Policies Past and Present

Policies past and present. Which do you prefer? President Obama recently said something to the effect that other policies of the past had failed but his have worked. Now, I will grant that the financial crash of 2008 was a key bad event caused in major part by the collapse of the "real estate bubble" which in turn was caused in part  by the political directives coming out of the United States Congress which compelled the banks to grant loans such as the "NINJA" mortgages. "NINJA" mortgages in in reference to the "No Income No Jobs" mortgages where people of lower credit ratings were offered no money down or low money down mortgages with favorable "teaser" mortgage rates so that the goal of raising the percentage of Americans who are homeowners could be achieved. This goal of increased home ownership  was originally started during the Carter Administration and pushed as well with the Clinton Administration. Efforts during the Bush Administration to try to correct the practice of bundling poor credit quality mortgages and making securities of
these mortgages backed by FNMA (Federal National Mortgage Association, a quasi-governmental agency) were thwarted by the Democratic party controlled House of Representatives and Senate. When the percentage of these low credit quality mortgages started to default and the rise in the value of most real estate homes stopped; the effects rippled through the economy.

Getting back to President Obama: During the Bush years when the unemployment rate spiked to approximately 5.4% the media and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi termed this a "jobless recovery". President Obama has been steward of an economy with a record 41 months of over 8% unemployment. If the goal is to have a high unemployment rate and a record over 47 million people on food stamps dependent on the government to afford something to eat then I guess you can say that President Obama's economy and policies have "worked". I would say that the "failed policies of the present" is a more accurate representation of the current economic situation. I understand that in politics one of the key features is impression management where you try to say a few key phrases like "failed policies of the past" even though your record (Obama) is worse than the past policies. It is common in politics to work on people's emotions and come up with gimmick words like "Forward", "Hope and Change" especially when you have a poor failed record to run on (Obama). It is not uncommon to try to "demonize" your opponent especially if you cannot really run on your own failed policies (Obama). This is known as divert the spotlight from yourself and your own record and try to instill fear and character assassination of your opponent.

This presidential election will involve a choice by the voters as to whether the future will be governed by a collectivist inexperienced smooth teleprompter reader perceived "cool and hip" candidate Obama; or an experienced private sector candidate who believes in free enterprise and rewarding individual effort of the people with a record of job creation in the private sector along with government experience as Governor of Massachusetts with a history of managing people, budgets, businesses and the Salt Lake Winter Olympics, Mitt Romney. Do we want a "cradle to grave" oppressive liberty stealing big government future or do we want a future where government is scaled back with an effort to try to bring the trillion plus dollar per year  federal government deficits back under control? Time will tell whether the voters endorse "four more years of the failed policies of the present" or vote for an experienced adult with a history of creating viable business enterprises who pledges to try to return America back to the days when hard work and free enterprise are rewarded not punished.