« | »

WH: NYT Is Lying About Mortgage Blame

From a press release from the White House:

Statement by the Press Secretary on Irresponsible Reporting by New York Times

Most people can accept that a news story recounting recent events will be reliant on ’20-20 hindsight’. Today’s front-page New York Times story relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed.

The Times’ ‘reporting’ in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn’t fit their point of view. To prove the point, when they filed their story, NYT reporters were completely unfamiliar with the President’s prime time address to the nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises. For example, the President highlighted a factor that economists agree on: that the most significant factor leading to the housing crisis was cheap money flowing into the U.S. from the rest of the world, so that there was no natural restraint on flush lenders to push loans on Americans in risky ways. This flow of funds into the U.S. was unprecedented. And because it was unprecedented, the conditions it created presented unprecedented questions for policymakers.

In his address the President also explained in detail the failure of financial institutions to perform normal and necessary due diligence in creating, buying and selling new financial products — a problem that almost no one saw as it was happening.

That the NYT ignored such an important economic speech to the American people and the complex causes of the crises is gross negligence.

The Times story frequently repeats a charge by the Administration’s critics: a ‘laissez faire’ attitude toward regulation. We make no apology for understanding the concept of regulatory balance. That is, regulation should be stringent enough to protect the greater public good and safety but not overly strong so that it unnecessarily inhibits innovation, creativity and productivity gains that are the sole source of increasing Americans’ standards of living. But while repeating this charge, the reporters gave glancing attention to the fact that it was this Administration that pushed for strengthened regulation and oversight, greater transparency, and housing reform.

The story also gives kid glove treatment to Congress. While the Administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and strengthening oversight and supervision of Fannie and Freddie, Congress for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration. Democratic leaders brazenly encouraged Fannie and Freddie to loosen lending standards and instead encouraged the housing GSEs to play a larger and larger role in the housing market — even while explicitly acknowledging the rising risks. And while the story notes the political contributions of some banks to Republicans, it neglects that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials — in particular the chairmen of the banking committees. In fact, even in the midst of what by then was a housing crisis, it took Congress nearly a full year to pass specific legislation called for by the President in the summer of 2007, especially legislation to reform oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

There are many more reporting failures in this story — failure to consider the impact of monetary policy; ignoring the regional nature of housing markets; and ignoring the Bush Administration’s historic proposal to overhaul the nation’s regulatory system, for example. But then a review of these issues would wave complicated the reporters’ myopic point of view that only Bush Administration policies could possibly be responsible for the housing and finance crises.

For the record, here is the New York Times propaganda piece news article in question.

Alas, the White House should have called the New York Times and the rest of the DNC media on their lies over the last eight years.

Not that their rebuttals would get any play in our one party media. But it least they would let the lies be known for what they are.

Needless to say, in a more just world the principals at the New York Times would already be behind bars or pushing up daisies for their relentless treason to this country.

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, December 21st, 2008. Comments are currently closed.

16 Responses to “WH: NYT Is Lying About Mortgage Blame”

  1. proreason says:

    There was no way Bush was ever going to get traction with the print media.

    He should have spoken on TV regularly. If nothing else Fox would have carried his speeches and occasionally he would have gotten a minute or two on the other networks.

    His failure to aggressively communicate about his administration’s policies is the greatest failing of his administration….up to the point he decided to go on vacation instead of adressing the economic crisis that the Democrates induced to get Obamy elected.

    • Phil Byler says:

      I would agree that President Bush’s failure to take to the bully pulpit was one of his Adminstration’s greatest failures. Bush was slow going to the “clear and hold” strategy in Iraq, and he was and is wrong about bailing out the banks and the auto companies.

      Having written that, the NY Times piece is disgusting leftist propaganda.

  2. Liberals Demise says:

    When it is all said and done, the revisionist will twist history to support their story as to what happened. Just like we started WWII and Hanoi Jane is really an actress. GGGGRRRRrrrrrrr

    • proreason says:

      This is a good point but the more precise explanation is that the victor writes history and the other versions are forgotten over time. (I’m a history major btw).

