• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama is lying again!

Where do you think that fear came from?
The failure of Lehman brothers and Bear Sterns, the emergency takeover of AIG to avoid defaut on billions of dollars of bond insurance, the emergency takeover of Morgan Stanley to prevent its bankruptcy, the insolvency of the US banking industry, the insolvency of the US auto industry, the collapse of the housing market, the rapid rise in unemployment...

I'd say that's pretty scary.

What if Obama hadn't been calling this the worst crisis since the Great Depression and saying that the only solution was government and trillion(s) in new spending at taxpayers expense?
Then he would be ignoring the advice of the majority of world economists, who are also calling this the greatest financial crisis since the great depression, and that only the government has deep enough pockets to recapitalize the banks. I've asked 3 or 4 times now, BAC. How do you suggest we recapitalize the banks?

What if government hadn't intervened and delayed action on the normal means by which a free market handles bad debts?
The banking system would have collapsed, the auto industry would have collapsed, and virtually every other industry depending on credit would have collapsed.
Do you suppose the markets and job growth would already have turned around ... like they did in 1981-82 by this time in the recession cycle?
Nope. The commercial and investment banks weren't insolvent then. The total S & L bailout only cost the federal government about $124 billion. Losses this time are well over a trillion.
And by the way, do you know what Greenspan was saying back in 2004? He was saying the housing sector was in good shape and advising homeowners to switch to adjustable rate loans and save the difference. Some of us were smart enough not to take his advise. Were you?
5/1 ARM rates are 5.08% today, 30 year fixed rates 5.22%. Doesn't sound so bad to me. Or do you think that Greenspan was suggesting people who qualify for FHA mortgages take out subprime loans? :D
 
Looks like the fear came from Rupert Murdoch...

Don't get me wrong. I don't fault just Obama. A host of folks (a lot of them quoted in that article and standing to benefit from government intervention) have pushed the doom and gloom ... at times when it clearly wasn't justified by the numbers. The article you linked even proves that by citing some of the numbers that stood in contrast to all the doom and gloom.

During the 81-82 recession, the gloom and doom were not quite like recent events.

Exactly. The doom and gloom, and promises of government interference, has delayed the sort of free market actions that brought us out of the 1981-82 recession.

Reagan had to nationalize various S&Ls.

Reagan's interference amounted to about a billion dollars. No comparison to what they are doing now ... during TARP1 (and you can be sure there will be TARP2 .... and in the misnamed *stimulus* package. Hundreds of banks were allowed to go belly up during the 1980s. And the economy didn't collapse.

As far as what I was doing during the Bush Jr. years, well, not much as I don't believe in variable interest loans.

Good for you. But unfortunately variable interest loans are what democrat controlled organizations like Fannie, Freddie and ACORN pushed ... plus loans with nothing down or that paid interest only.
 
Then he would be ignoring the advice of the majority of world economists, who are also calling this the greatest financial crisis since the great depression

Care to actually prove the majority of the world's economists were saying this? Or is this a statistic pulled out of thin air? :D

Quote:
What if government hadn't intervened and delayed action on the normal means by which a free market handles bad debts?

The banking system would have collapsed, the auto industry would have collapsed, and virtually every other industry depending on credit would have collapsed.

So you CLAIM. But all you are really doing in pushing the same doom and gloom that destroyed confidence in the free market and led to a deepening of last year's recession.

Or do you think that Greenspan was suggesting people who qualify for FHA mortgages take out subprime loans?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/WhosToBlameForTheMortgageMess.aspx

