When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
Corruption will always be a part of American politics. Please remember that when the GOP ran the House their was corruption then also, the difference NOW is that the Dems who run the House will not look the other way even when it is in their own Party. Delay ?? his party stood by him until he was indicted. Duke Cunningham ? The GOP stood by HIM until he was convicted.
John ryan
13 years ago
After Hatret the then Speaker became so angry that the Bi-Partisan Ethics Committee had found serious ethics violations against Delay for the THIRD time, he simply removed all the Republicans from that committee so that they would no longer have a quorum. Pelosi COULD have done the same, but did not.
Old Trooper 2
13 years ago
American Hero
Be One!
Make This Election Have Some Consequences, Either Stand Up, Fix Your Bayonets or Stay Home and be Ruled instead of Governed. Of the People and By the People must Prevail or…Fail…
Old Trooper 2
13 years ago
@ John ryan, like a 5 week recess so Rangel and Waters could not face ethics charges?
bob wasem
13 years ago
Put this on national/cable TV I would donate to an add like this (OUT F@#K-IN STANDING)
On the back of my brand new SUV’s window “TOMARROW I DRAIN THE SWAMP” ***
“TODAY I DRAINED THE SWAMP” *** YESTERDAY I DRAINED THE SWAMP”
PALIN/RYAN 2012 “BEAUTY-BRAINS & MORE BRAINS”
NOV 1ST *** NOV 2ND *** NOV 3RD
I am also DVRing the Zombie station MSNBC I want to watch “Chris the THRILL, MADCOW W/THE PHONEY LAUGH AND THE ESPN REJECT PAPER THROWER over & over & over
…the difference NOW is that the Dems who run the House will not look the other way even when it is in their own Party.
Really? As Old Trooper pointed out, the Dems called a recess to avoid having those hearings.
Pelosi when asked about Rangel –
At a Friday news briefing, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended Representative Charles Rangel in light of a new ethics panel ruling that admonished him for corporate-financed trips to the Caribbean.
Pelosi is even considering re-writing the ethics rules so as to make it go easier on her fellow Dems.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has privately indicated she is willing to rewrite some of the ethics rules that House Democrats implemented two years ago.
Pelosi late last month met with members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) about the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), which was created to bolster the ethics of the lower chamber.
Greta
13 years ago
VOTE THE DEMOCRATS OUT OR SEND THEM YOUR PAYCHECK. VERY SIMPLE. IF THEY STAY IN, YOUR INCOME IS GONE FOREVER.
southernsue
13 years ago
ditto greta. it’s either food stamps or a paycheck.
be at the polls in nov and vote out the democrats.
Missy
13 years ago
OK, we’re going viral with Curt’s and OT”s videos. Just got done sending them all out, one at a time to friends and family, thanks for sharing!
Old Trooper 2
13 years ago
@ Missy, Right now We need all of the Heroes that We can scrape together.
The force driving this revolution is the realization that we are engaged in an ideological war to determine whether this nation lives or dies. I don’t get a sense that any but a few congressional Republicans recognize that. Unless they go in with bayonets; demand unconditional surrender; giving no quarter, then all is lost.
Bipartisanship at this point is Surrender. Spread the word and You are a Hero.
I spent a lot of time on all your videos this morning and have sent much of what you’ve posted since being here to friends and family, always putting my nephew’s e-mail on first. He’s also Army and busy right now so it’s helpful for him to read the info or watch a video from an e-mail. Then he forwards them on, you have an audience at Ft. Reilly. 😉
Republican Allen West narrowly leads U.S. Rep. Ron Klein in a bruising battle for South Florida’s 22nd Congressional District, a new Sunshine State News Poll shows.
West leads Klein 47-44 in the survey of likely voters conducted Oct. 17-19. Nine percent of respondents are undecided.
Republican Allen West narrowly leads U.S. Rep. Ron Klein in a bruising battle for South Florida’s 22nd Congressional District, a new Sunshine State News Poll shows.
West, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, lost by 10 points to Klein in 2008, a strong year for Democrats. But with Republicans surging this fall, West is picking up more independents, along with solid tea party support.
“West has to be the slight favorite here simply because of the turnout differential,” said Jim Lee, president of Voter Survey Service, which conducted the poll for Sunshine State News.
Lee reported that West’s 3-point lead grows to 5 points among respondents who say their chances of voting are “excellent” (49-44) and 4 points among “2x” voters, or those who cast ballots in both the ’08 and ’06 general elections (48-44).
Both candidates are feeling the effects of harsh, negative advertising in the closely fought race. Klein has a 39/43 favorable/unfavorable rating while West has an almost identical 40/43 split.
VOTE THE DEMOCRATS OUT OR SEND THEM YOUR PAYCHECK. VERY SIMPLE. IF THEY STAY IN, YOUR INCOME IS GONE FOREVER.
Yeah, right. If they DON’T stay in, watch as your Social Security and Medicare programs are privatized, as the financial industry handling your investments is further deregulated, as your wages and employee benefits continue their decade-long decline, as your jobs continue to move overseas, and as those who oversee and profit the most from the entire process get yet another round of top-heavy tax cuts that will add another $4 trillion to your national debt over the next 10 years.
To come to that conclusion, all you’ve got to do is listen carefully to what they’re saying and think about what it actually means.
Greg: Yeah, right. If they DON’T stay in, watch as your Social Security and Medicare programs are privatized, as the financial industry handling your investments is further deregulated, as your wages and employee benefits continue their decade-long decline, as your jobs continue to move overseas, and as those who oversee and profit the most from the entire process get yet another round of top-heavy tax cuts that will add another $4 trillion to your national debt over the next 10 years.
Okay… call your BS bluff, Greg.
Who has:
1: advanced legislation to privatize SS or Medicare in the past four years
2: do tell us what “regulation” (as opposed to DE regulation”), proposed by whom, has prevented the housing failure… not to mention tell us how you think the economy will improve without a housing recovery
3: tell us how much our income has gone up vs spending since Pelosi-Reid took power, and how they’ve improved it
4: tell us how the Barney Frank (Mr. Corruption) and his bill improve anything
tapping toes, tapping toes…..
Nan G
13 years ago
The Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, recommended that the U.S. Department of Agriculture stop participants of the federal Women, Infants and Children program, known as WIC, from buying potatoes with federal dollars.
The institute also called for the USDA-backed school lunch program to limit use of potatoes.
Yup.
OK, to my main point:
Elections have consequences.
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
At the time:
1. The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
2. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
3. The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
4. George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
I have come to the conclusion recently that neither Greg, BRob, or any other liberal/progressive has a clue in the world of what they speak when they attempt to discuss economics. I listed articles in a previous post from noted economists who state emphatically that tax cuts increase federal revenue, EVERY TIME, yet Greg feels it necessary to pull out some liberal rhetoric about how tax cuts for the people who actually pay them will add trillions to the deficit. Ignorance and stupidity run rampant amongst the left, who willingly buy the snake oil sold to them by any politician who is noted by a D after their name. It is a sad, sad world when people don’t even attempt to do their own thinking on a topic, but run to the nearest liberal net rag to find the answer they are supposed to give.
