Daniel Eran Dilger
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Osama Bin Laden’s Dream of US Economic Collapse

 Blogs Us Building Collapse Small
Daniel Eran Dilger
Supporters of the Bush administration like to say that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, suggesting that President Bush has kept the country safe from terrorism. What they forget is that Osama Bin Laden clearly outlined his strategy for battling America, not by flying more planes into new buildings, but by driving the US into bankruptcy.
The current economic collapse among US banks has cost taxpayers over $800 billion so far in federal bailouts. Add in the trillions spent off the budget in financing the occupation of Iraq and a maintenance mode war in Afghanistan, and it’s obvious that the yet uncaptured Bin Laden can declare “mission accomplished.”

In November 2004, CNN reported that Bin Laden released a video monologue to Al-Jazeera where the terror-savvy, extreme fundamentalist announced plans to continue a “policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy” using similar tactics to those used when fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 80s, “guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers.”

CNN.com – Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S. – Nov 1, 2004

“Easy to Provoke and Bait this Administration.”

Bin Laden bragged at the time that al Qaeda has found it “easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations.”

“And it all shows that the real loser is you,” Bin Laden said. “It is the American people and their economy.”

Bin Laden said of President Bush that “the darkness of black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America.”

In 2004, the US national debt was more than $7 trillion, but today it has grown to $9.6 trillion, roughly $31,640 of debt for every American citizen according to the U.S. National Debt Clock. The US is currently spending an astounding $12 billion per month in Iraq.

McCain Doesn’t Understand the Economic Crisis.

While Alan Greenspan called the current economic crisis “by far the worst financial crisis in a century,” John McCain has repeated over and over that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong,” even while the market tumbled and major financial institutions went on fire sale earlier this week.

McCain has failed to articulate any understanding of the economy or any interest in doing anything differently. His position has repeatedly been to follow the strategies of William ‘Phil’ Gramm, a Democrat turned Republican who sat in the House from 1978 to 1985, and then the Senate through 2002.

In the second half of the 90s, Gramm received over a million dollars in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry during his five years on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. His wife sat on the board of Enron, and Gramm himself authored the “Enron loophole” in 2000, enabling the Enron scandal.

Gramm pushed to dismantle regulations enacted during the Depression to separate banking, insurance and brokerage activities, passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. That legislation was key to enabling today’s mortgage crisis.

Gramm served as McCain’s campaign co-chair and his most senior economic adviser through July, when he famously downplayed the economic crisis by saying, “You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession,” and, “we have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline.” Gramm stepped down from his official role in the McCain campaign following those comments, but continues to advise McCain on economic policy.

ABC News: The Note: Fundamentally Unsound

Not Just a String of Bad Luck.

While some pundits have tried to spin blame for the current economic crisis everywhere but the “Gramm negative” economic policy of deregulation that has forced America to front hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the fraud and poor business decisions Gramm’s own deregulation policies enabled, the solution is quite obviously not more of the same.

The contributing problem of spending trillions to finance an occupation in Iraq based on false pretense while ignoring Bin Laden and enabling him to continue his efforts to bankrupt the US through guerrilla warfare should cause anyone who thinks that there is no difference between Barack Obama and McCain to wake up.

Obama plans to scale down the unwelcome operations in Iraq that are costing the nation absurd amounts of money while watering down the country’s military strength, provide a $1,000 tax break to the middle class, and stop the out of control profiteers that are devastating the economy as they take full advantage of Gramm’s catastrophic deregulation policies to manipulate the market and then promptly abandon any accountability and leave the taxpayer to pay for the damages.

Barack Obama Speaks With Educators

McCain Plays Depressing Hoover Tune.

McCain has continued to describe himself as “fundamentally a deregulator” and has repeatedly stated that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong,” echoing the lack of understanding voiced by President Herbert Hoover the day after the stock market crashed on Black Tuesday in October 1929, when he said, “The fundamental business of the country, that is the production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis.”

Despite Hoover’s comments, the market continued to fall. John D. Rockefeller repeated the same line of optimism days later, “Believing that fundamental conditions of the country are sound . . . my son and I have for some days been purchasing sound common stocks.” The market didn’t hit bottom until the middle of November.

Hoover promised a tax cut and voiced further optimism, but over the next year, things only got worse as the economy contracted, a thousand banks failed, and the nation experienced widespread poverty for years.

In a similar fashion, the McCain campaign has attempted to cloud reality by trotting out billionaire democrat and wife of a knight Lynn Forester de Rothschild to insist that McCain knows what he’s doing on the economy but that Obama is an “elitist,” while she also says she sees no political difference in social issues between Hillary Clinton and the McCain/Palin campaign.

Once Upon A Time in October – TIME

Palin Drone Says the Same Thing Backwards.

McCain’s running mate is even further out of touch with reality in economic matters. As mayor, Palin was able to hire John Cramer as a full time city manager to do her job so she could focus on turning Wasilla into a town modeled on the evangelical teachings of the Institute in Basic Life Principles. Alaska is swimming in oil money, so most of the town’s infrastructure and planning was subsidized and managed by Alaska’s Matanuska-Susitna Borough, a regional govenment.

A Salon article quoted Michelle Church, a member of the borough, as saying Palin was “unprepared to be mayor — it was John Cramer who actually ran the city,” and noting that, “the borough takes care of most of the planning, the fire, the ambulance, collecting the property taxes. And on top of that she brought in a city manager to actually run the city day to day. So what executive experience did she have as mayor?”

Still, Palin managed to leave behind massive debt after building a sports complex so far out of town that kids couldn’t ride their bikes there, and an unnecessary and duplicative new emergency dispatch center. Both as mayor and as the governor of Alaska, Palin has requested massive earmarks for Federal dollars, despite the fact that local residents pay nearly nothing in taxes due to Alaska’s oil wealth.

In her acceptance speech and repeatedly afterward, Palin has come out as being against earmarks and wasteful spending, claiming to have said “thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere,” to Congress, then admitting that she accepted the money after the earmark was canceled by Congress, and then returning to her line about “thanks but no thanks” in subsequent recitations of her speech.

What Palin seems to fail to understand is that earmarks are the mechanism Congress uses to ensure that funding is spent on a specific project. There is nothing wrong with earmarks themselves, as they can be used to ensure that Federal money isn’t just spent frivolously with nothing to show for it. The real problem is wasteful spending and requesting funding for unnecessary projects.