In his best-selling book, Alan Greenspan describes how well he managed the economy during an "age of turbulence." Unfortunately, he's largely responsible for the current dose of it. As chairman of the Fed, Greenspan took the federal funds rate down to 1% in 2003 and left it there for a year. Even as the Fed began raising rates, Greenspan's exceptionally low interest rates "planted the seeds for the housing bubble," says Robert Rodriguez, a money manager at First Pacific Advisors who saw the emerging subprime mess early on and has managed to dodge most of it so far. Greenspan's role in the current mess doesn't stop there. He encouraged the use of adjustable-rate mortgages in a 2004 speech, which was "an insane, idiotic recommendation," says Rodriguez. The following year he endorsed subprime loans to help marginal borrowers get into houses. And true to his somewhat naive brand of Ayn Rand libertarianism, Greenspan dismissed calls for more oversight of the mortgage business. This gave free rein to our next culprits: greedy mortgage brokers who had no problem pushing inappropriate loans on borrowers so that they could reap lucrative fees.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7413

The peak period of the US real estate bubble which began in about 2002 when Alan Greenspan began the most aggressive series of rate cuts in Federal Reserve history was 2005-2006. Greenspan’s intent, as he admitted at the time, was to replace the Dot.com internet stock bubble with a real estate home investment and lending bubble. He argued that was the only way to keep the US economy from deep recession. In retrospect a recession in 2002 would have been far milder and less damaging than what we now face.

Of course, Greenspan has since safely retired, written his memoirs and handed the control (and blame) of the mess over to a young ex-Princeton professor, Ben Bernanke.

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=websterb&date=080410
 
So you CLAIM. But all you are really doing in pushing the same doom and gloom that destroyed confidence in the free market and led to a deepening of last year's recession.
LOL. What about Barney Frank? Weren't you complaining that he was saying that Fanny and Freddy were just fine and didn't need to be regulated? Isn't that the way the free market is supposed to work? I guess it was your gloom and doom talk that destroyed the confidence in the housing market and caused Fanny and Freddy to fail. :D
 
Don't get me wrong. I don't fault just Obama. A host of folks (a lot of them quoted in that article and standing to benefit from government intervention) have pushed the doom and gloom ... at times when it clearly wasn't justified by the numbers. The article you linked even proves that by citing some of the numbers that stood in contrast to all the doom and gloom.



Exactly. The doom and gloom, and promises of government interference, has delayed the sort of free market actions that brought us out of the 1981-82 recession.

You seem to focus only on Obama and democrates. This whole issue is has republican and democrate written alll over it.

During 81-82 there was no issue related to capitalization of banks and scarcity of money. Chase Mahattan, Merril, Smith Barney etc. were all healthy. It was just a normal down cycle.

[/quote]Reagan's interference amounted to about a billion dollars. No comparison to what they are doing now ... during TARP1 (and you can be sure there will be TARP2 .... and in the misnamed *stimulus* package. Hundreds of banks were allowed to go belly up during the 1980s. And the economy didn't collapse.[/quote]

Hundreds of savings and loans were consolidated. This was part of the nationalization of the institutions. The cost was way more as all the assets of the failed banks were backed by the government--essentially they split the good and bad and we paid for the bad. My bank was one of the failed institutions.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/banking/2000dec/brv13n2_2.pdf



Good for you. But unfortunately variable interest loans are what democrat controlled organizations like Fannie, Freddie and ACORN pushed ... plus loans with nothing down or that paid interest only.

Fannie and Freddie were the last to push derivatives. They jumped after all the brokers and banks were making "profits."

glenn
 
You seem to focus only on Obama and democrates.

Yes. Because it is primarily democrats who are pushing trillion dollar stimulus/recovery/pork packages and the wholesale takeover of banks as well as many other segments of our economy. It is primarily democrats who started this whole mess by insisting back in the 90s that we give mortgages to low income groups and who resisted changes in Fannie, Freddie and that industry when they were suggested half a decade ago as the problem became apparent. And it is democrats who are now in control of the government (in fact, thanks to a few RINOs they are almost filibuster proof) and who will determine what we do now to react to this and other problems. And it is democrats who control most of the media that is shaping peoples views about this problem. Of course I focus on democrats.

During 81-82 there was no issue related to capitalization of banks and scarcity of money. Chase Mahattan, Merril, Smith Barney etc. were all healthy. It was just a normal down cycle.