In case you were wondering, Greg, I did call you stupid. How many times must you be shown facts after facts on economic topics, yet you continue to spout off the liberal lunacy one can read right off of Huffpo or DailyKos?
Well, Missy… while Greg normally sticks around to try and hold his own, I suspect the specifics and facts may make him pull either a “john ryan” drive by, or a “billy bob: LALALALA I can’t hear you” moment. He was doomed the moment he wrote that since there is no way he can answer those questions, even to his own satisfaction as a liberal.
Greg
13 years ago
@ #17:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
At the time:
1. The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
2. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
3. The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
4. George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Yep. And all it took was the forcing down of interest rates, the pumping up the money supply, encouraging the rapid growth of consumer debt while the rate of private savings plummeted, cutting taxes while the public debt was skyrocketing, disregarding a growing housing market bubble, paying no heed to what the financial industry was up to, and going deeply into debt to China–all while conducting two increasingly expensive overseas wars off-budget.
I think that by the beginning of 2007 the upside of that unsustainable approach had nearly been played out, and the inevitable and predictable consequences were about to set in. By mid-2008 things were coming unglued. A serious unemployment problem was setting in. The fundamentals were anything but sound. By the end of that year, desperate times were requiring desperate measures. The possibility of a cascading total global collapse was entirely real.
Well, on Obama’s watch, that didn’t happen. I don’t consider the fact that the economy isn’t rolling along like gangbusters 19 months after a brush with total disaster evidence of ineptitude.
Is it really altogether stupid to view things that way? Particularly in light of the fact that some seem poised to do the same things again?
Naw, Missy.. he’s dodging my questions, and only doing a “by the numbers” on Nan G’s comment above.
I’ll certainly let the most capable Ms. Nan hold her own. While we may butt heads on some issues, there is no lack of solid foundation for her opinions, and I would never seek to usurp her on expressing her own.
But for a passing glance on Greg’s retort, the first things that come to my mind are…
1: “forcing down of interest rates”….. you mean in the wake of 911? Necessary. For the length of time that Greenspan did? I will agree…. it was foolhardy. Too bad that Bernanke is repeating the same today, under a different admin. Now, do you think the Fed Chairmen go to either Bush or Obama and ask them if they can keep the rates low?? I’ll assign blame for that activity, but actually, it’s not likely to be either Bush *or* Obama. They aren’t responsible for the Fed’s decisions. They are only responsible for appointing them, and allowing them to keep their jobs. So you shouldn’t blame Bush for Greenspan/Bernanke, and I won’t blame Obama for Bernanke. Okay?
2: “the pumping up the money supply…” oh, puleeeze. At this point, most of nation is eyeing a job as a 24/7 night shift fed printing press employee, Greg. You can’t be serious about “the money supply” under this admin, could you? If so, I need some of those mood/mind altering drugs too.
3: “encouraging the rapid growth of consumer debt while the rate of private savings plummeted…” why don’t you document the amount of times that Geither… the WH treasury mouthpiece… has stated, along side Bernanke, we need to spend more to recuperate, but we need to save more because we are an irresponsible spending nation. Which is it? Mixed message much?
And since when is a political party responsible for the personal behavior/irresponsibility of it’s citizens? We all need to take responsibility for what hole we, ourselves, dig down into.
4: “cutting taxes while the public debt was skyrocketing…” This brings us back much to the above, Greg. Are we a retail/consumer nation? Or a manufacturing/production nation? And just what party is primarily responsible for switching us to being dependent upon other nations for textiles and manufacturing over the past 4-5 decades? Suggest you delve back into history before you answer this one, bubba.
But then, the GOP didn’t have the Dem’s supermajority those years, right?
Cisneros oversaw a politicized HUD that mobilized to help fend off the Republicans, who gained a congressional majority in the 1994 election. The resurgent GOP initially sought to eliminate many departments and agencies as part of a plan to rein in federal spending and reduce budget deficits. HUD was one of the Republican targets, and department officials fought back in numerous ways to ward off proposed reforms.
duh wuh… this, a’top the attempted Fannie/Freddie reform in 2003-04 that has been reiterated here on FA numeral times.
6: “going deeply into debt to China–all while conducting two increasingly expensive overseas wars off-budget.”: two different items that should not be combined into one sentence unless you are trying to mask “point one”, Greg.
INRE debt to China… and let’s add “secrets”, you may want to go back at least one admin to find the extraordinary transfer for both national secrets and cash to China.
Secondly, since you can’t “mask” point two with point one with me, both wars are a personal opine as their validity. Most everyone… bi-partisan… agrees with Afghanistan. You know, the war that Obama considered the important and legal war that he’s busy FUBAR’ing up now? (ask OT for first hand experience, in case you haven’t been paying attention. Or perhaps McChrystal who went “rogue”, or Petraeus who has more class than McChrystal).
Regardless of what you personally believe about these conflicts, our POTUS is the commander in chief. Our CiC Bush took us in to both – one accepted (Afghanistan), one fought by the public (Iraq). That same CiC also arranged a withdrawal after aiding Iraq in structuring a new agreement before he left office… an agreement which this coward CiC is trying to take credit for.
In the meantime, the CiC today is busy trying to figure out a way to back out of the Afghan minefield and ignore winning because it’s inconvenient for his political future. He doesn’t care what lives he’s put at risk with WikiLeaks, or his planned and announced withdrawal.
So if you want to assign economic repercussions for Obama’s CiC choices, you can do two things:
1: chastise him for “surging” Afghanistan .. expensive half measures… and allowing for increased deaths, and prolonged conflict you don’t agree with, or
2: chastise him for not simply pulling out on Day Two of his coronation. But AfPak’s fate is now Obama’s, and no longer NATOs because he insisted on making it that way.
Both the deaths and cash are the onus Obama must bear. Tho he won’t lose a moment’s night sleep about it, because that’s who he is.
Greg: I think that by the beginning of 2007 the upside of that unsustainable approach had nearly been played out, and the inevitable and predictable consequences were about to set in.
Considering what the GOP tried to do from late 90s thru mid 2000s, you may want to rethink that commentary, Greg. First of all, the recession didn’t happen until…. magically… a Paulson/Bush/Pelosi/Reid stimulus appeared in the news as necessary… to the surprise of most of us. Who knew that we had a problem? It went downhill from there.
Now what’s most interesting is what I entertain in my mind…. like what if all this was manufactured, and none of the banks and doom/gloom would have come to pass if some banks failed, and normal foreclosures/eat the difference methods had gone into play? Do you ever wonder if all of us… both parties of citizens… were played big time? I do. We were “told” everything would fail. We spent big taxpayer bucks, and now we’re told that we saved the day and it would have been worse.
What the heck do we really know of that alternative universe, save what all politicians and wall street tells us? It is a huge leap of faith I *often* question.
But let’s assume we weren’t played. What if some banks went under, or if their toxic assets were simply sold out mark to market and losses were absorbed. Perhaps by some “debt forgiveness” in tax revenue. Would the taxpayer be on the hook? Would we be at the same fiscal stage?
Guess we’ll never know, eh? But you buy it all, hook line and sinker… that parallel universe we’re told that exists as real. Please don’t pass on that characteristic to your kids. It’s no asset in problem management, I assure you.
So Greg… when are you going to back up the BS I called you on specifically? Pretty easy, those questions are. If, of course, you possess facts as opposed to idiot’ology… oops, meant ideology. 😉
@johngalt, just keep in mind that it’s not always about making the mouthpiece see the light of day. Often, the need to respond is because of those who read and lurk.
That’s why, for most, I attempt to give a cogent counterpoint. Not because I think Greg, Billy Bob or drive by small-letter-john-ryan will ever get a clue. I just want to limit their influence on others.
So… if you please, never stop contributing for those who lurk a’new, guy.
Often, the need to respond is because of those who read and lurk.
And why your responses, along with Aye, Johngalt, OT, Missy and all the others are so important. There are many many readers who do not comment, just lurk…and your fact driven responses are very important for that reason alone. The Gregs and Brob’s will never get it but all the others lurking around do.
Old Trooper 2
13 years ago
@ MataHarley, my Daughter lurks here and as anything she sends is monitored. I get her critique about twice a week. She tends to believe that FA is what she refers to as a crap magnet for clowns that post things that they could not justify in a face to face meet up. They get responses that are usually very factual and well crafted and referenced.
She has favorite Authors and posters as well that she likes. According to Jana, FA is the rally point for Patriotic Americans and a place where Fools get what they ask for. FA attracts a wide cast of characters that are intelligent. respond civilly to “dinner table discussion” issues and Fools get a warranted whack on the head. FA has a following at USAFA on the QT but you could not get a better audience.
I can honestly say that I have been in worse company.
… and with that info, Trooper, I can agree that not only could we not get a better “audience”, but that for the most time – in comparison – I’ve *always” been in “worse company*!
Cheers to the silent warriors at USAFA… we FA patriots not only salute you, but give you our undying gratitude, support and respect.
Greg
13 years ago
@ MataHarley, #25:
1. 9/11 necessitated the lowering of interest rates? I’ll have to think about that. An economic slow-down had already commenced during 2000; I’m not really sure of the extent to which 9/11 worsened the situation. However that may be, it doesn’t necessarily have direct bearing on rates since Obama has been in office. The question there is whether rates should be raised from a preexisting level during a deep recession. In the absense of inflation, the correct answer would probably be NO.
2. There’s this:
“US money supply plunges at 1930s pace as Obama eyes fresh stimulus” (May 26, 2010)
“The M3 money supply in the United States is contracting at an accelerating rate that now matches the average decline seen from 1929 to 1933, despite near zero interest rates and the biggest fiscal blitz in history…”
3. Mixed messages notwithstanding, the consumer debt expanded greatly during the Bush years; the total has been shrinking during Obama’s first 19 months, as has the level of business debt. I suppose we could see that as a good thing. Recovery is being built on a sounder foundation.
4. I think we’re both a consumer/retail nation and a manufacturing nation. A healthier situation would be one in which American workers are well-paid to produce the bulk of the products that the nation consumes. That requires an increasingly affluent middle and working class, not a middle and working class that are constantly losing ground, as they have been for a decade.
5. Was it HUD, or Fannie, or Freddie that knowingly issued risky loans, concealed the risk level, and passed them on upstream, profiting every step of the way? Who was it that deliberately falsified the risk level of the final bundled financial instruments, before passing them on to unsuspecting investors?
6. I think a case could be made that China indirectly financed our war in Iraq. It now looks like the Chinese economy may turn out to be one of the biggest long-term beneficiaries of the regime change. Strange how that’s working out: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2010-06/10/content_9962145.htm
This mole is tired and calling it a night. I’ll pop up for more mole whacking later on, possibly wearing a football helmet.
Now now, Greg…. do you think if you engage me in your responses to Nan G long enough, I’ll stop asking for your supporting evidence @in my comment above? 😉
Just a few comments on your latest… no “helmet” necessary (and I have always loved your sense of humor, BTW…)
1: I’m not sure what is more stunning here…
a: that you fully admit the Clinton economic slow down preceded not only Bush coming to office, but even the election, or…
b: that you don’t seem to recollect the economic damage that spread from 911 after the stock market was stopped for a week, airlines and travel were paralyzed, as well as a shocked and stunned nation for months as we daily watched people sift thru the debris. Yes, rates had to remain low then. But as Greenspan full admitted, he left them low for too long, which would have helped reign in the out of control house appreciation.
2: Oh, now we’re speaking specifically M3 supply, and not generic “money supply”… which was the leap from you saying the Bush admin “pumped up the money supply”?? What, Greg, are you really talking about? The prior admin didn’t have the Fed printing presses working overtime, the “pumped up” money supply was private sector earnings and not public sector/taxpayer injected cash manufactured in the basement of the fed reserve. Not to mention that the feds haven’t tracked M3 stats since 2006. So I’m not sure what private company’s analysis the Telegraph was using.
Since M3 is the combo of the currency, small deposits and large deposits, as well as money markets, etal, you might want to consider the timing of that UK article… a time in May 2009 when the Dow looked like this:
Which brings me to …
3: I agree that far too many consumers used their perceived real estate wealth unwisely. And this is Bush’s fault, how? Which then brings me to…
4: I agree it would be healthier for the US to produce the bulk of products we consume. You think they have been “losing ground” for “a decade”? Dang you must be young. We used to have prolific steel, copper and textile manufacturing. We used to have factories that made the old toys for kids here, and not in China.
However the loss of manufacturing and those well paid jobs started back in the 70s, with the dismantling of the steel mills and the rise in demands from govt mandates and unions. This is now, predominately, a nation of service and retail jobs while manufacturing continues to erode because of unfriendly federal business policies. It is not only insane to depend on a nation of “consumers” as the mainstay of your economy, George Washington would argue it’s extremely dangerous for our national security…. and I agree.
5: Not sure of your question, and perhaps it’s because you don’t understand HUD, Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie Mae and Sally Mae, or their relationship?
6: ” It now looks like the Chinese economy may turn out to be one of the biggest long-term beneficiaries of the regime change. Strange how that’s working out: “ Gee… does the acerbic accusation of “no war for oil” ring any bells? Personally I think the US should have been able to effectively participate and benefit from a new Iraq’s oil booty. But noooooo…. the lib/progs would demand that was the reason for regime change and nation building. Someone was going to benefit from Iraq’s oil. The lib/progs made sure it wasn’t going to be the US for political reasons.
BTW, Greg, I would be remiss in not pointing out that the link *you* provided to the Telegraph has Professor Tim Congdon, from International Monetary Research, chastising Obama for his Keynesian approach to the problem.
“It’s frightening,” said Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research. “The plunge in M3 has no precedent since the Great Depression. The dominant reason for this is that regulators across the world are pressing banks to raise capital asset ratios and to shrink their risk assets. This is why the US is not recovering properly,” he said.
The US authorities have an entirely different explanation for the failure of stimulus measures to gain full traction. They are opting instead for yet further doses of Keynesian spending, despite warnings from the IMF that the gross public debt of the US will reach 97pc of GDP next year and 110pc by 2015.
Larry Summers, President Barack Obama’s top economic adviser, has asked Congress to “grit its teeth” and approve a fresh fiscal boost of $200bn to keep growth on track. “We are nearly 8m jobs short of normal employment. For millions of Americans the economic emergency grinds on,” he said.
