But, back to the HUD mortgage policy.We have to make a few points….

First, this is a chicken and the egg scenario–neither HUD, Fannie or Freddie initiated subprime loans–they just took them off the hands of lenders, who had already begun the practice. HUD made it easier for these lenders to profit from these loans, however, because the lenders knew they always had a ready buyer.

HUD also allowed Fannie and Freddie to count billions of dollars invested in these crap loans as public good, which again, accelerated the subprime loan

However, it should be noted that your time line is off. Yes, absolutely, HUD’s policies began under Clinton in 1995. One could argue it was a laudable program. However, the good of the program became hopeless corrupted.

The program seemed to be working well, but in 2000 (still under Clinton), there was concern the subprime loans were becoming bait and switch programs that brought people in under low initial costs but socked them later. HUD revised it’s affordable housing goals, and placed restrictions on Fannie and Freddie that restricted them from acquiring subprime loans of this type.

Unfortunately, no one paid any attention to these restrictions. From 2000 to 2004, (now under Bush) Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of subprime backed loads and risen dramatically. Critics were worried, and warned Fannie and Freddie needed to curtail this practice.

Two things happened around this time. In late 2003, the Bush administration proposed taking Fannie and Freddie under its supervision, rather than under Congress. A lot of Republicans point to this now and say that Bush was acting to curb the abuses and get things under control, and they blame Congress and Democrats for letting Fannie and Freddie continue its prior bad acts.

There is actually a good point to be made here, if Bush really did intend that–except it doesn’t hold water. In early 2004, Bush revised HUD’s mortgage policy goals again…(remember, HUD directs Fannie and Freddie, which is overseen by Congress).

So what did Bush do? Did he revise the goals down?

No, he ratched up the affordable housing goals UP by 6 percent….why would he do this, if Republican revisionists are to be believed?

He did it for one simple reason–Wall Street wanted to continue selling and packaging subprime loans, and they wanted a ready and willing buyer in Fannie and Freddie (or we the taxpayer when you get right down to it).

So, I do agree with you–Clinton’s plan–even if it was well intentioned, was not properly overseen and easily corrupted. From 1995 to 2000, it might arguably have done some good, but it laid the ground work for some serious abuse.

But as bad as it got by the time Clinton had left office–and it was bad to the tune of probably around $40 billion–it was nothing to what it would become over the next 6-7 years.

All that said, we are actually more in agreement than I would have thought we might be–and I take back what I said earlier. When you are posting like this, you are making very solid points and it is definitely food for thought.

I know this thread devolved into something it shouldn’t have at times, but I have gained some valuable insight from your posts.

How can something factually correct be hypocritical?

He did inherit the problem. And he is responsible for the actions he takes to deal with it.

I don’t disagree with that. But most people who talk about budget surpluses somehow think that we just had money laying around that we didn’t know what to do with. My point was that that was not exactly the case. And I do think that Bush’s decision to largely keep the Iraq war out of the budget was wrong…as wrong as keeping GSE liabilities off the books. But I digress…

I do commend Clinton for his work on the budget. However, I would rather see budget balancing come from spending decreases rather than tax increases.

That said, and not to change the subject, Bush did receive a fair amount of criticism from the right on spending (and rightly so). But anyone who looks at the Obama budget and is not vastly more concerned is just being disingenuous. This spending is astronomical and, I would argue, an existential threat to the country’s fiscal health (as in, yes, we may have to default at some point in the future).

“Absolutely, there was a dot.com bubble…uhm, so what? Clinton did not create the bubble nor did he encourage it with any specific, target legislation”

Well, I could make the argument (as I did at length earlier this year in school) that Clinton DID help to encourage the housing bubble as well as the current financial crisis (through HUD lending standards, and the signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act). I’m not exempting Bush from having any role in the crisis, but it should be noted that he urged major changes to the GSEs in 2005 amidst bipartisan opposition.

“And finally, blaming Clinton for 9/11 is another one of those baseless right wing talking points that makes no sense on the surface or after careful review.”

Let me be clear: I am not blaming Clinton for 9/11. I’m just saying that the world Clinton handed over to Bush couldn’t rightly be called peaceful. I would say that both Clinton and Bush dropped the ball when it came to al Qaeda, though Clinton had greater opportunity and incentive to deal with it.

I just think it is grossly unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy) to drop the financial crisis and the wars in the Middle East in Bush’s lap and say that’s the end of it. Certainly the Bush administration deserves its share of blame, but these problems were created by both parties, in the legislature and the executive.

But back to the point of this post:

The left has been relishing writing the obituaries of conservatism ever since the election. But while the outlook for the GOP may not be rosy, to count them out right now is as ignorant as counting out the Dems in 2004. The Democrats OWN the government, and every problem the comes with it. Pretty soon, the “well we inherited this” mantra is going to lose it’s political effect.