You haven't proven to me that the normal free market methods of dealing with bad debt couldn't have worked in this case. Or still can't. Nor have you proven that the trillions of dollars now being literally thrown at the *supposed* problem are going to fix it. I don't think you can even prove that what the government has done the last 6 months hasn't made the problem worse. The fact is they tossed hundreds of billions at the banks and it didn't do a thing. It hasn't freed up credit. They are only talking about throwing even more hundreds of billions at the supposed problem. And the stimulus/recovery/pork bill isn't likely to solve the credit problem either. It will likely be money DOWN THE DRAIN. The future is predicted by the stock markets. They are down and still going down because they do not like what they hear.

My bank was one of the failed institutions.

Well I'm sorry you lost faith in the free market system. But if you think Obama, the democrats, socialism and government management of the economy are the answer, you are in for a rude awakening a few decades from now ... or even sooner. The fact is government has time and time again shown itself to be LESS capable than individuals and free markets at solving problems. Time and time again government interference has only made matters worse. Given such a track record, why you suddenly think government ... especially a government run by many of the people who created this mess in the first place ... can fix this is uncomprehensible.

Fannie and Freddie were the last to push derivatives. They jumped after all the brokers and banks were making "profits."

Yet MANY economists agree that Fannie and Freddie were the key in this crisis. They agree that had the government stepped in and stopped what was going on when republicans wanted to do that, this crisis might have been averted. Sure, the problem of bad loans didn't start out at Fannie and Freddie (it started with Obama's good friends, ACORN) but they were instrumental in making such loans the norm. Here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=

Planting Seeds of Disaster

By Stanley Kurtz

‘You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.” So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left “community organizers” called ACORN, for assistance.

... snip ...

Using provisions of a 1977 law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Chicago ACORN was able to delay and halt the efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had agreed to lower their credit standards — and to fill ACORN’s coffers to finance “counseling” operations like the one touted in that Sun-Times article. ... snip ... Far more than we’ve recognized, ACORN’s local, CRA-enabled pressure tactics served to entangle the financial system as a whole in the subprime mess. ACORN was no side-show. On the contrary, using CRA and ties to sympathetic congressional Democrats, ACORN succeeded in drawing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the very policies that led to the current disaster.

... snip ...

ACORN protesters will break into private offices, show up at a banker’s home to intimidate his family, or pour protesters into bank lobbies to scare away customers, all in an effort to force a lowering of credit standards for poor and minority customers.

... snip ...

Critics of the notion that CRA had a major impact on the subprime crisis ask how a law passed in 1977 could have caused a crisis in 2008? The answer has a lot to do with ACORN — and the critical years of 1990-1995. While the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act did call on banks to increase lending in poor and minority neighborhoods, its exact requirements were vague, and therefore open to a good deal of regulatory interpretation. Banks merger or expansion plans were rarely held up under CRA until the late 1980s, when ACORN perfected its technique of filing CRA complaints in tandem with the sort of intimidation tactics perfected by that original “community organizer” (and Obama idol), Saul Alinsky.

At first, ACORN’s anti-bank actions were relatively few in number. However, under a provision of the 1989 savings and loan bailout pushed by liberal Democratic legislators, like Massachusetts Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, lenders were required to compile public records of mortgage applicants by race, gender, and income. Although the statistics produced by these studies were presented in highly misleading ways, groups like ACORN were able to use them to embarrass banks into lowering credit standards. At the same time, a wave of banking mergers in the early 1990's provided an opening for ACORN to use CRA to force lending changes. Any merger could be blocked under CRA, and once ACORN began systematically filing protests over minority lending, a formerly toothless set of regulations began to bite.

However much pressure ACORN put on banks to lower credit standards, tough requirements in the “secondary market” run by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac served as a barrier to change. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up mortgages en masse, bundle them, and sell them to investors on the world market. Back then, Fannie and Freddie refused to buy loans that failed to meet high credit standards. ... snip ... So again and again, local banks would tell ACORN that, because of standards imposed by Fannie and Freddie, they could lower their credit standards by only a little.

