Limbaugh monologue contains numerous Obama falsehoods
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh made numerous false statements about Obama's health-care plan, his employment history, his legislative record, his work on behalf of veterans, and whether he puts his hand over his heart during the national anthem.
During a monologue in his October 2 broadcast, radio host Rush Limbaugh repeated numerous falsehoods about Sen. Barack Obama, including false statements about Obama's health-care plan, his legislative record, and other issues:
- Echoing a false attack on Obama's health-care plan by Sen. John McCain and others, Limbaugh stated, "Obama wants to change the American system for another system." He later added: "If somebody tells you, for example, they want the federal government to take over the health-care system lock, stock, and barrel, what do you call that?" In fact, Obama has not proposed having the federal government "take over the health-care system"; Obama's plan calls for individuals to choose their own insurance. As The New York Times reported in a May 3 article, the suggestion that Obama is "proposing a single-payer, or even nationalized health care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain ... is incorrect."
- Limbaugh asserted that Obama "has never held a real job in this country," defining "real job" as "one that requires you to get up every morning, go to work, make a profit for yourself or for your employer." Limbaugh then added: "He has been paid by foundations and the taxpayer most of his life to promote a socialist agenda that'll destroy everything that you have worked for." In fact, Obama held positions as associate and of counsel at the law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland (known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland when Obama joined) from 1993 to 2002.
- Limbaugh falsely stated that Obama "has authored a bill ... that would require you, the hardworking people of this country, to pony up $85 billion per year to give to other countries to fight global poverty through the United Nations," a false claim Limbaugh has made in the past. Limbaugh was referring to the Global Poverty Act of 2007, a bill sponsored by Obama. However, Limbaugh's assertion that it would require Americans to "pony up $85 billion per year" is false. As Media Matters for America has documented, the bill would establish no specific funding sources and would not commit the United States to any targeted level of spending.
- Limbaugh stated: "I would ask those of you who have served in the military or are serving in the military, can you name anything -- anything Obama has done prior to running for president to show his support for you?" He added: "Did he speak to veterans groups? Did he do interviews with veteran- and military-related media? Did he visit military hospitals and shake hands with the wounded? No." In fact, in addition to serving on the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs since 2005, as Media Matters has documented, Obama has also spoken to veterans groups and visited military bases overseas before the start of his presidential campaign. According to an article in the Chicago Sun-Times on January 22, 2005, Obama visited a group of 500 veterans at the American Legion Hall in Evergreen Park, Illinois. He also visited Iraq in January 2006 as part of a congressional delegation, during which time a January 8, 2006, Sun-Times article reported that "Obama played basketball with soldiers and dined with members of the military from Illinois."
- Limbaugh falsely claimed that Obama "didn't start putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem until a few months ago." As Media Matters has documented, on October 23, 2007, Inside Edition featured a segment on the national anthem "controversy." The segment included two photographs of Obama placing his hand over his heart during the national anthem, which Inside Edition said it received from an Obama spokesman.
- Limbaugh falsely claimed that Obama has not voted to fund troops "on the battlefield," stating: "Did [Obama] vote to fund the troops? To send them the armor and the bullets and the reinforcement they needed while they were on the battlefield? No." He added: "He spoke out against it. All of it." In fact, as Media Matters has documented, Obama has repeatedly voted to provide funds for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote, "Obama has frequently voted to finance the war but was one of 14 Senate Democrats to oppose a war-funding bill last year -- after Republicans removed troop withdrawal deadlines -- saying he did not want to be 'validating the same failed policy in Iraq.' "
From the October 2 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Obama wants to change the American system for another system. A system that is foreign to you and me, but which has been talked about and written about for 150 years. It's promoted in colleges and universities among far-left professors. It has been pounded into Obama's head by the likes of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright his entire adult life.
If somebody tells you, for example, they want the federal government to take over the health-care system lock, stock and barrel, what do you call that? If somebody tells you they want the federal government to run the human resources departments of every private entity in this country -- deciding who should get paid what, and what benefits they should receive -- what do you call that? If somebody says we need to raise taxes on pensioners by increasing the capital gains tax when they sell their equities, what do we call this? When someone says that we need to increase taxes on anyone who earns $42,000 or more, what do we call that? When somebody says that we need to increase taxes on every small business in the country that makes $250,000 a year, what do we call that?
Well, I'll tell you what Obama calls it: He calls it middle-class tax relief. It is nothing of the sort. Obama intends no tax relief for anybody. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the agenda of a person who has never had a real job in this country, much less never run a business. Much less never earned -- made a payroll. He has never held a real job in this country, and by that I mean one that requires you to get up every morning, go to work, make a profit for yourself or for your employer. He has been paid by foundations and the taxpayer most of his life to promote a socialist agenda that'll destroy everything that you have worked for, and your parents, and their parents worked for. He's out to destroy it.