David Rosenberg from Gluskin Sheff said the White House appears to have reversed course just weeks after Mr Obama vowed to rein in a budget deficit of $1.5 trillion (9.4pc of GDP) this year and set up a commission to target cuts. “You truly cannot make this stuff up. The US governnment is freaked out about the prospect of a double-dip,” he said.
The White House request is a tacit admission that the economy is already losing thrust and may stall later this year as stimulus from the original $800bn package starts to fade.
Now, over a year and a half later, we can see that the O’WH did not reverse it’s course, nor rein in a budget deficit… and instead piled on massively instead. Brilliant….
Old Trooper 2
13 years ago
@ MataHarley, I do believe that you may be “casting pearls before swine” here with Greg. Schooling him up, correcting his misconceptions on History, the Economy, World Monetary Funds, Real Estate Equity, The Fed and a wealth of other concepts that are the Broad Picture is something that He should be paying tuition for.
You have the patience of Job. In the end he most likely will not be able to run a lemonade stand without Federal subsidies because he so far has not learned a damn thing. The entitlement generation agenda, his Constitutional illiteracy and the inability to accept the fact that Socialism has failed everywhere it was attempted seem to be his strong suits. Better You than Me at this task.
If he is an example of the next generation, We are in for some very rocky roads ahead.
Greg
13 years ago
So Greg… when are you going to back up the BS I called you on specifically? Pretty easy, those questions are. If, of course, you possess facts as opposed to idiot’ology… oops, meant ideology.
Those would be the questions up in #16:
Who has:
1: advanced legislation to privatize SS or Medicare in the past four years
No one has actually rolled out legislation as yet, but the idea certainly seems to have gained a lot of traction on the right. Should I assume that those running for office who have articulated the thought are only blowing hot air? That their comments are nothing more than a disengenuous pitch calculated to appeal to Tea Party voters? I suspect there are probably actual legislative intentions that relate to the rhetoric.
2: do tell us what “regulation” (as opposed to DE regulation”), proposed by whom, has prevented the housing failure… not to mention tell us how you think the economy will improve without a housing recovery
While it can be argued that elements of deregulation made the bubble and collapse far more likely, obviously there were no regulations that prevented it; that’s obvious from the fact that it actually happened. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that will come out of the Financial Reform Bill could make a similar occurance in the future far less likely, by moderating the mortgage industry lending abuses that played a significant part in the whole debacle. Bad loans were knowingly extended to unqualified borrowers not to give the borrowers a break, but to accumulate the immediate profits generated from a high volume of loans. The extent of the risk was concealed from the borrowers, and from those loans were passed on to in order to generate additional profits.
Closing the barn door after the horse got out makes sense if you want to keep your horses from getting out again in the future.
If recovery is dependent upon a return to the property values associated with the height of the housing bubble, we’re probably up the creek without a paddle. That’s not going to happen. The astronomically inflated values weren’t real. The bubble popped when the market realized that fact.
3: tell us how much our income has gone up vs spending since Pelosi-Reid took power, and how they’ve improved it
Obviously, in the immediate wake of a series of national and global economic Tsunamis, it hasn’t yet. No doubt republican policies would have rectified that situation immediately. (A faith-based assumption, in my opinion; those policies certainly hadn’t reduced the growth of private or public debt during the long period they had majorities in both the House and Senate, and also had a republican president in the White House.)
4: tell us how the Barney Frank (Mr. Corruption) and his bill improve anything
See #2. I think most Americans will also benefit from new regulations affecting the credit card and banking industry. The bill provides some additional measure of safety with regard to the derivatives market, but I gather most experts believe the provisions are inadequate, considering the degree of potential danger. I admit that I don’t really have a good grasp of that complex issue. The entire matter of a $600 trillion derivatives trading market strains my common sense. It seems to me like a trade in imaginary money, pretty much conjured out of thin air.
@Greg:, do you know what I like about you (other than your sense of humor… :-D?) That your beliefs are founded on a good heart, if not historical knowledge, and that you simply don’t run away from a fight… even if you have to be prodded into engaging. That really is a compliment from me, BTW.
Shall we engage (no, no “helmet” needed… Ms. MataHarley is not a helment “mandate” kind of person…).
1: There are many factions of political belief that have “gained traction” in today’s era. The major point you’d need to consider is if those you believe to be “extreme” by privatizing SS and healthcare have enough power to accomplish such. Or, in a more appropriate visual, or they merely another “voice” of America that would influence and temper extreme measures?
So, should “my voice” not be heard, according to your tidy view of politics?
I think it’s the latter INRE “just another voice”…. part of the “checks and balances” that should be America. I am one of those that think SS and Medicare should be “phased” out, and new ways to accommodate for future pensions and health care implemented. Does this mean doing nothing and leaving everything status quo? Of course not.
I don’t think the existing ponzi scheme is viable, therefore a new plan must be implemented with minimal impact on those that have paid in for decades. Is this a “given” if some “tea party” elements enter Congress with a vote and say? If they win, would they accomplish such? Of course not. Do I think they have a viable voice, and should be heard? Absolutely.
Yet your party is busy, playing the fear mongering game with this same argument. I think, in your quieter moments, and sans “judgment”, you may agree. Even these dissenting voices should have some sway… at least in the America that was originally founded.
Therefore, your partisan screed is added hyperventalition for partisan/election purposes.. would you not agree?
2: “De’regulation vs regulation” – what the heck does that mean, anyway? The CRA.. undoubtedly a contributing, if not sole reason to the housing crash… was a “regulation”. This is an example of “regulation” that is not beneficial.
Can you also call the dualing arguments INRE appeal/continuation of Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and Glass–Steagall Acts also “regulation”?
My point is there is some regulation that is effective, and others that are not. So attempting to play the political talking points game about “regulation is just chasing butterflies in dead winter.
If you want to play legislative specifics, I’m ready to go. But I do question your erroneous one track mind that all regulations are “good”. Perhaps we need to adjust your thought patterns to reality – that not all “regulations” are “good” and helpful, eh? In fact, some “regulations” are very counterproductive and, therefore, should undergo deregulation. So much for a “regulation” vs “deregulation” battle.
3: “Obviously, in the immediate wake of a series of national and global economic Tsunamis, it hasn’t yet. No doubt republican policies would have rectified that situation immediately.” Greg, Greg… this a partisan observation, and not a citizen observation. What you are actually admitting is that nothing the Dems and Obama have done rectify the problem, while simultanously asserting that the GOP’s solutions wouldn’t have worked. But gosh darn, you’re willing to blindly wait for the Dem solutions to happen… two years following “the crash”. Got an idea how long the turnaround period for other recessions have been by comparison?
This may or may not have been true, but since there have been no GOP solutions allowed to see the light of day, wherein lies your confidence but for talking points?
What both party citizens realize is that the solutions are not at hand, and that both parties are trying to tell us they “know”.
What we do know is that additional debt/deficit doesn’t help. Therefore additional government expansion/stimulus also doesn’t help. Think it’s time to look for something other than talking points, yes? Time is not on Obama/Pelosi/Reid’s side for their “cures”.
