Posted on 02/13/2009 8:13:18 AM PST by Michael Eden
I found a better link to that Bachmann article:
http://michelebachmann.townhall.com/blog
““People will be hunting Democrats with dogs by the end of the century” Phil Gramm (when asked what would result if Clinton’s proposals were passed.
Well Clinton went to the center, the repubs took over in 94, so we’ll see if Gramm’s remark’s are true this time around.”
I’ve got the biggest Rottweiler you’ve probably ever seen (nearly 32” at the shoulder and weighing 185 lbs, who frankly doesn’t like strangers, and I would like to volunteer to start hunting Dems with dogs.
This is an excellent article!
Unfortunately many people will blame Bush because the problem started while he was President. I reply that things were fine back when we had a Republican Congress.
Timing can be messy in economics.
Some actions have delayed consequences (lags). Furthermore, the consequences of some actions accumulate. Not much happens after the causal event, but the effects gets bigger and bigger over time.
A common real world analogy would be turning on an electric stove to boil water. A critic might claim there is no causal connection between turning on the stove and the boiling of water. You turned the burner on and nothing happens. By the time the kettle does whistle, the critic can claim some other cause that may have just preceded the boiling of water.
How could the Community Reinvestment Act passed under Carter and reinvigorated under Clinton cause a recession under Bush? At least a part of the answer is that the effects grew over time.
Another problem with timing in economics is expectations. I think this article is right in arguing that investors (who by the way are also consumers) got cold feet about a Pelosi-Reid-Obama economy long before Obama’s inauguration and first policy decision.
Chess Expert,
Thanks for the kind words.
I should have at least linked to one of my earlier articles, but my real purpose was to make the simple point that a BIG part of the reason the economy has so tanked is because of low investor/business confidence. And the reason that investors and business people have so little confidence is because they believe Obama will be a disaster.
While I think it is ALSO true that Dems actually deserve a lion’s share of the blame for the economic bloodbath that started in September due to the housing finance market collapse, I thought of that as a separate issue.
But here’s a link to an article I wrote just the other day on that:
http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/how-we-financial-disaster-a-tale-of-democrat-lies-and-deceit/
NO ONE was more responsible for the housing finance market collapse than Democrats: both in terms of their longstanding policies (e.g. the Community Reinvestment Act), their opposition to repeated efforts to regulate the GSEs, and their failure to act while the GSE stock dropped 90% under THEIR leadership.
We need to keep pounding away at the economy as issue. I think it’s sad, but if Dems handle the economy well, they abort as many babies as they want, or force their gay agenda, or damn near anything. Reveal they are incompetent frauds on the economy, and we cut the head off the snake.
proud to say she’s my Congresscritter.
to his credit, Bush tried to warn people about Fannie and Freddie......
this is all the rats....all of it.
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.