A guest with Kyl for purposes of discussing the economy, Schumer clearly came in with a game plan: to analogize President Bush to the man who presided over the beginning of the Great Depression: Herbert Hoover. After Schumer tried it twice, Kyl had had enough and unleashed a riposte as devastating as it was reasoned.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
CHARLES SCHUMER: It shouldn't have come to this. Had the administration acted more procatively earlier, particularly about the housing crisis, when many of us were asking them to, we wouldn't have gotten up to this point. And unfortunately this administration has sort of a Herbert Hoover mentality: don't do anything. And we've learned over 100 years of economic history that smart, measured government involvement, to try and deal with problems in the economy, particularly to prevent innocent people from getting hurt makes a great deal of sense, and yet every time we propose something, particularly on the housing market, which is the bullseye of this crisis, the administration says no.A bit later, Schumer trotted out his Hoover line again.
SCHUMER: The things we've proposed, George, are much more modest, but the administration, with its sort of, again, Hoover-like, hands-off, no-government-involvement attitude, has said no.That's when Kyl put down the hammer.
JON KYL: Well, first, I wondered how long it would take my friend, Chuck Schumer, to blame the Bush administration here. Of course, it wasn't the Bush administration, as much as it was Democrats in congress, who were pushing the lending institutions to get out there and lend more money, even to unqualified buyers. To minorities, to the poor, to the young, so that everyone could own a home. The Bush administration was somewhat to blame for that, as well. But Democrats in congress were making that push. And as a result, a lot of people took loans who couldn't qualify. In fact, they didn't have to qualify. No money down. There was no credit reporting. And a lot of them, frankly, couldn't afford it. So, let's don't blame the Bush administration for this.
And as to Hoover, it's Senator Schumer and his Democratic colleagues who want to raise taxes, like Hoover did when he refused to allow the Coolidge tax breaks to stay in effect and put in the Smoot-Hawley [a tariff-raising law widely blamed as a cause of the Great Depression]. And they of course, are opposing the free trade agreements that the president's trying to bring up. Let's understand that the Bush administration is trying to be pro-active on the tax and trade fronts.
Many in America might be unfamiliar with the culture of our Church of Unreconstructed Free Enterprisers. But as we like to say there: preach it, Pastor Jon!
Aside: Of course there's no silencing Schumer, and he later invoked Hoover yet again. But it's hard not to see Kyl as having decisively won the round.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
A Shameless Grand Stander
March 23, 2008 - 11:35 ET by allanfSchumer is a terrible waste of a Harvard Law School education. He commits the sin of throwing verbal bombs out there for purely partisan reasons. I think he knows better. He is just a pure partisan, and as will be consigned to a historical cesspool of second tier back benchers. You can always count on Chuck to be destructive if he sees partisan advantage.
Surely, Schumer must know the difference between the Great Depression and the CMO liquidity crisis. The former led to a financial collpase and loss of industrial capacity. This crisis will not.
Hoover steadfastly refused to supply liquidity and prevent financial institutions from collapsing. That will not happen today. Todays CMO collapse will not lead to a more general financial collapse, despite his shameless grandstanding. Schumer as much as acknowledged that when he noted his acceptance of the Bear Stearns rollout into Chase.
As far as the other economic shock factor, oil prices, which supply the inflationary energy in the economy, it is Schumer and his ilk who streadfastly refuse to allow us to explore for oil.
Schumer represents the financial center of the United States. HIs grandstanding cannot be helpful to his constituents.
This man is shameless.
I agree 100% with your
March 23, 2008 - 14:05 ET by motherbeltI agree 100% with your entire first paragraph!!
I could go the rest of the decade without ever hearing another word from Senator Chuck.
I am SO glad that Kyl didn't just sit there and let him spew unopposed.
Very Well Said
March 23, 2008 - 15:07 ET by Gat New YorkThe Dimocrats got their talking points down pat, but the problem is that they are factually wrong and, in some cases, just plain ignorant.