Let me put it this way. How smart -- all of you people who think this guy's brilliant because of the way he speaks -- could you snap out of that for a second? I understand the idea that you want to be proud of the president, you want people around the world to be proud, and you think a bumbling, stumbling, stuttering president embarrasses you. Get past that. You're looking at a bumbling, stumbling, embarrassing guy if he gets anywhere near the Oval Office.
How smart do you have to be to raise taxes and spend other people's money? That's what we're talking about here. How smart do you have to be? This is a man, Barack Obama, who has authored a bill -- one of the few, by the way -- that would require you, the hardworking people of this country, to pony up $85 billion per year to give to other countries to fight global poverty through the United Nations. In other words, he would take the New Deal and the Great Society and export them to the Third World, where you will be responsible for paying for it. Does this sound like a moderate or a centrist Democrat to you? Does it sound like a centrist-independent-moderate anything to you?
You know, these debates are all well and good, folks. But the truth is we know all we need to know about Obama, do we not? I would ask those of you who have served in the military or are serving in the military, can you name anything -- anything -- Obama has done prior to running for president to show his support for you? Did he speak to veterans' groups? Did he do interviews with veteran- and military-related media? Did he visit military hospitals and shake hands with the wounded? No. In Berlin he specifically cancelled such things.
What's he done for you? What's he done for you? He hasn't done anything for you. What he has done is impugn you. What he has done is impugn your mission. What he has done is attempt to block your success on the battlefield around the world. This man, Barack Obama, was invested along with Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. He was invested in the defeat of the United States and the United States military.
He believes, along with his brother from Illinois, Senator Durbin, that American interrogators and soldiers are no different than Pol Pot's thugs, the people that ran the Soviet gulags, and Nazi commandants. Durbin said it. While they were attempting to secure defeat in the Iraq war, Barack Obama believes the same things. He didn't start wearing the American flag lapel pin until a few months ago, and he didn't start putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem until a few months ago.
Did he support the surge in Iraq? No. Did he vote to fund the troops? To send them the armor and the bullets and reinforcement they needed while they were on the battlefield? No. He spoke out against it. All of it.
And once again, Obama's frame of reference is the far left. He spent his years in Chicago working with radical pro-Palestinian elements, although today he says he's pro-Israel. But again, where's the evidence for this? There is none. Our allies have much to fear in an Obama presidency. Our enemies have nothing to fear. And, yet, the drive-by media continually tell us that polls they take of citizens of the world desperately want Barack Obama. Nobody who understands what's at stake, nobody who has taken the time to delve into who Obama is, wants him anywhere near the presidency of the United States, except our enemies.
Isn't it a shame when facts get in the way of Limbaugh's "relentless pursuit of the truth?"
Don't start bringing up facts. It's been thoroughly demonstrated that facts have a well-known liberal bias.
unless they are faucks facts spewed forth by billybob o'really, inshannity and the other faucks right wing talking heads. limpbahahaha is a repugnant POS. I could never be a charlatan. I like to be able to look in the mirror and not over my shoulder. Fill this pigs pie hole with Oxies and put an apple in there as well and he is done.
And I think he's talking to people like me, who are in the "undecided" ballpark right now (I for one am literally at a 50-50 tie right now - I don't know who I'm going to vote for [or what I'm going to do] come November). He doesn't need to convince his full-fledged, lifetime Rush 24/7 dittoheads, and he can't convince the Obamanites, and thus, the only ones left are the independents and undecideds who are unsure of which candidate to vote for.
To me, voting for McCain is like getting your left leg cut off, and voting for Obama is like getting your right leg cut off...
I would ask you to look at the big picture, and past all the campaign rhetoric. Get past even McCain versus Obama, or Palin vs Biden. The President is mostly just a figurehead whose main role is appointing all the people who actually manage the government. Look no further than GW Bush for that example. He sets the overall agenda and appoints officials, that's it. Now, think which party overall seems to have more competent officials. Think of the Treasury Department under Clinton versus Bush for example. Look at how we were more respected worldwide under Democratic State Departments. Everything from the FDA to FEMA was run more competently. The Supreme Court is already heavily Republican, but will shift too extreme right if the next President is a Republican. The stock market performs better under Democratic administrations. Despite the "cut spending" rhetoric, the last few Republican Presidents have horrible fiscal records.
And speaking of government appointments, I have heard neither candidate make much emphasis on limiting the size and power of government
Look at it this way. Government is never going to shrink. That is a right wing talking point (and left wing sometimes too).
As the population of our country increases and the wants and demands of its citizens also increase, so too must the size of the structure needed to meet those wants.
There will be some natural "shrinkage" due to outdated services (example: a school with no children living in the district will not remain open). But that is limited.
And yes imporvements can be made to the structure of the administration. Woodrow Wilson had an interesting paper called "The Study of Administration." A little outdated (you'll need to get past his weird love affair with pre-WW I Germany and his use of certain words like Aryan), but still interesting.
