PDA

View Full Version : Thomas Sowell PhD and his TINFOIL HAT



RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/9/2010, 01:07 AM
The Mess Bush Left And Other Obama Fables
By THOMAS SOWELL

President Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.

The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No president of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, and all taxes are voted into law by Congress. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the congressional Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills, but Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

Having created this scary situation, President Obama now says, "Don't give in to fear. Let's reach for hope." The voters reached for hope when they elected Obama. The fear comes from what he has done since taking office. "The worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that created this mess in the first place," he said recently. "In November, you're going to have that choice."

Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to insufficient government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.

These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy. Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats — notably Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.

At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.

If we are going to talk about "the policies that created this mess in the first place," let's at least get the facts straight and the names right.

The current policies of the Obama administration are a continuation of the same reckless policies that brought on the current economic problems — all in the name of "change." Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still sacred cows in Washington, even though they have already required the biggest bailouts of all.

Why? Because they allow politicians to direct vast sums of money where it will do politicians the most good, either personally or in terms of buying votes in the next election.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/546236/201009071835/The-Mess-Bush-Left-And-Other-Obama-Fables.htm

SicEmBaylor
9/9/2010, 01:24 AM
Good article. I agree with most of this, but there is one big problem with Sowell's argument...he vastly understates the power of the President in crafting and writing the budget.

Constitutionally, all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. In reality, the President submits his budget to the House after all the funding requests from all of the various Executive agencies and departments have been compiled along with the President's own budgeting priorities.

The House uses this as the basis for its budget by subtracting or cutting here and there and adding a whole lot elsewhere. It's never the exact same budget the President submits, but it's largely the President's budget in any case.

Sowell is letting the President off the hook as far as the budget goes...both Obama and Bush.

In any case, now is a good time to once again bring up the line-item veto. The President should have had the line-item veto a long time ago. Clinton, briefly, took advantage of it but it was stripped away after he was sued by Republicans who were the original advocates of the line-item veto until it was used to strip away their own pork. Pitiful.

Both parties are so full of clusterf*** fail that it boggles the senses.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/9/2010, 01:52 AM
Am I surprised you're turning this thread into another of your clamorings for third party voting. The Democrats ought to be cutting you some stimulus money.(maybe they are?)

SicEmBaylor
9/9/2010, 02:36 AM
Am I surprised you're turning this thread into another of your clamorings for third party voting. The Democrats ought to be cutting you some stimulus money.(maybe they are?)

I know. I know. Reality is a hard thing to face.

yermom
9/9/2010, 02:56 AM
Good article. I agree with most of this, but there is one big problem with Sowell's argument...he vastly understates the power of the President in crafting and writing the budget.

Constitutionally, all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. In reality, the President submits his budget to the House after all the funding requests from all of the various Executive agencies and departments have been compiled along with the President's own budgeting priorities.

The House uses this as the basis for its budget by subtracting or cutting here and there and adding a whole lot elsewhere. It's never the exact same budget the President submits, but it's largely the President's budget in any case.

Sowell is letting the President off the hook as far as the budget goes...both Obama and Bush.

In any case, now is a good time to once again bring up the line-item veto. The President should have had the line-item veto a long time ago. Clinton, briefly, took advantage of it but it was stripped away after he was sued by Republicans who were the original advocates of the line-item veto until it was used to strip away their own pork. Pitiful.

Both parties are so full of clusterf*** fail that it boggles the senses.

when are you going to learn that Republicans are saints and you shouldn't question their actions. ever.

they operate through divine interaction and are infallible. the sooner we all realize this, the better off we are.

cast off your 3rd party demons and you may still reach the promised land

SicEmBaylor
9/9/2010, 03:37 AM
when are you going to learn that Republicans are saints and you shouldn't question their actions. ever.

they operate through divine interaction and are infallible. the sooner we all realize this, the better off we are.

cast off your 3rd party demons and you may still reach the promised land

Clearly, I'm absolutely out of my mind for having principles and an open enough mind to properly evaluate information and facts (without having to listen to someone else opine and tell me what to think). What I really ought to do is just put my principles aside and vote for the guy and the party that are the "lesser of two evils." The only problem is that I still can't get around the fact that rather than being the lesser of two evils they're both just..well...equals.

Having said all that, I do like Sowell a lot. He's a pro-states' rights black man. How can you not love that? And by the way, Rush, Sowell is another guy you've been quoting who is a self-identified libertarian.

soonerscuba
9/9/2010, 10:53 AM
Good article. I agree with most of this, but there is one big problem with Sowell's argument...he vastly understates the power of the President in crafting and writing the budget.

Constitutionally, all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. In reality, the President submits his budget to the House after all the funding requests from all of the various Executive agencies and departments have been compiled along with the President's own budgeting priorities.

The House uses this as the basis for its budget by subtracting or cutting here and there and adding a whole lot elsewhere. It's never the exact same budget the President submits, but it's largely the President's budget in any case.

Sowell is letting the President off the hook as far as the budget goes...both Obama and Bush.

In any case, now is a good time to once again bring up the line-item veto. The President should have had the line-item veto a long time ago. Clinton, briefly, took advantage of it but it was stripped away after he was sued by Republicans who were the original advocates of the line-item veto until it was used to strip away their own pork. Pitiful.

Both parties are so full of clusterf*** fail that it boggles the senses.Procedure is hard, can I just bitch about things?

49r
9/9/2010, 11:28 AM
Procedure is hard, can I just bitch about things?

Yes you can. If you do it with c/p emails and nonsensical non-sequiturs it would be even better! Besides, cogent thought is for sissies and college educated weenies anyway.

Tulsa_Fireman
9/9/2010, 12:18 PM
In all seriousness, the link to the article truncated on my screen to say "NewsAndAnal".

Awesome.

TUSooner
9/9/2010, 12:25 PM
Thomas Sowell is far better than the usual gang of idiots Rush's Parrot quotes. I'll give him that much! :D

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/9/2010, 12:30 PM
Having said all that, I do like Sowell a lot. He's a pro-states' rights black man. How can you not love that? And by the way, Rush, Sowell is another guy you've been quoting who is a self-identified libertarian.The libertarian platform is good on many issues. But, they never win jack shi*, and always help the Democrats. Result: with the Democrats, we get the worst politicians available to run our country. YOU KNOW THAT. QUIT PRETENDING YOU DON'T. An improved Republican Party, with the help of the Tea Party movement, is the country's best hope.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/9/2010, 12:34 PM
Thomas Sowell is far better than the usual gang of idiots Rush's Parrot quotes. I'll give him that much! :DSowell's article is as definitive as any I've read about the causes of our economic plunge...thank you, Democrats.

JohnnyMack
9/9/2010, 12:38 PM
Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to insufficient government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.

These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy. Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats — notably Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.

At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.

If we are going to talk about "the policies that created this mess in the first place," let's at least get the facts straight and the names right.

A bit short sighted here I think. Yes Fannie & Freddie were part of the problem, but you had to know Sowell wouldn't dare point out what role the bunch of ****ing scumbags Goldman Sachs et al played in all this. I mean they're free-market, capitalist golden boys, they couldn't have been responsible for ****ing anything up, it was ALL a product of Govt.

Scott D
9/9/2010, 03:36 PM
Sorry folks, there's a labor issue in Phoenix, so those nice Italian pants are going to have to be on backorder.

Sooner_Havok
9/9/2010, 11:19 PM
Sorry folks, there's a labor issue in Phoenix, so those nice Italian pants are going to have to be on backorder.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooo