The Great Recession of 2008: Set the Record Straight

Sometimes you just have to say what the...?  So I wrote to my congressman.

Here is what I asked last Sunday...


Dear Representative Buchanan.

Ref: Democratic Party narrative, i.e., "the failed Policies of the Bush administration caused the recession in 2008." (Here, here, here, here in contrast to this, this & this)

I am trying to understand why you, along with Gov. Romney and the rest of the GOP, are allowing the Democrats to constantly and consistently repeat the lie with no one able or willing to counter it.  Why is that?  Really, I want to know what the problem is.  Or maybe it is true.  If it is true, I want to know that as well.  And I'd like to know before I receive my absentee ballot.

Whenever a Democrat, or Democratic Party supporter in the legacy media, repeats this whopper, there must be a GOP member or supporter to counter the lie with the facts.  You/they would not need to get 'into the weeds' on this, but a few simple facts would go a long way.  Here they are.

1.  Until 2007 after Democrats took control of both houses of the US Congress, there were 52 months of job growth (8.3 million new jobs), unemployment averaged under 5% through 2008, wages were up by 11.8%, GDP was averaging 2.9% annually and inflation was low.  These are the facts.

2.  If you want to know why this problem occurred, you have to look at it honestly.  Derivative securities based on mortgages. The collapse of the derivative market caused the mortgage meltdown: with many mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (i.e., the taxpayers).

These two entities are the babies of the Democratic Party.  This crash started building under the policies of Democratic party and their leaders as far back as FDR.  FDR's ill advised meddling in the housing markets lead to the creation of Fannie Mae.  This meddling upset real market forces by taking a large amount of responsibility away from the financial institutions involved. In 1968 LBJ decided making Fannie and Freddie publicly traded commodities; making it a cash cow  In 1999 President Clinton changed the banking laws (Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act), allowing the financial institutions to engage in very risky investing.  Finally, throughout the George W. Bush administration, who repeatedly warned of such a failure and was blocked by Democrats in both houses of Congress; Democrats who pressured banks to make mortgages with little or no credit checks and promoted sub-prime loans. In 2007, the Fed started raising interest rates, Payments doubled and tripled, payments were missed, and the house of cards came down.

3.  It was not Bush policies, Bush tax cuts or the capitalist system that failed.  It was Democratic Party’s sacred cows that caused the mortgage meltdown and subsequent recession.  This president, Barack Obama, is employing the same FDR inspired policies and he will extend the high unemployment and weak economy for a decade or more.

Again, someone has to be out there setting the record straight.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.  I will be looking for your response and will post both on my blog, Move It Right.

Sincerely Yours

News Corpse Chronicling Media decay -Limited Edtition

I just found News Corpse, a website that is "The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay", according to them.  But it only took a moment to deduce that it is dedicated to slandering News Corp., their Fox News Channel and conservative values in particular.  


Evidence?


I googled for info on Dr. Keith Ablow; who had I just heard on Fox & Friends. One of the first results was News Corpse's post critisizing Dr. Ablow, a contributor on Fox News who "Mark" characterizes as


"a member of the Fox News Medical “A” Team, keeps showing up on Fox properties dispensing the most absurd opinions .."


Mr. Mark reads, 


"Ablow: Well, he’s seemingly unable to let go of it because I think we finally have to start taking him at his word. And you know this is a favorite theme of mine, that people want to try to find some other explanation than the obvious. The obvious explanation is that the President has contempt for that branch of government, is egocentric, and believes that any form of authority, perhaps other than that vested in himself, is untrustworthy. Particularly the longstanding authority associated with branches of government of the United States. That’s literally the most obvious explanation."

And concludes, 

"He (Dr. Ablow) has been relentlessly pushing his delusional theory that the President is acting out some sort of suppressed rage as a result of a deprived upbringing."

I suppose it doesn't matter that Dr. Ablow never suggested that the president was acting out suppressed rage or that the president had a deprived upbringing.

He complains,

"Ablow has never examined (or even met) the President,"

Well I'm not a psycho analyst, but it seems to me that aside from some labs, psycho-analysts normally observe and listen to the "patient" to make determinations and we have plenty of President Obama's videos and statements to watch and listen to.

He goes on to characterize President Obama as a kid 

"who excel academically, graduate with honors from Ivy League law schools, and enter careers in public service that lead to the White House."

It seems Mr. Mark has some secret sources that none of the rest of the media, wikileaks included, do not have: President Obama's academic record. Very good Mr. Mark.  A gold star for you.


