Show Me the Money

The current conservative narrative is that the budget deficit is the result of irresponsible spending by the Obama administration. The primary message of the Republican Party for November is that they are the responsible party and will return fiscal discipline to the federal government.

There is a bit of truth in that claim. They ARE responsible. When you look at the numbers in detail, you can allocate virtually the entire deficit for the next ten years to three causes, the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts, and spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here are the facts on the ground today.

The deficit for FY 2009 was $1.4T. That represents almost 10% of GDP. This is the largest percentage since WWII. Barring changes in current policies, that will likely continue for 2010 and remain in the $1T range for the next decade. So the current administration IS responsible for engineering an economic recovery AND reducing the debt. I’ve already posted in some detail what those plans are and how they appear to be having the desired effect.

The important question for the November election is whether the Obama administration is also responsible for the CURRENT size of the deficit.

Here are a few more facts.

By the time President Obama formally took office in January of 2009; Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and Lehman Bros. already collapsed. The National Bureau of Economic Research confirmed that the recession started in December 2007. Before President Obama proposed any spending, the CBO forecast a 2009 deficit north of $1T.

In response the economic downturn, the Bush administration passed the TARP bill which together with the aid provided to Fannie and Freddie added $245B to the 2009 deficit. It also saved the world-wide financial system from meltdown.

The Obama administration passed the ARRA bill and other smaller stimulus measures which saved the domestic auto industry and by recent CBO reports added between 2M and 3M jobs. The cost of that is somewhere around $1.1T in deficit spending over the next ten years including debt service.

So now let’s compare those numbers to the other factors that I mentioned.

The tax cuts and war spending accounted for a third ($500B) of the deficit in 2009 and are responsible for $7T of the deficit over the next ten years. This figure does not include the impact from the prescription drug benefit added to Medicare in 2003 because it isn’t clear yet what the impact will be. It could add as much as another $880B. This spending easily dwarfs the onetime costs of both the stimulus and financial rescue bills. That’s because these Bush policies impact the budget every year.

deficit graph

If you subtract the costs of the recession and Bush administration policies (war, tax cuts, and Medicare expansion), the current Obama administration policies produce a balanced budget over the next ten years. Doesn’t sound like the same guy that they describe daily on Fox News.

In practical terms; we don’t have a balanced budget. We have to accept that the wars, tax cuts, and Medicaid expansion are current realities. We also have to evaluate the Obama administration’s plans to reduce the deficit going forward, rather than just blame it on past irresponsibility. The CBPP analysis projects deficit reductions in the 2011-2020 period of $1.3T. Clearly more is needed, but when you add it all up, the Obama administration IS acting in a fiscally responsible manner on the spending that it can control AND has already taken steps to rein in the ballooning deficit policies that they inherited.

It is an unfortunate fact in today’s political climate that a number of voters will simply reject these facts because they call into question a whole set of characterizations that they have already accepted about this President and his administration.

26 Responses to “Show Me the Money”

  1. Keith says:

    Pretty toughtful peice Mort has written. I am hopeful one day you will see this as I do that BOTH sides have screwed up and both are to blame. More importantly, as we agreed with S.S., I fear they will not do the right things going forward. (Both sides)

    Healthcare is so scary because the gov’t NEVER get s ANYTHING, hardly, right and this program is SOOOOO big being “off” is the end, as there is simply no room left to be wrong. You keep pointing to the CBO numbers as though that means healthcare is paid for….it will not be is the fear of most americans….this you need to understand.

    In the mean time we have a young kid in office who has no experiance running anything undertaking this. You and I could do better in five mins….

  2. keith says:

    durning the health care debate, the tea party and right was blasted by you for their new level of low…..the link above is reason for you to rail against this type of behavior again….

  3. Jeff Beamsley says:

    I thought the Mort Zuckerman piece was interesting too. He is basically saying that it is the responsibility of both sides to find sufficient common ground to be able to work together for the good of country. I agree with him.

    It is even more interesting to read the comments. Advocates for both sides of the debate immediately took this as a criticism of the other side.