By the way, does anyone else think it’s terribly hypocritical for Obama to, in the same paragraph, exclaim that “I’m the President, I accept full responsibility” and then “but make no mistake, I inherited this mess”?

What a cop out.

That was much better than the statements you generally make–you need not even cite things provided you actually make your points.

Let’s start with the “clinton deficit myth” as you and Craig Steiner call it. You (or he) actually make some pretty good points, but the problem with those points is you are redefining the generally understood concept of budget deficit so you can win your case. This is not unlike the Bush Administration’s decision to pay for the Iraq war almost completely with supplemental bills to hide its true costs, or numerous administrations playing games with how unemployment or poverty are defined.

You’re right, if you add in inter-government holding, Clinton’s record on deficit surplus can be made to look inaccurate, but Clinton is not the one who started cooking the books this way, but rather this has been common practice since the 1970s.

I won’t insult you by saying, well Reagan, Bush and Bush 2 were far worse when it came to deficits than Clinton and even Carter. I think on this point we can both agree that all of them have done a pretty crappy job, but if you are being honest, you have to concede that Clinton did a better crappy job, then any “conservative” president.

Thank you for the article, though. I share your outrage when it comes to this kind of spending.

As for your argument on the overall economy, I am not quite sure where you are going with that. Absolutely, there was a dot.com bubble…uhm, so what? Clinton did not create the bubble nor did he encourage it with any specific, target legislation. He surely benefitted from it, and was harmed by the crash. Nevertheless the economy he presided over was far superior for far more people then his immediate predecessor or successor. As it is, most people would argue that with few exceptions Clinton was virtually a Republican in his economic policies. Folks on the left always scratch their heads at why “conservatives” hate him so much.

And finally, blaming Clinton for 9/11 is another one of those baseless right wing talking points that makes no sense on the surface or after careful review. Certainly, Clinton did not “get” bin Laden, though there is ample evidence that he was far more concerned about him than his successor, who ignored credible evidence that 9/11 was coming.

Now, unlike many of those on the left, I do not blame Bush for 9/11–I think that while the Bush Administration clearly had some inkling that something was about to happen the nature and severity of the attack could likely not be anticipated unless someone were specifically looking for it.

Indeed, while i had reservations at the time, I believe that Bush’s response to 9-11 (Afghanistan) was reasonable and appropriate. It’s what he did after than which was reprehensible.

However, that’s getting off track. Blaming Clinton for 9/11 makes you look like a fool. If you want to play that game, then you need to blame Carter, Reagan and Bush 1 for bin Laden, for without their support of the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets, bin Laden likely would have never grown in prominence.

Yeah, I know that’s not what you offered to do. I wanted to get you to tacitly accept my original point which was that Mr. Bush walked into a field of daisies while Mr. Obama walked into a crapstorm.

But your specific responses are so ludicrous I really have to respond in a bit more detail.

re: budget surplus. Alan Greenspan testified before Congress about his concern that the surplus would lead to our paying down of debt too quickly. He cited this concern as justification for the Bush tax cuts.

re: the dot com bubble, yes, that was bad. Sort of a case of measles versus the combination leprosy-ebola-tumor we have going on now. Find me a single economist anywhere who thinks Mr. Clinton left behind a bigger mess than Mr. Bush.

re: peace. You cite 9/11 as evidence that Mr. Bush walked into a difficult situation? We were comparing first 100 days. 9/11 happened 8 months into Mr. Bush’s presidency. Not 100 days, 8 months. During which time Mr. Bush had thoroughly ignored Al Qaeda despite warnings.

Of the two wars he handed off to Mr. Obama, one was the result of 9/11, the other was not. In fact the mishandling of Iraq led to the mishandling of Afghanistan. And both these incompetently-managed messes were dumped on Mr. Obama.

Which again, makes my original point.

Well that’s not really what I asked you, now was it? What I asked was:

“Do you really want me to challenge Clinton’s “surplus, strong economy, and peace?””

For the surplus, I would refer you here:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

For the strong economy I would refer you here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_com_bubble

And for the peace I would refer you here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

I would argue that the “surplus, strong economy, and peace” that Clinton left Bush was, at best, illusory…

gerryF:

Which arguments would you like me to back up? I was just pretty disappointed because I wanted to see Kevin try and weasel his way out of this whopper:

“and today’s budgets are an attempt to deal with yesterdays failures, it’s not like he started with a clean slate.”

When I asked him to clarify that statement, suddenly I had “renounced reason” and I was “fractally confused.”

How convenient.

Oh and the “budgets” he is referring to can be seen here:

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

FTR, I think that’s completely backwards. I think Kerry was clearly the worse choice in 2004, and that Clinton was clearly the better choice over Obama. Indeed, the proverbial hamster you mentioned would be a better President than Obama: hamsters lack opposable thumbs and so can’t sign laws.

I hate to even bring this up so late in the discussion given all the fun that has been going on…but I never said Kerry was the best choice, I said They (party leadership) thought he was the best chance to beat Bush. I agree with you…I think he was one of the worst candidates.

