Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
All Da King's Men -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

It's All Bush's Fault ???

by Da King on January 25, 2010

in Democrats,federal reserve,recession,Uncategorized,White House administration

Every time I hear President Obama or any other Democrat blame George W. Bush for the recession, it makes my head want to explode. It is so dishonest that words can barely describe it. Yes, Bush was the President when it happened, but Bush didn't put the policies in place that made it happen. For the last 16 months, I've asked every liberal who said 'it's Bush's fault' to tell me what Bush policy or policies caused the recession, and I'm still waiting for an answer. They got next to nothing (except maybe for Greenspan and Bernanke keeping interest rates too low, which is Fed policy, not White House policy), because there is next to nothing. I don't say this because I'm a Bush fan. I'm not one. I say this because I have a fondness for the truth.

To find out what did cause the recession, consider this New York Times article from September 30th, 1999, titled Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending. The author's name is Steven A. Holmes, and his words in 1999 were amazingly prophetic:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

"Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements," said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. "Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market."

Here we have the Clinton administration and Fannie Mae (run almost entirely by Democrats) wiping out credit requirements in mortgage lending. I'm not sure how this was Bush's fault.

Now, guess when the housing bubble started really exploding ???????

It started exploding in, you guessed it, 1999, the same year the easy credit policies were put in place. Here's a graph of the housing bubble:

That darned Bush. He created the housing bubble before he even became President. Man, that guy is insidious.

Now listen to more from the New York Times article quoted above. The author describes what could happen with the easy credit policies instituted by the government. He sounds like Nostradamus with this observation:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

"From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers

As I've been saying for almost two years, the government caused the recession with it's policies and pressuring of the banks. Yet, have you heard even one government official cop to it, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle ? I haven't heard even one Democrat say, 'you know, we instituted some really bad policies, which almost brought down the entire financial system. Our bad.' No, instead you hear them say 'it's Bush's fault.'

By the way, the American Enterprise Institute, who warned that the easing of credit could lead to failures and bailouts of the financial industry, is one of those mean conservative groups, the ones Obama continually says are responsible for "the failed policies of the past." I question who is truly responsible for those failed policies, and I know it wasn't Bush.

Some Democrats are no doubt thinking at this point, 'okay, but Bush did nothing to stop the problem. Ha !!!'

But Bush did do something to stop the problem. When the Bush administration saw Fannie Mae spinning out of control in 2003, he tried to scale it back. The following is from a September 11, 2003 New York Times article, and describes the actions Bush wanted to take.

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

"There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises," Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

But alas, the Bush plan was blocked. Who were the opponents of the Bush plan to reform Fannie and Freddie to manage the exploding risk ???? The NY Times article tells us:

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

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

That would be the same Barney Frank who now says it's all Bush's fault. Sure Barney, whatever you say. Frank is one of those guys who you can always tell is lying…..his lips move.

In 2005, Republicans again brought forward legislation to reign in Fannie and Freddie. At that time, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said of Fannie and Freddie, "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk." Democrats blocked that legislation in committee.

Yet Obama blames it all on Bush, and has said so about a thousand times by now. He got elected President by saying it. The problem is, it was never true. Bush wasn't a dictator. He couldn't act alone, and the Democrats blocked reform at every turn.

As Congress decides whether or not to keep Ben Bernanke as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, it's also helpful to know that Bernanke got almost everything wrong leading up to the recession too. He backed the easy credit policies and downplayed the extent of the risk. So, naturally, the Democrats want to keep him. In Bernanke's defense, he's made the right moves since the economic collapse, though I'm not sure there were any different moves for him to make.

And so the fictional narrative of the Democrats and the Obama administration goes on and on and on……it's all Bush's fault. The 'failed policies of the past' blather. It's nothing but a wall of noise, misdirection away from the real truth.

It would be nice if we had a media in this country to set the record straight. The recession was only the biggest economic story since 1929. I guess that's not as important as Jon and Kate plus eight, or whatever their names are, or the fact that Sarah Palin goes moose hunting. That's the real news.

Our priorities are just perfect. In the next election cycle, thanks to the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, maybe some corporation will air an ad on television exposing the truth that the media keeps so well hidden. And maybe that's what the Democrats are so afraid of. So afraid that they vote against freedom of speech to keep dissenting opinions off the air.