As early as 1987, ACORN began pressuring Fannie and Freddie to review their standards, with modest results. By 1989, ACORN had lured Fannie Mae into the first of many “pilot projects” designed to help local banks lower credit standards. But it was all small potatoes until the serious pressure began in early 1991. At that point, Democratic Senator Allan Dixon convened a Senate subcommittee hearing at which an ACORN representative gave key testimony.

... snip ...

By July of 1991, ACORN’s legislative campaign began to bear fruit. As the Chicago Tribune put it, “Housing activists have been pushing hard to improve housing for the poor by extracting greater financial support from the country’s two highly profitable secondary mortgage-market companies. Thanks to the help of sympathetic lawmakers, it appeared...that they may succeed.” The Tribune went on to explain that House Democrat Henry Gonzales had announced that Fannie and Freddie had agreed to commit $3.5 billion to low-income housing in 1992 and 1993, in addition to a just-announced $10 billion “affordable housing loan program” by Fannie Mae. The article emphasizes ACORN pressure and notes that Fannie and Freddie had been fighting against the plan as recently as a week before agreement was reached. Fannie and Freddie gave in only to stave off even more restrictive legislation floated by congressional Democrats.

A mere month later, ACORN Housing Corporation president, George Butts made news by complaining to a House Banking subcommittee that ACORN’s efforts to pressure banks using CRA were still being hamstrung by Fannie and Freddie. ... snip ... Many news reports over the ensuing months point to ACORN as the key source of pressure on congress for a further reduction of credit standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a result of this pressure, ACORN was eventually permitted to redraft many of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s loan guideline.


... snip ...

Precisely because ACORN’s local pressure tactics were working, banks themselves now wanted Fannie and Freddie to loosen their standards still further, so as to buy up still more of the high-risk loans they’d made at ACORN’s insistence. So by the 1993, a grand alliance of ACORN, national Democrats, and local bankers looking for someone to lessen the risks imposed on them by CRA and ACORN were uniting to pressure Fannie and Freddie to loosen credit standards still further.

At this point, both ACORN and the Clinton administration were working together to impose large numerical targets or “set asides” (really a sort of poor and minority loan quota system) on Fannie and Freddie. ACORN called for at least half of Fannie and Freddie loans to go to low-income customers. At first the Clinton administration offered a set-aside of 30 percent. But eventually ACORN got what it wanted. In early 1994, the Clinton administration floated plans for committing $1 trillion in loans to low- and moderate-income home-buyers, which would amount to about half of Fannie Mae’s business by the end of the decade.

... snip ...

This sweeping debasement of credit standards was touted by Fannie Mae’s chairman, chief executive officer, and now prominent Obama adviser James A. Johnson. This is also the period when Fannie Mae ramped up its pilot programs and local partnerships with ACORN, all of which became precedents and models for the pattern of risky subprime mortgages at the root of today’s crisis.

... snip ...

Finally, in June of 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Cisneros announced the administration’s comprehensive new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. Representatives from ACORN were guests of honor at the ceremony. In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: “Out homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.”

Yes, Fannie and Freddie were key to what happened.
 
Yes, Fannie and Freddie were key to what happened.

I love the section you quoted.

"Finally, in 1995..."

Yeah. 1995. At that point, it was all set in stone. No one could have done a thing to stop it. They signed that bill and then, 13 years later, WHAM! Just like clockwork.
 
Yes. Because it is primarily democrats who are pushing trillion dollar stimulus/recovery/pork packages and the wholesale takeover of banks as well as many other segments of our economy. It is primarily democrats who started this whole mess by insisting back in the 90s that we give mortgages to low income groups and who resisted changes in Fannie, Freddie and that industry when they were suggested half a decade ago as the problem became apparent. And it is democrats who are now in control of the government (in fact, thanks to a few RINOs they are almost filibuster proof) and who will determine what we do now to react to this and other problems. And it is democrats who control most of the media that is shaping peoples views about this problem. Of course I focus on democrats.