Clearly they are trying as best they can to talk us into a recession or at least hope a major recession takes place.
Anticipating the Crisis
March 23, 2008 - 15:46 ET by allanfWall Street giants including Bear Stearns, Solomon Brothers, Citigroup and Countrywide were caugh unaware by the CMO collapse.
It is the height of sophistry for Schumer to suggest the Bush Administration should have anticipated this crisis, when so many of his well heeled and knowledgable constituents were caught unprepared.
It seems that no matter what the crisis, Chuck Schumer can be counted on to play partisan politics.
Chucky Cheese
March 24, 2008 - 07:51 ET by donsalesSchumer is the ultimate NY Kibbitzer.....swarmy, gnarly, whining, self-righteous and most eager to have the last word.....
He makes Eliot Spitzer look like a juvenile delinquent in comparison to the hardened criminal Schumer has become as one of two self-involved Senators from the former great State of New York.......
Nuff said.....
Nowhere to Run....Nowhere To Hide.....
Well, that's why they say
March 24, 2008 - 08:00 ET by motherbeltWell, that's why they say the most dangerous place in the world to be is between Chuck Schumer and a microphone.
kyl will have us believe
March 23, 2008 - 11:33 ET by crsheddkyl will have us believe that liberals FORCED businessmen to make bad loans? i would like to see ANYTHING to back that up!
Did you ever hear of the
March 23, 2008 - 11:36 ET by Mark FinkelsteinDid you ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act?
crshedd and News Busters
March 23, 2008 - 11:50 ET by allanfRush Limbaugh is fond of saying that when you argue with a fool, you cannot help but looking foolish. I do hope that we don't take a thread far afield with post after post to respond to a poster whose goal is not to convince, but to be provocative. Responses accusations not backed by facts can make us all look foolish.
Mark
March 23, 2008 - 12:28 ET by Noel SheppardMark,
As a former banker, I'm not sure I'm pleased with the suggestion that CRA forces businessmen to make bad loans. The purpose of CRA was to prevent banks and savings institutions from taking deposits from lower income people in the communities being served while refusing to lend money to these same people.
Prior to this bill, many lending institutions would redline their communities, meaning that they would refuse to lend money in certain areas. Yet, they would accept deposits from these areas.
As a result, the concept of CRA -- which I as a conservative support -- was that if a bank or savings institution was going to open up an office in a given area AND accept deposits from everybody -- which, of course they would be required to by law or else be guilty of discrimination -- they MUST lend to the entire community and NOT just the upper income earners.
However, this doesn't mean that they had to reduce their lending requirements to meet CRA guidelines. As such, a CRA loan is not a "bad loan." Make sense? ns
I yield to your greater
March 23, 2008 - 12:34 ET by Mark FinkelsteinI yield to your greater expertise as a former banker. But by the same token, I believe it's likely that lenders did feel pressure to make marginal loans because of the legislation. As for redlining, I recall studies showing that minority borrowers in allegedly redlined areas did not have a lower default rate than those in other areas. This suggests that there were not credit-worthy borrowers who were being denied loans. And even to the extent that some banks foolishly engage in true discrimination, this would only create a market opportunity for lenders with enlightened self-interest.
marginal loans were made by
March 23, 2008 - 12:59 ET by crsheddmarginal loans were made by lenders based on the profit motive. liberals did not force lenders to lower standards, but forced them not to discriminate.
face it. the democrats in congress did not bring the mortgage crisis about as kyl would have you believe. lenders made bad loans and taxpayers will foot the bill for bad business practices.
crshedd, you are dead wrong.
March 23, 2008 - 13:39 ET by R D Helm..liberals did not force lenders to lower standards, but forced them not to discriminate.
Sorry, but that is exactly what they did.
I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but I can for the area in which I live, which is metropolitan Atlanta. The redlining "scandal" played huge here, as this was tagged as a "racial" issue by our local cadre of social do-gooders from the very beginning. The accusations of "discrimation" were flying all over the place.