But basically governmant will never shrink. As my Institutionalist Poli Sci Professor says (and others too), government is the management of limited resources and/or who gets what. If you realize that growing population + shrinking national resources = lots of managment needed, than you will see why gov. grows.
I beg to differ. Gov't CAN shrink. And at this critical time it MUST shrink. Compare your household to the Fed. You have to shop at discount grocery stores. You don't "just go for a drive" anymore, gas use must be justified. You "vacationed" at the nearest Six Flags instead of that trip to Disney with a 4 night hotel stay. You watch your cell phone usage like a hawk. You are probably holding off on turning your heater on in fear of the next utility bill. Your household has shrunk. You have been FORCED to live more sensibly. The gov't MUST do the same. They MUST do with less, because their revenues are going in the tank. They will be FORCED into frugality just as we have. If they fail to make the necessary cuts, our American experiment will die.
Totally agree, solon.
If every sane citizen must cut back, then it is only right in order to survive that the government must also.
If they did not, there would be a revolution.
You ignored the point in your analogy. If your household added 12 more people, no matter how much you cut back, you'll still have to spend more. And that would hold true for the government even if you cut all social programs and just funded roads and the military. We'd then return to the type of society that Charles Dickens described so well.
P.S. We're annoyed that you're using that screen name. You sir, are no Solon.
I'm convinced that the right wants to go back of the days of Dickens. They do have a history of trying to shrink government by ignoring the poor and the working class. They want to spend less money on education and child care and give the money saved to the wealthy in more tax breaks.
I agree, this isn't our Solon. Unless he's been lobotomized.
He's the anti-Solon. "The government is bad" anti-thought people never get the results they want. INstead their candidates bloat the government to feed their friends and enrich themselves. But they shrink programs that help the poor and the middle class. The military budget is mostly for weapon systems and paying companies like Halliburton, not for the soldier.
It's so awful, yet the dumb bells keep buying it year after year.
Your logic is flawed. A tax break doesn't "give" anything to anyone. A tax break means government takes less. That's a good thing.
Per Capita spending continues to increase year after year. The phrase "per capita" takes the population increase into account.
So much for your argument.
Why does my screen name annoy you? Please explain. I'm from Solon, OH. Why are you calling me anti-solon?
And I suppose this also indexes inflation? Per capital spending results for U.S. presidents show that spending increases more during Republican administrations. The idea that Republicans have been calling for fiscal responsibility but doing the opposite for years gives reason to think that people who vote for them are suckers.
I'll assume that you are picking that name because of your location. The fact is that this name was used for a long time by a very intelligent and passionate guy who had a very different view from yourself.
Thank you for clearing up the screen name thing. I suppose I could easily change it, but I'm proud of where I'm from, so I won't. I hope to live up to my predecessors level of intelligence and passion.
On the spending topic, I cannot disagree with you. Spending ONLY goes up, regardless of party control of government. I'm certainly not siding with one or the other party here. They are both severely at fault.
Allow me to be clear. It seems as if you think I am some sort of Republican. I am not. I have never and will never judge a candidate by his party affiliation. IMO, to do so is naive and irresponsible. I have always made decisions based on the candidates use of the powers that the people have granted them.
Once a candidate has demonstrated to me that he has lost his sense of service to those who have entrusted him to exercise those precious powers, that candidate immediately loses my support.
The elected officials derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Left or Right, Blue or Red (or Green, Pink, and whatever the libertarians color is), if an elected official abuses the privilege of shaping my life and the lives of my children and neighbors and uses MY powers to advance their own cause, they should have those powers stripped.
Same with our dollars. The minute I detect that one of MY representatives on the local, state or federal level treats even ONE of my dollars as insignificant or expendable, they have commited a crime against me. You see, I, like you I assume, only earn a certain number of dollars for each year. I trade part of my LIFE for my salary each and every year. My annual salary is a monetary value that has been placed on my living, breathing existence here on this planet. I surrender a portion of my LIFE, my most precious and scarce commodity, to make money. When a government official spends MY money, they are spending MY LIFE. That's the way I see it. I don't have an unlimited supply of LIFE and they should realize that they don't have an unlimited supply of dollars. If my representatives fail to respect my tax dollars as a portion of my LIFE and instead treat them as numbers on a piece of legislation, they have failed in their sworn oath to serve.
Our elected officials need to always respect the fact that they are NOT our leaders, they are our servants. Even the President himself is a servant to the American citizen (side note: the President is in fact the LEADER of the armed forces) We, as the true leaders forge our destiny and bring about the change that we need when we deem necessary. Let us NEVER forget that we own their power and when they abuse it, they need to return it to us.
Sorry, you caught me ranting there. Regardless, have a good evening Mary and I hope to meet up with you again soon.
