Obama starts getting honest, already.

[Manedwolf]

Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama said reviving the U.S. economy will require scaling back on his campaign promises and personal sacrifice from all Americans.

“I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped,” Obama said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program broadcast this morning. “Everybody’s going to have to give.”

Uh-huh. He didn't add "or else", though.

The Democrat mantra, I can hear it now.

RAISE TAXES!

RAISE TAXES!

RAISE TAXES!

And note the slickness of the lie. He's not breaking his promises. He has to scale them back because of the economy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3YMkstD3JzA

[Perd Hapley]

Isn't it obvious?  It's George Bush's fault.  Bush and Cheney and the other evil Republicans messed up the economy worse than we thought; mainly by way of "this notion" of a free market/laissez faire/deregulation.

"We didn't know how bad it was.  George Bush messed things up really bad," will be a frequent refrain for the Odministration.   

[Standing Wolf]

Obama starts getting honest, already.

Congenital liars never get honest. They sometimes appear to be honest, but that's the extent of it.

[lone_gunman]

The Democrat mantra, I can hear it now.

RAISE TAXES!

I am not Obama fan, and certainly did not vote for him.  But he has already proposed lowering some taxes, and has decided that we need to continue the Bush tax cuts for now.  Why do you think the Democrat mantra will be "raise taxes"?  He seems to be going in the right direction on this to me.

Also, Bush and associates really have messed things up really really bad, and he will probably have to spend most of his presidency simply undoing the mistakes of the past.

[Monkeyleg]

Also, Bush and associates really have messed things up really really bad...

Oh, do you mean causing the mortgage meltdown (which led to our current economic situation) by enacting the Community Reinvestment Act in the 1970's? Or "strengthening" the CRA in the late 1990's to require lenders to issue mortgages to people who couldn't afford them?

Or do you mean when Bush started warning about the looming mortgage crisis in 2005?

[lone_gunman]

Well he had 8 years to do something about it, and 4 of those were with a Republican controlled House and Senate.

Not saying Bush causes all the problems we have today, but he did nothing to stop them.  But I am not trying to bash Bush here.  His presidency is almost over, we need to put that behind us and look forward.  I voted for him twice even.

[Manedwolf]

Well he had 8 years to do something about it, and 4 of those were with a Republican controlled House and Senate.

Not saying Bush causes all the problems we have today, but he did nothing to stop them.  But I am not trying to bash Bush here.  His presidency is almost over, we need to put that behind us and look forward.  I voted for him twice even.

Soooo....it's Bush's fault, because he couldn't manage to undo all the damage the Democrats were actively doing.

It's the firefighter's fault for burning down the house because they couldn't put out the fires the arsonists were setting?

[Nitrogen]

Soooo....it's Bush's fault, because he couldn't manage to undo all the damage the Democrats were actively doing.

It's the firefighter's fault for burning down the house because they couldn't put out the fires the arsonists were setting?

Pretty much, if the are sitting around watching the fire burn, refusing to turn on the hoses because some influential people might complain if they get wet.

[BMacklem]

It doesn't matter WHO was president at the time the mortgage "crisis" hit the meltdown point, had it been any other republican, or a democrat, it was the democrats who consistently stymied any and ALL legislation to put some oversight into the lending industries.
The republicans have tried repeatedly to get some form of governmental controls put into the financial/lending industries, and were thwarted time and time again, because the Dems like Barney Frank and co. kept saying it was a non-issue.
And there are videos of all the top brass of Fannie May/Freddie Mac and their lackeys all sying that they had pleanty of control of what was going on, and that there was nothing to worry about.
Here you go... it's not Bush's fault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs


Here's Clintons administration admitting it's involvement in the housing problem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64


Here's the Bush warnings about what is going on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related

[Manedwolf]

Pretty much, if the are sitting around watching the fire burn, refusing to turn on the hoses because some influential people might complain if they get wet.

Um. The republicans TRIED to get oversight on Fannie and Freddie, remember? And the architects of the debacle, Frank, Schumer, BLOCKED it every time!

And now Frank has the gall to stand up there and call for regulation, lying every time he slurs out garbage in a way that makes me want to throw something at the screen.

[lone_gunman]

Soooo....it's Bush's fault, because he couldn't manage to undo all the damage the Democrats were actively doing.

It seems to me the Republicans just didnt do anything to try and stop the damage.

Why were the Republicans unable to change things when they controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency for 4 years?

Anyway, looking at back at failed policies isn't what we need to get out of the mess right now.  I voted against Obama but certainly hope he can fix things.  So far what I have heard from him isn't as bad as what I expected.  In fact, he has talked about cutting some taxes, which is why I am confused about the OP comment about raising taxes.  Obama has said he will keep the Bush tax cuts, and has proposed reducing some other taxes.

[Monkeyleg]

It seems to me the Republicans just didnt do anything to try and stop the damage.

Um, did you not watch the video that BMacklem posted?

So far what I have heard from him isn't as bad as what I expected.  In fact, he has talked about cutting some taxes, which is why I am confused about the OP comment about raising taxes.

Oh, yes, he'll cut taxes...for the income groups the Democrats want to drag into their tent (if said groups aren't already there). And he's going to "stimulate" the economy with $700+ billion dollars that will go to industries that toe the environmentalist/socialist line. $700 billion is roughly the intake from one year of tax revenues, so any tax cuts you might see will be offset by increased taxes over the next several dozen years. A case of robbing Peter to pay Peter.