In the case of Palin’s bridge to nowhere, while Congress removed the earmark, Palin took the money anyway and spent it at her own discretion. By presenting herself as a champion of “ending earmarks,” Palin reveals that she is either grossly ignorant of how things work, or simply a disingenuously hypocritical liar.

In neither case is Palin qualified to help sort out economic policy for McCain, who has admitted that economic matters are not his strong point and who is surrounded by lobbyists and career politicians who have served the needs of those lobbyists in removing the economic regulations that were originally put in place to prevent the Depression from occurring again. Neither McCain nor Palin can offer real change, just more of the same as things get worse.

Sarah Palin, faith-based mayor
Sarah Palin’s wasteful ways

We Don’t Need Not Another Hoover.

America has to fight to take the nation back from the profiteers who have been cashing in at the trough of deregulation just like speculators in the 20s, who bought stock on margins hoping to make a quick profit. That worked well until everyone began selling at once. Today, bad home loans and speculative investments have resulted in a similar crisis, and are setting up a domino effect of future disasters.

On top of this, the nation has taken on a fantastically expensive war on multiple fronts, playing right into the hand of Bin Laden’s attempts to bankrupt us. McCain and Palin not only plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely, but threaten to start new wars in Iran, Syria, and between Georgia and Russia. This is ridiculous.

And for all my rich readers who fear Fox New’s propaganda that Obama will redistribute their wealth, remember that the market has always performed better under a Democrat for president. According to Ned Davis Research cited by MarketWatch, “the Dow Jones Industrial Average produced an annualized return of 7.21% during Democratic presidents, in contrast to an average of 3.6% during Republican presidents,” and when accounting for inflation, “2.5% annualized during Democratic presidencies, versus 1.7% during Republican presidencies.”

If those making more than a quarter million a year are afraid of Obama repealing parts of the Bush tax reductions that overwhelmingly favored them above the majority of Americans, imagine the consequences of more deregulation and another century in Iraq at $12 billion per month. Your taxes will eventually have to pay for that too. Stop deluding yourselves with Depression era Hooverism and wake up to the real threat: Bin Laden Bankruptcy.

Democratic presidencies aren’t always bad for stocks – MarketWatch

Other articles on current events:

Imagine Steve Jobs for President
The Big Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Attack
Osama Bin Laden’s Dream of US Economic Collapse
You Know the Drill?
Ten Striking Parallels Between Microsoft and John McCain
Obama’s Apple, McCain’s Microsoft: the Politics of Tech
Did you like this article? Let me know. Comment here, in the Forum, or email me with your ideas.

Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast (oh wait, I have to fix that first). It’s also cool to submit my articles to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot where more people will see them. Consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!

  • kdjones74

    You should mention that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed with something like 90+ US Senators voting for it (including almost all of the Democrats) and it was signed into law by President Clinton. This was clearly a bipartisan bill with little opposition.

    [My argument isn’t that R is bad and D is good. It’s that deregulation had terrible results and that McCain hasn’t figured that out. Obama is not pushing for more of the same, but instead has articulated a position of reversing policies that haven’t worked. McCain is playing the role of Hoover. ]

  • uknowdoncha

    The truly mad thing is that you believe Bin Laden is responsible for the terror attacks and driving the US economy down the pan. The country that has the technology to read your news papers from spy satellites can’t find one bloke hiding in a cave, lol yer right.
    Try looking at your own government and the real facts, rather than doing the typical American thing of blaming the muslims. How about all the dodgy business dealings between the Bush and Bin Laden families eh. Madness!!!

  • serpicolugnut

    Well, I see that you’ve moved from writing about tech to politics unabashedly. That’s fine. I’ll just remove your site from my RSS feeds and delete the bookmark.

    Good luck in your future career as a hack political writer.

  • uknowdoncha

    All Governments everywhere are corrupt. It does not matter who you vote for, the government still gets in. Bush, Brown and all the rest of them are just puppets for the real people in power behind the curtains!

  • uknowdoncha

    serpicolugnut WELL SAID! I clicked this link through Mactech.com and this come up???

  • Joel

    I think this piece confuses two things:

    Firstly it confuses election promises with reality. Whatever McCain promises his voters is one thing. The reality of having the armed forces bogged down in two campaigns is another. Once there a fairly stable situation in Iraq the American (and etc) forces will be withdrawn. Already Russia has been able to gain ground while the US is distracted… And whichever President it is in power will be able to get some PR in doing so.

    You’re also (IMO) confusing the reasons why the US invaded Iraq. The Americans are there because its a handy base in the Middle East, and having a garrison there will ensure events don’t get too hot and drive up the price of oil. (Though conversely, having high oil prices makes oil producing countries want to play ball with each other.) Bin Laden and Saddam were just convenient excuses at the time. There were never any links with Bin Laden or any WMD pointed at the west…

  • Marc W

    Your lack of knowledge of economics and history is really showing through in these recent political articles, especially the fanaticism for Democrats who , like I’ve said before, are not really much different from Republicans anymore.

    The Osama portion is fairly accurate and more people definitely need to understand that portion of your article. Your reasoning for the housing crisis is way off, as it was government regulation that subsidized bad loans to begin with! The market wouldn’t do something so dumb unless it knew they didn’t have to brunt the risk if things went sour. Your reasoning for the Great Depression is also off as it too was created and exasperated by government regulation. Please read some basic economic literature like Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt before writing articles like this.

    What exactly is Obama going to do differently? He is projected to raise the debt by $3.5 trillion, and I have no doubt that figure will rise as more plans are unveiled. The troops are going from Iraq to Afghanistan. He is still bent on interventionism which will induce even more blowback, exactly as Osama mentions in that same speech you quoted above. Nothing has better for recruiting new members than us regularly bombing various Middle East countries for decades and killing many thousands of civilians. So yeah, sounds like a genius idea to entangle ourselves further in that mess and get the Pakistani’s on our bad side.

    But I expect you to ignore to continue all the flaws commenters point out in your articles and keep writing them anyway.

  • TexasAg03

    The current mortgage problems aren’t the result of bin Laden, they are the result of Democrats blocking attempts to fix the problem before it happened. In 2005, McCain sponsored legislation to address this very issue. He said:

    “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”


    This was blocked in committee by Chris Dodd, the top recipient of campaign donations from Fredde Mac and Fannie Mae over the last 20 years. Incidentally, the number two recipient is Obama, even though he has only been in the Senate four years.

    [Uh, Obama is getting campaign donations because he is running for president.]

    Bush tried to do something about it in 2003 but the Democrats weren’t interested. From the New York Times:

    [Who controlled the House in 2003? The Republicans, from the mid 90s through last year.]