Also one last point
(sorry had to read John Dewey's "The Function of General Laws in History" tonight....brain says sleep, body wants long shower and a few dozen beers).
The idea that we can return to a government that's only functions are defense, security and making treaties with foreign governments; is long dead.
People keep saying they want limited government. But walk out and ask the first retired person you see, "in an effort to limit government, you will have to give up your social security check." See how long it takes before you get kicked in the shin or other places.
So as a proponet of limited government what would you cut? FBI, CIA, Army, Social Security, FDA, CDC? Please inform me. But like most of the limited government people, you would probably say IRS. But that would mean you really don't understand how our system works. Here are some facts.
A. U.S. citizens pay less in taxes (per GDP) than almost any country in the world?
B. The Federal Government is and always has been the best government organization at collecting money to pay for services.
C. Many people say they would rather have the States handle the money collected in taxes. But where do you think the states get thier money. The Federal Government. Without those block grants, ear marks and a little pork....you would have no police in your streets, no teachers in your schools, no water in your home, etc. Although the states do raise some money themselves, the amounts are limited, the bulk of the funds "trickle down."
Ok, off to bed now.
Well said Brian. You spelled it out for Dawuss. Hehas no excuse to vote R now. (I didn't refresh screen......didn't see your comment before posting.)
Just one.
But even that can only go so far
You're pregnant?
To me, voting for McCain is like getting your left leg cut off, and voting for Obama is like getting your right leg cut off...--DW
>>> I would offer the logical option for someone like yourself---don't vote. You then perhaps won't have as much of a sense of responsibility for what happens if the one you select wins, a lot of which is likely to be bad unfortunately, even if the Democrat Obama is elected. You'll also be leaving it a little bit more up to people who are surer of their choice.
You, like so many, may be overvalueing the candidates relative to his parties. If you do decide to vote, ask yourself as a tie breaker, if both the D's and R's were theoretically given equally good/bad candidates, which party would you then vote for.
Two, maybe three more Troglodytes on the Supreme Court..... that's all the reason I need to vote against Grampy.
Obama might even be able to improve the balance, rather than just maintain the status quo. Stevens is almost a certainty to retire. I honestly believe he has been deliberately hanging on hoping to outlast WPE Bush. A true patriot. Ginsburg and Breyer are likely retirees also. That provides an opportunity to get some younger liberals in to stabilize the court well into the future.
I'm afraid we're stuck with Roberts and Alito for some time to come. Probably Thomas, too. However, Scalia and Kennedy are both 72. It's likely one will retire and possibly both. This could provide a solid opportunity to rebalance the court, especially with a 2-term Obama presidency. Souter, at 69, is another possible opening.
And, if Scalia leaves, Thomas won't know how to vote on cases anymore. Maybe his votes could be influenced.
Obama could have an opportunity to have a huge effect on the Supreme Court, very much for the better.
What MM doesn't want you to notice is that there are numerous other points that Limbaugh made that MM doesn't have an answer to. And some of these points are very important. For example,
MM has no response to this and several other important points.
Also, MM's citation of Inside Edition with footage provided "by the Obama campaign" is pretty funny.
Made up sh!t again. Compared to Palin's ties to a terrorist organization via her snow jockey hubbie. Weak claim on your part compared to strong evidence on our part...
"But again, where's the evidence for this?"
Yes, good question, Rush. Where is the evidence that he worked with radical pro-Palestinian elements?
But again, where's the evidence for this? There is none.
Geez, Shoes, don't you see that Rush is playing you for a clown? He says right there that he's got no evidence for his points. He's just seeing if you realize you're being BSed if he gives you clues.
I really like your other point, that MMFA is trying to get people to not notice things by posting them on their site. Good thinkin', Ace.
Geez, Shoes, don't you see that Rush is playing you for a clown?
No one has to play Shoes for a clown - she does it herself every time she posts some more useless drek here at MMFA.
Go peddle your fear somewhere else. I'm sick to f_cking death of the radical right's sales pitch.
...Obama's frame of reference is the far left. He spent his years in Chicago working with radical pro-Palestinian elements...--Shoes89
I'm curious. Was this country far left during the American Revolution? If so, do we all then have a leftist heritage?
I'm curious. Was this country far left during the American Revolution? If so, do we all then have a leftist heritage?
Putting things in today's perspective, the Founding Fathers were the liberals and progressives of their day. The Torries (those who were loyal to the British Crown, including famous traitor Benedict Arnold) were the conservatives.
You are the most delusional wingnut I've ever run across. Do you have a functioning brain? No one, I repeat, no one has posted more misinformation than you have.
You seem to be propelled by your fear of everything except the status quo. You can only absorb what already agrees with your narrow views. You seek the daily reinforcement of those views by getting your daily fix of the fat man.
As far as Senator Obama's years of working as a community organizer, if you did any of your own research, you'd know that most of his work was done for the Catholic Church. Is this the radical pro-Palestinian element you mention in your post?