4: “I think most Americans will also benefit from new regulations affecting the credit card and banking industry. The bill provides some additional measure of safety with regard to the derivatives market, but I gather most experts believe the provisions are inadequate, considering the degree of potential danger. I admit that I don’t really have a good grasp of that complex issue. The entire matter of a $600 trillion derivatives trading market strains my common sense. It seems to me like a trade in imaginary money, pretty much conjured out of thin air.”
An entirely honest answer, peppered by “faith” that the “solutions” are at hand. OK, I get that leap of faith. We’d all like to believe they know what the heck they’re doing. Problem is, the “regulations” that “implement” the legislation language haven’t been crafted yet. Not to mention the bill language is crafted by one of the highly corrupt financial legislators in Congress, and includes mandates for affirmative action hiring quotas in federal agencies. This has what to do with preventing another economic crisis, I ask?
Then, of course, it’s another of the “2000+ page” bills that don’t have specifics. Are you so willing to believe that this is a “cure” from the same people (both parties) that brought us failure to begin with?
Again, when your car dies, are you likely to replace the engine? Or embark on replacing likely part by part until the plan is ID’d?
I think, if you closely examine the Frank “reform”, there is far more than you admit to there that is “conjured up” out of thin air. My problem is why you see someone like Barney Frank as your ally when, in reality, it should be someone like me.
Old Trooper 2
13 years ago
Barack Obama echoes anti-Americanism of Europe in calling voters stupid
Having failed to change Washington or, as he promised that night in St Paul, Minnesota in June 2008, to provide “good jobs to the jobless” (unemployment was 7.7 per cent when he took office and is 9.6 per cent now), Obama is changing tack.
Boiled down, the new Obama message to Americans is: you’re too stupid to overcome your fears. To be fair, it’s not entirely new. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was caught on tape at a San Francisco fund-raiser saying it was not surprising that voters facing economic hardship “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”.
redstate did good on this one, i will post it tomorrow.
Not sure what you mean, atti. The Juan Williams post by Curt is right here.
Corruption will always be a part of American politics. Please remember that when the GOP ran the House their was corruption then also, the difference NOW is that the Dems who run the House will not look the other way even when it is in their own Party. Delay ?? his party stood by him until he was indicted. Duke Cunningham ? The GOP stood by HIM until he was convicted.
After Hatret the then Speaker became so angry that the Bi-Partisan Ethics Committee had found serious ethics violations against Delay for the THIRD time, he simply removed all the Republicans from that committee so that they would no longer have a quorum. Pelosi COULD have done the same, but did not.
American Hero
Be One!
Make This Election Have Some Consequences, Either Stand Up, Fix Your Bayonets or Stay Home and be Ruled instead of Governed. Of the People and By the People must Prevail or…Fail…
@ John ryan, like a 5 week recess so Rangel and Waters could not face ethics charges?
Put this on national/cable TV I would donate to an add like this (OUT F@#K-IN STANDING)
On the back of my brand new SUV’s window “TOMARROW I DRAIN THE SWAMP” ***
“TODAY I DRAINED THE SWAMP” *** YESTERDAY I DRAINED THE SWAMP”
PALIN/RYAN 2012 “BEAUTY-BRAINS & MORE BRAINS”
NOV 1ST *** NOV 2ND *** NOV 3RD
I am also DVRing the Zombie station MSNBC I want to watch “Chris the THRILL, MADCOW W/THE PHONEY LAUGH AND THE ESPN REJECT PAPER THROWER over & over & over
@John (drive by) ryan: You said:
Really? As Old Trooper pointed out, the Dems called a recess to avoid having those hearings.
Pelosi is even considering re-writing the ethics rules so as to make it go easier on her fellow Dems.
VOTE THE DEMOCRATS OUT OR SEND THEM YOUR PAYCHECK. VERY SIMPLE. IF THEY STAY IN, YOUR INCOME IS GONE FOREVER.
ditto greta. it’s either food stamps or a paycheck.
be at the polls in nov and vote out the democrats.
OK, we’re going viral with Curt’s and OT”s videos. Just got done sending them all out, one at a time to friends and family, thanks for sharing!
@ Missy, Right now We need all of the Heroes that We can scrape together.
Bipartisanship at this point is Surrender. Spread the word and You are a Hero.
@Old Trooper 2:
I spent a lot of time on all your videos this morning and have sent much of what you’ve posted since being here to friends and family, always putting my nephew’s e-mail on first. He’s also Army and busy right now so it’s helpful for him to read the info or watch a video from an e-mail. Then he forwards them on, you have an audience at Ft. Reilly. 😉
@Old Trooper 2:
YES!!!!!! Fingers crossed!!!
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/allen-west-winning-wild-cd-22-race-over-ron-klein-poll-shows
@ #9:
Yeah, right. If they DON’T stay in, watch as your Social Security and Medicare programs are privatized, as the financial industry handling your investments is further deregulated, as your wages and employee benefits continue their decade-long decline, as your jobs continue to move overseas, and as those who oversee and profit the most from the entire process get yet another round of top-heavy tax cuts that will add another $4 trillion to your national debt over the next 10 years.
To come to that conclusion, all you’ve got to do is listen carefully to what they’re saying and think about what it actually means.
Okay… call your BS bluff, Greg.
Who has:
1: advanced legislation to privatize SS or Medicare in the past four years
2: do tell us what “regulation” (as opposed to DE regulation”), proposed by whom, has prevented the housing failure… not to mention tell us how you think the economy will improve without a housing recovery
3: tell us how much our income has gone up vs spending since Pelosi-Reid took power, and how they’ve improved it
4: tell us how the Barney Frank (Mr. Corruption) and his bill improve anything
tapping toes, tapping toes…..
The Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, recommended that the U.S. Department of Agriculture stop participants of the federal Women, Infants and Children program, known as WIC, from buying potatoes with federal dollars.
The institute also called for the USDA-backed school lunch program to limit use of potatoes.
Yup.
OK, to my main point:
Elections have consequences.
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
At the time:
1. The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
2. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
3. The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
4. George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Graphic depiction of what happened next.
@Mata
I have come to the conclusion recently that neither Greg, BRob, or any other liberal/progressive has a clue in the world of what they speak when they attempt to discuss economics. I listed articles in a previous post from noted economists who state emphatically that tax cuts increase federal revenue, EVERY TIME, yet Greg feels it necessary to pull out some liberal rhetoric about how tax cuts for the people who actually pay them will add trillions to the deficit. Ignorance and stupidity run rampant amongst the left, who willingly buy the snake oil sold to them by any politician who is noted by a D after their name. It is a sad, sad world when people don’t even attempt to do their own thinking on a topic, but run to the nearest liberal net rag to find the answer they are supposed to give.
In case you were wondering, Greg, I did call you stupid. How many times must you be shown facts after facts on economic topics, yet you continue to spout off the liberal lunacy one can read right off of Huffpo or DailyKos?
@MataHarley:
Good questions! I was just going to simply ask him…..what do we have left to privatize? 🙄
Well, Missy… while Greg normally sticks around to try and hold his own, I suspect the specifics and facts may make him pull either a “john ryan” drive by, or a “billy bob: LALALALA I can’t hear you” moment. He was doomed the moment he wrote that since there is no way he can answer those questions, even to his own satisfaction as a liberal.
