This Week: Senator Kyl Says It's The Democrats In Congress Who Are Hoover-Like, Not Bush
By Nicole Belle Saturday Mar 22, 2008 6:00pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
It is a universal rule observed by all Republicans time and time again: repeat something over and over again, irrespective of its truth and by repetition, it becomes conventional wisdom, otherwise known as living in a post-fact society. So in discussing the state of the economy with Senators Chuck Schumer and Jon Kyl on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, when Schumer points out that the Bush administration policies of protecting corporate welfare, such as the Bear Stearns bailout, and ignoring consumer issues like the rising foreclosures has resulted in the worse economy since Hoover, Kyl lashes out and says it's the Democrats in Congress who are like Hoover, not Bush.
I was wondering how long it would take my friend Chuck Schumer to blame the Bush Administration here. Of course, it wasn’t the Bush Administration so much as the Democrats in Congress who were pushing the lending institutions to get out there and lend more money even to unqualified buyers: to the minorities, to the poor, to the young. So that everyone could own a home. The Bush administration was somewhat to blame for that as well. But Democrats in Congress were making that push. And as a result, a lot of people took loans who couldn’t qualify. In fact, they didn’t have to qualify. No money down. There was no credit reporting. And a lot of them, frankly, couldn’t afford it. So let’s don’t blame the Bush administration for this, and as to Hooverism, it’s Sen. Schumer and his Democratic colleagues who want to raise taxes like Hoover did when he refused to allow the Coolidge tax breaks to stay in effect and put in the Smoot-Hawley and they of course, are opposing the free Trade agreements that the President is trying to bring up. Let’s understand here the Bush Administration is trying to be pro-active on both the tax and trade fronts and it does not oppose some of the things Chuck talked about.
Um, huh??? The Democrats, who have only had a paper-thin majority since January of 2007 and couldn't even get most of their bills on the table before that are the ones like Hoover? What are you smoking? Kyl blames the defaulters on their loans (those undeserving minorities and poor) and conflates that with free trade and taxes. And what on earth does the Smoot-Hawley TARIFF act have to do with the current crisis other than Smoot and Hawley were Republicans?
Hale Stewart looks and the pros and cons of the Fed's actions last week in a far more intellectually honest way than Kyl does:
The central reason why the Federal Reserve acted like it did was to prevent a financial sector meltdown. While there is no way of knowing for sure there was a strong possibility that a Bear Stearns bankruptcy would have frozen the credit markets. This would have had chilling effect on the credit markets and could have frozen them solid. This could have sent the economy which is already teetering on the edge of recession (if it's not already in one) into a very deep recession. It's important to remember that leading up to this event were signs of extreme distress in the credit markets. Auction rate securities -- a primary way that municipalities obtain short-term funds -- pretty much dried up over the last 2-3 months. Structures Investment Funds -- SIVs for short -- were experiencing the same problems. In effect, the Bear Stearns situation occurred at the end of a building problem in the credit markets. If Bear had failed there is more than a small likelihood that the end result would have been a much deeper recession than we will have.
On the con side, the Federal Reserve clearly bailed out a firm who's own decisions were responsible for its downfall. Bear decided of its own free will to get involved in the hedge fund and mortgage market. That was a bad decision and they have paid the price. In a free market economy (which we're supposed to be in) stupidity of this type is supposed to fall by the wayside by being unprofitable and therefore eventually going bankrupt. Some commentators have correctly noted that the Fed's action essentially "privatizes the gains and socializes the losses" of the investment community. Finally the Fed's action creates what economists call a "moral hazard". This simply means that by bailing out stupid behavior the Federal Reserve is essentially allowing it to happen again.
CREDO Action has a petition you can sign asking your congrescritters to pass the Foreclosure Prevention Act.
Login or Register to post comments.
another attempt of the gop and bush/cheney to
misdirect their crimes on to someone else.
the fascists bushco needs NO MORE DAYS IN WASHINGTON D C
Hey, go ahead, let the GOP try to blame their deregulation hysteria's "sub-prime" problem on the poor, the coloreds, the wimminz.