I assume you were equally apalled at the spending/pork of the Bush administration. It certainly irritated me. I am unaware of the media being controlled by the democrats since Murdoch is really not a democrat and he has quite an empire. There is that myth of the liberal press, but I can see through it. Both sides have their advocates...all one need do is see who the particular media endorse.


You haven't proven to me that the normal free market methods of dealing with bad debt couldn't have worked in this case. Or still can't. Nor have you proven that the trillions of dollars now being literally thrown at the *supposed* problem are going to fix it. I don't think you can even prove that what the government has done the last 6 months hasn't made the problem worse. The fact is they tossed hundreds of billions at the banks and it didn't do a thing. It hasn't freed up credit. They are only talking about throwing even more hundreds of billions at the supposed problem. And the stimulus/recovery/pork bill isn't likely to solve the credit problem either. It will likely be money DOWN THE DRAIN. The future is predicted by the stock markets. They are down and still going down because they do not like what they hear.

I never said I was trying to prove free markets couldn't get us out of this mess...I just indicated that it was a bigger mess than 81-82 due to banking issues. The big banks were not threatened then and neither were big brokers...in this environment, Merril went down...that is just enormous.

I don't know if the stimulus will work..and neither does anyone. All the pundits failed over the last 10 years, so I am not putting stock in their knowledge now.


Well I'm sorry you lost faith in the free market system. But if you think Obama, the democrats, socialism and government management of the economy are the answer, you are in for a rude awakening a few decades from now ... or even sooner. The fact is government has time and time again shown itself to be LESS capable than individuals and free markets at solving problems. Time and time again government interference has only made matters worse. Given such a track record, why you suddenly think government ... especially a government run by many of the people who created this mess in the first place ... can fix this is uncomprehensible.

A second strawman...I never said I lost faith in the free market. I just said my bank failed.


Yet MANY economists agree that Fannie and Freddie were the key in this crisis. They agree that had the government stepped in and stopped what was going on when republicans wanted to do that, this crisis might have been averted. Sure, the problem of bad loans didn't start out at Fannie and Freddie (it started with Obama's good friends, ACORN) but they were instrumental in making such loans the norm. Here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=



Yes, Fannie and Freddie were key to what happened.

Fannie and Freddie contributed, but they weren't the source. MANY conservative economists believe they were the big culprit. I never understood why the republicans didn't stop freddie and fannie since they controlled the senate banking committee when this mess started.

When companies like citi and merril and others go down, it is not because they are lending to poor people. Much of the problem was due to people buying second homes and purchasing 400k houses with nothing down and interest only loans..or trying to flip homes...it was this type of lending that really put the derivatives market into overdrive since people were willing to buy the mortagage packages without knowing the risk. And citi and merril and bear sterns didn't care. Wall street people were at least complicit...and they will get away with it.

You seem to want to blame democrats for everything associated with this mess--that seems irrational since both side are at fault. There is nothing inherently evil in being a democrat.

glenn
 
I assume you were equally apalled at the spending/pork of the Bush administration.

Yes. I have complained (on this forum) about many of Bush's spending programs. I am consistent in supporting the view that government does not provide the answer when it comes to economics and prosperity. That lies in the free market and EMPOWERING people to create wealth ... rather than stealing it from those who do and giving it to those who don't.

I am unaware of the media being controlled by the democrats since Murdoch is really not a democrat and he has quite an empire. There is that myth of the liberal press, but I can see through it.

Oh please. You name one example of a conservative controlling a news outlet (of course there are examples) and think that negates all the other evidence suggesting liberals/democrats control the bulk of what the vast majority of people read, see, hear and think?

Just look at what source after source concludes:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

A Measure of Media Bias

Tim Groseclose
Department of Political Science, UCLA, and
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University

Jeff Milyo
Harris School of Public Policy
University of Chicago

September 2003

... snip ...