      But we are a long ways away from history settling on what actually happened. Truman is a great example. He was as reviled as Bush when he left office but over time he has become one of the most highly regarded presidents. And his history isn’t settled either. If Obamy manages to implement his Socialist regime, his historians will destroy Truman as a capitalist tool who couldn’t see the obvious benefits of Communism and instead focussed on a few nit-picking problems with that noble endeavor.

      Similar revisions are likely to happen to Bush.

      But it’s impossible to predict what will happen over the next few decades. It’s probable that Obamy will fall miserably on his face and he will be regarded as the dorm-room clown he actually is. But it’s also possible that his handlers will somehow figure out how to steal Bush’s good works and get credit for them.

      What seems very clear is that Bush has hurt his case by not stating often enough and clearly enough what he did, and why he did it. If he had, we would be celebrating his conservative successor instead of hoping that Obamy’s thugs leave some pieces of our republic healthy enough that the catastophic damage he is capable of wrecking can be corrected before it’s too late.

  3. Steve says:

    “When it is all said and done, the revisionist will twist history to support their story as to what happened. Just like we started WWII and Hanoi Jane is really an actress.”

    And that not enough was done for the victims of Katrina.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      SG….I thought the reply link was so we didn’t have to repeat the question and keep it in the follow up of things…..to make things easier? Hey….my bad, it is your house. Sorry!!

    • Steve says:

      The “reply” threading still seems to be a bit hit and miss, LD. Such as in the case of my first reply to you, which did not indent below your post as it should have.

      Even so, I don’t see any harm in clarifying exactly what one is responding to.

  4. Zeusshiloh says:

    To say that the NY Times distorts or lies is nothing new. They have done so for the last 8 years, claiming those lies under the auspices of reporting.

    But of course, didn’t I read that the NY Times along with other propaganda news organizations are really having financial problems? I wonder if they expect to be bailed out along with all the other groups? But when it does die, there will be few that will shed a tear.

  5. Enthalpy says:

    SG is correct in his assessment of the NYT’s relentless treason to this country. I continue to be amazed that many of the MSM , and certainly the fund directors and stock brokers, remain above room temperature.

  6. proreason says:

    Today, I believe for the first time, Rush Limbaugh said that the economic crisis might be the biggest October Surprise of all time, something that I’ve been advocating on this blog since early November when I pointed out that the stock market and gas price drops in the 2 months prior to the election were unprecedented in an election year, including the Great Depression.

    Rush’s twist is that Chuck Schumer might have deliberately precipitated the run on Indy Bank in mid-summer when he made his well known public statement that quickly brought that bank down. Rush did not discuss any data about the stock market (since nobody talks about that event) and the fact that Lehman Bros was attacked on the Monday following McCain’s first lead in the polls. Lehman Bros collapsed the following weekend, and the market then dived another 25% before the election.