Let 'em bring it on.
They're gonna lose this time. Bigger than that, the country's 30 year fascination with Reaganite deregulation and anti-regulation regulators may now THANK GOD be OVER.
Well the lying liars have to say something - and it can't be the truth - after all, they are lying liarrs.
Yeah guys in SUITS have all the answers.
About those massive bonuses that the Bear Sterns executives and traders awarded themselves shortly before the meltdown: recoverable?
Is the camera on? Let the lying begin. These repukes may be stupid, but they are evil!
Doesn't that Kyl just look like a super-prick SOB? I could definitely see him throwing a crippled old war widdow out of her home, and happily handing over her property deed to some Ken Lay type of f#@ker!
Remember, those Kyl supporter's are the same ones who elect McInsane.
Nicole, more needs to be known regarding Bear Sterns. Normally I would have said this admin would 'bail out' a company like this. That isnt really what happened. It really isnt clear what happened. We know for example that about 1/3 of the investors were used to fund (the employees) the purchase. I would have expected investors to be protected. They werent. This was done for a different reason - perhaps having something to do with JP Morgan. This needs much closer examination. I smell a croney in this mess somewhere. Who are the specific actors and how are they connected.
As a note, you will find some using the phrase 'socializing the losses' as justification for calling this 'socialism'. You need to deal with that talking point.
(unedited)
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
Thomas Jefferson
NoGWBpolicyleftinplace @ 6:
Kyl is my senator. McCain is an opportunist. Kyl is just another deluded selfserving 'me first and last' conservative. McCain doesnt really believe in anything - Kyl believes it all.
L.A. Confidential @ 8:
Well here we are.
Finally! atleast someone is saying it, the dems are hell bent on this diveristy thing and help the sub-prime mess. Banks are smart enough to know whom to lend to whom not to!!!
I like to use the more fancy term "post-hoc".
How do they get history so wrong???!!!!! I just don't get it!!!!! The Hawley-Smoot Tariff helped push us further into the great depression. The "cowboy culture" of the lending industry shoulders a lot of the blame, and of course, fighting an unnecessary war with borrowed money could help...I think? Wow, so FDR followed Hoover's act...Wonder how that worked out for us????
L.A. Confidential @ 10:
Tried it in the Soviet Union, does not work...
chris @ 11:
Diversity thing. Are you suggesting that "whites" are only capable of repaying a loan??? And, just so you know, the predatory lending boomed during a Republican help congress. Do I need to give you a history lesson?
Explain the "diversity" comment please. Thanks!
Hillary Clinton. LIAR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y
On a completely different topic!!! I hope I am just being fed a load of crap by a reliable source here....
Supposedly a news story will break tomorrow or Tuesday about David Patterson, our newly sworn in governor. Something he failed to mention to the people and the press, AND his wife after his open press conference about his infidelity. He apparently has another family in MA, a lady and two kids...kids that are HIS.
This is gonna suck! I hope this is not true!!! The next in line is Joe Bruno, state Republican Majority Leader and currently under investigation by the FBI......GREAT!
chris @ 14:
So essentially you're calling Thomas Jefferson a communist pig.
Funny, Chris never seems to qualify his remarks or defend his positions.
You'll have to ask Ben Stein about the Smoot/Hawley Tariff Act.
It was what his character was talking about in class.
Anyone....Anyone.
Did anyone else hear the republican senator say that the democrats were pushing the lending institutions "to lend money even to unqualified buyers, to the MINORITIES, the poor, the young"??? Since when did being a minority suddenly make one unqualified for a home loan? Why is it that republicans always try to inject race into an issue when the facts do not support them? I guess some things never change.
I think he means by "Hoover like" that like Hoover, the Dems favor trade restrictions, taxes and protectionism re American business. Whereas, the GOP are more free traders and no or low tariffs.