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABC’s World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News’ Special Report is the most centrist. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By Meg Sullivan
12/14/2005

... snip ...

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co-author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar."

... snip ...

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-n...ubt-about-it-all-fox-news-tipping-obama-s-way

No Doubt About It: All But Fox News Tipping Obama’s Way

By Rich Noyes

November 1, 2008

Yes, the media are rooting for Barack Obama. Two studies out in the past couple of days show that it’s not just conservatives who see a strong tilt by journalists in favor of the Democrats: A nonpartisan media monitoring group and a liberal-leaning research organization both confirm the pro-Obama, anti-McCain bias of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC.

In reports this week, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) and the Pew-funded Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) found the most balanced campaign coverage was on the Fox News Channel

... snip ...

The bias has become apparent to nearly everyone. Last week, the Pew Research Center polled voters and found that “by a margin of 70 percent to 9 percent, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on November 4.”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...a/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news

Americans See Liberal Media Bias on TV News

Friday, July 13, 2007

By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% believe that ABC, CBS, and NBC deliver the news without any bias.

Similar results are found for CNN and National Public Radio (NPR). By a margin of 33% to 16%, Americans say that CNN has a liberal bias. The nation’s adults say the same about NPR by a 27% to 14% margin.

There is one major exception to the belief that media outlets have a liberal bias—Fox News. Thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans say it has a bias that favors conservatives while 15% say it has a liberal bias.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1.

Or go back to earlier elections. (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/4/1/6/1/p41615_index.html ) and http://www.springerlink.com/content/w1325254419467q3/ describe studies showing a bias for Al Gore. Here's even the top editor of Newsweek showing that bias: http://newsbusters.org/node/7884 Here are other examples noting a clear bias toward Gore in the mainstream media: http://www.caglepost.com/column/Linda+Chavez/3028/Media+Bias+Cuts+Gore+a+lot+of+Slack.html and http://www.suite101.com/external_li...m/news/col/horo/2000/09/18/miracle/index.html

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues.

... snip ...

81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976

... snip ...

In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a report by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, “Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.” Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.

... snip ...

New York Times columnist John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Although it was not a scientific sampling, Tierney found a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, particular among journalists based in Washington, D.C. He found that journalists from outside Washington preferred Kerry by a three-to-one margin, while those who work inside the Beltway favored Kerry’s election by a 12-to-1 ratio.

http://web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/Critical Review offprint.pdf

A SOCIAL-SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE ON MEDIA BIAS

ABSTRACT: The questions of whether the news media are biased, and if so, in
what direction, typically generate more heat than light. Here, we review some
of the most recent and meritorious empirical studies on media bias.This evi-
dence suggests that several prominent national news outlets have a distinct
slant to the left or right, and that exposure to these sources influences both
public opinion and voting behavior

... snip ...

Our findings, when considered along with other recent and relatively
high-quality studies of media content and media exposure, constitute
fairly convincing evidence that those who scoff at the notion of liberal
media bias are wrong. In judging the work-product of the mainstream
media, the answer is relatively clear: there is bias, and it is roughly as far
(or farther) to the left than Fox News “Special Report” is biased to the
right.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY4YWMxYjVmYzNhMjdjYmJjMWQ3NGIwN2ZhMWFiOGI=

Goldberg Variations
Notes and an announcement on media bias.

...snip ...

In fact, there are only two identifiable groups who do not think — rather, know — that the mainstream press leans liberal: working members of the mainstream press, and hardcore, Lenin-goateed, Mother Jones-reading left-wingers.

The bottom line is that you'd have to have been living in a cave to still think the media isn't biased to the left ... or perhaps you've just been listening to the mainstream media deny it so much you believe them. But all I need to show that bias is to list one news item after another that the majority of the mainstream outlets either ignored completely or distorted.

I tell you what. Let's take turns naming newsworthy stories that the bulk of the media ignored, distorted or minimized. I bet they will invariably be stories on something that would have shed a bad light on liberals or their agenda. Especially where social issues are concerned.