    At the end of the day, I blame the voters rather than their representatives for this impasse.

    We are getting exactly the government we have asked for.

    Democracy requires compromise. There is very little tolerance for compromise in the electorate these days – and yes that is a “sin” of both sides. As a result, there is way more incentive for our elected representative to take hard party-line positions than to break with the pack and seek out a middle ground.

    We appear to have gone so far past reason, that results don’t even matter. All that matters is pre-conception. If I think you are doing a bad job, there is nothing you can do to change my mind.

    If we can’t seem to find our way out of this during this time a serious threat to our future, I am concerned what will be required to shock the country back its senses.

    And yes there is no place for violence in politics. Though random calls with anonymous threats don’t quite rise to the same level as signs at public rallies and bricks through windows – it is just as inexcusable.

  4. keith says:

    so join me………… against ALL incumbents…they have broke the system.

    I mentioned this before but it is worth telling you again…former sentor bill freist was on the bill maurn show within the last year or so…he and 2 very lib guys and of course bill…as you know he’s a they asked him about what should be done about health care…he went on for about 5 mins UNINTERUPTED…when he finished the others said..”ehy dont we like this guy?” not one word out of freist’s mouth was political, just here’s how to fix the problem the best we can. everyone agreed he was correct and this wasn’t that big a deal….you and i can figure this stuff out…BUT the repubs and the dems in wash cant.

    freisttalked like that when he got to wash but not the last few years he was there. i guess you simply can’t. example…how can anyone vote for that goofball repub chick in navada??? i cant support her. but i cant support reid either..

    you propably dont care for glen beck, but this weekend he got it right… its about this country turning back to GOD!!! i go to church in baltimore. i go to the same place for lunch afterwards and have the same waiter evry sunday. he’s a black guy. he told me his roomate went to the rally yesterday and said it was the greatest thing he had ever been to.

    we have to drop the non-sense.

  5. Jeff Beamsley says:

    I disagree.

    Though politicians certainly bear some responsibility, they are generally doing what the people who elected them sent them to Washington to do.

    In my opinion, Washington simply reflects the deep divisions in this country as well as the willingness of the electorate to punish those who DO take political risks and reach across the aisle.

    More to come.

  6. Keith says:

    Thought this would be of interest….and funny to me. Last night i watched all the cable shows….ed from the ed show lead off in a very emotional and hate filled tirade that those at the rally were “overwhelmingly white, over whelningly old and just cant accept the fact that we have a young black president.” Jeff, will you join me in condemming this generalization.

    The most interesting thing I heard last night was Bob Beckel, Mondales campain mgr said “the dems need to come to grips with the fact we have created two generations of dependency.”

    Jeff, Lets toss them all…..

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:


    I’ve got a hard time accepting anything from a website whose tagline as “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias Since 2005” as anywhere close to fair or balanced.

    I didn’t see the ed show, so I can’t comment without context.

    What I can say is that the demographic studies that I’ve seen of those who self identify as Tea Party members are white and old. That, in itself, doesn’t mean anything. It is also the demographic of the ARRP, which supported Obama in the last election.

    As a group, though, Tea Partiers also believe in greater numbers than any other group that Obama is a Muslim and was not born in this country.

    An April NYT/ABC poll found the following additional demographics.

    Tea Partiers are twice as likely as the general public (25% vs 11%) to believe that “the policies of the Obama administration favor blacks over whites.”

    They are half as likely as the general public (16% to 31%) to believe that “white people have a better chance of getting ahead in today’s society.”

    They are also almost twice as likely as the general public (52% to 28%) to believe that “too much has been made of the problems facing black people” in recent years.

    Is it appropriate to take these statistical findings and extrapolate to the generalization that Tea Partiers simply can’t accept that a comparatively young black man is our President? I agree that it is something of a stretch, but at least it has some basis in fact.

    But wouldn’t you agree that it is a much bigger stretch when Beck speculates wildly on President Obama’s religious beliefs using phrases like many Americans “don’t recognize him as a Christian.” or the president does not conform to “true” Christian values?