The phrase that goes something like:
"Privatize the profits... and socialize the losses..."
is basically how the Bush Crime Family conducts business. Remember Neal and the Savings and Loan Scandals? In a larger scope,
THAT's how W has been waging the war in Iraq. His friends and Cheney's friends have privatized and profiteered every possible level of military support and foreign policies in Iraq... and when it comes to taking losses... well, you know, suddenly it's STATE DEPARTMENT cash that comes up missing... or another sepecial spending bill from Congress to BUY BULLETS becomes necessary.
It is maddening to consider how much has been stolen from this country's public coffers in the last seven years... for bail-outs, bullets, and bullshit.
chris @ 11:
Are they? In 1988, they nearly bankrupted themselves by overextending themselves in South America. I'm not surprised that they are killing themselves again. Their lending officers, like mortgage brokers (not all), are mostly interested in getting their up front money from the borrower. Whatever happens after...they could give a damn.
Every day we see the same thing. It is not that the Republicans only repeat lies over and over and over until Blitzer starts chanting it, it is that they repeatedly simply say the opposite of what is true. Over and over and over. Bald faced. With no facts.
"Clear Skies"
"No Child Left Behind"
"Healthy Forests"
"War is Peace"
"Democrats are like Hoover"
WTF. Somebody has to just take off the gloves and hit them sqare in the jaw. This "civil" TV ratings friend - the two or three talking heads chattering over each other, like NFL commentators, has to stop. It is white noise until someone starts punching.
The False Flag
Ricky Bones @ 13:
how do they get it so wrong? join the gop and sign an oath
to follow in stupidity. the gop is so fucking intentionally ignorant.
you can not have an IQ higher than 29 if you want to be a gop repug.
thats right, minorities, the poor and the young are the scum of the earth
christ, i hate the repugs
Ted @ 22:
no, what he means is that the dems are at fault for the economy
but nice try....now back to redstate you go....and you can sit around and commiserate with them as to how the dems are gonna make things even worse
Corporate welfare is just that! I thought that in a free market or capitalist society, it was the nature of the beast to eat or be eaten...you know, survival of the fittest. So, why welfare for rich?
Jay Severin Has a Small Pen1s @ 24:
of course you have your tems mixedup again and you mean gop/repigs when you say dem
The entire history of modern Republican executive leadership since Hoover has them dumping the more successful, more fiscally responsible legislation put in place by the Democrat before them, steamrolling their Supply-Side/Trickle Down policies in it's place and then getting booted out of office after their failed policies result in an "It's the economy, Stupid!" final straw for an electorate that discovers they are suffering more under Republican leadership than the worst of the Democratic leadership.
The only marginal exception to that common refrain has been when Ronald Reagan took over after 4 years of Jimmy Carter. But the economic quagmire Carter inherited the Nixon disaster would have taken any president at least 6 years to sort out anyway.
Moreover, Reagan's economy only improved marginally for the ordinary American after Carter because he DIDN'T dump Carter's brilliant Fed Chairman appointee, Paul Volker, and left many of Carter's policies in place after Carter paid the political price for them.
Except for the massive, record deficits and debt part. Those were alllll Reagan.
Still waiting for an intelligent response from Chris. Where is she????
anon @ 9:
You and I finally agree on something. Senator Kyl loves to lie and to repeat the lies of others at truth. Take for example this opinion piece in today's Arizona Republic.
The current crop of Republican's wouldn't be able to tell the truth if they were visited by Jesus Christ himself, except for maybe former Senator Lincoln Chaffee and Senator Hagel.
Phoenix Justice @ 32:
Hell, they couldn't look a cyclops in the eye!
Uncle Joe, you're in error, please read below (quoted ver batim from above):
"So let’s don’t blame the Bush administration for this, and as to Hooverism, it’s Sen. Schumer and his Democratic colleagues who want to raise taxes like Hoover did when he refused to allow the Coolidge tax breaks to stay in effect and put in the Smoot-Hawley and they of course, are opposing the free Trade agreements that the President is trying to bring up. Let’s understand here the Bush Administration is trying to be pro-active on both the tax and trade fronts and it does not oppose some of the things Chuck talked about."