  • Jeff

    Think any Progressive Marxist's will comment on this.

    Or will they ignore the truth, and later again attempt to spin history in the manner they do
    with all history.

  • walter
  • larry d.

    Looks like the Reps knew it was hopeless once the democrats came into power in 2006, walt. Who wants to be smeared as a racist for a bill that would never get passed?

  • angry conserv

    Larry,
    I fault Bush as well. Yes Larry you are correct it was hopeless to oppose the lending insanity. Those that would have tried to reign in Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac would have been branded racist. Howver he was the President and that was his job-at least to fight the good fight but instead he often cited the increase in % of home ownership as an indicator of the success of his economic policies.

  • San Diego Joe

    Come on King. You don't really believe that this was all the fault of Freddie and Fannie do you? Oh ya, that's the standard republican answer. And let's blame the collapse on all those folks that refused to pay their mortgages. They must have held a gun to the mortgage lenders heads to give them all of that money, even though they had no down payments, had poor credit, and their incomes weren't high enough. The mortgage lenders solved that problem. "I know, lets not ask them or better yet, put down our own high number. What does it matter?"

    Wall Street shamefully did this. They didn't originate the idea of mortgage back securities, but they're the ones that went crazy with it. Fannie and Freddie were late comers into this mess. Wall St found what seemed like an endless supply of money in foreign investors looking for something better than US Gov securities which were paying next to nothing at the time. They didn't care that they selling garbage. They just figured out a way through the rating agencies to make it look like prime rib.

    This all happened on Bush's watch. But why should he want to change anything, all of this propped up the economy. In 2004, there was 900 billion in housing refinancing. The housing market was high and people were spending the refinance money. The only way the housing prices could have gotten to where to where was because of the creative financing that led to this disaster. Nobody did anything because nobody cared, especially the Bush administration. Why would they? It made them look good. (if that's possible)

    Sorry, but your attempt to deflect the blame back on Democrats doesn't fly.

    Who's spinning history, Jeff?

    And Obama is right.

  • larry d.

    You are right angry c. and Bush isn't blameless. After 9/11 I believe he decided to let profligate gov't spending and the illusion of wealth the housing bubble created to carry us through. It is a terrible cycle but one that Obama is doubling down on in regard to the spending. We're swirling down the toilet and an elitist class is allowing it to happen so it can retain the illusion of wealth as long as possible.

    When the elites–whether Bush, Obama, McCain, etc., etc.–tell us the economy "as we know it" would have collapsed without TARP and the other bailouts, what exactly do they mean? Who would lose out? What wealth would disappear? Wouldn't there still be factories, roads, food growing in the fields, consumers who demand goods and services? In the long run, maybe the only wealth that would have permanently disappeared would have been wealth that doesn't really exist in concrete form in the first place.

  • Andrea

    Pretty good reporting Da King although I still say was also Bush fault . Perhaps more by omission , he was a great salesman for the "ownership society," dont you recall his speeches encouraging people to buy a home? Also tax cuts for wealthy at time of war causing huge record deficits? 8 years is a long time to just watch .

  • N. E. Frye

    Most of you are mostly right – even Andrea. Possibly even Walter, but I'm not quite sure what he's talking about.

  • Light Skinned Caucasian

    Here's my naive comment of the day, perhaps of the year:

    Isn't it really the fault of borrowers who should have known better to buy something they knew that they couldn't afford? When the house of cards finally fell, they put themselves in a position of failure. Rather than accept personal responsibility for their lack of financial planning, they now need to find a scapegoat for their own irrational decision.

    Why is it always someone else's responsibility to save people from their own stupid decisions?

  • N. E. Frye

    LSC, I've been hearing that all my life. Of course it's true, but then consider the weight of commercial advertising: "For ony $299 a month…" , etc. etc. And after all it did seem like the government was behind it, and of course the government was responding to urging by liberal groups screaming rascism etc.

    It's also true that most people – diplomas, degrees and all – really can't count beyond their fingers and toes. ( Our Education system at work.) Certainly no more than ten % of Congress can, with the % of voters being perhaps close to that.

    But bankers can count and calculate probabilities. They had to know.