    “”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

    ”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said. ”


  • Janus

    dear Daniel:

    Please stick to that for which you have an actual and very rare talent: tech punidtry that isn’t sophistic nonsense.

    It is with a heavy heart that I inform you my swing state Pennsylvania vote will be going to McCain to protest your blog’s turn for the worse.

  • http://murrquan.livejournal.com Murrquan

    I actually liked this article, and I found it very interesting to have Osama Bin Laden’s plans finally pointed out!

    It wasn’t a tech article, but it didn’t have a tech headline either. I do think it might’ve been more respectful if he’d let us know what to expect in advance though.

    Personally, I would like to know if there’s any way to anticipate what Obama will do in office based on his financial backers. I’ve been trying to dig, but it hasn’t been very easy.

  • serpicolugnut

    BTW – you conveniently leave out that the problem with economy is primarily in the housing sector, which has now dragged down the financial sector. The housing sector woes can be traced directly back to changed enacted during the Clinton administration that made it easier for “high risk” individuals to get home loans. This allowed for the housing boom of the last 10 years. However, many of the people getting loans were either in no position to be approved, or were getting approved for more than what they should have gotten.

    When the economy tightened due to rising fuel prices, these individuals who were living close to the financial edge found themselves in hot water and facing foreclosure.

    Couple this with the incessant corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where numbers were inflated, and loans were given to people who had no ability to pay them back, and you the current crisis.

    Incidentally, the former head of Freddie Mac, Franklin Raines is a key Obama Economic advisor. Plus, Obama in only 3 years as a Senator, is the second biggest recipient of FM/FM money.

    So your attempt to throw this all on Bush/Republicans and attribute this all to Bin Laden is extremely laughable.

    The last time I checked, Bin Laden didn’t work at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, nor had he had any homes (caves) foreclosed on.

  • Ludor

    If California wasn’t in the united states, I’d move there.

    Keep it coming, Dilger!

  • rvanward

    Keep up the good work Daniel! Watch out for the looter repugs. Like any cornered predator, they can be vicious.

  • atroon

    Has your downtime watching CNN and MSNBC led you to believe you’re now a political expert in addition to a technology expert? While I enjoy reading your posts on Apple’s current and future technology ( you have shown a remarkable prescience there), the sharp left (use the term advisedly) turn into politics is not really up to the same quality as your Apple/Microsoft/RIM posts. Even though sometimes I think your tone is shrill and you are alarmist, I can’t argue with your premises in regards to technology. Please do me a favor: turn off the television, keep in contact with your sources at Apple and elsewhere, and keep being the terrific technology writer you are.

  • kerryb

    As I watched the twin towers fall from outside my home I thought our government policies had gotten us in a big mess. I was not one of those that ask “why us?” that day. 911 was the sacking of the US economic castle, once breeched it is only a matter of time before our bleeding of money and resources leave us a shell of our former selves. I just hope that Obama is elected and he can somehow impact Congress to make our great country a progressive and modern one. The belief in the market will take care of itself and everyone else is a lie and you only need to look at the expense of healthcare to see how the drug companies, hospitals and AMA have become the robber barons of the 21st century. Leaving Wall street in charge to watch Wall street is like letting your children babysit themselves.
    Socially the nation has drifted to the right with religion supplanting economic options for the poor. Meanwhile the banks have liberally spent the money of others on the hopes of quick riches on high risk, anything but economic conservatism.

  • siegling

    I think you meant at her own “discretion” rather than “digression”.

  • kent

    Having shown his ignorance of Energy, Daniel Eran Dilger Now Turns his Attention to Displaying Amazing Levels of Ignorance about the Economy.

    Now we know what happens when a maxillofacial surgeon accidentally leaves a sponge in your head.

  • kent

    I’ve noticed that Apple’s stock price has lost about 30% since Roughly Drafted dropped it’s Technology focus and became a political blog. Is Daniel Eran Dilger intentionally driving Apple into the ground with his insane rants? Has he shorted the stock? Maybe he is smarter than he seems.

  • gus2000

    I’m going to insist that reporters from all major news outlets have their jaws wired shut. It seems to provide an unmatched clarity of vision.

    Whatever the solutions to our current problems, they will not be provided by Grandpa Munster and Caribou Barbie.

  • kent

    In response to Gus2000
    You are right. We should look to the Messiah, who, though having never done anything, or even claiming to have done anything, has promised change. Having formerly lived in Chicago, and appreciating the fact that Obama has built useful relationships with the “power structure” there, I think Gus is on to something. Better to have someone with no accomplishments but who knows and can work with organized crime, than to have people who have actually fought organized corruption. Yes – good recipe for economic health.

  • Be Seeing You

    I have to agree with kent and Janus. Notwithstanding your excelent insight on things Apple, Daniel, you display an appalling lack of knowledge of economic matters. AIG and lehman have nothing to do with Bin laden’s “plan” for America. Such “analysis” borders on the criminal. BTW, gus2000 may also be correct, but neither will Obamination and his running mate Plagiarist Joe. I’ll take McCain’s experience and intestinal fortitude any day over Obama’s pathetic resumé anyday. Oh, while I am asking, what did Obama do about any of this while he was in the Senate? Lemme see. That’s right, not one damn thing.

  • glenngrafton


    Seriously your a good tech writer and I love your insights on Macs and technology.

    I would strongly recommend that you do as many have suggested and have a separate site for posting your political views and opinions.

    I don’t come here to read your biased views on politics.

    You WILL loose readers if you make this a mish mash of tech and politics.

    Think about it: When Steve Jobs came back he canned the Newton, printers, etc. All things that Apple was selling. Why did he do that? To focus on the core things they did well at. The same is true for your web site. You have are very talented at connecting the dots with Macs and all things technological. When you mix the two together you alienate probably half of your audience.

    I would recommend that you look at the model of Apple that you so strongly believe in and do what you do well.

    Your political posts are the equivalent of Apple’s Newton and Stylewriter printers. Sure they sold but it diverted resources and focus on from what Apple core strengths are.

    Daniel – focus on your core strengths. Otherwise you will loose readers – simple plain facts.

    [I have separated tech and non-tech postings so that people who only want to read about tech related stuff can skip over my comments on current events or my medical adventure posts.]

  • http://www.io-rocks.com CSimmons


    I hereby give you permission to write whatever you want to write on your blog.

    If some people here don’t like it: don’t let the doorknob hit you on the way out.