Maybe someone should ask Sen. Kyl why President Bush repealed the Davis-Bacon of act of 1931 right after Katrina. The act ensures that workers are given the market wages for work, particularly construction. Hmmmmmm?
Ricky, did you know that the Davis Bacon act was originally enacted to keep blacks out of the trades, by guaranteeing wages above those being then paid to blacks?
Ricky Bones @ 28:
Only in a true capitalist society. In a Republicanized capitalist society, "the minorities, the poor and the young" must forever serve the needs of the Republicanized capitalist without expecting any form of reciprocation. There is to be no "safety net" for the common citizenry, only the wealthy and only the corporations.
In the sexual world, that is known as getting "f**ked in the ass without the benefit of a reach around".
Nicole, cant'we get more of the clip with Schumer's response? He looked like someone that just wanted to punch Kyle. I would have liked to have seen his rebuttle.
Hmmm....
from Wikipedia - Judge William B. Bryant (himself African-American) rejected that Davis-Bacon was a Jim Crow law. He stated: "Americans of all races were in need of aid from the government during the Great Depression. Congress enacted the DBA (Davis Bacon Act) to assure workers a fair wage, provide local contractors a fair opportunity to compete for local government contracts and to preserve its own ability to distribute employment and federal money equitably through public works projects." With the claim rejected, the plaintiffs did not appeal. Despite notable attempts to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, the law for the most part continues to enjoy often bi-partisan local support across the nation.
Ted @ 36:
Sorry, I meant to respond by quoting your comment
from Wikipedia - Judge William B. Bryant (himself African-American) rejected that Davis-Bacon was a Jim Crow law. He stated: “Americans of all races were in need of aid from the government during the Great Depression. Congress enacted the DBA (Davis Bacon Act) to assure workers a fair wage, provide local contractors a fair opportunity to compete for local government contracts and to preserve its own ability to distribute employment and federal money equitably through public works projects.” With the claim rejected, the plaintiffs did not appeal. Despite notable attempts to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, the law for the most part continues to enjoy often bi-partisan local support across the nation.
Actually, the mortgage fiasco was precipitated by Bush's declaration of the new "ownership society," which was supposed to turn a large group of people into homeowners (and therefore Republicans, by typical Republican logic). This was the grand domestic vision of the Bush administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Bacon_Act#Efforts_to_Repeal
Ricky, the Davis Bacon Act was passed in order to prevent non-unionized black and immigrant laborers from competing with unionized white workers. The discriminatory effects continue, as even today minorities tend to be vastly under-represented in highly unionized skilled trades, and over- represented in the pool of unskilled workers.
Pongo, the mortgage fiasco was largely caused by regs and pressure on lenders to loan to less qualified payees and minorities, rather than based on creditworthyness.
Ted @ 43:
Quite possibly, but today that act ensures that people get fair wages. I am CERTAIN that President Bush did not attempt to repeal an act simply based on it being racist and during Katrina, the current market wages were already below the national in that region. So, I may be missing the point, unless you were simply throwing a little tid bit of knowledge out there.
Ricky, well, the discriminatory effect does still continue, yes?
Ted @ 22:
What the heck?!? All of this comparing Democrats to Hoover is just astonishing! Hoover was a Republican under whose administration poor people (many of them Democrats) suffered greatly, and there were NO safety nets.
Ricky Bones @ 45:
Also, the act gets bi-partisan support and it was a mess when there was an attempt to indefinitely suspend it. Just sayin'
pongo @ 41:
Yeah Kind of like Uncle Ronny Reagan's Shining City on a Hill.
That worked out real well.
Ted @ 46:
Discriminatory will continue as we all know, good example was the "minorities" remark by Sen. Kyl
did shumer refute him?
did stephie retrieve a fact?
