Do Facts Matter?

[kg_veteran]

Do Facts Matter?
By Thomas Sowell

link

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by ThomasSowell

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

The most basic fact of money and lending in the us is that the Federal Reserves controls, and goes lengths to control the interest rate (interest rate = the price of money)....we don't have a free market in banking, we have a market in which a central committee sets the price. Call it what we will, it ain't a free market.

[chumdawg]

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

Do wild-assed accusations and biased opinions matter?

What a weird way to conclude this article. Sorta makes the whole thing come across as a dubious opinion piece. I'm afraid I'm going to have ask Sowell for some cites.

[Mavdog]

I have a great deal of respect for sowell. this piece is not one of his better columns.

the laying of the current financial mess on sub-prime mortgages is illfounded. those loans categorized as sub-prime were not the majority of loans made nor the majority of these "toxic" mortgages held today.

we've been down the road on discussing cra loans, it's inconceivable to believe that this small percentage of loans were responsible for the downfall of fannie or freddie.

hey thomas, what about all the very creative mortgages where people didn't need to make any payments on their principal? what about adjustable rate mortgages where the borrower was qualified due to 50% payments for the first few years, only to find that they couldn't afford the payments once they went to true financing rates? what about the mortgage brokers who falsified information to close a deal? what about the overexuberence of the speculative buyers, and the lenders who funded their purchases, who bid home values up into the bubble level?

these weren't subprimes nor were the cra loans.

did sowell research the obama/raines connection? clearly not, as the only reference to this conjured connection is raines saying to a reporter that he "called" someone in the obama campaign. wow, that's what only a political hack would call "consulting".

normally sowell isn't a political hack, so tell us thomas, what's going on? you are much better than this.

[rabbitproof]

This article is clearly a smearpiece as it attempts to absolve responsibility for a Republican congress and a Bush administration that was in power for a number of years but I do agree with the desire to know the facts.

www.politifact.com
http://www.factcheck.org/

Do your homework. Don't be a dumb ass.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Do wild-assed accusations and biased opinions matter?

What a weird way to conclude this article. Sorta makes the whole thing come across as a dubious opinion piece. I'm afraid I'm going to have ask Sowell for some cites.

I agree that this was a weird way to end the article. Even though I agree with him, it doesn't really fit with the rest of the article.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I have a great deal of respect for sowell. this piece is not one of his better columns.

I can agree with that. He's written much better columns. But the general thrust of the column is absolutely correct -- the Democrats are being completely absolved of their involvement in our current financial "crisis" because facts don't seem to matter.

As for Raines and the Obama campaign, you're wrong. Raines told the Washington Post that he had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

This article is clearly a smearpiece as it attempts to absolve responsibility for a Republican congress and a Bush administration that was in power for a number of years but I do agree with the desire to know the facts.

www.politifact.com
http://www.factcheck.org/

Do your homework. Don't be a dumb ass.

I have done my homework, and it is pretty well established fact that Republicans were calling for more regulation of Freddie and Fannie while the Democrats were standing in their way. Sowell is absolutely right on that particular point.

From Factcheck.org:

It's true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised."

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I can agree with that. He's written much better columns. But the general thrust of the column is absolutely correct -- the Democrats are being completely absolved of their involvement in our current financial "crisis" because facts don't seem to matter.

so sowell's answer is to completely absolve the republicans? that doesn't fly either.

As for Raines and the Obama campaign, you're wrong. Raines told the Washington Post that he had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

you're nitpicking. the charge of raines being "an adviser" to the obama campaign is not factual. the only person to refer to any involvement is raines, and he did so to make himself look connected (would a call from an admin asst be "from the campaign"?) during an interview with a reporter:

The Obama campaign issued a statement by Raines on Thursday night insisting, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, saying in an e-mail that the campaign had "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter."

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of that passage. She said that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said, 'Oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific?' I asked, and he said 'no.')"

By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091903604.html

clearly raines is not an "adviser" and has not been sought for advice. sowell is flat out wrong.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so sowell's answer is to completely absolve the republicans? that doesn't fly either.

I guess I didn't read his column that way. He was just expressing frustration (and justifiably so, IMO) that the facts regarding Democratic culpability are largely being ignored.

you're nitpicking.

No, I'm quoting directly!

the charge of raines being "an adviser" to the obama campaign is not factual. the only person to refer to any involvement is raines, and he did so to make himself look connected (would a call from an admin asst be "from the campaign"?) during an interview with a reporter

Wait. Are you somehow able to read Raines' mind? How do you know why he said what he said to the Washington Post reporter?

As for the subsequent, carefully parsed statement (produced by the Obama campaign), give me a break. I'd love to cross-examine Raines on which statement was really true. I think it's pretty obvious.

It is sorta funny, though, that the Washington Post came back and tried to downplay its own story to help Obama out of the connection.

clearly raines is not an "adviser" and has not been sought for advice. sowell is flat out wrong.

No, Mavdog, that's not clear at all. He said that the campaign contacted him and sought his advice; the campaign later denied it.

Your explanation for why Raines would have lied (to make himself look connected), in addition to being complete speculation on your part, doesn't really make any sense.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Wait. Are you somehow able to read Raines' mind? How do you know why he said what he said to the Washington Post reporter?

it's pretty obvious to see the course of the converstion as it was outlined by the reporter in the conversation.

As for the subsequent, carefully parsed statement (produced by the Obama campaign), give me a break. I'd love to cross-examine Raines on which statement was really true. I think it's pretty obvious.

It is sorta funny, though, that the Washington Post came back and tried to downplay its own story to help Obama out of the connection.

No, Mavdog, that's not clear at all. He said that the campaign contacted him and sought his advice; the campaign later denied it.

so let's lay out what is known: an off hand comment by raines to a reporter is wrongly (according to the reporter) paraphrased and mentioned in a column, and even though both the obama campaign and raines categorically state that he is not an advisor to the obama campaign, and there is absolutely NO evidence of any other connection, you continue to say that "it's not clear at all".

I know what isn't clear, and it's your vision....

Your explanation for why Raines would have lied (to make himself look connected), in addition to being complete speculation on your part, doesn't really make any sense.

so only YOU can make speculation, and speculation on your part that is contradicted by all the evidence?

gee, that's interesting to say the least.

[dude1394]

Sowell and KG are spot on, with this one. And because Sowell is correct the Obama supporters pick at the edges. Pelosi, Frank, Obama can spout off that it's somehow, someway Bush's policies that have done this without any discussion of the structural changes made to Fannie/Freddie and the cover by Frank, etc.

Detractors who are STILL covering for Obama/Dems bring up that because it doesn't also address republican responsibilities here then it's a "hit" piece...as if stating facts (when they are critical of democrats) has now become a "hit" piece.

Maybe someone in missouri should file suit against Sowell for "smearing" theone.

[dalmations202]

Do Facts Matter?

No, perception matters.

Everyone reacts based upon what they perceive to be the Truth, and what they perceive will help themselves the most.

Welcome to the REAL world.

[chumdawg]

What about the people who don't perceive truth with a capital letter T?