  • The Reverend

    It is true that through F & F more lower income families could own their own home….which is not a bad thing. While it is true that lowering of standards for which bundles of already-sold mortgages could be purchased by F & F…happened….. that lowering did not eliminate income verification, nor did it eliminate appraisals. King did not provide any details on how those standards were lowered. I expect credit score thresholds were lowered. However, expanding F & F did not cause the financial collapse, nor was it a major player in the end.

    Conservative tax cutters and so-called fiscal conservatives do not want to see their prize gambling houses on Wall Street strictly re-regulated. That's why King has chosen to give you some truth…..but then trying to make you believe that little part of the truth…..is all the truth. I'll give you credit, King, you fooled Andrea just a bit.

    It's a big picture deal…but what caused the meltdown was mortgage derivative gambling games, bet 'em up or down, …..games in which no one knew the actual value of the bundles they were betting on…nor did the gamblers care. They were serious professionals. Serious professionals need to hedge their bets, and in this case they really needed to, because they had no idea what those mortgage derivative bundles were really worth, risky bets.

    That's where AIG comes into play. AIG was selling insurance for mortgage derivative bets….credit default swaps, they were called. But AIG wasn't just selling insurance to the gambler who made the original bet….they were selling insurance CDS's to anybody. Goldman, who knew those mortgage derviative bundles were nothing but, as Atrios says, big sh*tpile, bought a lot of CDS's, a lot. AIG was forced to pay up on all those CDS claims when Bush's economy soured and foreclosure numbers rose, and it was not possible for AIG to pay up. It was the most reckless scheme of gambling this side of organized crime. The house couldn't pay…..and the pyramid began to unravel. The ripple began with Lehman and then spread. There was a big run on liquidity, which scared Paulson and even Bush. The rest is the rest.

    Here's Greenspan…..16 second video….he owns up to his mistakes….King needs to own up to who the real culprits in this saga are.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAH-o7oEiyY&feature=related

  • Light Skinned Caucasian

    N.E.,

    The weight of advertising or inattention of the government should have nothing to do with it. They gambled. They lost.

    Given that type of thinking no one should ever be responsible for losing in Vegas either. Is there some federal program that I'm unaware of that will subsidize my next trip there?

    Again, back to my point, why should we pay for someone else's stupidity? The Declaration of Independence didn't promise happiness.. only life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Incidentally, to be fair, I don't think the greedy bankers deserved to walk away from the game without penalty either. They deserved to fail as well because of their risky, irresponsible behavior.

  • walter

    larry sez…."….once the democrats came into power in 2006, walt." the election was 2006 and they took office Jan 2007. S.190 was 2 years before the democrats were seated

    what I was interested in is why it took Sen. John McCain a year and a half to sign on.

    maybe this is the reason……

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2010/0120/The-sequel-no-one-saw-coming-Sarah-Palin-to-campaign-with-McCain

  • Da King

    Followup comment –

    I didn't say the banks were blameless, nor did I even say Bush was blameless. What I said was, the Dem narrative that "it's all Bush's fault" is utter nonsense. All the dumb policies on housing were in place before Bush ever stepped into office, and Bush did take some actions to try to stop Fannie and Freddie, who were throwing half the mortagage loans in the country into the secondary mortgage market (Wall Street). That was a major contributing factor to the recession. There is no way to say it wasn't. The derivatives market grew out of that environment. The government wanted and insisted that credit standards be lowered. Contrary to what the Reverend said, that is most definitely NOT a good thing. It's only a good thing as long as housing prices continued to rise, which, as any economist can tell you, could not go on forever. It's called the law of supply and demand. Once there became more supply than demand (as home ownership continued to rise), the housing market fell, and the entire irresponsible house of cards collapsed. What led to the recession was ultimately over 30 years of policy that drove home ownership up and credit standards down, leading to enormous risk-taking, all endorsed by the government, and definitely endorsed by the Democrats. The 'it's all Bush's fault' narrative is partisan political spin, and leaves out a lot more of the story than it tells.

  • Da King

    walter,
    More important than why McCain signed on as a co-sponsor in 2006 is why the Democrats killed that bill, even though I already supplied the answer. That's much more important, don't you think ?