Never mind that the do-gooders and the media around here temporarily forgot that income levels were only one of the criteria looked at in qualifying for a mortgage, but credit history, location and debt to income ratios are important factors as well. The bleeding-heart do-gooders here were having none of it. Sadly, our local media outlets, and especially Cynthia Tucker at the AJC, picked it up and ran with it full bore.
It soon got to the point here that government inspectors would make periodic rounds of the offices of mortgage lenders in the area and look over their loan portfolios. If they felt that these lenders were not carrying a sufficient number of, shall we say, high-risk loans, then the lending companies would then be threatened with all sorts of unpleasantries, including steep fines, or worse.
The lenders here were literally forced to make these loans, practically at gun point. I work in a related industry here in the Atlanta area and have met many mortgage lenders over the years. Most all of those I know have related varying accounts of the same story line to me, numerous times.
I can also tell you that it wasn't the republicans who were forcing these mortgage companies to make these questionable loans, but economically-illiterate social do-gooder types. Democrats all.
Those misguided do-gooders, who tried to force a government solution on a problem that did not, in fact, really even exist, assisted in seperating me from my chosen industry last June.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
liberals did not force
March 23, 2008 - 14:13 ET by motherbeltliberals did not force lenders to lower standards, but forced them not to discriminate.
And they defined "discrimination" as having requirements regarding earnings, down payments, and credit histories that some minorities couldn't meet, therefore deliberately depriving them of the American dream.
mb,
March 23, 2008 - 14:50 ET by R D HelmThanks for pointing that out, as I omitted it from my little (no, I'm not bitter!) rant.
It really frosts my cake when people try to tell me that something did not happen that I had quite literally a front row seat to, as I saw this mess coming a year and a half ago and literally rode it all the way down to the ground.
Do-gooders irritate me to no end, as they never are willing to accept responsibility for the "unintended consequences" of their own actions.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
That's why I thanked Del for
March 23, 2008 - 15:11 ET by motherbeltThat's why I thanked Del for posting some specifics, with a link.
Sure they did, cuz everyone
March 23, 2008 - 19:50 ET by ckc1227Sure they did, cuz everyone knows there is nothing more profitable than making loans that you know won"t be repaid.
Democrats in Congress did force lenders to make risky loans, basically saying either you start making these loans by choice, or we"re going to inact legislation to force you to do it.
back me up here,
March 23, 2008 - 20:11 ET by crsheddback me up here, noel.
the subprime mortgage crisis could NOT have been caused by the democrats who have controlled congress for the past year and a half.
you see, the problem is that about 5 years ago lenders went on a drunken lending spree and gave warm bodies varible rate mortgages. we are now seeing the effect of that today.
i know there are SOME people here who remember who controlled the house, senate and the white house 5 years ago. i will bet you anything it WASN'T the democrats. therefore, i think it is safe to say that kyl is most likely wrong when he tries to blame democrats.
too often some people on this site just want to bash and overlook facts.
You're right, crshedd. It wasn't the dems of the last 1.5 years.
March 23, 2008 - 20:47 ET by R D HelmIt was the dems who ran the congress back in 1977, and who caved into ACORN like the cheap tents they were. That was what got the ball rolling initially.
And there have been several congressional missteps since, which have finally culminated in what we are seeing today.
This problem has been incubating for over thirty years.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
maybe it goes back to 1966
March 23, 2008 - 21:13 ET by crsheddmaybe it goes back to 1966 when a democratic congress started housing and urban development.
maybe it goes back to 1968 when a democratic congress passed the fair housing act.
nice try. kyl said it was THIS democratic congress. he is totally wrong.
30 year incubation? the problem is with mortgages written 5 years ago. not 10, not 15, not 20. and most mortgages written 30 years ago are probably paid off by now.
those tricky democrats. they buckel to acorn in 1977 yet they are able to avoid a subprime crisis until 2008! talk about long-term planning!
crshedd,
March 23, 2008 - 21:45 ET by R D HelmLike I said, ACORN and the year 1977.