Ricky Bones @ 15:
Chris is a dope.
Anais, that's part of the point, todays Dems are acting like Republicans of the late 20's and early 30's in terms of trade restrictions, thus exacerbating the faltering economy.
The reason people took loans that they didn't qualify, why there was no credit reports and so forth is because the lender was bundling the mortgage into securities that were then sold to third parties. If it was like the old days, where your community bank loaned you the money, and then you repaid your community bank, this would have never happened. This also never would have happened if the mortgage backed securities were correctly graded, because they wouldn't have been able to be sold at a profit. Instead, they were graded "AAA", and the rest is history.
Captain Hussein Kangaroo @ 52:
I know :-) I was wondering if she was going to attempt to defend her comments, but I guess the prospect of watching American Idol on the DVR was much more rewarding. As Paula said, "The reward paid off" Gee that show has some smart-like people! ( I hate Idol)
Ted @ 44:
BS TED, the unregulated banking industry actually believe that the market will control itself. They convince repugnants that deregulation will work. As soon as they get the laws changed, they get greedy because they actually think they are right. Now that we see how deregulation doesn't work, they want a bailout and they still think they were right. The only evidence they have that it works is they were able to make huge amounts of money doing it. Never mind that it breaks our treasury and most of the population of the country.
Nobuddy, and the lenders were crticized for red-lining areas where no questionable loans would have been made -- so the lenders caved in to the pressure and went ahead and made those loans.
Senator Kyl is a national security threat, as are all the Fascist Republicans.
Living in their own fantasy world of lies, deceit and greed, these Republican fools have endangered every U.S. citizen, weakened our economy, weakened our military and trashed our nation's reputation around the world.
Had enough yet?
I found this interesting - http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080323/ZNYT01/803230447/1002/new...
Ted @ 57:
So again, you are being racist.
Ted @ 53:
Right. We need more cheap high profit lead poisoned children's toys, poisoned food, etc, etc.
Who needs stupid restrictions-regulations on trade and imports.
A huge percentage (I’m sure it is not a majority percentage) of foreclosures are speculators who bought homes to resell in less than a year for a profit. They needed no down payment and when the profit didn’t materialize they walked away. They should be held liable for fraud!
Another large percentage of foreclosures were really people who could NOT afford the house they were buying. They were talked into a mortgage instead of being told, like they should have been told, that they could not afford the payments. They were given these “teaser” interest rates (1% in some cases and a scam that let them not pay any principle and even pay a lesser percentage to be added on to the price of the mortgage at the end of the contract) that made the payment almost affordable but when those rates jumped to a realistic rate the people simply could not and can not make the payments. The companies and people who were issuing these mortgages should be held liable for fraud!
Don't worry, Senator Kyl....Neither Hillary nor Obama (nor, of course, McCain) will oppose those wonderful "free trade" agreements.
"As it happens, Clinton and Obama have pretty much the same record on the issue. They both support the existence of NAFTA. They both call for its reform, along quite similar lines. Neither was in Congress in 1994, so they didn't vote on NAFTA when it passed. But they have both voted in favor of most free trade deals when they have had a chance."
Just sit tight. Help is on the way.
Ron, I'm not saying pro or con, simply that many of those loans went bad -- and then the politicians go and unfairly blame the lenders rarher than the borrowers taking on more than they can comfortably assume, and the lenders were pressured to make those loans.
Eat the rich. It's the only thing they're good for.
Yeah right, the S&L scandal, junk bonds, Enron, etc., etc., now the cheap mortgage fuck-up, it`s all the fault of the poor uneducated masses. Without the poor and middle class the unsupervised rich and powerful would have nothing to feed on.
Just goes to show that anybody can say anything. Hitler could have said that he loved Jews. Nixon said he wasn't a crook. Capone said he was just an honest businessman.
And now Jon Kyl says Democrats are to blame for seven years of BushCo economic plundering.
Anybody can say anything at any time. Depending how stupid we are, we might even believe it.
Moronic troll in Brit Hume thread - I suggest you guys go there and set him straight - he's saying McCain was right about the Al Qaeda / Iran link lol!
There are also people who lived in their house for more than a few years and when they saw that their house appreciated much faster than it should have they saw a lot of money sitting there. They also saw their neighbors and in-laws refinancing their houses and buying boats and vacations and big ole mutherfucking TVs and big ole stupid ass SUVs and a lot of crap. I’ll tell you that kind of thing will make you want some of the stuff. Especially with your wife of husband telling you that “dumb stupid Shirley just bought a new something” or that “dumbass Tom has a new boat why can’t I have one” and all of a sudden they are down to the mortgage people doing a “Re-Fi” and those payments are not that much more except when they reset. The rest is history.
Ted @ 64:
I agree! I know a few people in my office who cannot even get the corporate Amex card because their credit is in shambles, yet they get offers from high interest cards with a low limit and get further in debt. One of these guys is going to default on his loan and even admits, he knew he couldn't afford his place, but "just had to have it" This guy is a Senior VP and makes good dough, but just has poor fiscal discipline. He is a HIGH risk borrower. Also, he is not a minority.
I don't think Ted was being racist. High risk borrowers come in all colors.
The Oracle @ 58:
Last week on NPR Senator Kyl (R-Az) stated that the US military had been 'decimated' by.....President Clinton! Too many Americans are unfortunately too willing to believe these incompetents and liars.
Ted @ 64:
That's crap of the highest order. Try a little reading. The growing mess grew because of unregulated greed: Sub-prime securities.
"Yet such loans were primarily offered to those least able to evaluate them. “Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers?” Mr. Gramlich asked. “The question answers itself — the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into taking these products.” And “the predictable result was carnage.”
Ron @ 56:
Ted, the fiasco was caused by greed. Pure and simple!!!!! These assholes were loaning money to people who could not afford it.
Ted @ 44:
Fixed.
Ted @ 64:
Ted, I worked in the mortgage business. I didn't putpeople into loans they could not afford and I live in an area where the market is fairly stable. The problem with the loans for some of the people in the country where the market is not stable is that they took out loans called ARMs. When the market went south the value of their homes went down and they weren't able to get a 30 year fixed loan because they owed more than the home will appraise for. The banking industry were making it easier to get loans because they were too stupid to see that the bubble had to burst at some time.
Ricky Bones @ 33:
the only eye the gop looks in with enthusiasm is
the one on the other end of cheney as he is bent over.
such a dark place to peer into and kiss by the gop repugs
It wasn't 1980s- and 1990s- era fairness in lending rules for minorities and minority areas and immigrants and all the other people the GOP hates when it came to making stupid loans of vast sums at tricky or even tricked up interest mortgages to people here outside Atlanta snapping up the $500,000 and $1,000,000 suburbs.
I know, I know, the Repugnicants desperately want this once again to be seen as the damn liberals givin' all our money away to the greedy negroes, but, I'm sorry -- it ain't gonna work.
Your decades of cutting through every valuable banking regulation, of appointing no one but anti-regulation ideologues, it's through.
In the 1980s you Republican crap-ants (along with your Democratic enablers) destroyed an entire branch of our banking system -- the Savings & Loan. That cost us maybe $400 Billion dollars. That was under Reagan I.
Now, under Reagan II (Bush Jr., who for a good few years you Repukes were all fellating as Reagan's re-incarnation) you've gotten us another, now $1 Trillion (if we're lucky) set of losses by more of your crappy de-regulation nonsense.
So now although it costs the nation severely for once again letting the Republicans attack our financial systems once again, it seems like finally the message has gotten through.
Wow, Kyl feels the Democrats have been forcing lenders to make loans with no credit reports, job history, or money down.
Sounds like a good thing to take part in if your living under an overpass and need a