[El Tejon]

How is "cutting taxes" (i.e. give them something for nothing) for those who do not pay taxes going to help the economy?

All Obama wants to do is transfer wealth from the Productive Class to the Millstone Class, and that has worked SOOOO well for us these past 75 years.

[grampster]

"Why were the Republicans unable to change things when they controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency for 4 years?"

Because enough Republicans are Rino's, that's why.  Leftists come in many creeds, colors, cultures, religions and political labels.  Another reason is that a lot of conservative R's just don't have the focus that leftists do, they like to think of themselves as being above the fray and that Americans will react to logic rather than emotion.  That is a mistake.  Emotion trumps logic all day long.  Why do you think advertising is a multi billion dollar business?

Ben Franklin, iirc, said that they, the founders, gave us a Republic if we can keep it.  I think it's slipping through our fingers because of apathy.

As for Obama, since being elected, he now knows all the facts.  I think once he got that briefing he said those famous words....."Oh s***!".

[AZRedhawk44]

Um. The republicans TRIED to get oversight on Fannie and Freddie, remember? And the architects of the debacle, Frank, Schumer, BLOCKED it every time!

It's not oversight that is needed.

I don't care how many iron-fisted goobermint thugs you send to force me to do something, I am not gonna loan my money or property to a sure-fire loan dodger that will never repay me.

"Oversight" just creates more goobermint thugs.  Deregulation actually frees these businesses to make their own decisions in pursuit of profit.

[lone_gunman]

How is "cutting taxes" (i.e. give them something for nothing) for those who do not pay taxes going to help the economy?

All Obama wants to do is transfer wealth from the Productive Class to the Millstone Class, and that has worked SOOOO well for us these past 75 years

I guess it will work for Obama the same way it worked for Bush.  The Bush tax cuts also paid people money who had paid no income tax.  I don't see how Obama's plan is much different.  Why are people willing to defend Bush on the issue, but not Obama?

[Manedwolf]

I guess it will work for Obama the same way it worked for Bush.  The Bush tax cuts also paid people money who had paid no income tax.  I don't see how Obama's plan is much different.  Why are people willing to defend Bush on the issue, but not Obama?

Um...No?

Where are you getting this from?

[ronnyreagan]

Oh, do you mean causing the mortgage meltdown (which led to our current economic situation) by enacting the Community Reinvestment Act in the 1970's? Or "strengthening" the CRA in the late 1990's to require lenders to issue mortgages to people who couldn't afford them?

The CRA is a stupid law that should be repealed. However, it doesn't deserve the blame for the mortgage meltdown. Conservative bloggers were falling all over themselves to blame their favorite targets and absolve the poor innocent bankers who were only doing what evil government was forcing them to do. It seems obvious to me that they were doing this because it conforms to their ideology, not any sort of real analysis. There is no single law/corporation/person to blame for this mess.

Ben Bernanke:
"Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis available data ... runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties,"

 Randall Kroszner(Federal Reserve governor):
“Only 6% of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.”

John C. Dugan (Comptroller of the Currency):
“CRA is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace”

[lone_gunman]

Manedwolf, not sure what you mean.

Do you disagree that the Bush tax rebates were given to some who paid no taxes???

Everyone is acting like Obama's plan is worse than Bush's, but I dont see how it is.  Both plans involve giving money to people who paid no income taxes and giving tax breaks to pet industries.

[Tallpine]

I am not Obama fan, and certainly did not vote for him.  But he has already proposed lowering some taxes, and has decided that we need to continue the Bush tax cuts for now.  Why do you think the Democrat mantra will be "raise taxes"?  He seems to be going in the right direction on this to me.

Also, Bush and associates really have messed things up really really bad, and he will probably have to spend most of his presidency simply undoing the mistakes of the past.

Or just repeating the mistakes of the past ...  :rolleyes:

More spending + lower taxes = more deficits.

Isn't that exactly what Bush has been doing for the past eight years ? 

[K Frame]

Or just repeating the mistakes of the past ...  :rolleyes:

More spending + lower taxes = more deficits.

Isn't that exactly what Bush has been doing for the past eight years ? 

Sill you. You should know that deficit spending is GOOD when a Democratic government does it, but BAD when a Republican government does it.

[lone_gunman]

More spending + lower taxes = more deficits.

That statement is not necessarily true.  If the tax rate is lowered, and the economy grows as a result, then to government still gets more money to spend than it would otherwise have.

A smaller piece of a large pie is better than a large piece of a small pie sometimes.

[longeyes]

Personal sacrifice...except from the tax-eating class.

When gov't workers begin sacrificing I'll believe he's serious about "austerity."

[Tallpine]

That statement is not necessarily true.  If the tax rate is lowered, and the economy grows as a result, then to government still gets more money to spend than it would otherwise have.

A smaller piece of a large pie is better than a large piece of a small pie sometimes.

True, unless you are spending the equivalent of a year's production of the bakery 

[Monkeyleg]

OK, ronnyreagan, then how is this all Bush's fault? I know you didn't say that, but perhaps you could explain it to lone_gunman.