"ACORN has latched on to a 1977 federal law, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which was aimed at ensuring that banks do not discriminate
against poor minority communities."
The Democrats were in control of the congress in 1977.
Care to guess who was POTUS?
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Why, that would be our
March 23, 2008 - 21:53 ET by doug1950Why, that would be our wooden headed little buddy from Plains, GA. Jimah Cahtah.
Something else, crshedd,
March 24, 2008 - 11:42 ET by R D HelmYou libs crack me up. You support all these government enforced remedies for all kinds of "problems," real or imagined (in most cases, they are imagined) without so much as a second thought as to the consequences of your actions. For every "problem" government solves, it creates ten more real problems.
Earlier, you claimed the government was doing away with "discrimination," and I am quite sure you and your shallow-minded lib friends thought nothing further of it. As with all people of limited intelligence, you probably went to bed and slept like a rock, knowing the government stepped in and did something about "discrimination."
Whoopdy-bleep.
Let me tell you the cold-hard truth about what you, your lib friends, as well as your government "heroes" really managed to accomplish:
Putting a lot of hard-working people out of work, that's what.
Yeah, I know, sitting around the table of your local Starbucks and telling your equally obtuse friends that you supported ending "discrimination" in the mortgage industry probably made you feel really good about yourself, didn't it? Problem is, there was no discrimination in the mortgage industry to speak of.
Until June of last year, I was making over $25.00/hr as a project manager at a land surveying company. I got canned in June due to the fact that the housing industry went to hell in a hand basket almost overnight, and took a sizable chunk of the commercial development with it.
Now, most of my friends who were similarly employed are out of work now, and that includes several friends who work in the "evil" mortgage industry. None of us are making near the money we once were.
We all have families to support, and our ability to do so has been severely impaired by this. Sad part is, it didn't have to happen, and would not have if not for a bunch of busy-body do-gooders who had way too much time on their hands.
Next time you and your lefty friends decide to encourage the government to "fix" something, you might want to take a moment and consider the consequences of that "fix."
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
crshedd
March 23, 2008 - 21:57 ET by Noel Sheppardcrshedd,
As I said in my economic post earlier today, I don't think the current financial crisis is either Party's fault per se. Banks and securities firms made stupid loans, and, in a lot of cases, stupid people borrowed money they couldn't pay back.
We're always looking to blame all of our problems on politicians. Politicians didn't make these loans, or sign for them. Lots of people made very bad decisions with their money in the past five years. It's that simple.
Of course, as I mentioned in my piece, a lot of this stems from the elimination of Glass-Steagall in 1999. But, that was a broadly bipartisan bill with no one Party being responsible for it. I don't blame Clinton for signing that bill, for in the end, I think a deregulated financial services industry is better for consumers.
We need to all stop pointing fingers of blame at each other because it distracts from the bigger point that Americans right now have deplorable consumer economics acumen, and this is going to hurt us for decades to come. By blaming politicians, we indemnify the citizen of their personal financial responsibility...and that's just wrong! ns
nicely put, noel. if some
March 24, 2008 - 04:51 ET by crsheddnicely put, noel.
if some would read my posts, they would notice i was stating kyl was wrong when he said the democrats were at fault as they were in control of congress. i just pointed out that when these mortgages were written the gop was in control of congress.
the truth is that the fault lies with many, inside and outside of politics.
i agree that there is some responsibility to the citizen and personal responsibility.
but you seem to indemnify the corporation.
when these mortgages were being written, an individual might have understood it was a crap shoot weather they could afford it or not. when a corporation was writing thousands of these, they knew (or should have) that it was a horrible disaster waiting to happen. the corporation has a responsibility to their shareholders. as these shaky mortgages were signed, someone in the corp. should have realized that something bad could happen. in business you look at every possible hazard that can come your way, even some that can NEVER happen. either the lenders didn't look at potential hazards or they were just greedy.
in this case, not only is there personal responsibility, but also, corporate responsibility.