    Here’s how he described Obama’s faith, “I don’t know what that is, other than it’s not Muslim, it’s not Christian. It’s a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it.”

    That, my friend, is something that does rise to level of condemnation.

    I’ll likely post something on this, but this was the worst sort of demagoguery.

    Reinhold Niebuhr is widely regarded as one of the most important modern American theologians. Obama has spoken at great length of Niebuhr’s influence on Obama’s thought. What Beck described is a shallow twisted cartoon version of Niebuhr’s philosophy. Niebuhr described folks like Beck when has said, “The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan values and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism.”

    What makes this particularly ironic is the Beck is a Mormon. Mormons have suffered these same sorts of unreasoning attacks from mainstream Christians since virtually its founding.

  8. keith says:

    as and observer of obama from only what is presented by the media, we really have nothing but “his word” on his Christian faith…we dont see him go to church, we don’t see any activity to see the evidence…we marely have his word…mitch was ripped to shreads for saying this, hillary got a pass for saying the same thing. God knows his heart, I dont nor would i claim to…but there is no evidence that is presentable., God also tells us not to just and i want to clearly state I am not……i say that very delicately …. i hope he is a believer.

    on a humurs note…you worte;

    I’ve got a hard time accepting anything from a website whose tagline as “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias Since 2005″ as anywhere close to fair or balanced.

    you then wrote;

    An April NYT/ABC poll found the following additional demographics.

    just who do you think they represent????

  9. Jeff Beamsley says:


    The constitution says that there is no religious test to hold the office.

    Now you are saying that he doesn’t go to church enough for you? Well guess what, he goes to the same church as Bush – the chapel at Camp David. Obama said that the security detail that follows him around can be quite disruptive for the rest of congregation if he chose to go to a public service. Reagan rarely went to church anywhere. Nancy Reagan regularly consulted an astrologer regarding decisions that her husband was making. There isn’t evidence that Cheney ever went to church.

    Obama has written about his beliefs in books. He was interviewed by Matt Lauer where among other things he said that he gets a daily bible verse sent to his blackberry. He also says that he regularly participates in a prayer circle with pastors around the country who supported him spiritually during his campaign.

    You tell me. Why is it different or somehow more important to Republicans for Obama than it was for Bush, Cheney, or Reagan?

    I also want to know why it matters what his personal religious beliefs are? He should be judged on his actions. If you don’t like what he is doing, don’t vote for him the next time he runs. It shouldn’t give you are anyone else the right to suggest that his religious beliefs are somehow suspect. For goodness sake, George Bush personally authorized torture and then lied about it, but there was none of this whisper campaign that he was lying about his religious convictions.

    If you really want to know about Obama’s beliefs and his relationship to Neibuhr, please listen to a very thoughtful and thorough discussion featuring Krista Tippet of NPR’s Speaking of Faith, E.J. Dionne, and David Brooks. I think it will change your view.

    I did go back and read that article, by the way. In summary it said that the observations of news organizations that the Tea Party rally represented the Tea Party demographic (old and white) was somehow biased because the news organizations themselves are predominantly white.

    In logic, this is called the falacious argument of misdirection. The author doesn’t have any facts to refute the strong documentation that the tea party is old and white. So instead he raises an unrelated fact that news rooms are also predominantly white and then suggests that somehow one fact is somehow related to the other.

    That’s not journalism and it is why I have a hard time trusting sites who state that their purpose is to prove a partisan position. (BTW, I don’t claim to be a journalist. Just someone who likes to argue.)

    As far as the NYT/ABC poll, it is one of many that have all documented pretty much the same thing. If you can come up with a poll that suggests that the Tea Party movement is somehow different than what these polls portray (old, white, and conservative), please point them out.

    I think that you are correct in that the NYT (at least) was interested in answering questions about the Tea Party that their readers had. I don’t think that it is accurate to suggest that they or ABC “fudged” the data. They just asked a set of questions and got answers that were generally unflattering to the tea party and probably sold a few newpapers. Isn’t that what Fox does every day?