    But if you really want to know why McCain signed on in May 2006, here's why:

    Sen. John McCain [R-AZ], May 25, 2006 – "Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal…If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16

    McCain was right.

  • Da King

    And Reverend, the only one trying to fool people here is you, with your blaming it all on conservative deregulation, as if Democrats weren't right there along on the ride. There wasn't one deregulation bill passed that Democrats didn't support. Not one, and Democrats even resisted reform and led the way on easing credit standards, as I pointed out. Democrats also initiated much of that so-called "conservative deregulation" you speak of, which actually was started by Jimmy Carter and continued right on through Bill Clinton. Give it up.

    As for credit default swaps, those were dreamed up by J.P. Morgan in 1994. Was Bush the President then ? I guess he was, by your calculations.

    And tax cuts didn't have a thing to do with it.

    But I always enjoy your fictional partisan narratives. I'll give you a B+ for creative writing.

  • Da King

    Light Skinned,
    I agree. The most egregious financial outfits, like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and AIG, should have been broken up and sold. Instead, we got the opposite effect. Smaller banks were snatched up by the bigger banks, and the "too big to fail" companies became even bigger. The government rewarded failure and made the taxpayers fund it.

  • Macmon

    Lets make this clear it was not defaulting mortgages that caused the recession. It was the securitization of those defaulting mortgages that caused the the recession. At worst only 8% of mortgages have been defaulted. However when you bundle these high risk mortgages so that you can make more money on the security and this makes this bundle have a default rate of 60% . Now your security is worthless, you don't have the money to lend and you are about ready to go bankrupt.

    No matter how you spin it comes down to greedy bankers and greedy Wall ST. trying to make more money by gambling our money

  • walter

    King….all I'm saying is that S.190 was introduced by Senator Chuck Hagel 1/26/2005

    senate democrats became the majority and took their seats 1/20/2007

    do you see the 2 year thing?

    the Bloomberg opinion story you linked to that blamed the democrats for blocking the passage of S.190 was written by a McCain campaign advisor shortly before the election.

    really, what would anyone have expected him to say?

  • Da King

    Macmon,
    The bankers couldn't have been greedy if the government hadn't repealed all the sensible financial regulations and setup a way for bankers to sell off massive numbers of shaky mortgages (such as via Fannie/Freddy). That allowed the banks to abandon responsibility for their own actions, and don't forget, the government WANTED them to do it. That's why all the regs were changed.

    I agree with you about Wall Street, but don't forget who allowed commercial banks into the mortgage market – the government, during the Clinton administration. Also don't forget who repealed usury laws which created the insane credit card boom with the insanely high interest rates – the government, during the Carter administration. And don't forget who never regulated the derivatives – the government. Neither Clinton nor Bush regulated them.

    You can't look at effect without considering cause.

  • Da King

    walter,
    gotcha, but you're still wrong.

    You do concede that the minority party can still kill legislation, right ? Remember the supermajority. It was in effect then too. The GOP couldn't pass S. 190 without Dem support, and Dems didn't give it. They blocked S. 190. It's not a secret. Bloomberg was telling the truth. Or maybe you think the Republicans killed their own bill ???????

    Also, S. 190 didn't die in 2005. Sen. Hagel (R-NE) brought it back up in April 2007 with the Dem-controlled Congress as S. 1100. It had three other Republican co-sponsors. The Dems killed it in committee then too.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1100

    Any more questions ?

  • walter

    this from the Desert Beacon…..

    "Senator McCain signed on as co-sponsor of Hagel's Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, urging its quick passage, [GovTrak] and this vocal support appears to be the totality of his exertions. S.190 promptly ran into controversies over policy differences between the House version (H.R. 1461, 109th) and the Senate edition in terms of housing requirements, portfolio limits, and program/product approval. [NAHB] From the National Association of Home Builder's perspective S. 190 had some serious flaws: “In contrast, (to the House version) the Senate bill, S. 190, contained many restrictive provisions that could harm the nation’s housing finance system, including: restrictions on asset holdings, discretion to raise minimum capital, burdensome program approval process, and a regulatory structure tilted away from housing. In addition, S. 190 did not require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to set aside monies to fund affordable housing initiatives, as provided in the House-passed bill.” [NAHB] S. 190 died quietly in the Republican controlled Senate Banking Committee at the end of the 109th Congress. The stronger of the two pieces of legislation, H.R. 1461, didn't draw rave reviews either.

    The American Enterprise Institute called H.R. 1461 “A GSE 'Reform” That Is Worse than Current Law.” The AEI took the following position: “Not only does it fail to improve significantly upon the regulatory authority of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), but it actually increases the opportunities for Fannie and Freddie to exploit their subsidies in order to expand into other areas of residential finance. While the bill makes some modest improvements to the weak regulatory structure of OFHEO today, these improvements do not bring the authority of the new regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the level currently exercised by federal bank regulators. Moreover, the deficiencies of the bill so far outweigh its modest regulatory improvements that the taxpayers and the economy generally would be better off with current law.” The House passed the bill on October 26, 2005, 331 to 90. [GovTrak] Attempts to create a compromise measure with S. 190 were unsuccessful, and when S. 190 died in committee so did H.R. 1461."

    I would have thought that advice from the AEI and the NAHB would have turned out so badly

  • walter

    H.R. 1461: A GSE "Reform" That Is Worse than Current Law By Peter J. Wallison, Thomas H. Stanton | AEI Online
    (June 17, 2005) The bill fails to improve on current law or address the critical issues of financial risk that Congress needs to consider for GSEs to play a constructive role in the housing finance system.

    http://www.aei.org/paper/22705

  • walter

    "Bloomberg was telling the truth."

    again, it was an opinion piece written by a McCain campaign adviser just prior to the election.

    you believe what you want

  • Da King

    Kinda obvious that history has proven the Dems wrong and the GOP correct on Fannie Mae, walt.

  • walter

    I'm just saying……the AEI thought that S.190 and it's companion H.R.1461 were not very good.

    I would tend to think republicans would listen to the AEI more than democrats would

  • walter

    Rev…speaking of Greenspan….here's a good read from CounterPunch…..

    Garbage In, Garbage Out
    The Free Market Fetish
    By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

    http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02052010.html

    Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.

  • SW

    To blame the borrowers is not a logical response… it's saying that all those millions of people suddenly became stupid all at once and all made the same exact stupid decision. That just doesn't make sesnse. Something so widespread has to be systemic.

    I don't know where DA King was living during the 6 years when Bush and the Republicans ran everything unopposed and were completely in charge with a rubber-stamp congress and not a single veto –even a conservative majority on the Supreme Court… but things weren't all theat great in '06 either! There were already record foreclosures, record outsourcing, there was a stagnant GDP and job growth was non-existant. We had gone from a balanced budget and 3.8% unemployment (the best economy in our lifetimes) to that in a few short Republican run years.

    Pubs want to paint a picture that everything was going great until mean old Pelosi took over –which is ridiculous. As if having a simple majority suddenly magically changed everything and caused all the trouble that had been brewing for the last 6 years. Republicans also like to overlook the fact that the small, simple majority was the most obstructed majority in the history of Congress. Fillibustered a ridiculous amount of times and what they could get through was then vetoed by Bush. How could they do anything much less cause a recession?

    But keep believing the talking points: Everything bad that happened during first 6 years of the Bush presidency was Clinton's fault -the last 2 years was Pelosi's fault and as soon as Obama was sworn in everything became his fault. Bush really did nothing at all did he?

  • SW

    —Oh and the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich are still in effect… when were they supposed to start helping the economy and creating jobs? I'm still waiting…

  • The Reverend

    Exactly, SW.

  • SW

    …And that's not even mentioning ignoring 52 well documented warnings leading up to the 911 attacks and then starting a pointless war in Iraq that he never bothered to budget for. Just kept on borrowing more money for his record spending and tax cuts mostly for himself and his ultra-rich buddies. Honestly right up until the end he was screwing us he signed the TARP bill. What policies? I could go on and on.

  • http://www.tauruspowertronics.com/products.php Fault passage indicators

    Taurus products driving the company’s dynamic growth in high performance technology include: Distribution line Fault Indicators, DC Earth Fault Locator, Battery ground fault locator, Insulation Tester, Earth Tester, Tower Footing Earth resistance Measurement System, SF6 Leak Detector System, Corona Imaging System.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).