  • http://www.io-rocks.com CSimmons


    If you’re now voting for McCain because of what Daniel Eran Dilger writes in his own personal blog, then you truly are a petty individual.

  • oomu

    you should remind that website is the BLOG of Daniel Dilger.

    Please , you can read Appleinsider. a good website.

    if you want 100% pure apple stuff by him, appleinsider.com is the real place. Nice and Cosy.

    I read that blog because I want Dilger stuff, even If I disagree (here, I agree).

    when I want pure fantasy computing, I read applesinder. appleinsider will never try to defend a political opinion.

    on Dilger’s website, I HOPE he has opinion. I hope he is an true entire human with thinkings, qualities and defaults. (I want that, I get that).

    About Ben Laden, it’s true he said that. He would say anything to annoy people. Whatever, you name it. Of course, it does not mean he has some secret genius backers able to disrupt usa economy

    but you could wonder WHAT was the real priorities of Bush ?

    WHY USA did not put ALL your strengths in Afghanistan ? WHY did Bush not solidify the local U.S economy ? and WHY did you invade Irak when you could have oil with political/economical pressure of Irak and others countries ?

    In the same time, you could have pressure with military the Pakistan to have Ben Laden and destroys talibans and tribals warmongers. E.U would have never say a word (neither France, all happy to help) and be in a stronger position to oppose Russia. But nooo.

    in fact, I’m convinced Irak was a strategical errors. I understand the goal, I understand why it could have benefits USA and why others countries was against it (for goood reasons) but it was a mistake. too soon, too late, whatever, but a mistake with hints !

    USA should to retire some forces now, to grow back the local U.S economy, to force nato and uno interventions (hey, you know what would be fun ? to push France in nato, like french president Sarkozy wants, and ask them to send troops in irak with a nato mandate to manage the rebuilding. would you not find that supreme ironic ? )

    Stability is the goal you should strive now.

    But the worst, I do not invent all of that from my butt, but well from republicans and democrats american citizens I read in many newspapers.

    I’m still convinced people will vote McCain. Citizens want to live the Dream and force reality to be the dream.

    For now, in that greedy moment, all I hope is European Union escapes of the most of the financial crisis. (I don’t care about China or US, for that bad minute.)

  • GGT

    Reading these comments has left me stunned at the abandonment of reason.

    I do not believe that Daniel was suggesting that Osama was running a grand plan of ruining our economy. What I believe Daniel is saying is that Osama is reveling in the U.S.’s obvious and embarrassing financial failures. Daniel quotes Osama’s own words and I don’t see how there is any debate regarding Osama dreams that our economy and hence our culture and way of life decay and die.

    Osama’s weapon is fear. He creates fear through terrorist acts. That fear has worked to allow our leaders and our government to enact policies and gather authoritative power in the name of protecting us from the terrorists and to alleviate the fear. Whether you like it or not, our flagging financial stability is a reflection of our strength as a nation and at this moment is bright blinking beacon of failed policies. You can drag out all the talking points you want, but it doesn’t change that fact that the so-called “free-marketers” are socializing the living tar out of our financial and housing markets. How American is that?!

    Osama must be very pleased. He hasn’t needed to press further violent attacks on the U.S. as we’re doing a fine job of tearing ourselves apart from the inside. Our ability to reason and apply common sense has disappeared in this country. Fear, abuse of power, and greed run rampant and down that path lies chaos and collapse. Osama only needed to give us a little “push”; we’ll do the heavy lifting of destroying ourselves.

    Chastising Daniel for noting the obvious is nothing more the putrid stupidity. If you need talking points to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, there are plenty of websites out there that will fill that need. I suggest you go Google some.

  • geoffrobinson

    I’m not sure if deregulation was as much of a problem as the Fed keeping interest rates way too low. The government (both Ds and Rs) kept supporting increasing lending for homes. They encourage housing by making home interest and property taxes tax deductible, helping to increase the housing bubble.

    And for the record, what made the Depression so great? The Fed increased interest rates as we were headed into a depression (back then all recessions were called depressions). They restricted money supply when they shouldn’t have.

    If you look at all sorts of recessions, the Fed’s mismanagement of money supply is not too far behind.

  • mshettles

    Democrats are just as much to blame for this sub-prime bullshit as Republicans. Sorry, your kind isn’t perfect either.

    [I haven’t represented R and D as the sides of right and wrong. I also noted that Gramm was a D that became an R. What I pointed out was that Obama has articulated a plan to address the economy, and McCain has indicated that he has no plan or any interest in doing anything apart from giving a huge federal handout to the oil companies swimming in money and continuing and expanding new war fronts. This is about economic plans going forward, not petty partisan squabbling. ]

  • ttueric

    Most people have hit it well here – you are way out of reality with linking Osama with the current economic situation. The first poster (kdjones74) hit the nail on the head – the US Congress basically sets fiscal policy.


    Stubborn Ignorance

    Here’s what the U.S. Constitution says: “All bills for raising Revenue shall
    originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or
    concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” How many times have we heard
    politicians, pundits and guardians of our news media say that President Bush
    cut taxes, or Obama is going to raise taxes? The fact of the matter is that
    presidents have no power to raise or lower taxes.

    [I didn’t “link Bin Laden” with the current economic crisis, I only pointed out that he expressly stated that bankrupting the US was his goal four years ago, and leading the US military on a goose chase was the way he said he would do it. If you don’t seen any correlation between ineffectually spending trillions on “the war on terrorism/oil,” and the US being on the brink of insolvency after bailing out a series of failing businesses, then you need to look at things again.

    Also, I can only assume you mean that Reagan didn’t do anything to cut taxes, that Bush Sr. was talking out his ass when he promised “no new taxes” and that W has done nothing to lower taxes on the rich. That is a difficult to swallow.]

  • 84 Mac Guy

    Daniel, a little risky talking politics on a technical blog, but hell, it is your blog so you are free to use it as you see fit. Plus, you have certainly generated some intense discussion from readers.

    My only other comments is that whether people agree or disagree with your view they should be nice. It is called civil discourse and is critical in a free society.

    Those who have stated they will no longer read your blog because they strongly disagree with your political viewpoint will be a little dumber in the future because they lack the knowledge that you provide in your excellent technical articles.

  • kent

    The primary responsibility of the Commander in Chief is national security. The US was attacked, 3000+ citizens killed, our financial center and the seat of our government were the targets. Bush has done a stellar job in defending us against attacks since 9-11.