  10. keith says:

    you totally missed dboth points… wondering sometimes if you are a professor/teacher or something. many of them, and i have several close friends this would apply to, do nothing but lecture all day and have very little ability to understand what the other person is trying to say. they merely veiw everything through their glasses and lectures. again i have many close personal friends i would be able to, and have, said this about and to.

    as to his religion….i care if im supporting someone, my vote my right. it stopps there. i was simply responding to your post that all we have to go by is his word on his faith. what you did was deflect from that statement and start talking about bush, channy, reagan and others which are irreivent to the point being discussed. what do you call that in debate of logic….

    secondly you missed the point of the atricule about the media being white…..the writer was merely saying this was like the pot calling the kettle back. in your words by them calling the tea party old and white, they are doing exactly as you said. “In logic, this is called the falacious argument of misdirection.” what does this have to do with low taxes, spending, unemployement, or other issues the tea party are raising?……now do you get it?

  11. Jeff Beamsley says:


    I work for one of the country’s larger software companies. I sold them a company two and a half years ago that I helped build.

    I agree that it is your right to vote for whomever you would like for whatever reasons you would like. It was not clear in your post that you were expressing your opinion versus suggesting that this is the way that everyone should evaluate Obama.

    Finally, you asked me to condemn a generalization based on an article that you posted. The generalization was that the Tea Party was old, white, and politically conservative. The article used a “pot calling the kettle black” sort of argument to suggest that the news media either didn’t have the right or was displaying some bias in making this generalization about the tea party (remember the tag line for this site). I simply pointed out that the particular post that you provided attempted to use a falacious argument to make their point. If they had said that they did a survey of the people at the rally and then posted those results to refute the observations of the media, that would be a fact-based argument. If they did a detailed analysis of high definition pictures of the crowd and developed some statistics from that, then they would have at least some basis to make their claim that the news media in this case was demonstrating some liberal bias. They didn’t do any of that.

    In my opinion, here are the reasons that they didn’t do any of those things. First, they are lazy. Second, they don’t really care what the makeup of the crowd was. Their reason to post that article was to criticize the media (again remember the purpose of the site) and this was just another excuse for them to support their claim that the media is biased. Finally, they know that their readers won’t hold them accountable because they already agree with the premise (the media has a liberal bias) and so are willing to accept as fact any examples that this site posts which support that claim.

    There is nothing wrong with websites who post stuff that pander to the preferences of their readers (barring stuff like child pornography or violence), but this is entertainment – not facts. I would have no problem with this site or even Fox News if they portrayed themselves as entertainment. That is, afterall, why the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are on the Comedy Channel. When they portray themselves as a journalist site (or a serious site critical of journalists), they have to hold themselves to a higher standard to have any credibility.

    As far as the other interests of the Tea Party, that really wasn’t the subject. The subject was that the Tea Party has very conservative racial views that are consistent with a group that is old, white, and politically conservative. We didn’t really touch on other issues about taxes, size of government, etc.

  12. keith says:

    “The subject was that the Tea Party has very conservative racial views that are consistent with a group that is old, white, and politically conservative. ”

    so………blacks vote 91 – 95% percent of the time…the media in dc at nearly the same rate.

  13. keith says:

    “The subject was that the Tea Party has very conservative racial views that are consistent with a group that is old, white, and politically conservative. ”

    so………blacks vote 91 – 95% percent of the time with dems…the media at nearly the same rate……….what do we make of this?

  14. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Another non sequiter. What do african american voting patterns or supposed bias of the media have to do with Tea Party demographics?

    African Americans have been voting in the 80% range for democrats prior to the Obama election. Clearly the Obama election is going to be viewed as a statiscal anomoly.

    As far as the media voting for democrats at the same rate as African Americans, I seriously doubt it. Please show me the report or survey that you are quoting.

  15. keith says:

    I think the ’84 data is most telling…one of the gratest landslides ever and the media vote in a landslide for…MONDALE!!!!

