Posted on 01/20/2009 2:50:44 AM PST by VU4G10
Newsmax.com Editorial
"This administration has had a good, solid record, and I'm very proud of it. I tell people I leave town with a great sense of accomplishment and my head held high.”
—George W. Bush, Jan. 13, 2009
As the 43rd president waves goodbye to Washington, relatively few Americans share his proud assessment of his own presidency.
George W. Bush leaves the White House with one of the lowest approval ratings in history. According to Gallup, only Richard Nixon and Harry Truman, who suffered the double whammy of a bad economy and the unpopular Korean War, had lower approval ratings when they left the White House.
Today, Bush’s legacy to his successor is two unresolved wars, a global image that is deeply tarnished, and the greatest economic crisis in modern times.
Conservatives who backed Bush in two successive elections have little to show for their efforts. Bush, in fact, has decimated the Republican brand.
Bush oversaw the greatest increase in discretionary social spending in history as the federal government usurped new powers in its war on terror. He placed the United States on a global interventionist path for the elusive goal of “democracy.” Ronald Reagan would not be able to recognize the party he knew, which espoused limited government, protection of personal liberty, and the idea that the U.S. should lead globally by example rather than by force.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
And what we’re getting now is better? How?
I don't get it. What point is that post trying to make? So?
The one with the naive attitude is you. Bush had Congress for six years and he never pushed through one conservative fiscal policy. Not one. You can't count tax cuts because they are not permanent and it left him an out to blame it on someone else if they go up.
Not only did he fail to even remotely act like a conservative he attacked at points. Bush will go down, rightfully so, as the president who allowed the deification of Obama. Obama is the natural progression of the Bush years. Bush loaded up the wagons started us down the road to socialism and naturally if it was ok for Bush to do it it will be ok for Obama. However, Obama will get all the credit not Bush who deserves at least credit for getting the ball rolling.
Oh, and don't forget Congress. Bush turned them into the schizophrenic party. When they won the Senate in '02 I believe they were set to push for conservative policies but Bush's initiatives turned them around. They felt compelled to go left because that's what the leader of the party, Bush, was doing.
Honestly, the idea that Bush is NOT responsible for the leftward plunge of the GOP is a dream and not reality.
I expect a “Compassionate Conservative” to be a Conservative! Conservative clearly qualifies “Compassionate” in the term. You focus myopically on the word “Compassionate” without noticing the word “Conservative.”
I knew we were not getting Reagan. Most thought he would be like his father, who fits the definition of a “Compassionate Conservative.” Instead, we received LBJ.
Nice list. Half is made up and the other half is completely negated by Bush’s swings to the left.
Oh, please-----he was duped by the punkneos into pimping, er, I mean, pumping, trillions of US tax dollars into Mideast hellholes. Our govt printing presses can't print the money fast enough to dump into Mideast swamps.
Those disturbed Mideast types are ignoramuses of the first order----after years and years, they still can't govern small, insignificant states (unless, of course, the US taxpayer ponies up trillions of dollars to float their failed satraps).
A sane person looking at the Mideast sees some serious obsessive-compulsive pathological behavior going on over there; the constant need for ego-boo$ting is getting somewhat tiresome. Individuals actually enjoying criticism and taking pleasure from making enemies is an UNAMBIGUOUS sign of very disturbed sociopaths.
Because when the crash comes we can blame it the dems and their liberal policies and, if the GOP ever grows a spine, they can use it to foster change.
President Bush has nothing to do with the financial crisis. It was the liberal democrats who forced banks to lend money to people who cannot afford it.
Tell us how using tax dollars to fund down payments for people who wouldn't otherwise be qualified or have the money is NOT Bush's idea?
> Conservative clearly qualifies “Compassionate” in the term.
Other way around. “Compassionate” qualifies “Conservative” in this case. Try it:
Q: What kind of Conservative is he?
A: A “Compassionate” one.
It doesn’t work the other way around. “Compassionate” is the adjective.
> You focus myopically on the word “Compassionate” without noticing the word “Conservative.”
I did that only because “Compassionate” qualifies “Conservative”. I don’t think we disagree on what “conservative” means. It’s the “compassionate” bit that makes it interesting.
GWB was certainly a Conservative president — just maybe not as conservative as some people would have preferred.
Took you awhile didn’t it? LOL
Please post an itemized list of the ones that are made up, not the ones submarined by the Dems.
Actually, it would be easier to watch the next four months as literally hundreds of conservative accomplishments of the last eight years are thrown away.
POSTED FOR YOUR REFERENCE
November 21, 2008
The Truth About Bailouts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2136323/posts
Euro Pacific Capital ^ | 11-21-08 | Peter Schiff
FR Posted on Friday, November 21, 2008 9:50:50 PM by reprobate
As the Federal bailout bonanza prepares to spread beyond the mortgage and financial sectors to fill Detroit's depleted coffers, few economic or policy analysts have spared a thought for the destitution of the U.S. government itself.