@ #17:
Yep. And all it took was the forcing down of interest rates, the pumping up the money supply, encouraging the rapid growth of consumer debt while the rate of private savings plummeted, cutting taxes while the public debt was skyrocketing, disregarding a growing housing market bubble, paying no heed to what the financial industry was up to, and going deeply into debt to China–all while conducting two increasingly expensive overseas wars off-budget.
I think that by the beginning of 2007 the upside of that unsustainable approach had nearly been played out, and the inevitable and predictable consequences were about to set in. By mid-2008 things were coming unglued. A serious unemployment problem was setting in. The fundamentals were anything but sound. By the end of that year, desperate times were requiring desperate measures. The possibility of a cascading total global collapse was entirely real.
Well, on Obama’s watch, that didn’t happen. I don’t consider the fact that the economy isn’t rolling along like gangbusters 19 months after a brush with total disaster evidence of ineptitude.
Is it really altogether stupid to view things that way? Particularly in light of the fact that some seem poised to do the same things again?
@MataHarley:
Yep, he’s back, bless his heart. Looks like this one is ripe for some pop corn. 😉
Hey, were it not for the persistence of dedicated moles, the Whack-a-Mole game would probably be a whole lot less entertaining.
@ Greg, OK but have you learned anything yet? 😉
Naw, Missy.. he’s dodging my questions, and only doing a “by the numbers” on Nan G’s comment above.
I’ll certainly let the most capable Ms. Nan hold her own. While we may butt heads on some issues, there is no lack of solid foundation for her opinions, and I would never seek to usurp her on expressing her own.
But for a passing glance on Greg’s retort, the first things that come to my mind are…
1: “forcing down of interest rates”….. you mean in the wake of 911? Necessary. For the length of time that Greenspan did? I will agree…. it was foolhardy. Too bad that Bernanke is repeating the same today, under a different admin. Now, do you think the Fed Chairmen go to either Bush or Obama and ask them if they can keep the rates low?? I’ll assign blame for that activity, but actually, it’s not likely to be either Bush *or* Obama. They aren’t responsible for the Fed’s decisions. They are only responsible for appointing them, and allowing them to keep their jobs. So you shouldn’t blame Bush for Greenspan/Bernanke, and I won’t blame Obama for Bernanke. Okay?
2: “the pumping up the money supply…” oh, puleeeze. At this point, most of nation is eyeing a job as a 24/7 night shift fed printing press employee, Greg. You can’t be serious about “the money supply” under this admin, could you? If so, I need some of those mood/mind altering drugs too.
3: “encouraging the rapid growth of consumer debt while the rate of private savings plummeted…” why don’t you document the amount of times that Geither… the WH treasury mouthpiece… has stated, along side Bernanke, we need to spend more to recuperate, but we need to save more because we are an irresponsible spending nation. Which is it? Mixed message much?
And since when is a political party responsible for the personal behavior/irresponsibility of it’s citizens? We all need to take responsibility for what hole we, ourselves, dig down into.
4: “cutting taxes while the public debt was skyrocketing…” This brings us back much to the above, Greg. Are we a retail/consumer nation? Or a manufacturing/production nation? And just what party is primarily responsible for switching us to being dependent upon other nations for textiles and manufacturing over the past 4-5 decades? Suggest you delve back into history before you answer this one, bubba.
5: “disregarding a growing housing market bubble, paying no heed to what the financial industry was up to…”: Okay, you need to do a history lesson not dissimilar to our token racist commenter, Billy Bob, Greg. Hint… pay particular attention to CATO’s Nov 2009 study, and what party paid more lip service and efforts (and yes, NOT ENOUGH) to the impending housing doom. It sure wasn’t your guys, Greg.
But then, the GOP didn’t have the Dem’s supermajority those years, right?
duh wuh… this, a’top the attempted Fannie/Freddie reform in 2003-04 that has been reiterated here on FA numeral times.
6: “going deeply into debt to China–all while conducting two increasingly expensive overseas wars off-budget.”: two different items that should not be combined into one sentence unless you are trying to mask “point one”, Greg.
INRE debt to China… and let’s add “secrets”, you may want to go back at least one admin to find the extraordinary transfer for both national secrets and cash to China.
Secondly, since you can’t “mask” point two with point one with me, both wars are a personal opine as their validity. Most everyone… bi-partisan… agrees with Afghanistan. You know, the war that Obama considered the important and legal war that he’s busy FUBAR’ing up now? (ask OT for first hand experience, in case you haven’t been paying attention. Or perhaps McChrystal who went “rogue”, or Petraeus who has more class than McChrystal).
Regardless of what you personally believe about these conflicts, our POTUS is the commander in chief. Our CiC Bush took us in to both – one accepted (Afghanistan), one fought by the public (Iraq). That same CiC also arranged a withdrawal after aiding Iraq in structuring a new agreement before he left office… an agreement which this coward CiC is trying to take credit for.
In the meantime, the CiC today is busy trying to figure out a way to back out of the Afghan minefield and ignore winning because it’s inconvenient for his political future. He doesn’t care what lives he’s put at risk with WikiLeaks, or his planned and announced withdrawal.
So if you want to assign economic repercussions for Obama’s CiC choices, you can do two things:
1: chastise him for “surging” Afghanistan .. expensive half measures… and allowing for increased deaths, and prolonged conflict you don’t agree with, or
2: chastise him for not simply pulling out on Day Two of his coronation. But AfPak’s fate is now Obama’s, and no longer NATOs because he insisted on making it that way.
Both the deaths and cash are the onus Obama must bear. Tho he won’t lose a moment’s night sleep about it, because that’s who he is.
Considering what the GOP tried to do from late 90s thru mid 2000s, you may want to rethink that commentary, Greg. First of all, the recession didn’t happen until…. magically… a Paulson/Bush/Pelosi/Reid stimulus appeared in the news as necessary… to the surprise of most of us. Who knew that we had a problem? It went downhill from there.
Now what’s most interesting is what I entertain in my mind…. like what if all this was manufactured, and none of the banks and doom/gloom would have come to pass if some banks failed, and normal foreclosures/eat the difference methods had gone into play? Do you ever wonder if all of us… both parties of citizens… were played big time? I do. We were “told” everything would fail. We spent big taxpayer bucks, and now we’re told that we saved the day and it would have been worse.
What the heck do we really know of that alternative universe, save what all politicians and wall street tells us? It is a huge leap of faith I *often* question.
But let’s assume we weren’t played. What if some banks went under, or if their toxic assets were simply sold out mark to market and losses were absorbed. Perhaps by some “debt forgiveness” in tax revenue. Would the taxpayer be on the hook? Would we be at the same fiscal stage?
Guess we’ll never know, eh? But you buy it all, hook line and sinker… that parallel universe we’re told that exists as real. Please don’t pass on that characteristic to your kids. It’s no asset in problem management, I assure you.
So Greg… when are you going to back up the BS I called you on specifically? Pretty easy, those questions are. If, of course, you possess facts as opposed to idiot’ology… oops, meant ideology. 😉
@johngalt, just keep in mind that it’s not always about making the mouthpiece see the light of day. Often, the need to respond is because of those who read and lurk.
That’s why, for most, I attempt to give a cogent counterpoint. Not because I think Greg, Billy Bob or drive by small-letter-john-ryan will ever get a clue. I just want to limit their influence on others.