    So to my point which you missed. Your responded;

    “Another non sequiter. What do african american voting patterns or supposed bias of the media have to do with Tea Party demographics?”

    I simply responded with those two group as example of groups you might want to consider. The demographics and voting patterns of those to groups are as irrelivent as the tea party..your side chooses groups and defines them. means nothing to me…i was just tossing out two more as long as your side is reviewing the tea party with a microscope….

    again, your lense is colored and not objective….if your going to “disect” the tea party then have a look at a few others.

    i don’t divide us up into groups

  16. Jeff Beamsley says:


    The MRC site’s stated intent is to prove that there is a liberal bias in the media. They then post a bunch of “surveys” by conservative reporters as fact.

    The only credible study they cite that covers the recent period (growth of Fox news among others) is the Connecticut study. In that one 52% of those surveyed in the Kerry Bush election voted for Kerry. 19% voted for Bush and the rest refused to answer. The site took that as evidence of bias, when it just wasn’t clear because of the relatively small size of the sample and the large number who refused to answer.

    The second link from the same site is a long screed from 2004 which again quotes liberally from a 1986 book that this site seems to treasure called Media Elite.

    So sorry, but I don’t put a lot of credence in surveys from the authors of a book on media bias or conservative groups like Freedom Forum who have an axe to grind.

    As far as groups that chose to be active, I don’t have any problem with the Tea Party. They have every right to express their views.

    I DO have a problem when they claim to represent mainstream america. That has been the gist of the current discussion. From a demographic point of view, they are simply not representative of this country. They are too white, too old, too Christian, and too conservative. Yet for some reason, they are not content to represent to views of the old, white, conservative faction of this country. They somehow feel that their view is the ONLY view that a person can have and still call themselves a patriotic American.

    Clearly African Americans know who they are and have every right to vote overwhelmingly for an African American candidate, just as Catholics did for Kennedy. Neither group claimed to represent mainstream america or possess some set of values that they felt they had the right to impose on the rest of the country. They were just voting for a candidate that they innately trusted because of shared race or religion.

    The Tea Party shares some of the same beliefs that we see in the Taliban. The only difference is the book. The Taliban want to govern using sharia law and the Koran. The Tea Party wants to govern using a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible and change the constitution to match. I’ll likely post something on this because it is an interesting concept.

    It also might be interesting to explore this whole concept of media bias, but until then, here’s a quote from Wikipedia.

    A self-described liberal media watchdog group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), in consultation with the Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory at Virginia Commonwealth University, sponsored an academic study in which journalists were asked a range of questions about how they did their work and about how they viewed the quality of media coverage in the broad area of politics and economic policy. “They were asked for their opinions and views about a range of recent policy issues and debates. Finally, they were asked for demographic and identifying information, including their political orientation”. They then compared to the same or similar questions posed with “the public” based on Gallup, and Pew Trust polls. Their study concluded that a majority of journalists, although relatively liberal on social policies, were significantly to the right of the public on economic, labor, health care and foreign policy issues.

    This study continues: “we learn much more about the political orientation of news content by looking at sourcing patterns rather than journalists’ personal views. As this survey shows, it is government officials and business representatives to whom journalists “nearly always” turn when covering economic policy. Labor representatives and consumer advocates were at the bottom of the list. This is consistent with earlier research on sources. For example, analysts from the centrist Brookings Institution and conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are those most quoted in mainstream news accounts; liberal think tanks are often invisible. When it comes to sources, ‘liberal bias’ is nowhere to be found.”

  17. keith says:

    Het Jeff,

    You said;
    “So sorry, but I don’t put a lot of credence in surveys from the authors of a book on media bias or conservative groups like Freedom Forum who have an axe to grind.”

    toss out everything then I say….. everything you site is from someone who has a bias…..

    Does mean we’re not dealing with facts. I’ve long heard the media voting record sited by Rush. Before you toss out his facts you need to know he has a 99.6% fact rating. Its simply goes without saying every word he apeaks is fact checked. If you want to argue that this statisic is part of the .06% then feel free to do so. It was widely reported in the 901’s and early 2000’s as being such.

    You also didn’t fall for my tonuge in check toss obama comment as he is for the rich. As stated the gap between rich and poor has once again widened on his watch to yet another record level. I thought that was clear of me… certianly, and did, would have taken this opportunity to say this of Bush…..

    Jeff, go see wall street and listen to Gorden Geiko’s speeh in the beginning to the college class. WE ALL KNEW WHAT WE WERE DOING. WE ALL WERE GREEDY!!!!!!!!!! More house, more debt etc……it wasnt bush and it wasnt the republicans… started long ago….i’m currently reading “the big short.” much the same…..we turned renters into owners at 125% the value of the home…the 25% just so they could buy a new car and a flat screen also…..Are you saying Bush did that?

    WE DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  18. Jeff Beamsley says:


    Please share with me where you found the statistic which says that Rush is 99.6% factual.

    Here’s just a few links that fall into the “.4%”.

    I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

    As far as the rest of your statement, you are correct on both counts.

    Greed is human weakness that has been present with us since men began living in groups. I’m not blaming anyone for the fact that humans are vulnerable to that temptation.

    I am blaming Bush for removing the regulations that were intended to protect our markets from the excesses that greed can cause. In particular, when he removed criminal penalties previously associated with mortgage fraud, he pretty much opened the flood gates to all of the abuses we’ve now discovered. He believed along with Alan Greenspan that the markets would be self correcting and self regulating. They were both wrong.

    They also both got plenty of warning that a bubble of mamoth proportions was building, but they both chose to ignore those warnings. They ignored the warnings because the obscene profits that were being generated at the ultimate expense of the american people were flowing into the pockets of their supporters. Bush and Greenspan also got what they wanted in return. Unbridled power.

  19. keith says:

    profits only fell to republicans in during the bush years? thats upsurd…..

    bush ignored the coming cloud????

    watch this……

    WOW!!!!!!!!! 100% wrong and in 2005 just before the crash!!!!

    and this…..

    EVERYBODY screwed up, not just republicans……

    i mostly blame ANYONE who bought a home and their goal wasnt to pay off the debt as quickly as possible…

    As to Rush he often sites his factual rating. trust me if it weren’t as he claims it would be on the nightly news all the time…i read the links….he’s not perfect but he talks three hours a day five days a week 45 -48 weeks a year 20 some years… do the math…

  20. Jeff Beamsley says:


    You need to read a little more carefully.

    I didn’t say that profits only fell to republicans. I said that huge profits flowed in to the pockets of those who benefited from deregulation. Those people rewarded the Republican party and the Bush administration for their support of deregulation by supporting huge expansions of executive power.

    Answer this simple question. How many of those who actually created these faudulent loans ended up in jail? They were the ones, after all, who knew that these loans were bad.

    Now answer this second simple question. Why didn’t those who actually perpetrated the fraud end up in jail?

    There is your smoking gun my friend.

    As far as Rush, who else besides him claims that he is accurate?

    As far your math, if I read the phone book 98% of the time and lie the other 2%, I can claim I’m 98% accurate too? Your math doesn’t work.

    It isn’t the percentage of speech that is lies, but rather the commitment that this program has to tell the truth. His own claims to accuracy are proven false by the unbiased fact-checking organizations that posted articles I linked too. These aren’t just simple slips of the tongue. This is deliberate cynical distortion of the truth to support his particular world view.

    If he were presenting himself as an entertainer and making no claim to either accuracy or truth, I wouldn’t have the problem with him and his peers that I do. Instead he is using classic big lie tactics. Repeat these lies often enough and people will start accepting them as truth. But like all liars, this will eventually catch up with him and great will be his fall.

  21. keith says:

    1) I didn’t say that profits only fell to republicans. I said that huge profits flowed in to the pockets of those who benefited from deregulation. Those people rewarded the Republican party and the Bush administration for their support of deregulation by supporting huge expansions of executive power.