I disagree Clinton was the better candidate; Clinton is too polarizing and if anyone could have mobilized the GOP base to the fevered pitch needed to overcome 8 years of Bush policies, it was Clinton. Now, that does not speak to her credentials–only her chances of winning.

As for the rest of this conversation–

Palin was a good choice and probably gave McCain his best chance of winning. She had broad appeal and her short time in public service made her hard to pin down. In truth, she is a lot like Obama in that respect. No one should be claiming either of them was/is “well qualified” to be president.

That said, the campaign demonstrated Obama could run a large, complex enterprise–the campaign itself became his resume. Conversely, people watched Palin’s campaign and found her wanting. For those still hoping she returns in 2012, don’t count on it. She is currently polling behind Lisa Murkowski as a candidate for the Senate Seat vacated by Ted Stevens. She had her brief moment in the sun and it is over.

Random comments/thoughts:

Simon: Give the partisan hack stuff a rest. Seriously, man, if you are going to play that card, you have to stop being a partisan hack yourself. I enjoy your posts a lot more when you are not pretending to be some agrieved party. Really, the NY Times is evil? Please. You’re much to intelligent to be reading Glenn Beck talking points.

Tilly: You crack me up. You keep insisting that people make and back up arguments, but you never make or back up arguments yourself. You stamp your feet a lot and have opinions, but no one here can really figure out what you base those opinions on. Bush was a failure until 9/11 made him a wartime president and to our everlasting shame we followed the con-man to war, but there is a difference between people supporting a president because they feel they must during war, and supporting a president who is grappling with difficult issues left behind.

Yes. I absolutely want you to compare and contrast the situation Clinton handed to Bush with the one Bush handed to Obama.

I wait with bated breath.

If you can’t defend your positions…say so. People may even respect you for it.

You are fractally confused and I’m afraid no one can help you. I hope you rise to a position of importance in the GOP.

Is that a concession? You made an argument. Back it up.

Michael:

Do you really want me to challenge Clinton’s “surplus, strong economy, and peace?”

It’s easy to get good poll numbers coasting on Clinton’s surplus, strong economy and peace.

A bit more challenging when you’re cleaning up after an entire series of Republican disasters.

Wait, um, are you seriously arguing that Obama has to spend $13 trillion because of George Bush?

I mean, I can’t wait to hear this argument (thought I won’t hold my breath)…

Read it and weep or find someone to read it to you.

and today’s budgets are an attempt to deal with yesterdays failures, it’s not like he started with a clean slate.

Yes, but apparently not very well. Obama’s approval rating is currently lower than Bush’s was at this point in his presidency.

Oh and I just had to add this:

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

Remind us again, Kevin, what we will be paying for for decades?

1) a major financial crisis
2) rising unemployment
3) a housing market collapse
4) a stimulus plan
5) a health care plan
6) war in Iraq
7) war in Afghanistan
8) flu epidemic
9) energy plan
10) collapse in Pakistan
11) Nuclear weapons development in Iran
12) ditto North Korea

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin wasn’t able to cope with:

a) interview with Katie Couric.

What I was saying was that she WAS qualified, but NOT ready.

REALLY- anyone of the right age is qualified. The key is that they be ready.

Couric Hit Job is like Full Contact Powder Puff Football.

Sorry about the Bush comment, I can see how that may have confused you. I didn’t mean to imply that he was a horrible choice because he was a Republican I meant to say he was a horrible choice because history and the World have judged him to be so. (I was ahead of the curve in recognizing it though-I read) I have worked and voted for people in all parties. Bush is something no one should be proud of.

As much as I like Obama, I think it’s doubtful he would have won against a good candidate in an even race at this stage of the countrys history. I certainly thought he was the best candidate but it is a testament to how bad the last President was and the choice of Palin that he is our President and for that I think you and hope you continue “thinking” as you do.

As to the name calling, no offense taken, I’d have to respect your judgement and opinion for that to have bothered me.

Talk about a straw man! Are you that cowardly that you can’t engage my argument as I made it?

What I was saying was that she WAS qualified, but NOT ready.

“And you think if she couldn’t handle Couric that should inspire confidence in the rest of us that she could handle the Presidency???”

If you vote for a candidate based on how well they do in a Couric hit job then you are just as stupid as everyone else who voted for Obama.

What inspired my confidence that she could handle the presidency was that she was a governor with one of the highest approval ratings in the country. Yes, she actually GOVERNED…something Obama had NEVER done.

True, she may not have governed a very populous state, but I would venture to say that Alaska has more people than whatever community Obama “organized.”

“Electing him once proved how stupid the voters were.”

Oh I LOVE how when America elects your guy, they should be “proud.” But when they elect the other guy, they are “stupid.”

I don’t usually engage in name calling as a proxy for argument, but you’re an idiot…really.