for him, good for America.
I don’t think “goodwill” with the last exchange you mentioned is an issue. Obama voiced what a lot of Americans have been saying about our political process as it stands. Too much straw-man rhetoric. And I think it’s a warning shot at each party’s tendency to slip into this.
I rarely get this hyperbolic about the process, but I truly think we witnessed an historic moment yesterday. The exchange is likely to be the purest demonstration of democracy in action between the Executive branch and legislators that we will ever see in our lifetimes. Sure, this may happen again (and I cheer it) but not without a whole set of negotiated rules and minus the spontanaeity.
A net plus for all.
“Obama came out ahead a bit, in that he shredded the tiresome GOP talking point that he is “nothing” without a teleprompter.”nice point Laurie. He does think well on his feet.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
Mike/Larry:
Quick question regarding yesterday’s proceedings.
If this sort of exchange becomes even a bit regular, the type of communications skills necessary to do it become really important. Does this change your ideas of an acceptable Presidential candiate for 2012?
Great question!
Dominique´s last blog ..Searching for my memory
Never would happen with McCain as President because it’s not his strength. Never would happen under Bush for the same reason. That isn’t a knock on either of those guys — but this is Obama in his element and no President will subject himself to this situation unless she is sure she can control the room. I said in an earlier post that the rough and tumble if partisan politics these days demands “slick” operators. This situation is similar. Palin probably wouldn’t do well in this situation. Romney, Pawlenty and Huckabee might handle it well.
Laurie,
I could have sworn I had already replied your question, but evidently, it didn’t go through.
As Mike has already noted, Bush and McCain neither one are great communicators. They can give a speech, but there is a difference. Now, being able to communicate is not everything, but I do think the Republican Party has suffered because of the failure of their leaders to be able to do so.
So, would it make a difference in the candidates I would deem acceptable? Possibly, yes. His communication skills were one of the things that drew me to Mike Huckabee in the first place. I don’t know if you watched any of the Republican debates, but he was very sharp and showed an amazing ability to think on his feet, speaking right off the cuff with great authority. I think that is important in a candidate, as it shows he has a command of the issues. I am not convinced Huckabee will be in the 2012 race however. Mitt Romney knows his issues as well, although he is more focused on the economic side than anything. He comes off as very scripted to me, but that is just my opinion. Tim Pawlenty, I am not sure about. There may be others, but it is still too far away from the campaign to know who will be running.
Larry, to your question about the role of health care reform and the budget deficit: you are correct that I support health care reform as a means of addressing the deficit though the plan that was likely to be passed didn’t do it. I argued many times on this blog that my greatest concern with health reform, and my criticism of all plans that the Dems brought forth, was cost control. Obama spoke a gazillion times about “bending the cost curve” but I never saw a plan that actually paid much attention to doing it. The plans were all health insurance reform not health care reform. The budget items that threaten to blow up or country are Medicaid and Medicare and the costs of medical care to all Americans. We MUST address those issues through health care reform or the whole economy will implode. I was in favor of seeing the health care package passed because I believe without a first step there will never be a second step. I’d be thrilled to see a new approach, starting from scratch, that does a better job of dealing with cost control than what we saw, but I’m very concerned it will get shelved for political reasons. Medicare and Medicaid benefits cannot be sustained at current levels and now that both sides have effectively said as much perhaps we can see a bipartisan decision to bite the bullet and make a move that is political suicide if either side takes it alone. Again, I’m skeptical, but it’s the only hope for us to truly “bend the curve”.
Mike I for one don’t think you side with Obama. You seem to be a true middle of the road guy on many issues. Not exactly my cup of tea, but I understand your position or lack of one. The middle is a good spot to be in until the shooting starts and then one is forced to take sides or stand beneath the tree as all around brave men are falling. Not speaking of smoke and hot lead, I’m far from being a revolutionary with blood in the eye. I’m an old Goldwater conservative and recall the treatment he got from the press and the Johnson campaign with the Daisy Ad in 1964 and remember his words well, “moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue and extremism in pursuit of liberty is no vice”. John McCain, a fellow Arizonian and others in the Republican party seem to have forgotten those words. The “right and left” spectrum has moved left over the years and todays moderate is more left than yesterdays moderate. This will change in time as the pendulum always swings back as the balance must be maintained. The tides will ebb and flow and the low tide will leave its treasure for the snail and gull and the high tide will wash away the trash and replimish the land again. It has always been so and will always be.