I tell you what. Let's take turns naming mainstream news sources that are biased. You name the ones you think are conservative and I'll name ones that are liberally dominated. And we'll go back and forth. You will run out of names long before I do. :D

I just indicated that it was a bigger mess than 81-82 due to banking issues. The big banks were not threatened then and neither were big brokers...in this environment, Merril went down...that is just enormous.

Banks were not threatened? Forty banks collapsed in just one year during that recession. Hundreds and hundreds of banks failed during the 1980s and we didn't panic. We let the market and bankruptcy courts, for the most part, handle the problem.

I don't know if the stimulus will work..and neither does anyone.

Well they sure are spending a hell of a lot of someone else's money on something they don't know will work. Aren't they? Sometimes in situations like that, the best thing to do is nothing. It's like going to your doctor. If your doctor doesn't know what he's doing, you're better off if you keep the doctor from digging around your insides. Often that only leads to more problems.

All the pundits failed over the last 10 years, so I am not putting stock in their knowledge now.

But you are putting "stock" in it ... or at least money you could have invested in stock. They are spending a lot of money on it, money they are taking or going to take from you. :D

I never said I lost faith in the free market.

You have if you put your faith in government control.

I never understood why the republicans didn't stop freddie and fannie since they controlled the senate banking committee when this mess started.

They tried. S.190 would have substantially increased oversight of and changes in Fannie and Freddie. It made it out of committee on a straight party line vote (11-9) with all the democrats voting against it and all the republicans voting for it. Democrats killed it in the senate using the filibuster. It was never allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote because Schumer, Dodd and other democrats were on the record saying Fannie and Freddie are just fine. Republicans reintroduced it the next year as S.1100 where it remained stalled again, despite appeals by McCain to force a floor vote. Democrats were then in control of both Houses.

Much of the problem was due to people buying second homes and purchasing 400k houses with nothing down and interest only loans..or trying to flip homes...

True, but those types of loans were never prevalent until ACORN and democrats forced banks and financial institutions to make them available to large numbers of low income people first. Once that happened then lots of others climbed on board.

You seem to want to blame democrats for everything associated with this mess

I made it clear that I don't. For example, I fault Bush for not continuing to fight for reform of the mortgage industry but instead appeasing liberals by supporting later low income loan legislation (the "American Dream Downpayment Act").

--that seems irrational since both side are at fault.

Yes, both sides are at fault but make no mistake, the bulk of the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of democrats. To deny THAT is irrational. They were the ones who first forced banks and agencies like Fannie and Freddie to make available massive amounts of unsound loans (ones that would default if we hit a recession) to low income people. They were the ones who pushed through legislation (like CRA) that gave groups like ACORN the means to apply that pressure on banks and those financial agencies. They were ones who ran Fannie and Freddie throughout that period. Franklin Raines. Jim Johnson. Jamie Gorelick. And democrats were the ones who fought attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie when there might still have been time to avoid a complete collapse.

Yes, Bush supported the "American Dream Downpayment Act" but it was small potatoes compared to the sort of programs instigated and defended by democrats for over a decade. The Act authorized up to $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 - 2007. Barely half a billion dollars over 4 years. Meanwhile, corrupt democrats like Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick stole almost $100 million out of the system at Fannie Mae while cooking the books and selling hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages that would never have been sold had the democrats gone along with the various bills that republicans submitted calling for increased oversight and regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Furthermore, this Act didn't authorize the giveaway of houses to poor and minorities with zero down payment, which is essentially what the democrats were routinely doing to buy votes. Nor was it intended to help greedy people who were buying multiple homes or flipping houses in risky get-rich quick schemes. It was designed to help first-time homebuyers with amounts not to exceed $10,000 or six percent of the purchase price of the home. The Act actually sounds like admirable legislation ... not a *gotcha* (which is why it passed unanimously in both houses). But I still fault Bush for spending time on it when Fannie, Freddie and the democrats were leading us towards a clear and present disaster.
 