So… if you please, never stop contributing for those who lurk a’new, guy.
And why your responses, along with Aye, Johngalt, OT, Missy and all the others are so important. There are many many readers who do not comment, just lurk…and your fact driven responses are very important for that reason alone. The Gregs and Brob’s will never get it but all the others lurking around do.
@ MataHarley, my Daughter lurks here and as anything she sends is monitored. I get her critique about twice a week. She tends to believe that FA is what she refers to as a crap magnet for clowns that post things that they could not justify in a face to face meet up. They get responses that are usually very factual and well crafted and referenced.
She has favorite Authors and posters as well that she likes. According to Jana, FA is the rally point for Patriotic Americans and a place where Fools get what they ask for. FA attracts a wide cast of characters that are intelligent. respond civilly to “dinner table discussion” issues and Fools get a warranted whack on the head. FA has a following at USAFA on the QT but you could not get a better audience.
I can honestly say that I have been in worse company.
… and with that info, Trooper, I can agree that not only could we not get a better “audience”, but that for the most time – in comparison – I’ve *always” been in “worse company*!
Cheers to the silent warriors at USAFA… we FA patriots not only salute you, but give you our undying gratitude, support and respect.
@ MataHarley, #25:
1. 9/11 necessitated the lowering of interest rates? I’ll have to think about that. An economic slow-down had already commenced during 2000; I’m not really sure of the extent to which 9/11 worsened the situation. However that may be, it doesn’t necessarily have direct bearing on rates since Obama has been in office. The question there is whether rates should be raised from a preexisting level during a deep recession. In the absense of inflation, the correct answer would probably be NO.
2. There’s this:
3. Mixed messages notwithstanding, the consumer debt expanded greatly during the Bush years; the total has been shrinking during Obama’s first 19 months, as has the level of business debt. I suppose we could see that as a good thing. Recovery is being built on a sounder foundation.
4. I think we’re both a consumer/retail nation and a manufacturing nation. A healthier situation would be one in which American workers are well-paid to produce the bulk of the products that the nation consumes. That requires an increasingly affluent middle and working class, not a middle and working class that are constantly losing ground, as they have been for a decade.
5. Was it HUD, or Fannie, or Freddie that knowingly issued risky loans, concealed the risk level, and passed them on upstream, profiting every step of the way? Who was it that deliberately falsified the risk level of the final bundled financial instruments, before passing them on to unsuspecting investors?
6. I think a case could be made that China indirectly financed our war in Iraq. It now looks like the Chinese economy may turn out to be one of the biggest long-term beneficiaries of the regime change. Strange how that’s working out: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2010-06/10/content_9962145.htm
This mole is tired and calling it a night. I’ll pop up for more mole whacking later on, possibly wearing a football helmet.
Now now, Greg…. do you think if you engage me in your responses to Nan G long enough, I’ll stop asking for your supporting evidence @in my comment above? 😉
Just a few comments on your latest… no “helmet” necessary (and I have always loved your sense of humor, BTW…)
1: I’m not sure what is more stunning here…
a: that you fully admit the Clinton economic slow down preceded not only Bush coming to office, but even the election, or…
b: that you don’t seem to recollect the economic damage that spread from 911 after the stock market was stopped for a week, airlines and travel were paralyzed, as well as a shocked and stunned nation for months as we daily watched people sift thru the debris. Yes, rates had to remain low then. But as Greenspan full admitted, he left them low for too long, which would have helped reign in the out of control house appreciation.
2: Oh, now we’re speaking specifically M3 supply, and not generic “money supply”… which was the leap from you saying the Bush admin “pumped up the money supply”?? What, Greg, are you really talking about? The prior admin didn’t have the Fed printing presses working overtime, the “pumped up” money supply was private sector earnings and not public sector/taxpayer injected cash manufactured in the basement of the fed reserve. Not to mention that the feds haven’t tracked M3 stats since 2006. So I’m not sure what private company’s analysis the Telegraph was using.
Since M3 is the combo of the currency, small deposits and large deposits, as well as money markets, etal, you might want to consider the timing of that UK article… a time in May 2009 when the Dow looked like this:
Which brings me to …
3: I agree that far too many consumers used their perceived real estate wealth unwisely. And this is Bush’s fault, how? Which then brings me to…
4: I agree it would be healthier for the US to produce the bulk of products we consume. You think they have been “losing ground” for “a decade”? Dang you must be young. We used to have prolific steel, copper and textile manufacturing. We used to have factories that made the old toys for kids here, and not in China.
However the loss of manufacturing and those well paid jobs started back in the 70s, with the dismantling of the steel mills and the rise in demands from govt mandates and unions. This is now, predominately, a nation of service and retail jobs while manufacturing continues to erode because of unfriendly federal business policies. It is not only insane to depend on a nation of “consumers” as the mainstay of your economy, George Washington would argue it’s extremely dangerous for our national security…. and I agree.
5: Not sure of your question, and perhaps it’s because you don’t understand HUD, Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie Mae and Sally Mae, or their relationship?
There’s plenty of education resources out there, so I won’t waste time here. But HUD, along with the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight are tasked with the regulatory activities and oversight of the GSEs. All have culpability and played a part in pushing home ownership to the “underserved” as far back as 1992 and the passage of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 by the Dem Congress. As I said in my “perfect storm of events” post in 2008, it was the culmination of many things together, and not just one.
6: ” It now looks like the Chinese economy may turn out to be one of the biggest long-term beneficiaries of the regime change. Strange how that’s working out: “ Gee… does the acerbic accusation of “no war for oil” ring any bells? Personally I think the US should have been able to effectively participate and benefit from a new Iraq’s oil booty. But noooooo…. the lib/progs would demand that was the reason for regime change and nation building. Someone was going to benefit from Iraq’s oil. The lib/progs made sure it wasn’t going to be the US for political reasons.
BTW, Greg, I would be remiss in not pointing out that the link *you* provided to the Telegraph has Professor Tim Congdon, from International Monetary Research, chastising Obama for his Keynesian approach to the problem.
Now, over a year and a half later, we can see that the O’WH did not reverse it’s course, nor rein in a budget deficit… and instead piled on massively instead. Brilliant….
@ MataHarley, I do believe that you may be “casting pearls before swine” here with Greg. Schooling him up, correcting his misconceptions on History, the Economy, World Monetary Funds, Real Estate Equity, The Fed and a wealth of other concepts that are the Broad Picture is something that He should be paying tuition for.
You have the patience of Job. In the end he most likely will not be able to run a lemonade stand without Federal subsidies because he so far has not learned a damn thing. The entitlement generation agenda, his Constitutional illiteracy and the inability to accept the fact that Socialism has failed everywhere it was attempted seem to be his strong suits. Better You than Me at this task.
If he is an example of the next generation, We are in for some very rocky roads ahead.
Those would be the questions up in #16:
Who has:
1: advanced legislation to privatize SS or Medicare in the past four years
No one has actually rolled out legislation as yet, but the idea certainly seems to have gained a lot of traction on the right. Should I assume that those running for office who have articulated the thought are only blowing hot air? That their comments are nothing more than a disengenuous pitch calculated to appeal to Tea Party voters? I suspect there are probably actual legislative intentions that relate to the rhetoric.