Ron Russell´s last blog ..Protracted Conflict and the Systemic Revolution
Nice post Mike. It seems to be that the republican ploy is to obstruct and cause failure. Failure even if it hurts our country. It is exactly as Obama stated:
“……it’s all tactics
it’s not solving problems”. Under Bush, democrats joined republicans in passing tax cuts (which have added enormously to our deficit). Republicans want it their way, or as our president said:
“……it can’t be all or nothing, one way or the other….”
The notion that compromise is unmanly or something seems to be the argument of some staunch conservatives. Actually, it is merely a place to hide, and isn’t very tough at all. And it is in fact tearing our nation apart.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks
David,
Just so you know, I don’t watch FOX News and I do not follow Republican talking points. From doing my own research, it appears to me that the Democrats, ie. Bill Clinton and the Community Reinvestment Act were just a culpable in the housing and financial crash as the Republicans.
When you boil it all down, it was greed that led to all of this and there were a lot of people who had a hand in the failure.
Larry,
Yes! Let’s look at it all. Impossible, probably, but it would be great if we could do it through a lense that isn’t just about politics. The frustration, in this example, is the general GOP position-and certainly a predominant theme in most of the so-called Conservative media- is that we should go all the way back to the Carter Administration but conveniently refuse to look at the Bush policies that contributed. Would you agree that this is something that is happening?
Laurie,
I think politics causes a great deal of distortion of the real facts and it comes from both sides of the political aisle. However, I can not agree that the assertion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were deeply involved in the housing crisis is just a Republican talking point.
It is a fact that President Bush and John McCain tried to get new legislation passed through Congress to prevent both companies from “lending off the deep end”, but the effort was shot down by the Democrats. The New York Times gives details about it back in September 2003. This is no small detail, but it is one that the Democrats conveniently forget to notice or mention.
I suppose I am mentioning this for one reason. It seems to be the predominate position of a lot of people that President Bush and his policies bear the brunt of the blame for what has transpired during the financial and housing crisis and I do not believe that is true.
Yep. But you’re not looking at the whole picture.
The GOP Majority in the House, Senate, and the White house dropped it in favor of the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 and The Zero Downpayment Act of 2004, effectively doing away with the market provisions that had protected lenders and buyers alike for decades and relegating home loans to that of car loans. Millions of people who should not have become homeowners-didn’t have the money to ride out equity dips or even to properly maintain their homes- under these two acts alone. Another not-so-small detail we cannot discount. And, to use your logic, the GOP KNEW the mortgage situation was dire in 2003, and yet still continued to mess with a major financial market. That wasn’t good policy.
I hear it: the US, with many moves over several Administrations, had been steaming towards the real estate and banking collapse. Again: I have no problem looking at it all(as far back as we need to) and having strong policies enacted (regardless of which Administration’s bad decisions are corrected) that help insure no repeats. But I think it’s irresponsible to look at it all, then give a pass to the Bush Administration that had 8 years of very bad policy decisions that contrubuted to the crash.
Larry,
We shouldnt’ forget about Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, co-sponsored by John Sununu and Chuck Hagel (and McCain came on board later). Can’t recall it’s complete provisions, but I seem to recall that it attempted to deal with Fannie and Freddie by forming an oversight committee independent of HUD. It, too, was dropped completely.
Larry, i do appreciate you for being your own man. (“….I don’t watch FOX News and I do not follow Republican talking points. From doing my own research, it appears to me that the Democrats, ie. Bill Clinton and the Community Reinvestment Act were just a culpable in the housing and financial crash as the Republicans.”)
–i urge you to do some additional research on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and you’ll see that the Democrats are only as culpable as the Republicans only in the sense that Clinton signed that act into law.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..War sucks