    [citation needed. What exactly did he do, spend lots of money sending cops up and down the coast or patrolling the GG Bridge, or take away our fingernail clippers on airplanes? Where is Osama Bin Laden? Oh right, helping to bankrupt the US as he planned. That’s an attack since 9/11 that Bush has done nothing but fall for. ]

    On the other hand, we were attacked repeatedly during the Clinton years and these attacks were treated as criminal matters. Bush took the war seriously.

    [Sorry this is a lie. The Clinton administration handed Bush a complete list of intelligence on Bin Laden and terrorist activities, and Bush put them away and ignored things until 9/11, when he realized he could use the event to start a war on Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Oil was the only thing Bush took seriously.]

    The Islamic extremists have paid a heavy price. Two regimes which aided and abetted terrorists have been replaced with fledgling democracies. These new governments, if nurtured and helped and allowed to succeed, could change the Middle East from a swamp of terrorism to a more stable and more democratic region.

    [Your profound ignorance in linking Iraq to 9/11 shows you have nothing to add to this discussion. Bin Laden and Al Queda were enemies of Saddam’s Iraq. Now that the country is in shambles, various terrorist factions have taken hold. Keep up your fantasy that Iraq is on the brink of democracy, but it is a complete lie, and shame on you for spreading it. More stable? Right, that’s why everyone is heading there for Christmas vacation. What delusional ignorance. ]

    Barack Obama has promised to remove the troops immediately regardless of the consequences.

    [Another lie]

    Surrendering immediately is more important than completing the task – to Obama and his supporters.

    [There is no task to complete in Iraq unless by “task” you mean surrendering to Osama Bin Laden’s plot to bankrupt the US]

    So, Bush has delivered 7 years with no more attacks which nobody believed possible, plus the start of a couple democracies.

    [Delusional fantasy. Bush spent trillions of dollars and destroyed 3,000 US soldiers (and severely injured thousands more) to turn Iraq from a petty and corrupt yet functional government into a chaotic war zone with a provisional government that has no power to do anything but pump oil, oil that is now being sold to the Chinese at a great deal (for China). If you’re a big supporter of toleration Communism, then mission accomplished.]

    Now Democrats, who generally never care about government spending accuse Bush of destroying the Economy. Don’t forget, all the Iraq expenditures were approved by Congress, including Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, etc. And these same folks help legislate the current Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac meltdown. Of course most of them had VIP mortgages even better than the no doc loans Fannie Mae gave to unqualified borrowers, under the orders of Congress.

    [Yes the Ds in Congress have done a bang up job of falling in line behind the ridiculous war mongering, but at least some of them have since recognized the mistake and have taken a stance in opposition to more of the same. ]

  • http://www.isights.org/ whmlco

    Totally disagree regarding earmarks. I believe a bill submitted to congress or the senate should focus on one thing and one thing only: the subject of the bill at hand.

    Too many times some “must pass” measure is submitted and then saddled with earmarks, pork, and worse, special interest legislation. That’s how we get things like the National ID Act, effectively mandating a national ID card (standardized drivers license and associated database). The Bankruptcy reform act was slipped past in the same way, attached to a “must pass” military bill.

    ALL legislation should be consist of one subject and one subject only, to be debated and passed solely on its merits.

    And if someone wants a bridge in Alaska, then they can damn well ASK for a bridge, and everyone can vote for it, or against it, as they please.

    [That’s a nice idea, and highly unrealistic to think will ever happen. But again, I’m not writing what I think should happen, but about what I think is happening. Earmarks are a tool used by federal legislators to make sure funds are appropriated for a specific thing, so really, they are right in line with the straightforward one to one relationship you outline.

    One can have an opinion on whether specific earmarks are foolish (and of course many are) but the point was that you can’t demand huge earmarks for unnecessary projects, then lose the earmark and spend the money and claim you are against earmarks and say you said “thanks but no thanks” to the money.

    It wasn’t a discussion of earmarks as much as a discussion of why Palin has neither the competence nor integrity to help in the current financial crisis. ]

  • FrancoCash

    Hello from France Daniel,

    After reading your last non-Apple articles I think you could be interested by this : http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/home.html

    Thanks for your blog.

  • The Mad Hatter

    I don’t think that either of them is what America needs, if I were American I would vote for the Greens. However I’m not, so all I can do is advocate.

    We’re having an election in Canada right now, and I’m putting my beliefs on the line by volunteering for the local Green candidate.

  • nelsonart

    Osama could be sitting there smirking in his cave. More likely, he’s bashing his head against its inner walls. What is it going to take? A terrorist attack, 2 protracted wars, Enron, hurricane Katrina, hurricane Ike, corporate corruption, credit crisis, energy crisis, and a devastating housing bubble popping, and all of that prefaced with Clinton’s .com bust… and we are still pushed production 3.3% in the 2nd quarter ’08?

    This is one amazing country. Clinton enjoyed many tailwinds and yet his tax policies were destructive (my wife was a dissenting voice in one particularly brave and aggressive derivative strategy that when busted, made the front page of the WSJ). Yes, turns out when taxes are above 50%, all sorts of destructive and unpredictable and costly evasive strategies are pursued. Many are illegal but it takes time and $ and manpower for the IRS to shut them down. This was the hallmark of the Clinton admin. And I liked Clinton, especially for his championing of NAFTA.

    So here we are. Where do we go from here? Osama wants to bankrupt us? Really? So do millions of other islamic extermist terrorists. And they have many far left liberals cheering right behind them.

    Greed does not self regulate. I posted elsewhere that these titans of industry have not only picked the low hanging fruit, but ate the bush and then crapped in the field. No reasonable person, R or D, will stand behind the awesome display of financial recklessness that has occurred over the last few decades (see… I don’t leave out any of the current crop of Presidents). Bush has gone along with enormous spending demands without a thought to the deficit and therefore debt. Yes, we’re 50% larger than under Clinton, but we’ve also added a lot to the debt. Aggregate net worth reached all time highs… until late 2005. As we come to the end of Bush, it feels like the end of Clinton. No one has figured out a way to stomp out the business cycle.

    This downturn is admittedly much worse as it was the last little thing the middle/lower class had to reach for the gold. Home equity + easy credit. As they have no skin in the game, it’s easy to walk away. Multiply that by millions and we have a problem. Utopian wishes to get people who couldn’t afford homes into homes have turned into a big nightmare.

    Obama wants a fairly expensive tax cut for the middle class. Plus free health care. The rich will pay as they will not change their behavior one iota when he raises their taxes sharply. You know that small business down the street that hires 7 people? They’ll just eat the hike and move on. Right. Our clients are bracing for an Obama admin and taking financially harmful measures to makes sure they can move income around and/or restructure their businesses and trusts.