If we should not indemnify citizens
March 24, 2008 - 05:00 ET by sarcasmoAnd I agree with you, we shouldn't, why is it that we should insulate giant corporate firms from the results of their decisions? In a real free market, there would have been failure, not a rescue insured by the taxpayers. This is socialism, folks. Most folks just aren't either honest enough or awake enough to call it by its real name.
This bailout plays right into the left's (correct, in this case) critique where they say "capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich." Making the lefties correct makes this kind of corporate welfare especially dangerous to our nation's future.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
In fact, Noel...the
March 23, 2008 - 22:29 ET by JerIn fact, Noel...the following recent study concludes CRA institutions have had a much better loan/foreclosure record than have non-CRA lenders.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS135259+07-Jan-2008+BW20080107
Jer
Jer
March 23, 2008 - 22:50 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
That's interesting. Conceivably not surprising. Isn't it likely that CRA loans are a more heavily scrutinized part of a bank's portfolio for a variety of obvious and maybe not so obvious reasons? Underwriting might be tighter, as well as ongoing management of them?
Who knows? Been a long time for me, as I've been out of banking since 1995, and was mostly in the deposit side at the end rather than lending. Regardless, I would doubt CRA to be an issue in this subprime mess. ns
Noel...
March 23, 2008 - 23:40 ET by JerI would doubt CRA to be an issue in the subprime mess.
Thaat's my view, too. A Fed study in 2000 concluded CFR loan performance was about the same as that of other mortgages.
The subprime disaster was mainly the offspring of incestuous mischief in other areas. But, a relaxation of credit requirements was certainly a factor.
Jer
Normal 0 Normal 0 I see
March 26, 2008 - 15:01 ET by LastlibertarianNormal
0
Normal
0
I see a few of the thousands repossessed cars and homes
every week that banks are pressured to finance for "the oppressed". The bank
and ultimately you and I are left holding the bag. If liberals want to grant
credit to these individuals, let them be the co-signer!
Must have missed
March 23, 2008 - 11:36 ET by allanfYou must have missed those wonderful Congressional hearings on red-lining and loan companies refusals to deal with minorities.
Crashed Crashes and Burns Again
March 23, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Del Dolemonte"From the current hand-wringing, you'd think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards- at the behest of community groups and "progressive" political forces.
In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining"- claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants....
In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications- but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.
Yet a "landmark" 1992 study from the Boston Fed concluded that mortgage-lending discrimination was systemic....
No sooner had the ink dried on its discrimination study than the Boston Fed, clearly speaking for the entire Fed, produced a manual for mortgage lenders stating that: "discrimination may be observed when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants."
Some of these "outdated" criteria included the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, credit history, savings history and income verification. Instead, the Boston Fed ruled that participation in a credit-counseling program should be taken as evidence of an applicant's ability to manage debt....
Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department....
These days, everyone claims to favor strong lending standards. What about all those self-righteous newspapers, politicians and regulators who were intent on loosening lending standards?
As you might expect, they are now self-righteously blaming those, such as Countrywide, who did what they were told"
More here:
http://www.nypost.co...
FYI, "ACORN" is a liberal activism group, best known for their many adventures in voting fraud.
Thanky you, Del, for the
March 23, 2008 - 14:08 ET by motherbeltThanky you, Del, for the details and the link.
A lot of us know, from having been around and hearing and seeing things in the news, that this is exactly what was going on, in overt and subtle ways. We just don't have all the details to hand.
So then, of course, someone like shedd pops up and says "no one forced them to do it!" and most of us don't have the proof right at hand.
You did, and fort that, I am very glad!
Happy To Be of Service
March 23, 2008 - 16:48 ET by Del DolemonteSome of us (like former banker Noel) actually work in mortgage-related industries. That makes it easier to cite facts, because we actually know what's going on.