Put simply, our government doesn't have enough spare cash to bailout a lemonade stand let alone a bloated and failing industry that is losing tens of billions of dollars per month. Washington can only offer funds that it has borrowed from abroad or printed.
Unfortunately, the nation is in the grips of a delusion that money derived from these sources has the power to heal. But history has clearly shown that borrowed or printed money only has the power to destroy.
The argument that energizes the pro-Detroit camp is that the government should extend the same courtesy to the rank and file auto workers that it lavished upon the fat cats of Wall Street. While two wrongs certainly do not make a right, the fact remains that the Wall Street firms are still floundering despite the bailouts. What's worse, the money spent was either printed or borrowed from abroad. Both options are destructive to America.
When it comes to bailouts, the real discussions are not centered in Washington but rather in Beijing, Tokyo, and Riyadh. With no money of our own, our ability to bailout our own citizens is completely dependent on the world's willingness to foot the bill.
While I am sure that Bush and Paulson are doing their best to convince the world that open ended financing of the United States is in the global interest, my guess is that, unlike Congress, our foreign creditors will see through the self-serving nature of our plea. (Excerpt) Read more at europac.net ...
“I don’t get it. What point is that post trying to make?” ~ raybbr
I suggest you re-read your post #102 and you can plainly see that you just proved the point my post was making, which was this: “..These conservatives are mad at their own party. They’re mad at Republicans. They’re not mad at the Democrat kooks.”
Read on:
“..... But get the next line: “If Democrats start acting like kooks, they’ll suffer in 2008 when the stakes are much higher.”
If? If? If they start acting like kooks? What, pray tell, have they been doing the past three or four years, if not longer? It is inarguable; it is undeniable, that the Democrats and their base have been saying some of the most kooky, outrageous, offensive things to the sensibilities of every decent person in the country, things that I’ve heard said in politics on a consistent drumbeat basis — and apparently it isn’t going to hurt them now, because guess who’s mad at who?
These conservatives are mad at their own party. They’re mad at Republicans. They’re not mad at the Democrat kooks.
They’re not mad at the insults. They’re not apparently outraged enough to vote against the enemy. They are outraged enough to vote against the people that are on their side or on whose side they are.
I’ve got a big interview here with Charlie Rangel that showed up in the New York Observer, and this story is all about how he can’t wait to get in there and run the Ways and Means Committee: “When I become chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, we’ll have power over the entire tax system, Social Security system, pension system, Medicare, all of international trade.” He says, “I don’t have time. I’m 76 years old. I don’t have time for a secret agenda. I’m going to move on all these things,” as he has clearly said. Now, you can sit there and say, “Well, the majorities aren’t going to be big enough for them to ever succeed in pulling any of this off,” which may in fact be true.
But none of it still clicks logically to me why you expect — or why you think — by sending your own people out of power adds up to a good thing, especially positioning you for a re-conquest of that power in 2008. I’ll tell you what’s going to happen. If the Republicans lose the House and the Senate because of principled conservatives who exercise their power by doing nothing, by staying home and [not] voting, and if the Democrats win, they’re not going to stop being kooky and they can’t start being kooky because they are kooky to begin with. It stuns me.
You go through the news. You will not find one reference to any Democrat who is anything other than miserable and unhappy, and in the process they say some of the kookiest things about why 9/11 happened, who was really behind it, the economy and gasoline prices.
Claire McCaskill! You want to talk kooky? Claire McCaskill, Democrat Senate candidate from Missouri — and I assume some of you principled conservatives in Missouri are going to sit out and allow her to win simply to send a message to the Republicans.
This is a woman who in a debate actually said that the Bush administration is doing something to the gas price to help Republicans in the upcoming election. This is sophistry! It is idiocy, and it is pure ignorance, and it’s pandering to a low common denominator of kooks in her base and in her party in Missouri.
Anybody with half a brain understands this can’t be done. Oil is a worldwide commodity. We have no control over OPEC. We have no control over the speculator market. We have no control over any of these factors, and certainly one man doesn’t.
Yet here is the Democrat Senate candidate in Missouri — in a race that’s said to be “bellwether” — is making this charge, and she’s running some totally false, lying ads as well about veterans’ medical care, and she’s had to pull the ads. She’s been called on it. Yet I guess that doesn’t aggravate principled conservatives.
Jim Talent, for some reasons, makes principled conservatives mad, or George Bush makes principled conservatives mad, or some member of the House or a couple of them make principled conservatives mad so we’re going to show ‘em and we’re going to teach ‘em a lesson and we’re going to send Claire McCaskill to the US Senate for six years to practice her kookery.