    Under all Presidents the rich get richer. Even now, there are buying opportunities they can take advantage of that the rest of us can’t. McCain wants to extend those tax cuts that have led to record treasury revenues. As the WSJ points out, no president in history has been as successful at extracting money from the wealthy. You see, the wealthy do pay most of the federal taxes.

    I’m comfortable with leaving the tax rates where they are. I don’t think it’s wise to cut them much more. Obama’s middle class tax cut (which is cheaper) makes more sense than McCains. BUT… forget about raising taxes on the ‘wealthy.’ We don’t need small businesses dumping employees to make up for providing health care for all and an infinite SS tax. We want to ENOURAGE innovation and entrepreneurialism. Small business is key. High taxes hurt.

    As far as Palin? If her experience is an issue for the VP ticket, you should be shaking in fear for Obama running for the whole enchilada.

    Do I fear either? No. Obama is clearly intelligent and will appoint smart people to help him run the country. Turns out, McCain will do the same.

    They actually sound fairly equal. Obama sounds more and more like McCain as we go on, moving towards drilling, low taxes/tax cuts, nuclear power plant expansion, etc.

    I don’t think you’ll hear much about raising taxes in the debates at this point. Both candidates understand that’s a recipe for disaster. This economy needs help, not head winds.

    I am an optimist, but the recent bank failures and tight credit are making me very nervous. Fear and greed drive the market and I’d hate to see us cross a tipping point where people panic and do a run on banks.

    By the way, McCain isn’t more of the same (more Bush) any more than Obama is more stagflation and misery indexed jimmy carter. McCain is more like the true repubs that want to cut spending and champion low taxes that spur innovation.

    Wall street loves gridlock. Maybe McCain coupled with a dem controlled congress is just what we need.

  • http://www.blue-ember.com steffan_w


    I have tremendous respect for the writing you do both at Roughly Drafted and AppleInsider. I applaud you for your passion and unique insight no matter the topic: tech or politics.

    I find myself paraphrasing the sentiment in your recent response to John Gruber. You know a lot of things I don’t, and I am consistently persuaded of your points. When it comes to politics, you’re obviously writing from a left-leaning perspective, making mere argument using right-wing counterpoints, well, pointless. Other commenters have zeroed in on a few key factual errors in this post, some more eloquently than others. I’ll only add that a critical aspect of this topic is well analyzed in an in-depth piece (of exactly the kind I’d expect– and like to see more of from you) at the Village Voice (no conservative rag). The author makes a strong case for the connection between the current market crisis and policies at HUD under both Clinton and Bush, although the thrust of the article focuses on the disastrous initiation of those policies by Clinton appointee Andrew Cuomo.


    I’m not at all bothered by you speaking out on a subject you find important, or using your popular blog to convince others of your opinion. That’s Roughly Drafted. Incendiary sometimes, sure, but also highly compelling and convincing. The problem is that this article is a departure given its light treatment of important facts and the weight afforded highly debatable ones.

    In other words, even though I’m not a donor- just a loyal reader, I’m exhorting RDM to bring the in-depth, rest-of-the-story, thoughtful analysis you are known for to these political posts as well. Your best articles lay out a case and dethrone myths perpetuated by know-nothings. That’s why I read you (and also Gruber and Jack Shedd among many others), despite having a different political viewpoint. As for me-too, partisan, spin doctoring, if I ever want to hear it I know where to find it (Daily Kos, Hannity & Colmes, Olbermann, and CNET, TheStreet.com, WinSuperSite etc). To be clear: I’m not likening you to these guys. I just would hope political dissertations at RDM wouldn’t ever sound anything like what I can expect from them.

    More helpful in terms of convincing your readership of how you’d like them to choose in the coming election would be a specific analysis of several key factors that contributed to the failure of Freddie and Fannie and both candidates history in dealing with them (as well as some thoughtful reasoning on how you think they would deal with them were they to be awarded high office). Instead, the easily dismantled or dismissed points you’ve raised don’t seem to be swaying anyone’s opinion (on this message board at least) one way or the other.

    In both democracy and capitalism we rely on the quality of our information. You provide a much needed voice in contributing to the discourse on the tech industry and by extension our economic system. You could be doing the same for democracy, but so far I think RDM is just adding to the noise on this one.

  • enzos

    Keep it coming Dan. It’s your blog and the punters don’t have to read it if they can’t cope with contrary opinion.

    While I have to agree that Osama has magisterally out-manoeuvred the bumbling, rapacious, born-again nitwits leading your wonderful country into debtors prison, I do take issue with “at her own digression” .. Digressed from which argument? And what’s with all the tautology… “disingenuously hypocritical liar”, indeed! Notwithstanding the title, a bit of editing to tighten up the prose wouldn’t go astray.


    ps http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ is the scariest link on the net! $10E10 should be the Neocon’s epitaph.

  • Arnold Ziffel

    OK, folks, this is simple–if you don’t want to read Daniel’s political writings, don’t click on them. That’s pretty damned simple, if you ask me.

    When I visit blogs and sites I like to read, I don’t choose to view every single article listed. You can do the same.

    I believe the constant harping on Daniel about his political leanings/writings is more par for the course for Republican apologists. They (you) do everything you can to suppress dissent of any kind. Remember how, before Bush chose to send our troops to invade Iraq, the right wingers called people who opposed the war traitors. Then, after Bush started the war, we were again told we could not be opposed to it without being unpatriotic and such. So, when exactly can one oppose a war??????

    Again, don’t like to read political writings on this site? Don’t open them!!!

    Even Bill Gates can do that.

  • kent

    To Arnold Ziffel

    This is a blog. It has a comment section. If Daniel writes goofy stuff I will respond. You can as well. Clearly, he has every right to state his views. It is his blog, and a fine one at that. At the same time, when he ventures into politics his logic and facts are not at the same high level. Also, he tends to make inflammatory remarks about those with opposing views, which creates an impulse to respond. The readers can sort it all out. If those who disagreed simply did not respond, the discussion would be completely one-sided, kind of like a modern University lecture, or a major network newscast, or a TV show. That would not be healthy, as the truth would also be missing.

  • geoffrobinson

    Another thing came to mind. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in a weird situation because they were a privately held but quasi-governmental organization. Since politicians were encouraging them to make home owners out of people who should have been renting, they made loans they shouldn’t have.