They tried. S.190 would have substantially increased oversight of and changes in Fannie and Freddie. It made it out of committee on a straight party line vote (11-9) with all the democrats voting against it and all the republicans voting for it. Democrats killed it in the senate using the filibuster. .


Care to cite the day that there was a cloture vote? In order to filibuster something, it has to be introduced onto the floor for debate. Care to cite when that happened?

Hindmost,

The actual legislative history of S.190 is slightly more complicated than BAC believes. If you're interested, I can provide more info. Bottom line: if they had wanted it, they could have gotten it, although they may have had to compromise and accept a Democratic version of the same bill, that provided the same restraints on Fannie and Freddie. That bill made it out of the House committee, and it failed 9-11 (Democrats for, Republicans against) in the Senate committee. I have read reports that the Secretary of the Treasury urged Bush to get behind the Democratic bill, but Bush refused. I don't know how credible those reports are.
 
You haven't proven to me that the normal free market methods of dealing with bad debt couldn't have worked in this case. Or still can't. Nor have you proven that the trillions of dollars now being literally thrown at the *supposed* problem are going to fix it. I don't think you can even prove that what the government has done the last 6 months hasn't made the problem worse. The fact is they tossed hundreds of billions at the banks and it didn't do a thing. It hasn't freed up credit. They are only talking about throwing even more hundreds of billions at the supposed problem. And the stimulus/recovery/pork bill isn't likely to solve the credit problem either. It will likely be money DOWN THE DRAIN.
Interesting. You ask for a lot of proof, yet you can't even answer the simple question of who will recapitalize the currently insolvent banking system if the federal government doesn't. This is the 6th time I've asked.

Who's going to recapitalize the banks, BAC?
The future is predicted by the stock markets. They are down and still going down because they do not like what they hear.
The stock market hit its all-time high on October 9 2007. Sounds like the prediction of a rosy future to me. That was 16 months ago. How we doing?
Banks were not threatened? Forty banks collapsed in just one year during that recession. Hundreds and hundreds of banks failed during the 1980s and we didn't panic. We let the market and bankruptcy courts, for the most part, handle the problem.
LOL. banks with 3 branches and 150 million in assets fail, and you think that is no worse than the threatened failure of Bank of America, Chase, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs...

Lehman brothers alone had a market capitalization of 67 billion dollars in 2008, with assets valued at 800 billion dollars. One bank. One that was not considered too large to fail. According to Wikipedia, the total cost of the Savings and Loan crisis was 160 billion.

Comparing the S and L crisis to the crisis we are in today is like comparing the failure of your local hardware store to the failure of Home Depot and Lowes.
 
4th quarter US GDP numbers were just revised, with the new figure showing a 6.2% decrease rather than the 3.8% originally estimated.

In January, Hong Kong's exports fell 21.8%, the steepest drop in 50 years

In January, Taiwan's exports fell 41.7% from the previous year, the largest drop in their history

In January Japan's exports were down 45.7% from the previous year. This is the world's second largest economy, and highly export dependent.

Perhaps we should start a new thread: "Why is BAC lying about the severity of the worldwide recession?" :D
 
Going back to the OP:
Has beachooser apologized for calling Obama a Liar?
I mean, it seems that based upon the new information
(Most recent job loss numbers, manufacturing numbers, bank instability issues), it seems that Obama was telling the truth.

I'm wondering if beachooser will change his mind or be "Stuck on stupid," as he likes to day.
 
Going back to the OP:
Has beachooser apologized for calling Obama a Liar?
I mean, it seems that based upon the new information
(Most recent job loss numbers, manufacturing numbers, bank instability issues), it seems that Obama was telling the truth.

I'm wondering if beachooser will change his mind or be "Stuck on stupid," as he likes to day.
He's a Politician
That's what politicians do, for Pete's sake.
Red, Blue, Black, White, R, D.
Its their JOB!
 

Back
Top Bottom