Gotta be an F.
Extrafire, about what I would have expected of you (I assume the other ‘F’ belongs to Yukon Jack).
The meltdown was primarily the result of regulatory interference with the mortgage industry by Carter and later Clinton. It was exacerbated by activist groups like ACORN (and that includes Obama who was an ACORN lawyer involved in that activity). When Republicans (including Bush) tried repeatedly to rein in the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they were thwarted by Democrats who are now in positions of influence in the Obama administration. He has now repeated all of the mistakes of Rooseveldt in his handling of the meltdown, with the result that it will be deeper and longer than it should have been.
So let me get this straight. The economic meltdown is entirely the fault of the Democrats. What is more, Democrats were crafty enough to engineer the meltdown when Republicans held all the power, so that Republicans will be blamed for it.
I told you once before that if you're going to make up a position and attribute it to me, at least make it plausible. You reprint my comment, then change it and argue against the changed form, basically ignoring what I said. So, OK, once again, let me correct you.
Me:
The meltdown was primarily the result of regulatory interference with the mortgage industry
which you interpreted as:
The economic meltdown is entirely the fault of the Democrats.
Are you aware of the difference between the meaning of "primarily" and "entirely"?
And you attributed this to me:
What is more, Democrats were crafty enough to engineer the meltdown
which is nothing at all like I said. The Democrats most certainly did not engineer the meltdown. That would imply they had intent to cause great harm to the economy. Nowhere did I ascribe any such intent to anyone of any party.
If Democrats are that clever, that brilliant, that Machiavellian, they then fully deserved their election victories in 2006 and 2008. If Republicans are that dumb, that Democrats can engineer the worst economic meltdown in history (and what is more, when they can do that when Republicans held all the power) and successfully blame it on Republicans, then they fully deserved the thrashing they got.
And I would agree with you,
IF that were the case. But that is such a rediculous supposition that no-one in their right mind would entertain it for an instant. It's easy to postulate rediculous scenarios and argue against them, but I wonder if you'll ever try actually answering my real comments.
When Republicans (including Bush) tried repeatedly to rein in the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they were thwarted by Democrats
I see. When Republicans were in control of the Presidency, when they had a majority in the Senate and in the House, when Republicans controlled the Supreme Court 5 to 4 (they still do), the evil Democrats, with no power, no influence over any branch of government, still managed to defeat the Republican attempts to regulate the industry. How clever of Democrats, how dumb of Republicans.
Perhaps you should do a bit of research on the American political system. It isn't like ours. In Canada the party leader essentially controls the votes of his/her caucus. In the US congressional reps and senators vote much more independantly, responding to concerns of their constituents. Republicans, mindful of the influence of groups such as ACORN have no hesitation voting against their party if they want to be re-elected. Currently the Obama administration is working to bring in carbon tax and cap-and-trade legislation and is being opposed by Democrats from coal producing or using states. Bush et al simply didn't have enought votes to succeed.
In spite of all the media adulation, in spite of the rock star hype, at the end of his first 50 days in power Obama’s approval rating was less than Bush's.
When Bush left office, his approval rating was in low 30s (comparable to Carter’s). When Clinton left office his approval ratings was in high 60s. It remains to be seen what kind of approval rating Obama has when he leaves office, in four or in eight years’ time.
Incidentally, obviously you don’t’ think much of Obama. Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is, and predict now that Obama will be defeated in 2012? I will hold you to it.
I will make no such prediction. The incumbent is re-elected about 85% of the time in US presidential elections, so at this early date that's where I would put my money. If he should lose, he would have to be an incredibly bad president, like Carter. I do believe he has the makings of another Carter, but that remains to be seen.