So Mark, where does that come from?  I don't expect answers as the left does not specialize in facts. It seems to me as though Mr. Mark has a vivid imagination.


That is the thing with your average kool aid drenched Progressive:  Always short on facts and long on disparaging characterizations. I wonder if anyone believes his tripe.

"Rights" Misused Again - DOMA & Speaker Boehner

 Over at the the Huffington Post they are trying to paint the GOP House leader as a bigot for following his oath of office, while playing the President as their knight in shining armor, even though the president will not clarify his position on gay marriage (in the past Mr. Obama has stated that he does not support gay marriage, then he did,). From the Huffington Post (Link)

"That's why I was shocked to hear that Speaker John Boehner decided to use our tax dollars to intervene and stand up for DOMA to deny LGBT Americans the rights they deserve. This is discrimination -- plain and simple."

You were shocked!  I was shocked that the Obama government used our tax dollars to sue our states for doing the job Mr. Obama won't do. 


While there are many rights that individual Americans have, there are only a few "rights" that are protected by the rule of law.  If you study the US Constitution, and including the Bill of Rights along with the rest of the amendments, you will be unable to find marriage mentioned at all.  There is a reason for this. Many natural and "implied" rights cannot and should not involve government's heavy hand to interfere with individual adult choices. And there is a reason for this.  We need only look at the state of the economy to know how well government meddling works.

Our government was founded around a mostly 'hands off' philosophy (where individuals are concerned) unless one infringes on the "protected rights" of others.  And now, some are begging government to be the decider of who can marry whom. It boggles the mind.

But as much as some people wish that their particular issue was protected by law, the plain fact is many are not.

But married people have no more actual "protected rights" than anyone else.  That is why I believe using the word "rights" when discussing gay marriage is more of a propaganda tool than an actual "right" that should be protected by law.  Those special treatments that a married couple enjoy are the result of centuries marital disputes and contract law where the aggrieved parties seek a resolution through the government.  Politicians pandering to a large voting block have enacted many marriage friendly laws.  But today, we are much more enlightened about different lifestyles and can offer the same laws covering property and other issues that arise to cover gay and lesbian couples that would be unheard of in decades past.

If you want a "right" to gay marriage, I recommend a Constitutional amendment  to add the right.  It would then be protected by government.

ObamaCare's Cruel & Unusual New Taxes

The Orwellian Affordable Care Act (ACA), un-popularly known as "ObamaCare", was advertised as saving money for health care in the United States of America.  Imagine the shock when people learned that it would cut $500 Billion from Medicare, something the Democrats railed against GOP Congresspersons throughout the 1990's.


Not only is it cutting Medicare, but it is increasing taxes everyone, including the middle class (who were promised no tax increases by Candidate and then President Obama). The Americans for Tax Reform  (ATR) has published a list of 17 new taxes that become effective over a period of years (listed HERE). Some are already effective, keep reading... 


Of the more egregious money saving maneuvers, an Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals, "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS (ATR). Personally, I fail to see how this will save anyone anything, including lives or money.  It looks suspiciously as though the political class is trying to punish charitable organizations.  You know, the competition.

The “economic substance doctrine” gives the IRS the power to arbitrarily disallow legitimate deductions.  Isn't that a power we all would like to have?


And then there is the "Tax on Innovator Drug Companies".  What does that say to you? ATR describes it as a "$2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year."  So, if a business that creates and manufactures life saving or life improving or other medications, and has the politically incorrect result of making a profit, Obama is going to take some of it from them.  That sounds like a protection racket, where the business must pay a thug to protect his/her business from that same thug.


How does raising taxes on Blue Cross/Blue Shield lower the cost of insurance?  Anyone who is vaguely aware of how business works would understand that when their costs go up they pass it on to their customers.  Who doesn't know that?


With the "Medicine Cabinet Tax", ObamaCare punishes you for buying nonprescription medications.  Yeah, that will save me a wad of cash.. not.  Maybe US Rep. Pelosi really didn't read it?


Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 began in 2012, so don't be surprised when it shows up on your W-2 at the end.  ATR describes it as a "Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns". I believe them.


These are just a few, along with some others, of the new taxes that have already taken effect.  There are other new taxes,  such as a tax on tanning parlors (tanning beds are health care related?), and plenty more to come after the presidential election (How did that happen?).


You can see all of the ACA taxes, with references to the relevant paragraph in the ACA, at ATR's webpage, here.