    Anyway, they were making decisions with the expectation that the government would bail out there mistakes. Horrible situation.

  • Pingback: Osama Bin Laden’s Dream of US Economic Collapse — RoughlyDrafted Magazine at Scattered()

  • sgw

    Democrats may succeed where Bin Laden failed.
    So while Obama and his supporters blame Bush for the current financial mess, they ignore that fact that the real culprits are Democrats in Congress and former Clinton administrator officials.
    What most people are not aware of is the fact that the Bush administration years ago attempted tighter oversight of Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac only to be blocked by Democratics on the Hill. According to the NY Times, the Bush administration attempted “most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” Unfortunately for America, the Democrats ( such as Barney Frank) were successful in stopping tighter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, guaranteeing the mess we are in now.
    Of coarse, the Clinton administration helped create the mess by instituting tougher regulations that forced lenders to provide higher risk loans in an attempt to give more people opportunity to own a home even if they couldn’t afford it. This is shocking to many angry partisans who want to just claim its because of deregulation and Bush (not necessarily in that order).
    The problems can be traces back to Clinton attempt to beef up the Community Redevelopment Act which created new regulation to force lenders into higher risk loans at lower rates. Congress the last two years forced lax lending regulation for low-income group and was rewarded for there help. Democrats make up the top 3 recipients from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Dodd,Obama,Kerry). Deregulation wasn’t the problem, but wrong regulation . Of course, greed had it role and all you need for that is to put some Democrats in charge of other peoples money.
    Franklin Raines, Clinton’s former budget director, was chief financial office of Fannie Mae, cooks the books to help him rake in millions of dollars in bonuses ($52.6 million). As a result, Fannie Mae had pay a record $400 million fine.
    Now that we have lifted the rock and shined the light other Democratic cockroaches come running out. Jamie Gorelick, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the Clinton Administation, was Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae alongside Franklin Raines. She earned over $26 million for the hard work she did at Fannie Mae. He contributions don’t stop there. She is credited with help strengthening the wall between intel and law enforcement which prevent the two from communicating. A wall, which if didn’t exists, may have help prevent the 911 plan by getting access to the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui. A wall which was torn down by the Bush administration (Patriot Act) which have already help stop terror attacks such as the one planned against the Brooklyn Bridge.
    But wait, theirs more. In 2006, when things were going bad in Iraq, many Democrats advocated pulling out on a fixed timeline, regardless of the situation. Democrats, such as Harry Reid claimed that the war was lost or Obama who thinks we just air-raid villages or John Murtha you can’t wait to declare America soldiers guilty of war crimes before they had their day in court. Fortunately, they did not success. The “Surge” with its additional troops and new strategy is working and Al-Qaeda is in retreat instead of celebrating its victory over the US and proving Bin Laden correct when he said “… American soldier was just a paper tiger”. Al-Qaeda popularity in the Arab world is in decline where event former supporters are renouncing them.
    With a good chance that Obama could be elected President and the Democrats in control of a filibuster proof Congress, they are on the verge of bringing change that only Osama bin laden could dream of.

  • nelsonart

    Rejoice. The dems are coming around to offshore drilling. The bad news is they only want to drill where there is no oil.

    I saw Obama stumping on the trail and he loves the bridge to nowhere bit. Although he supported it.

    I have to say, I’m from Alaska and that bridge to nowhere would have connected Ketchikan’s island airport to the mainland. Yes, in Alaska, we build runways where we can. If you’ve ever experienced ‘coming through the cut’ while approaching Juneau, you know what I’m talking about. My dad flew for AK airlines and I’ve been up in the cockpit going into SE Alaska. I had to sleep for 3 days it was so stressful.

    SGW: I saw that on the news. I don’t follow politics to the nanometer. I’ve always felt intelligent regulation was needed. But we have to cut it where we can. And step in when we screw up and deregulation creates unintended problems.

  • Pingback: What Republicans Say about McCain-Palin — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()

  • djpoyner

    To all those people complaining that Daniel is writing about politics as well as technology, what’s the problem? Seriously.

    Daniel’s style of writing is exploratory, deals with complicated issues and connects the dots in ways that people don’t always see. How is that any less valid for politics than technology?

    Sure you can unsubscribe if you want, but I thought the internet was all about interconnectedness and pluralism of ideas and information. Seems some old habits die hard.

  • steveO

    Daniel — Why did you remove my post?

    Are the FACTS to tough to comprehend?

    Your guy, Obama, has received 700% more money per year from Fannie Mae than the nearest benefactor! 4,200% more than McCain.

    Enlighten yourself…
    Here is a very, very enlightening video that includes a CSPAN clip from 2005. The CEO of Fannie Mae is speaking to incoming congressmen. “We have come upon a difficult time for Fannie Mae, there is much to be done within our company and I ask you to help us…” I doubt if the CSPAN portion of this video will get play in the nightly news…

    The complete list of recipients of Fannie/Freddie money can be found here:

    [Actually, your source points out that “bundlers in the finance, insurance and real estate sector have hauled in at least $30 million for the Republican candidate — far more than any other sector” while “Bundlers in the larger finance, insurance and real estate sector have collected at least $13.4 million for Obama, making it his most generous sector.”

    The securities and investment industry has given Obama $10 million vs $7 M to McCain, and in commercial banking “$2 million for the Democrat, $1.9 million for the Republican”.

    Is your position, seriously, that Fannie Mae is giving money to Obama, not because it thinks Obama will win, but because it thinks Obama won’t exercise oversight over the group and allow it to run without any regulation? Do you think it fears McCain’s brave new world of change? Or did you just copy and paste a factoid that sounded good from some right wing blog desperate for a “fact” number that sounded bad?

    Your edited video clip of the Black Caucus on CSPAN, with the Fannie Mae CEO describing the caucus a “friend” and “family,” desperately tries to spin some connection with the political party that cares about housing opportunities for less privileged people (“more minorities and undeserved individuals” in the video), and impugns Obama as being responsible for housing defaults and the current crisis because FM contributed to his campaign. But don’t fool yourself. FM didn’t fail because of Blacks, and it didn’t fail because McCain couldn’t “reform” it with more deregulation.

    “The DEMOCRATS failed us and now we have to pay!” is a lot of right wing misinformation. Your clip has as much Fox news selective reporting as there is CSPAN video in your clip. Rather than blaming the economic crisis on Blacks and Obama for being seen as FM’s only hope for change, maybe you should look into the fact that:

    “Over 98 percent of Fannie’s loans were paying timely during 2008. Both Fannie and Freddie had positive net worth as of the date of the takeover, meaning the value of their assets exceeded their liabilities. However, there was concern that the GSEs’ liquidity was insufficient to handle growing delinquency rates, such that although viable now, the scale of loss in the future would be sufficient that insolvency would occur and that knowledge of this future failure would induce immediate or near-immediate failure due to buyers refusing to buy debt.”

    “Both GSEs roll-over large amounts of debt on a quarterly basis and failure to sell debt would lead to failure due to lack of liquidity. A slower form of failure would be the issuing of debt at high cost (to compensate buyers for risk) and this would greatly diminish the earning power of both GSEs, rendering them unable to earn the money they would need to handle expected future losses. Both GSEs counted large amounts of deferred tax assets towards their regulatory capital, which were considered by some to be of “low quality” and not truly available capital. The deferred tax assets would only have value if the companies were profitable and could use the assets to offset future taxes. Both companies had experienced significant losses and were likely to face more over the next year or longer.”

    You have yet to outline how McCain’s “fundamentally a deregulator” stance and his opinion that “fundamentals of the economy are strong” would help solve any of these issues. Scapegoating Blacks is an easy answer for Fox and the NeoCons, but you need to offer more than the fact that FM sees more hope in an Obama presidency than a McCain one, where all resources would be diverted to big oil and the ultra rich, and any hope of homeownership among minorities would simply be denied as part of right wing “reform.”]

  • glenngrafton

    It’s almost amusing that Daniel is trying to tie the financial crisis as a Bin Laden inspired 9/11 attack on the finance and housing market.

    [Please stop misrepresenting facts. I clearly presented Bin Laden’s plan to bankrupt the US through drawn out military actions. The US has spent far more on the war than all of the hundreds of billions of dollars of investment into bailing out these institutions. The difference is that we get some of that money back, but none of the war expenditures. That’s just gone.

    The rest of your comments are just plain ridiculous bleating of the excessively privileged]

    I think a better headline might have been; “Democratic Influence On Housing Market Help Do What Bin Laden Couldn’t”

    As “SGW” said:

    “Unfortunately for America, the Democrats ( such as Barney Frank) were successful in stopping tighter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, guaranteeing the mess we are in now.
    Of coarse, the Clinton administration helped create the mess by instituting tougher regulations that forced lenders to provide higher risk loans in an attempt to give more people opportunity to own a home even if they couldn’t afford it.”

    Fannie Me and Freddie Mac were doing well until they decided to prime the pump. How did they do that? By tampering with the free market and encouraging all sorts of mortgages that required little or no money down. The result was people buying houses that they never could afford. This drove housing prices through the roof. Fiddling with the market to do some good old liberal social engineering to make it possible for people who would never have been approved for a mortgage in a free market.

    The new regulations that the government is imposing on loans is that people actually have to show the ability to pay the loan back – that wasn’t the case – and that failed policy is at the feet of Washington politicians, primarily liberals who run Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The policies helped them to buy votes, as it always has, using the public coffers to advance their own careers and to enlarge their back pockets.

    The market responded to the government behavior. More mortgages being made to poorer and poorer people which meant that people with few assets and an inability to pay should the economy begin to sour, get loans, and that’s exactly what happened.

    I evaluate credit reports as part of my job. I can tell you first hand that our delinquency rate is extremely low on customers that we approve. Why is that? It’s because I don’t approve anyone that does not have a high enough credit rating, adequate income and a proven track record that they do pay their monthly obligations. The person’s race or ethnicity has no bearing whatsoever in who gets approved. Any one of those three things they’re weak on and they don’t get approved. If our company were mandated to approve people with lower credit scores or less than adequate income I can guarantee you that we’d have much greater delinquencies. We don’t because it would cost us. In the governments case with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that’s just what happened only in this case we and I will all share the cost of failed government policies imposed by the liberals.

  • geoffrobinson

    The last comment is spot-on. People need to stop blaming capitalism without looking to possible government interference.

    And as I mentioned earlier regarding the Great Depression, read Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose” for a very good overview of how the government made the Great Depression “Great”.

  • http://www.jon-wright.co.uk/oldarchives/ mrunderhill

    “Supporters of the Bush administration like to say that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, suggesting that President Bush has kept the country safe from terrorism. ”

    That’s because he already achieved what he wanted.

    “What they forget is that Osama Bin Laden clearly outlined his strategy for battling America, not by flying more planes into new buildings, but by driving the US into bankruptcy.”

    Yeah right. Those cavemen were clearly more sophisticated than we imagined.

    I’m still amazed how people can’t see the links here. This whole business of banks collapsing all smells a bit whiffy don’t you think?

    The roaring Twenties were also a time of prosperity on the back of a credit-inspired economic bubble and we all know what happened after that.

  • glenngrafton

    Daniel wrote:

    “The rest of your comments are just plain ridiculous bleating of the excessively privileged”

    Ahh now were getting somewhere. Daniel – hello Daniel do you have a point to make here, some logic to rebuttal what I wrote. Please make your point! HA HA HA HA

    You so know that you’re logic has been shot through.

    You so know that I am right in what I said and it so ticks you off that someone could rise up to challenge your liberal pre-conceived biases.

    Now you result to personal attacks on myself – “priviliged” I don’t think so. Without knowing anything about me. Let me tell you something about myself. At 18 and a freshman in college I had no college loans, and worked my butt off. I married in my second year in college. I made more than my wife did who was working full time while I went to college full time. Bought a house at 20. Privileged no, hard working yes.

    But Daniel none of us are being distracted from the facts that I laid out in my post – and I suspect that you are squirming in your seat now seeing maybe a glimmer of logic coming through. I doubt it though, but for the benefit of the readers.

    Let me quote my post so you can read it again:

    “s “SGW” said:

    “Unfortunately for America, the Democrats ( such as Barney Frank) were successful in stopping tighter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, guaranteeing the mess we are in now.
    Fannie Me and Freddie Mac were doing well until they decided to prime the pump. How did they do that? By tampering with the free market and encouraging all sorts of mortgages that required little or no money down. The result was people buying houses that they never could afford. This drove housing prices through the roof. Fiddling with the market to do some good old liberal social engineering to make it possible for people who would never have been approved for a mortgage in a free market.snip
    The market responded to the government behavior. More mortgages being made to poorer and poorer people which meant that people with few assets and an inability to pay should the economy begin to sour, get loans, and that’s exactly what happened. ”

    This is not a republican problem. It’s ill conceived liberal meddling in the home mortgage market that contributed to the problems we have now.