Of course, it wasn't the
March 23, 2008 - 11:48 ET by R D HelmOf course, it wasn't the Bush administration, as much as it was
Democrats in congress, who were pushing the lending institutions to get
out there and lend more money, even to unqualified buyers.
Finally, somebody has the guts to tell the truth about this mess.
And they were doing more than just pushing here. They were forcing lenders to loan money to unqualified buyers.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
"And we've learned over 100
March 23, 2008 - 11:52 ET by RESTLESS 1"And we've learned over 100 years of economic history that smart,
measured government involvement, to try and deal with problems in the
economy, particularly to prevent innocent people from getting hurt
makes a great deal of sense..."-Chuck Schumer
This guy is kidding, right? Actaully, chucky, what we have learned over those years is that whenever govt. gets involved in anything, all goes to hell in a handbasket. Govt. comes in, overregulates, thens scratches it's head wondering how int all went wrong. Not only can you guys not learn to stay out of the economic markets, you can't even come up with new ways to mess everything up. Overregulate and mandate. That is all you govt. critters can come up with and it fails every time.
Restless
March 23, 2008 - 12:29 ET by doug1950Completely agree. When Government gets involved it ends up helping fewer people, takes forever to get anything done, costs 10 times the cost of private or local control and generally ends up hurting more people than it helps. One only has to look at the Veterans Administration, Dept of Education or other huge government agencies to see the inefficiency, waste and incompetence.
John Adams Quote
March 23, 2008 - 14:37 ET by thoridfly"The happiness of society is the end of government." - John Adams, 2nd U.S. President
"The less government we have the better." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Government that governs best is government that governs least." - Thomas Jefferson
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
"The jaws of [Democrat] power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing." - John Adams, 2nd U.S. President
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a [Democratically-controlled] congress." - John Adams, 2nd U.S. President
"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." - Abraham Lincoln
"To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men." - Abraham Lincoln
"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard." - Edmund Burke
Schumer is good for us
March 23, 2008 - 12:01 ET by rammingspeedLittle Chucky Schumer, the ACLU-style lawyer turned politician, is a four square idiot whose mouth runs on it's own schedule, and whose brain adjusts for nothing.
But we need him to express the skullduggerous thoughts and plans of the movers and shakers on the left, so we can act preemptively.
And we do. Bye-bye, Chucky.
Media Whore
March 23, 2008 - 12:07 ET by doug1950They say the most dangerous place in America is between Senator Schumer and any camera. This man is such a total media whore and a world class panderer. He spends every waking moment trying to link the Bush Administration and anything negative or bad that has ever happened, up to and including the Lindberg kidnapping. He never learns and continues to get his ass handed to him by astute people who are not fooled by his constant rant against anything Bush. Even Don Imus took umbridge with him for some of his accusations and dressed him down on air. Schumer reminds me of the nerdy guy who finally got to hang out with the cool kids and is desparate to be someone significant. When he became a Senator he thought he had finally gotten there only to find he isn't really taken seriously. He makes for a good segment on a show because the media knows they can depend on him to say somethimg totally baseless and accusatory. He can be seen on any given day dancing and hopping around the edges of the crowd trying to be heard and seen. He is a classic case of the "Peter Principle" and hopefully the citizens of NY will replace his wormy butt in 2010 with someone remotely resembling a Statesman.
Schumer the Third-String Antichrist
March 23, 2008 - 14:24 ET by thoridfly"He spends every waking moment trying to link the Bush Administration and anything negative or bad that has ever happened ... " ... makes me think of Micah ...
Micah 2:1-2
(1) Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! When the morning is light, they practice [rehearse] it, because it is in the power of their hand [they bash Bush because noone is consistently calling them on it].
(2) And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house even a man and his heritage [isn't this what Democrats have been doing for the past 100 years with their "Tax First, Ask Questions Later" approach to government?].