I’ll tell you, this notion that doesn’t matter who wins because the Democrats aren’t going to have a big enough majority, that’s going to lead to another thing that I will share with you. It’s going to lead to the nomination of John McCain for the Republican presidential candidacy. ...”
Excerpted from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1968154/posts?page=42#42
Nothing ? GWB administration took (increasing home ownership )credit for the resulting housing boom , and stock market boom, which turned out to be phony paper value bubbles based on debt. All the so called increase in tax revenue was based on consumer and national debt based on paper values. That is why he gets blamed, for taking credit before it goes bad. Democrats had an interest in screwing up the economy, because they knew this.
RE :”We won the war in Iraq despite the defeatists and traitors at home who did everything under the sun to make us lose it. We won because of the great leadership of President Bush and ...”
If invading Iraq was so important, so key to winning the WOT then why didn't your hero call for tax increases to fund it?? specifically. That would have been leadership. It may have lost him 2004, but instead he slid by and doomed his party for two elections. Why pass that cost on to future administrations and generations? Why expect another administration to raise taxes to pay off the Iraq debt? You give him credit for this invasion/victory but then what? You expect to sucessfully blame the next president to take the heat for funding it after the fact? And you think that will sell to voters? And if it doesn't the voters are all stupid and the MSM has them brainwashed?
Banks granted mortgages to anything that moved. In some cases food stamps was deemed an income gauge for getting mortgages. Illegal Mexicans were not asked for proofs of employment or citizenship---if they could print the fake name of one of their stolen identities, they got 100% mortgages. They promptly flipped the houses to family members, duping banks into giving them higher and higher mortgages. They then defaulted and absconded to Mexico with piles of money, leaving US taxpayers and banks holding the bag......and Bush did NOTHING to stop this
==================================================
POSTED FOR YOUR REFERENCE
February 24, 2005
PROBE: FANNIE KEEPS COOKIN'
By RICHARD WILNER, NY POST, With NY Post wire services
Federal regulators continuing to pore over Fannie Mae's books have uncovered additional accounting irregularities. The questions on accounting, in addition to those uncovered last year that forced Fannie Mae to restate its earning by $9 billion over three years, could make it harder for Fannie Mae to reach its goal of increasing capital reserves by $5 billion by June.
When the accounting scandal hit the No. 1 buyer of U.S. mortgages December 2004, CEO Franklin Raines and CFO J. Timothy Howard got the boot.
The accounting mess last year and the latest additional problems were uncovered by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Fannie Mae's regulator. Fannie Mae released the news of the latest problems deep into a press release that merely updated the yearlong probe. OFHEO said the additional problems related to "securities accounting, loan accounting, consolidations, accounting for commitments, and, practices to smooth certain income and expense amounts."
An eight-month investigation by OFHEO, which crested in September, found serious accounting problems at the government-sponsored company as well as a pervasive pattern of earnings manipulation and lax internal controls. Fannie Mae shares, which have been battered in the weeks since its accounting crisis came to light, fell 64 cents to close at $57.16 on the New York Stock Exchange, its lowest level in more than four years and 30 percent below its high of $80.82 a year ago.
"We're getting a broader, more detailed understanding of the specific accounting issues, but I don't see this as anything new," said Bert Ely, a banking consultant in Alexandria, Va., and longtime critic of Fannie Mae. In its statement, the company said its board and management "are addressing the issues and questions."
http://www.nypost.com/business/22094.htm
====================================
December 28, 2004
RAINES' FAREWELL: $26M+ By PAUL THARP, NY Post
http://www.nypost.com/business/37312.htm
Although Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines was fired for bungling its books, he'll get a $26 million parachute — not counting a monthly pension of $116,300 for life.
The 55-year-old Washington, D.C. insider and his CFO J. Timothy Howard left their jobs last week under a cloud of suspicion that the execs undermined the financial soundness of Fannie Mae, creating losses of up to $9 billion. Regulators overseeing Fannie Mae urged it not to pay any benefits to either executive until reviews are made of their contracts, filings said yesterday.
RAINES PAYOUT Fannie Mae's filings state Raines owns options giving him $5.8 million in net profit after redeeming them, plus another $8.7 million in deferred compensation for his six years at the helm. Raines has already collected $4.87 million in special performance shares this year and also keeps $5 million of paid-up life insurance.
He and his spouse get free medical and dental benefits for life, worth over $1 million. Last year, Raines earned $20 million in salary, bonuses and stock awards.
After he was fired, Raines told the board that he's entitled to get paychecks until next June 22 giving him another $600,000, which triggers a $2,000 monthly raise in his lifetime pension. He also says he's entitled to disputed options with a gross value of about $5.6 million.