To start with, where is the evidence that Obama worked with pro-Palestinian elements? Limbaugh doesn't offer any. Combine that with the provable lies he told, why should we give his words any credibility?
In the same paragraph, L says that our allies have much to fear in an Obama presidency. Then why do world wide polls select Obama over McCain by over 4 to 1? This doesn't show much fear. I read newspapers and hear news from around the world and have found that Europeans are much better informed than Americans. The BBC, for example, has a better reputation for being factual than any American news
Then there is the silly statement that our enemies have nothing to fear. Except maybe Al Qaeda. Obama would go into Pakistan (like Palin) if needed to get Osama bin Laden. McCain says that he would not do that.
Credibility.
source.
Yes, you spelled "conscience" correctly.
Who needs a conscience when you're paid $40 million a year to lie?
Here's a great editorial about grampy, as an example of a fact based essay rather than a bunch of made-up stuff like Limbaugh spews.
This proves it to me.
Rush is back on his "happy pills."
I heard him a week or two ago say that he doesn't go on many TV shows because they can't find anyone willing to debate him. And he said it matter-of-factly---not as a joke.
I heard him a week or two ago say that he doesn't go on many TV shows because they can't find anyone willing to debate him.
I for one would LOVE to see a one-on-one debate between Jeff Christie and Rachel Maddow. She's make mincemeat out of him.
-- Limbaugh asserted that Obama "has never held a real job in this country," defining "real job" as "one that requires you to get up every morning, go to work, make a profit for yourself or for your employer." Limbaugh then added: "He has been paid by foundations and the taxpayer most of his life" --
... unlike John McCain, who... uh... never mind...
Wouldn't that be a sexist comment? I know my wife, mom, mother-in-law, etc. would take umbrage with that statement that because by Rush's definition being a mom is "not a real job".
Heck, I'd say it's more accurate that GW has never had a real job. Heck, if his last name wasn't "Bush", the only words you would ever hear from him would be, "You want fries with that?" Who says nepotism doesn't pay...
But he does have talent - at wrecking whatever it is he suppose to running (see "Texas Rangers", "Midland Oil", Texas state govt, U.S. Federal Govt, etc.).
Wasn't Obama working a real job when he was working for two law firms? Isn't working as a university professor a real job, with schedules, responsibilities, paychecks and all the rest?
Limbaugh's implication is that working for a not-for-profit organization is less substantial. He's insulting an awful lot of people in government, foundations, charities, and schools etc. which make up a significant part of the work force. I'm sure Limbaugh intended the insult given his faith in the capitalistic system and distain for anything else.
Um.... wouldn't that include the armed forces? They don't generate profit... nor do police or firefighters for that matter.
Oh, yeah. The law firm days.
Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from low-income neighborhoods. Deny mortgages to low-income applicants? Well, we can't have that, now can we. Barack Obama to the rescue.
Of course, the real issue is never race when it comes to Obama, he says that all the time, right? No the REAL issue is always fairness. Yeah, these folks weren't at all qualified to obtain the mortgages that they applied for. Obviously Citibank didn't deny mortgages based on skin color. They aren't THAT DUMB. These applicants didn't have the credit rating, debt-to-income standard, down payment, etc. etc. They just COULDN'T AFFORD the homes that they wanted to buy. But that didn't make any difference to Barack Obama. We can't go judging peoples ability to buy a house on things like income and credit history, we need to be FAIR. So because of Mr. Obama's "hard work" at his "real job" at the law firm, he ever so eloquently "reminded" Citibank that they should follow the government mandate of "fairness" by extending mortgages to those unqualified applicants that he felt "deserved" a home whether they could actually afford it or not.....he talked about some sort of a "sub-prime" program or something that requires banks to give out these high-risk mortgages. Whatever, it's not risk we're concerned with, it's just being FAIR. No harm, no foul and everyone "feels" good. I mean, according to Barack, these low-income, unqualified applicants "deserve" a home. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Like, maybe some giant, unregulated GSE would back these sub-prime loans with real estate securities causing home-ownership to skyrocket to levels never seen before, artificially driving up the value of homes at a faster rate than inflation, causing a separation in "real" value and "market" value, almost like a housing "bubble" of sorts that would make these sub-prime loans even riskier for the lenders? No, that couldn't possibly happen, after all, we're just being FAIR. These folks will NEVER default on the home that they "deserve", right? They're good people who just need those evil banks to loosen up those dollars and give out these loans. Dang it, everyone "deserves" a mortgage loan whether they can pay it back or not. Why would those silly banks be picky about giving money away? Well, Barack wouldn't stand for that.