"He never learns and continues to get his ass handed to him by astute people who are not fooled by his constant rant against anything Bush." ... makes me think of 2 Timothy ...
2 Timothy 3:7-9
(7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
(8) Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
(9) But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard." - Edmund Burke
Verbal Smackdown
March 23, 2008 - 12:26 ET by BarkerSenator Kyl definitely has an excellent point. And don't forget the Dems minimum-wage hike, which is costing jobs, hurting businesses, and contributing to the downturn in the economy.
The economy started to decline after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006.
The Socialist Wage
March 23, 2008 - 14:02 ET by thoridflyIf the D-rats weren't taxing the economy into the ground, sending spending through the roof, and preaching entitlements to every thing that breathes then the free-market minimum wage would be $10-15 an hour.
"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard." - Edmund Burke
Super Mark - What's Schumer's view of Clinton economy?
March 23, 2008 - 12:46 ET by Gary HallSuper Mark - What's Schumer's view of Clinton economy?
It's my view that the left should actually listen to their left before that blow stones.
Just a couple of months after President Bush took his seat in the WH, the leftist economist Dean Baker wrote the following about the financial leadership of the Clinton era (my bold):
A year earlier he had predicted:
Well, Schumer and the MSM are going to tell them it's all the next guy's fault.
I might add, that in 2003, Baker looked back and forward in, Bursting Bubbles, in which he not only described the underlying feature of the Clinton economic legacy..
..but continues forward to blame most all of the current economic woes as having their roots in and because of Clinton policies, including the cause of and resulting crisis with the weak US dollar.
Remember - these views were from the left. The MSM loves Dean Baker when he attacks the Bush administration, but successfully censored his very loud efforts to get their attention when he spoke about the Clinton legacy. The MSM, and Schumer, have little use for the advice of their own. All that they know how to do is throw stones.
D_mn.
March 23, 2008 - 13:56 ET by thoridflyGood info.
"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard." - Edmund Burke
Bush = Hoover
March 23, 2008 - 16:19 ET by CobraManDoes this mean that Schumer is going to introduce legislation which will rename the Hoover Dam to Dam Bush?
Cure for housing mess.
March 23, 2008 - 16:55 ET by Scrapiron#1: Put all of those that bought into the idea they could buy a $250,000 + home while making $50,000 or less per year in a mental facility.
#2: Put those that pushed the idea they could con people (democrat congress critters and loan organizations) into buying homes that were impossible to pay for in prison for many, many years. Actually they should try, convict and execute the democrat members of congress.
It would be a few years before the greed of the democrats pop up again.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Try a $430,000 house...
March 23, 2008 - 17:02 ET by Prester John...on a combined annual of $50,000. 75% of this couple's income was going to their mortgage.
'My House. My Dream. It Was All an Illusion.'
http://www.washingto...
Did you folks notice the
March 23, 2008 - 17:15 ET by obxrayDid you folks notice the blab shows today were just fool of the left ,little so-called round table bs.MSM has gottin way too far left.I don't see how anyone can't see that.Funny how no one talked about the passport thing since they now know it was Obama and Clinton people involved.We need to start going after their sponsers.Something needs to be done about MSM before they truly destroy this country.
Makes you wish.......
March 23, 2008 - 20:13 ET by The FugitiveEverytime I either have to hear or see Shmucky Chucky, it makes me wish his momma would have kept her legs closed and swallowed.
Why is it that EVERYTIME a liberal opens their mouth, I feel a sudden urge to hand them a roll of toilet paper?
FDR prolonged the Depression
March 23, 2008 - 21:10 ET by nkviking75It's my understanding that Hoover's successor took actions that prolonged and deepened the depression, and that only WWII pulled the world out of it. Democrats would undoubtedly adopt policies that would have the same effect today.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Makes me happy
March 24, 2008 - 17:14 ET by kd5463Anytime Schumer is put in his place I am happy. He is truly one of the most arrogant, smug, just plain annoying to look at or listen to people on the face of the Earth.