    So the dems weren’t rewarded?…by this you implied bush “did it” to help himself….if thats your position then you believe dems weren’t helped as he only helped those who he stood to be benifitted by….so dems were weren’t helped. if they were bush was doing it to hurt himself… twisted thinking Jeff..By the way obama got more wall street money then mccain. This all started in the 80’s and most of the fire was build in the 90’s by the Clinton admin…..the repel of Glass/Stegal. (never sure if the names are correct) Then 9-11 and the lowering of interest rates and the house bubble……if you think that bubble was creaed by bush think again….do your reseach on, amoung others, the tulipe, 1600’s, railroad, 1920’s tech and now housing bubbles.

    Now obama is bashing the chamber of Commerece…..laughable. BP for one gave him/dems a pile of cash……

    2)Answer this simple question. How many of those who actually created these faudulent loans ended up in jail? They were the ones, after all, who knew that these loans were bad.

    I wish more…most havent even lost their jobs….don’t assume these are all republicans Jeff…I think thats where you make your mistake and your glasses color your thinking. Also, how many who bought home they couldn’t afford and merely walked away are in jail?

    3) Now answer this second simple question. Why didn’t those who actually perpetrated the fraud end up in jail?

    Because Obama hasnt put them in jail….maybe you can convince Chris Dodd to lead the charge.

    Before you comment on Rush I suggest you listen for a couple of months…then you can fairly comment…..don’t rely on what others say. You’ve told me in the past you’ve never listened….try it. I catch some of Chris Mattews, Rachal Maddox, Bill Maur, The Ed show, Lawarence O’Donnald, Keith O, etc, to go along with 15 mins a day of Rush, And Bill O., and the drudge report. I Know what your side and its guests are saying as I hear it from myself and I listen to the context in which its said….as best as the editing allows. You my friend have no such perspective.

    Also you fail to comment on the Barney Frank youtube where he said EVERYTHING IS GREAT!!!!! (I posted this above)

    Nothing is going to constructively happen until both sides understand that both sides failed and both side need to get us out of this…..Im not sure why you cant get on the same page with me here…..

  22. Jeff Beamsley says:


    There is plenty of blame to go around with regard to the bubble and the financial collapse, but as I’ve said several times and you have not directly responded to, the removal of criminal penalties for faslifying mortgage documents is at the core.

    Those we were falsifying the documents KNEW that they weren’t worth the paper that they were written on.

    The reason they did it is because there was no penalty.

    There were international buyers who were willing to buy them. There was significant short-term financial incentive on both an individual and corporate level to create and sell them. There was NO personal risk because the criminal penalties were removed.

    Since you have refused to engage in any honest way on the couple of questions that I posed, I’m not sure it is worth chewing in this particular bone anymore.

  23. Keith says:

    I did answer

    First one i said “not nearly enough.” I have no clue the number but a bunch should if their activity was illegal. (i think you and i are on the same page here)

    the second is unknowable to me. Since most was understood later my guess is as good as any….Obama admin hasnot done it…..whats wrong with that answer.

    Now please respond to the Barny Frank youtube above in light of “Spritual Wickedness in HIgh Places”…

    Also, please read “the big short” its the best book about this whole topic written……everyone failed….everyone was greedy, we are all to blame.
    If you need me to send the money for the purchase just send an address and I’ll get it out right away….

  24. Jeff Beamsley says:


    The Obama administration IS doing something about it.

    The just reinstated criminal penalties in the latest financial reform bill that was passed.

    The reason these guys aren’t in jail is because there were no criminal penalties associated with the fraud that they perpetrated.

    Thanks for the book recommendation. I’ve got it. Just haven’t had a chance to listen to it yet on my audible list. Finishing up a good book called the Physics of the Impossible.

  25. Jeff Beamsley says:

    As far as Barney Frank is concerned, maybe he should have asked those folks to form one of those shadow funding organizations that the Supreme Court has allowed. That way they wouldn’t have to identify themselves at all.

    You can bet his opponent in this race is getting a lot of that sort of money.

    Unfortunately, he’s using some of it to run adds like this.

Leave a Reply