And then, let's say, hypothetically of course, that after this "bubble" grows for a while there's a simultaneous, drastic increase in the cost of some essential commodity that the entire country relies on like, say, ENERGY, for example. What if (and, stay with me, this is just a what if) the cost of GASOLINE increased almost 3-fold in just a couple of years. And all of the neat things that come along with that like increased food costs, increased heating and cooling bills, higher interest rates, etc. squeezed American households to the point that they can't pay for certain things like, say, their sub-prime adjustable rate mortgage that people like Barack Obama fought so hard for them to be able to have (in the name of FAIRNESS). Of course, these poor folks won't be able to sell their homes in such an economy because the market value is artificially inflated and nobody wants to buy a house what with the gas and everything else being so darned expensive, not to mention all the news media and economist droning on and on about some "housing crisis" or something. Thus too many sellers, not enough buyers. Maybe, just maybe, that "bubble" would all of the sudden burst and cause the housing market and the mortgage lending industry to collapse on itself. Yeah, I know, I'm really grasping at straws here, but humor me, will you?
If this unlikely scenario were to play out, foreclosures would most likely go through the roof, confidence in those GSE-backed securities would fail, perhaps driving their value down say 90 percent or so, which would render those mortgages absolutely poisonous to the banks (like Citibank) that were FORCED by LAW (law introduced by the Carter and Clinton administrations, by the way) to give those loans. Several large financial firms would almost immediately collapse (say Baer-Sterns, Lehman Bros., just to name a few) followed shortly by a devestating blow to Wall Street and an imminent collapse of the entire American economy.
Regardless of all that bad economic stuff that could (but probably won't) happen, don't you "feel" good that those low-income applicants were able to get a home loan, thanks to stand up guys like Barack Obama?
But don't you worry. This doomsday scenario is almost a statistical impossibility. This is America. Things like that don't happen here.
So let's just keep on being FAIR, shall we?
Vote for Obama.
Vote for FAIRNESS.
After all, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Solon, you don't really think that is what caused this collapse do you.....I mean really?
You think that blacks defaulting on loans they could not afford is the reason?
Wow, just wow.
I am a realtor and have seen much of what has been happening. I can assure everyone that the worst contributors to this situation have been independent mortgage brokers. They made loans chosen to collect maximum commissions. They sold people on ARMs at high interest rates when the borrowers qualified for a fixed term at a lower rate. They coached people to tell lies to put on their applications saying that everyone does it and they can't get their house otherwise. Brokers did not properly verify income and employment. Also, the brokers lied to the principals funding the loans. I saw this personally and have also heard the same stories from broker employees.
Last week a former broker employee told me that his boss prohibited him from accepting fixed rate loan applications because the commission was higher on the more exotic loans. And why not do these things? There was no recourse by the lenders to get the brokers to take financial responsibility for their fraudulent applications. The brokers were home free once the loan was funded.
As to the CRA which is getting this heat - there has NEVER been any law or rule that required anyone to make a loan to a financially unqualified applicant. 75-80% of subprime loans have originated from independent mortgage brokers who are NOT governed by CRA rules anyway. If CRA is at fault, why did it take from 1977 to 2006 for the effects to surface? We have had at least 3 housing downturns in that time that did not turn into anything like our current situation.
Beyond the brokers, the actual lenders did not do due diligence on the loans that they were funding. These are banks and Wall St brokers. They mistakenly trusted the brokers to do their job in qualifying applicants.
As a realtor/advisor, I tried to refer buyers to reputable direct lenders - not brokers. However, most people ignored my advice in favor of going somewhere recommended by a friend or relative. The Fannie Mae serious delinquency rate on loans that they bought from direct lenders is currently 1.45%
The bottom line is that the government tried to do the right thing but the overriding factor in the failure is mostly greed by brokers and also by some financial institutions.
Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from low-income neighborhoods. Deny mortgages to low-income applicants? Well, we can't have that, now can we. Barack Obama to the rescue. - solon
Your entire post is based on a falsehood. In that lawsuit, Obama and the law firm he worked with made the case that those applicants were denied mortgages FOR WHICH THEY WERE QUALIFIED. No one was forced to give loans to unqualified applicants.
And on that falsehood your entire house of cards collapses.
Indeed.
McCain, got his education paid for, by the taxpayer. He got his pilot training from the taxpayers of this country. Medical care? Taxpayers. His Congressional job? Taxpayers. Senate? Taxpayers.
The entire McCain family has been "on the dole" from the American taxpayer for a few generations now. Wasn't McCain's dad an admiral and his grandfather as well?
Hmm... Rush might want to reconsider his comment about Obama never having a "real" job.
What do you expect from Rush? Truth????
I'm seeing more and more parallels with these two tickets....
Palin's "fresh face" - Obama's "fresh face"
Charles Keating - Tony Rezko
McCain's experience - Biden's experience
Gordon Liddy - Bill Ayers
Alaskan Independence Party - Weather Underground
Reform - Change
Track Palin - Beau Biden
FNC - MSNBC
... and the list can go on and on and on
And that's not even getting into the flip-flops made by both candidates
I know Snoopy's list for John is up to 76 at least. I don't remember any flip flop accusation against Barack that has been sustained.