To keep Raines happy within philanthropic circles, Fannie Mae will match his charitable contributions by $10,000 a year.
The Securities and Exchange Commission said Raines broke accounting rules by playing with risky derivatives.
Raines' CFO Howard gets a parachute valued at more than $13.1 million — not including a monthly pension of $36,071 for life. Howard gets free medical and dental coverage for himself and family for life, and as well as the matching $10,000 annual perk in making charitable contributions.
Thanks very much for the ping, Liz. Interesting thread.
N-i-c-e take.
===========================================
POSTED FOR YOUR REFERENCE
Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines Letter to Shareholders----2003 Fannie Mae Annual Report
Excerpt ...Ten years ago......the typical conforming mortgage required a down payment of 10 to 20 percent, and low-down payment mortgages were considered too risky. But then we helped to standardize the 3 to 5 percent down payment loan, brought it to global capital markets, and made it available to lenders and communities nationwide. Now low-down payment loans are commonplace. And we just adopted a new variance in our underwriting standards that will make the $500 down payment loan widely available as well...
In 1994, we pledged to provide $1 trillion in capital to ten million underserved families by the end of 2000. Thanks to our housing and industry partners, we met that goal early.
Then in 2000, we launched our American Dream Commitment, a pledge to provide $2 trillion in capital to 18 million underserved families by the year 2010, including $400 billion targeted specifically for minority families (later raised to $700 billion in response to President Bush’s Minority Homeownership Initiative). After four of the strongest years in housing and mortgage finance history, we’ve already surpassed the top-line goals of this commitment. But our work is far from complete.
So in January 2004, we announced our Expanded American Dream Commitment and pledged significant new resources to tackle America’s toughest housing challenges. Our new commitment has three main goals.
First, we will expand access to homeownership for six million first-time home buyers in the next ten years, including 1.8 million minority first-time home buyers.We also will help raise the national minority homeownership rate from 49 percent to 55 percent, with the ultimate goal of closing it entirely.
Second, we will help new and long-term homeowners stay in their homes through a series of initiatives, and commit $15 billion to preserve affordable rental housing and $1.5 billion to support the revitalization of public housing communities.
Third, we will increase the supply of affordable housing and support community development activities in at least 1,000 neighborhoods across the country through our American Communities Fund, and through targeted investments like Low-Income Housing Tax Credits that help finance affordable rental housing.
It is because of initiatives like our Trillion Dollar Commitment and our American Dream Commitment that we have exceeded our HUD affordable housing goals for ten consecutive years. EXCERPT
I generally agree with this statement, but I think you need to take it a step further to understand Conservative disappointment with GWB.
Yes, the leftists stood as roadblocks to everything he wanted to accomplish with regard to the GWOT, but GWB failed miserably in that he bargained away a conservative domestic policy, his legacy, and the Republican brand instead of fighting for what was right and using the Bully Pulpit to destroy every last dirtbag, D or R, that held success in the war hostage for pork and socialism.
GWB is a good, gentle, decent man, but these circumstances called for something other than "gentle".
Bush refused to enforce our laws concerning our borders. Conservatives support border enforcement.
Bush embraced a Socialistic bailout of the financial industry funded by billions of taxpayer dollars. Conservatives do not support gargantuan bailouts of private industry.
Bush was an internationalist and intentionally led America into an unnecessary war where we had no realistic threat of invasion. True Conservatives follow the principles of our founding Fathers: “We are friends of freedom, but defenders only of our own.”
Bush believed in big government. Conservatives believe in small government.
Bush is no conservative. I am not even sure if he was “Compassionate” though I know he meant to be. True Compassion does not saddle future generations with pain and suffering due to the excesses and lack of discipline of present generations.
Thanks Liz! You are gold!
There was a republican theory at the time that home ownership creates an ownership society and turns democrats to republicans. It turns out that it just moves the democrats into the republican suburbs where they elect tax raising democrats and blame GWB for the taxes. That is what happened where I live in the past 8 years of housing development. If the homeowners need help to stay in their homes they couldnt afford , that’s a winning strategy for democrats. Why should I blame them? They know how to win, our side is an expert at losing, short a Sept 11.
This was not the only thing GWB took credit for that went sour. His bi-partision energy bill 2005-2006 that mandated ethanol just raised gas prices. After he gave a speech taking credit for energy independence that the public took as a promise for lower prices. Guess who was going to get the blame for that!
I personally know of at least 3 principled conservatives who were booted off Free Republic in 2000 and 2004 for criticizing Bush. That kind of nonsense has to stop. Maybe if we had listened to those who had better discernment about the man back then we could have chosen a real conservative candidate instead.
To my mind a real conservative does not hand over 3 branches of government to socialists. He tries to hand them over to conservatives instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.