    The full chain of events, imho is:
    – Media begins attacking the economy in the summer of 2007. No economic indicators support the attack, but they quickly label it a recession and escalate to the Depression word within a few months.
    – Stock Market begins to head south in mid-October 2007. A buzz begins about the toxic loans. But nobody mentions that ALL of the toxic loans, if they ALL defaulted would only be a fraction of the investment this country has already made in the last 2 months.
    – Market continued to meander down in early 2007, but the economy wasn’t sinking fast enough for the Democrats. There was one quarter of slight negative growth, but employment, and most other economic metrics showed a decent economy. The market drop in late 2007 and early 2008 is unsupported by the economic indicators. Employment was high. PE ratios were normal. The credit problem was not yet considered a crisis. The market drop probably resulted from the continuing drumbeat of economic lies from the press and manipulation by Soros (who made 2.4B by shorting up to Sept 2008) and his allies.
    – Nevertheless, Bush put a stimulus package in place in early 2007. Why? Because the sitting administration always goes out its way to insure a steady economy in election years. This contributed to 3% growth in Q2.
    – Media was getting frantic as the economy refused to tank despite its’ best efforts in support of its Democratic Masters.
    – July – Schumer precipitates the run on Indy just before the Dem convention, so that there will be bad economic news (which is GOOD news for the Dems). Meanwhile Barney Franks proclaims Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hale and hearty (even those GSE’s were already defunct at that time), which set up everyone for the big events in September October in case Schumer’s efforts aren’t enough.
    – Schumer’s efforts weren’t enough. McCain rose in the polls after the GOP convention and took the lead for the first time the weekend of Sept 6 and 7. The stock market by this point had lost about 25% since 11 months before, but had stabilized. Employment was still strong. There has been no run on other banks, and there was nothing approaching panic about the toxic loans. In other words, the news was now HORRIBLE for the Democrats.
    – Beginning Monday Sept 8, there began a full-scale attack on Lehman Bros. The next weekend, the feds closed Lehman Bros. In short-order, the market dives, and a panic about credit was generated. Democrats Bernacke and Paulsen declare that it is a crisis like no other ever. Up to that point there had been no hint of a crisis. Apparently, it even took the President by surprise, but what do you expect him to do when his 2 primary economic gurus (who just happen to be Democrats) in unison tell him that although yesterday everything was ok, today the country will collapse if we don’t act tomorrow.
    – Then we have the “bailout”. Obamy stays out of it except to chair a meeting in Washington that was a humiliation for him, except that it wasn’t reported by the media. McCain goes to Washington to try to help and the media seizes that to portray him as an idiot and a fool.
    – The market proceeds to dive by another 25% in September and October, which brings the entire fall to over 50%. McCain’s poll numbers dive at the same time. Obamy says nothing, does nothing. In other words, his usual approach to a problem.
    – As if a historically unprecedented stock market event isn’t enough, Home Valuations are cratering concurrently, and gasoline begins the steepest price drop (by far) in history. You might ask, “doesn’t the price of gas going down HELP the economy?”. The answer is yes, but the Democrats needed to take McCain’s biggest issue off the table. By Nov 4, gas was under $2 in many parts of the country. Nobody worries about it at the price. Going into Nov 4, therefore, energy was not on anybody’s minds. After all, people had lost 50% of the wealth in the stock market and 25-30% of the value of their home. The fact that filling up their car cost $100 a month wasn’t a concern.

    So now you have the complete story of why and how the economy was destroyed so that Obamy can come out of his dorm room and lead the formerly greatest country on earth to socialism.

    Regardless of whether or not you think that this explanation is correct, it is indisputable that the market events of this election season were unprecedented and, at the very least, it is a STUNNING coincidence that they happened at exactly the right moment in time to get Obamy elected, despite his utter lack of experience and radical political views.

    • Steve says:

      We have suspected that for some time (almost a year) now:

      War News Good? Let’s Create A Recession | Sweetness & Light

    • proreason says:

      It’s tradional for the press to misrepresent the economy in an election year. Many, like SG in his post have demonstrated it in every year since the 40’s.

      What is unique this time is that there were political and market manipulation actions (in my opinion) that precipitated events……..and the huge impact of the events make those actions one of, if not the greatest, econmic crimes in history.

      Understand, millions of people (myself possibly included) will lose their homes in the next few years because of this. Millions of people are now unexmployed who would not have been. It isn’t at all unlikely that wars will begin because of economic conditions in other countries. The U.S. is relatively well off, believe it or not. When weak countries have economic crises of this nature, it is very common for leadership to begin military adventurism to distract the popluace from the ecomoic woes. And that means that it is likely that millioins of people will die from war, if not from economic hardship. You would be hearing words like that shouted from the rooftop if McCain had been elected.