If AA is still arround he can produce some of those unsustained flip flops for your edification.
In order for your comparison top make sense there needs to be a more direct line between the two sides you compare.
Has Senator Obama been reprimanded by the Senate Ethics committee for anything having to do with Rezko? McCain was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics committee for his involvement in the Savings and Loan Scandal.
How serious were the Rezko accusations compared to the Savings and Loan Crisis that Senator McCain was involved in? Read your history.
Every credible source that mentions Ayers and Obama concludes that they have no long term friendly relationship. They are not nor have they ever been close friends.
G. Gordon Liddy is a convicted felon. He was a member of the White House Plumbers, whose job was to fix the leaks for CREEP. He was involved in the burglary at the Watergate Hotel that eventually brought down Richard Nixon. He was involved in the burglary of the office of the psychiatrist who was treating Daniel Elsberg who leaked the Pentagon papers to the NY Times. He made plans to bomb the Brookings Institute, planned to kidnap anti-war protesters and also concocted a scheme to murder, Jack Anderson, the famous investigative reporter.
How can any sane man compare these two and conclude that being a old friend of Liddy's and being "proud" of him is in any way similar to Obama's fleeting association with William Ayers?
The above statement shows how little involvement Obama had with Ayers. Gov. Palin has been sleeping in the same bed with a member of a radical group that wants to secede from the Union. Gov. Palin has recorded messages to be shown at this groups convention. I'd say that her ties to her husband are greater than the ties between Obama and Ayers.
And I'd really like to know which shows on Fox News are comparable with "Morning Joe" on MSNBC? Which liberal commentator on Fox News gets as much screen time as Pat Buchanan does on MSNBC? Has any liberal commentator been given the chance to vent and rage for as long as Pat Buchanan does on MSNBC and still be treated with the respect he deserves.
I've seen Buchanan on every show on MSNBC. Each show allows him to speak his mind. He's always treated decently by everyone, including Olbermann and is seldom interrupted when giving his opinion.
This is a really excellent post because it give facts, chapter and verse. Not taught by Limburger.
Dawuss, with all due respect.... if you really think Obama and Palindrone are somehow equivalent just because they are both "fresh faces", then I question the depth of you analysis.... or maybe you're just jerking us around?
Wasn't that what both were billed as by their supporters? Fresh faces to Washington who were going to shake up that place the second they get in the White House?
(and both were billed as inexperienced by their critics)
And....? That's what is commonly known as "rhetoric". You know... like calling Grampy and the Palindrone Twit "mavericks".
Compare Palindrone Twit to Obama and you see no substantive difference? Please.
When dawuss says there's little difference between Obama and Palin, either he/she is incredibly naive and lazy. Or they're being contrary just for the sake of it. Lazy,because even a cursory look at the facts (not talking points) will reveal huge differences between the two.
Most of your points aren't very important. However, Keating was convicted of a crime directly related to McCain participation. Rezko was convicted of a lesser crime but, other than right wing media, no connection has ever been made to Obama and Rezko's activities. There is a proven, broad family connection between the McCains and Keating.
Liddy has been convicted but Ayers has not. Beyond that, there is only a remote, even accidental, connection between Obama and Ayers. There no one even purporting that they share any ideology other than helping the needy citizens in their community.
As to flip flops, please cite some from Obama. I remember McCain saying that economy is fundamentally strong among MANY others. eg: immigration policy.
I suspect he was not convicted because the "house" and the "senate" refused to prosecute (at least on the ethics charge). Each calling the other had jurisdiction at the time. He certainly was up to his FRIGGING EYEBALLS in crap. He got lucky on that one in my opinion.
Come on...even the appearances of the Keating scandal with McCains involvement stink to high heaven!
http://massdiscussion.blogspot.com/2008/06/collection-of-obama-flip-flops.html
Quick list of what I could find about Obama's flip-flops.
And as mentioned elsewhere on this comments page, Snoopy had that list of McCain's flip-flops somewhere here on MMFA
I googled instead. I've seen most of them debunked here. The exeption maybe the FISA vote. I've got concerns here, but not enough to see Micky & Co. with anything positive in this arena.
I'll give you the fresh face thing between Obama and Palin. Yes, they are both new to the Washington scene, moreso Palin that Obama, but yes, they are both relatively unscathed by Washington thus far.
Charles Keating = Tony Rezko? Only in a right wingnut dream world. Bear in mind that Rezko and OBama were indeed friendly, but Keating was long time family friends with Cindy McCain's father, and as someone else said, McCain was rebuked by the Senate for having dealings with Keating. Keating also donated more than 100,000 to McCain over the years, Rezko, not so much. McCain almost lost his standing in DC due to Keating, Obama, not even close, since he was not even remotely tied into Rezko's illegal dealings, but McCain was to Keatings.