2: do tell us what “regulation” (as opposed to DE regulation”), proposed by whom, has prevented the housing failure… not to mention tell us how you think the economy will improve without a housing recovery
While it can be argued that elements of deregulation made the bubble and collapse far more likely, obviously there were no regulations that prevented it; that’s obvious from the fact that it actually happened. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that will come out of the Financial Reform Bill could make a similar occurance in the future far less likely, by moderating the mortgage industry lending abuses that played a significant part in the whole debacle. Bad loans were knowingly extended to unqualified borrowers not to give the borrowers a break, but to accumulate the immediate profits generated from a high volume of loans. The extent of the risk was concealed from the borrowers, and from those loans were passed on to in order to generate additional profits.
Closing the barn door after the horse got out makes sense if you want to keep your horses from getting out again in the future.
If recovery is dependent upon a return to the property values associated with the height of the housing bubble, we’re probably up the creek without a paddle. That’s not going to happen. The astronomically inflated values weren’t real. The bubble popped when the market realized that fact.
3: tell us how much our income has gone up vs spending since Pelosi-Reid took power, and how they’ve improved it
Obviously, in the immediate wake of a series of national and global economic Tsunamis, it hasn’t yet. No doubt republican policies would have rectified that situation immediately. (A faith-based assumption, in my opinion; those policies certainly hadn’t reduced the growth of private or public debt during the long period they had majorities in both the House and Senate, and also had a republican president in the White House.)
4: tell us how the Barney Frank (Mr. Corruption) and his bill improve anything
See #2. I think most Americans will also benefit from new regulations affecting the credit card and banking industry. The bill provides some additional measure of safety with regard to the derivatives market, but I gather most experts believe the provisions are inadequate, considering the degree of potential danger. I admit that I don’t really have a good grasp of that complex issue. The entire matter of a $600 trillion derivatives trading market strains my common sense. It seems to me like a trade in imaginary money, pretty much conjured out of thin air.
@Greg:, do you know what I like about you (other than your sense of humor… :-D?) That your beliefs are founded on a good heart, if not historical knowledge, and that you simply don’t run away from a fight… even if you have to be prodded into engaging. That really is a compliment from me, BTW.
Shall we engage (no, no “helmet” needed… Ms. MataHarley is not a helment “mandate” kind of person…).
1: There are many factions of political belief that have “gained traction” in today’s era. The major point you’d need to consider is if those you believe to be “extreme” by privatizing SS and healthcare have enough power to accomplish such. Or, in a more appropriate visual, or they merely another “voice” of America that would influence and temper extreme measures?
So, should “my voice” not be heard, according to your tidy view of politics?
I think it’s the latter INRE “just another voice”…. part of the “checks and balances” that should be America. I am one of those that think SS and Medicare should be “phased” out, and new ways to accommodate for future pensions and health care implemented. Does this mean doing nothing and leaving everything status quo? Of course not.
I don’t think the existing ponzi scheme is viable, therefore a new plan must be implemented with minimal impact on those that have paid in for decades. Is this a “given” if some “tea party” elements enter Congress with a vote and say? If they win, would they accomplish such? Of course not. Do I think they have a viable voice, and should be heard? Absolutely.
Yet your party is busy, playing the fear mongering game with this same argument. I think, in your quieter moments, and sans “judgment”, you may agree. Even these dissenting voices should have some sway… at least in the America that was originally founded.
Therefore, your partisan screed is added hyperventalition for partisan/election purposes.. would you not agree?
2: “De’regulation vs regulation” – what the heck does that mean, anyway? The CRA.. undoubtedly a contributing, if not sole reason to the housing crash… was a “regulation”. This is an example of “regulation” that is not beneficial.
Can you also call the dualing arguments INRE appeal/continuation of Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and Glass–Steagall Acts also “regulation”?
My point is there is some regulation that is effective, and others that are not. So attempting to play the political talking points game about “regulation is just chasing butterflies in dead winter.
If you want to play legislative specifics, I’m ready to go. But I do question your erroneous one track mind that all regulations are “good”. Perhaps we need to adjust your thought patterns to reality – that not all “regulations” are “good” and helpful, eh? In fact, some “regulations” are very counterproductive and, therefore, should undergo deregulation. So much for a “regulation” vs “deregulation” battle.
3: “Obviously, in the immediate wake of a series of national and global economic Tsunamis, it hasn’t yet. No doubt republican policies would have rectified that situation immediately.” Greg, Greg… this a partisan observation, and not a citizen observation. What you are actually admitting is that nothing the Dems and Obama have done rectify the problem, while simultanously asserting that the GOP’s solutions wouldn’t have worked. But gosh darn, you’re willing to blindly wait for the Dem solutions to happen… two years following “the crash”. Got an idea how long the turnaround period for other recessions have been by comparison?
This may or may not have been true, but since there have been no GOP solutions allowed to see the light of day, wherein lies your confidence but for talking points?
What both party citizens realize is that the solutions are not at hand, and that both parties are trying to tell us they “know”.
What we do know is that additional debt/deficit doesn’t help. Therefore additional government expansion/stimulus also doesn’t help. Think it’s time to look for something other than talking points, yes? Time is not on Obama/Pelosi/Reid’s side for their “cures”.
4: “I think most Americans will also benefit from new regulations affecting the credit card and banking industry. The bill provides some additional measure of safety with regard to the derivatives market, but I gather most experts believe the provisions are inadequate, considering the degree of potential danger. I admit that I don’t really have a good grasp of that complex issue. The entire matter of a $600 trillion derivatives trading market strains my common sense. It seems to me like a trade in imaginary money, pretty much conjured out of thin air.”
An entirely honest answer, peppered by “faith” that the “solutions” are at hand. OK, I get that leap of faith. We’d all like to believe they know what the heck they’re doing. Problem is, the “regulations” that “implement” the legislation language haven’t been crafted yet. Not to mention the bill language is crafted by one of the highly corrupt financial legislators in Congress, and includes mandates for affirmative action hiring quotas in federal agencies. This has what to do with preventing another economic crisis, I ask?
Then, of course, it’s another of the “2000+ page” bills that don’t have specifics. Are you so willing to believe that this is a “cure” from the same people (both parties) that brought us failure to begin with?
Again, when your car dies, are you likely to replace the engine? Or embark on replacing likely part by part until the plan is ID’d?
Thus the irony of Barney “Mr. Corrupt” Frank, writing the “financial reform” while the health care debate stole the headlines last summer. Would we not be better as US denizens, questioning those that have the money and power together, and demanding a more thorough and incremental reform as a plan instead of “overhauls? Blows my mind that citizens are so willing to accept the elected elite as their allies instead of their fellow citizens, annoyed at the same thing but seeing a different avenue for “reform”.
I think, if you closely examine the Frank “reform”, there is far more than you admit to there that is “conjured up” out of thin air. My problem is why you see someone like Barney Frank as your ally when, in reality, it should be someone like me.
Barack Obama echoes anti-Americanism of Europe in calling voters stupid
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/8083074/Barack-Obama-echoes-anti-Americanism-of-Europe-in-calling-voters-stupid.html
This from Europe…