Why would the socialist AP say there was anything wrong with a move that would edge a democracy into socialism? Had AP gone straight and turned reputable?
No way. I looked at the date of the newspaper: Oct. 7, 2008. The president was Republican George W. Bush, not Democrat/Socialist Barack Obama.
The opening AP sentence against Bush said, "On day one, the $700 billion plan didn't help. Just the opposite."
When Obama did the same thing Bush did, AP gave a glowing report Feb. 10: "President Obama threw a $75 billion lifeline to millions of American on the brink of foreclosure Wednesday declaring an urgent need for drastic action -- not only to save their homes but also to keep the housing crisis 'from wreaking even greater havoc' on the economy."
On Oct. 7, 2008, AP explained how the economic crisis began, first blaming a price rise in houses: "It all started with a U.S. housing boom, helped by low interest rates and government encouragement for more home ownership. Too many mortgages were written for people who really couldn't afford them."
AP narrowed the problem as to how this financial crisis began, with "government encouragement for more home ownership." But it was the media-loved Democratic Party that forced the passage of a bill that required banks to give loans to low-income minorities.
As AP put it Oct. 21, 1999: "The Clinton (Democrat) administration ... has threatened a ... veto" after an attempt by Republicans "to weaken the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to make loans in low income and minority areas ... ." AP never has said who was going to pay for the loans the low-income customers couldn't afford.
A truthful national media would have helped. But with no pressure to improve, how is the national media going to change? Hello, socialism!