Bill Ayers, as others have said, does not equal Gordon Liddy. Liddy is MUCH worse. McCain is friendly with Liddy, Obama is not friends with Ayers. Sure, they more in the same circles, but those circles aren't that big in Chicago. Liddy went to jail for his crimes. Ayers, not so much, OK, well, he never served any time for his so called terrorist acts (deplorable as they were). Ayers has reformed himself, and become an established, and well liked member of his community. Far as I can tell, Liddy is still a scumbag.
Alaskan Independence Party does not equal the Weather Underground, and that comparison shouldn't even be made. Why you might ask? Well, let's see, when the Weather Underground were active, Obama was what? 8 years old. Yes, 8! The husband of the VP candidate was a member of the anti American AIP party up until about, oh, a year ago or so. Palin also spoke at their convention LAST YEAR, giving credence to their movement. Obama has NO connection to the Weather Underground, except the times that he's dealt with Ayers, and by the time Obama knew Ayers, he had been reformed, and has become a model member of his community.
Change = Change, except that the Palin McCain ticket wants you to believe that they, being from the party that has been in power for 8 years, are going to be the changers. How does that work exactly? As in, how can you change the people from the same party that you're from, specifically when you're policies reflect the ones already in place? Obama actually will make some changes, because, he is different, he has different ideas from Bush/McCain.
Track Palin and Beau Biden are not even considered in this. They are their own men, and I thank them both for their service.
FNC is ALL the time republican propaganda. MSNBC is NOT all the time liberal (watch Chris Matthews and others). Just because MSNBC actually has 2 liberals on the channel does not make them FNC.
Which flip flops do you speak of? Cause last time I checked, it was McCain who was doing the old 2 step constantly about what he had done before, and what he wants to be now. I don't remember any serious Obama flip flops, and I'm sure Snoop can post his list, again, if that's what it would take.
Your list of equivalents is a joke, and both campaigns are not even remotely the same. It's sad that you don't see that at all. But it doesn't surprise me. When republicans get taken down, they always like to cry about how "they're both the same". It's not even remotely true this time (sometimes it is, but alas, you're grasping).
EL FLUSHBO lies so much now that he dosent know what is really true and what isn't To me he is nothing more than than a confused, irrelevent FAR RIGHT WING GASBAG.
EL FLUSHBO lies so much now that he dosent know what is really true and what isn't.
>>>Yeah, but I'd say it was always the case to a large degree. Makes it easier to lie if you're naturally not a stickler for the facts.
"Limbaugh monologue contains numerous Obama falsehoods"
Shouldn't MMFA just change that to "Large bear sh**s in the woods"?
That was also my first thought when I saw the headline. When did Pigboy's diatribes NOT contain numerous falsehoods? It's what they pay him for.... and he recently got a raise.
Do you have that prostitute's name?
I am lmao!! The right does not like it when the left grows balls and pushes back.
Flimsey lies...it's all they have right now. Easily corrected and debunked.
Loved the Keating film on Obama's site too. Its about time!!!!!
Yes, and don't you wonder why this is not all over day and night on the news? I sure do. Why do people play footsie on this fact?
I am pretty certain that wanting to secede from the Union, and having plans to do so, is Treason. Granted she is only married to Todd and is not NOW a member (it's my understanding that she once was a member). But come on....if that isn't newsworthy that someone running for VP is involved in something like that, I don't know what is!!!!!!!!
Why again, is this not mainstream television.
It's very difficult to accept the idea of a "liberal media" when something this important isn't put on the air. If it was a Democrat in question, I would bet everything I own that such a connection would be pushed 24/7.
As for Obama's campaign, I think their policy is to go after McCain. That seems strange to me in a way, because the Palin choice speaks volumes about McCain's judgment and sense of priorities. I think the reasoning is that they want to run a relatively positive campaign in order not to undermine the message of "change", since negative ads are a hallmark of "politics as usual". While the map looks good for Obama that will probably remain the same. If Palin were to give McCain genuine momentum, I'm sure there are a dozen ads and messages about her that would be flooding the media.
Ask a dittohead and they say that "saying something" (AIP) and "executing something" (WU) are two different things. Under that premise, according to them, the AIP is off the hook.
I can't say I put a lot of stock in the opinions of dittoheads. The Palins are both linked to a secessionist movement. Obviously that movement hasn't acutally tried to secede, but that doesn't make the sentiment any less radical. Obama is not linked to thw WU, though, he is linked to someone who formerly belonged to it. It's an important distinction, because Ayers' behavior has changed, while the AIP has not.
tick tick tick
WABC's (am770; NYC) PAID talk show host said recently:
"We get our crude oil from a number of countries; among them: Canada, Russia and OUR FRIENDS THE SAUDIS!"
WABC pays a commentator to come on its station who is a friend of NAZIS ROYALTY: i.e. The Saudi Royal Family!