      The magnitude of it is breathtaking already and could become much worse. Conservatives have a tendency to attibute it to hype, but the numbers don’t lie. It ain’t hype. (also many posters at this site have military pensions, which are very good economic protections. I don’t begrudge them. The people that have them are heroes in my book. They deserve even more. But when you have an inflation-guaranteed pension, it’s difficult to understand the severity of the economic crisis that is going on right now). And if I’m correct in at least a part of the analysis above, the depravity of the people who instigatged the events is well…….wothy of Lenin and Mao. To be able to say that I actually believe that the leader of this great country caused this to happen so he could get elected is difficult to grapple with, but I do believe it. The coincidences are too great to ignore. The only thing i can think of to mitigate the depravity is that I think it has probably gone farther than any of them anticipated. (I also don’t believe the Obama thought the strategy up himselff. Like everything else in that idiot’s life, he’s mindlessly along for the ride.) Note by the way that the new administration is now saying it will take years to get out of this mess.

  7. amicsgirl says:

    After reading all these posts I must say, I feel sick. I was already upset with the complete and utter blindness of people willing to vote for a president because ” he talks nicely”. Now I feel like a complete and utter idiot. Sadly I knew that there was something else going on that I wasn’t understanding, but I didnt for once think about the manipulation of the markets. How can I, such an avid reader of the history of Roman Republic not even for one moment see something that I have read about repeatedly. This is nothing new. It was used more then 2000 yrs before when Rome was a still a Republic. Good Lord. I have to admit that it seems that the libs have found another way of making us to do what they want. Thanks for the breakdown. I think I’m gonna grab some icecream and make myself feel a little better.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      We are resilient there amicsgirl….before it all said and done, I believe there will be a fight over the way things are handled here and it may get ugly. We are being torn apart from the inside by them using class warfare, the haves vs. the havenots and color. Be not afraid but beware., they sleep not…….

    • proreason says:

      ag, there aren’t many people saying what you have read here. the only reason I brought it up again today is that Rush talked about the topic, and he has a lot more credibility than I do.

      Charles Krauthammer, a brilliant man, has written that the recent market gyrations are because the market has moved away from beging based on economics events to being moved by government decisions. As an example, the market is moving sideways now, waiting to see what will be done about the Big-3 and Obamy’s stimulus package. I think there is considerable merit in his view as well, but I don’t think it explains the crushing market dive after McCain took the lead in the polls.

      If Charles is right, it’s just another indictment of the government. Markets are supposed to be responsive to the economy, not the government. The free market is like a bunch of test tubes, trying out products and services. If they make a car you want, the car sells. If they make lousy cars that aare too expensive, they go out of business. That way the public gets continuously improving goods and services. (the downside is that when business go broke, people suffer). But when the government gets involved and makes unilateral decisions based on politics instead of economics, the markets become disfuntional. Example: Barney Dufus forces banks via laws and incentives to loan money to deadbeats. A few years later, the credit markets are in crisis because you can’t violate the laws of economics that way. No sane person or business lends money to people who can’t pay it back. Now, we are about to do the same thing with the auto industry. They make crappy expensive cars in the U.S. because the UAW contract is uneconomic and because the government imposes uneconomic regulations on the auto industry. (note: the Big 3 are all profitable wherever the UAW is NOT involved). Instead of fixing the problem by forcing necessary structural changes on the industry, the same old failed business model will be perpetuated, and they will fail again in an even bigger way in a few years (or else they will build Yugos that you are forced to buy).

      Not only aren’t the politicians learning from these distrous errors, it’s getting worse, a lot worse. If don’t stop this insanity, we will end up like Soviet Russia, with a handful of raving idiots like Barney Franks making horrifically stupid economic decisions for the entire country because they want to please this or that constituency.

  8. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    Human nature being what it is, most people don’t study history so therefore they never learn from it. But surely you being an avid reader of Roman history, can remember the words of Pliny the Roman orator, that most Romans were only concerned with the pebble in their shoe. People back then as now were not so much concerned about the affairs of the empire as much as their own immediate needs. But even now as back then, someone always comes along to promise the masses wonderful, yet unrealistic solutions for their life’s problems. It’s the Roman Caesars all over again. Tossing bread to the crowds to keep them from becoming unruly. Or more importantly, to keep them under control.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »