"It turns out, you can trace much of this thinking back to Ayn Rand, a popular cult-philosopher who exerts a huge influence over much of the right-wing and libertarian crowd, but whose influence is only starting to spread out of the US.

One reason why most countries don't find the time to embrace her thinking is that Ayn Rand is a textbook sociopath. Literally a sociopath: Ayn Rand, in her notebooks, worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismemberer, and used this killer as an early model for the type of "ideal man" that Rand promoted in her more famous books..."

Next she will be wearing Che t-shirts and carry a Mao handbag.

Do you get paid by the link, KBM?

The loudest of all the Republicans, right-wing attack-dog pundits and the Teabagger mobs fighting to kill health care reform and eviscerate "entitlement programs" increasingly hold up Ayn Rand as their guru.

Pretty much says it all.

Ayn Rand loves violent psychopaths.
"The Right" loves Ayn Rand.
Therefore, "The Right" loves violent psychopaths.

At least, that's what the author of the article is trying to say.
This is one of those articles that SOUNDS really good, until you really look at what the author is trying to do.

I'm in the middle of moving, so I may not have time to go into it further, but this article is little more than a thinly-disguised hatchet job, dressed up with cute writing.

Rand's objectivism, taken to an extreme, would indeed resemble sociopathy.
But then, is there a philosophy that, taken to its extreme, wouldn't?
And much of what we call right-wing philosophy has elements of objectivism, but often bastardized and distorted to fit current needs.
All sides do it, depending on which way their particular wind is blowing.
And I really could care if Clarence Thomas' favorite book is The Fountainhead. That's irrelevant, although the article would have you believe otherwise.

Anyway, if this is the best Mark Ames (the author) can do, he needs to go back and try again.
Rail against right-wing philosophy, politics, policy, politicians all you want.
Do the same with the Left. Do it with whomever you like.
I'm all for it, provided it's done with a measure of intelligence.

This article is NOT an example of such.
In the end, in fact, it's more than a little insulting.
Read the article. What do you think?

Horse manure Nulli

lol

Honestly, who can wade through her drivel? She makes Dan Brown look like Steinbeck.

I find many criminals role models

tell us what you really think, rex...

"Rand's objectivism, taken to an extreme, would indeed resemble sociopathy."

Objectivism is extreme. It's hard to imagine how it can be more extreme. It is in fact sociopathy.

Duh. Writers study characters when gathering material and playing with ideas. Looks like the socialist wingnuts are getting frustrated over Rand's resurgent popularity. By the same logic, Truman Capote was a sociopath when he wrote about the murder of a family in In Cold Blood.

We could apply the same logic to leftist heroes with viable credibility. Socialism destroys every society that tries it. That's why Marx was attracted to it.r />

Bla bla bla. Your hero Ayn Rand was a sociopath. For her, everybody was a "looter" except big business, "America's oppressed minority".

"Socialism destroys every society that tries it. "

Never been to Norway, have you?

Hey Ray, you wear a $ sign ring like Ayn Rand did?

Rand was a worshipper of raw power.

Fuck Ayn Rand

Be Well.

The War Mongering,Genocidal Party!!!

So she must have been a Republican right!

Never been to Norway, have you?
#13 | POSTED BY LETUSPREY

Socialist systems place such an emphasis on confiscating wealth, they have no means of creating wealth. I'm pretty sure, Norway is living off of its North Sea oil deposits. It wasn't too long ago when leftists were bragging about the success of European socialism. Look at them now. The best models of socialism are Stalinism and Maoism.

Hey Ray, you wear a $ sign ring like Ayn Rand did?
#14 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

My gold coins have eagles on them. I don't carry them around.
Rand is looking more prescient every day this economy gets more chaotic.

Your hero Ayn Rand was a sociopath. For her, everybody was a "looter" except big business, "America's oppressed minority".
#12 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Lying shows desperation. You know she distinguished between honest businessmen who made things that attract buyers, and looter businessmen who used the law to steal from taxpayers.

"The best models of socialism are Stalinism and Maoism."

That's bullshit. That wasn't Marx's vision of socialism, nor of the utopian socialists, the social-democrats, or the libertarians AKA anarchists. Any opportunist can use an ideology to gain and maintain political power, or maybe to rip off the public. Your laissez-fantasyland ideology for example, was used to deregulate the financial sector and helped bring out the last economic crisis.

"Lying shows desperation. You know she distinguished between honest businessmen who made things that attract buyers, and looter businessmen who used the law to steal from taxpayers."

You're the liar. She thought trade unionists were "looters".

That's bullshit.

Not at all. Socialism attracts sociopaths to high political office. You and Marx would be naive if you expect people can be deprived of property and liberty without violence.

Your laissez-fantasyland ideology for example, was used to deregulate the financial sector and helped bring out the last economic crisis.

A laissez faire ideal still requires a system of laws that protect person and property. The system of regulation you love so much, aided the crooks. You're making connections that don't exist.

Through the legalized private central banking system, the bankers and politicians are stealing by the trillions. You're so ideological blind, you can't see that it is a failure of government regulation.

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815

Today, those bankers were cartelized under the Federal Reserve system.

Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815
#23 | Posted by Ray

Who gives a shit what that dumbass said? What does that have to do with price of rice in China?

You're not getting it, which doesn't surprise me.

It is not surprising that the Great Materialist was enamoured of mass-murder, that is how the Materialist Movement began and how it will end.

I always thought there was something creepy about Ayn Rand. Very interesting article here.

How many deaths was Ayn Rand responsible for: Zero

And who are the heroes of the left?

Mao was responsible for: well over 70 million

Stalin: 60 million

Che Guevara: 4000

Ted Kennedy: one

But that's still one more than Ayn Rand

You might want to look into the authors history too...

Mark Ames (born 3 October 1965) is a writer, previously Moscow-based expatriate American journalist and editor. He is the founding editor of the satirical biweekly the eXile in Moscow, to which he regularly contributes. Ames has also written for the New York Press, The Nation, Playboy, The San Jose Mercury News, Alternet, Птюч Connection, GQ (Russian edition), and other periodicals, and is the author of three books.

Here's the link to his wonderful e mag. Real high class guy.

It is not surprising that the Great Materialist was enamoured of mass-murder, that is how the Materialist Movement began and how it will end.
#26 | POSTED BY BEEZELYBUB

Duh! Her resurgent popularity has to do with the prescience in Atlas Shrugged, where Rand predicted corporate corruption would ruin this country.

I love the irony of the socialists in arguing she glorified the very corporate crony capitalism she condemned. It must be a sign of her success, that her enemies are left to connecting her to a serial killer as if it was part of her Objectivist philosophy.

You might also look into the socialist drone who posted this screed. He's an admirer of Karl Marx and and Hugo Chavez.

"Not at all. Socialism attracts sociopaths to high political office. You and Marx would be naive if you expect people can be deprived of property and liberty without violence."

Ray, you ignorant meat-puppet, POWER attracts sociopaths. You can have a democracy, republic, socialism, communism, theocracy, monarchy or feudalism ad all sociopaths will be drawn to the ruling class either as members or Clingons. Like moths to a flame.

Now go back to fucking yourself with your gold plated dildo.

You can have a democracy, republic, socialism, communism, theocracy, monarchy or feudalism ad all sociopaths will be drawn to the ruling class either as members or Clingons. Like moths to a flame.

#31 | Posted by furio

Sounds like a great argument for limited government and individual freedom.

Ray, you ignorant meat-puppet, POWER attracts sociopaths.
#31 | POSTED BY FURIO

No shit Sherlock! Socialism attracts sociopaths because it glorifies power, the power to oppress individual liberty and the power to confiscate personal property.

Dick Cheney was not a socialist but I consider him to be a sociopath.

Dick Cheney was not a socialist but I consider him to be a sociopath.

#34 | Posted by jackass

Well, there you have it. Silence of the lambs re due...

Horse manure Nulli

lol

#7 | Posted by MURPHY

And the article is also horse manure.

Dick Cheney was not a socialist but I consider him to be a sociopath.

#34 | Posted by jackass at 2010-02-28 07:37 AM | Reply | Flag: Soon to be visited and arrested for impersonating a psychologist

Stating it doesn't make it so, Jackieboy. But so then, it is DR, where every asshole has an opinion, but not the qualifications to make their pronouncements.

And before anyone posts it, yes, I too am a DR'r. I just can't find the 12 step program.

"How many deaths was Ayn Rand responsible for: Zero"

Where do the greedy CEOs have the manufactured goods made these days and why???
Because in China workers obey silently and work for slave wages so that the sociopathic CEOs can make millions. And yes, you do qualify as a socialist if you employ workers either directly or indirectly specifically because they are helpless to do anything about working conditions, lack of environmental protection, liability for injuries on the job, etc. Not surprisingly, this most favored nation also executes so many citizens that it keeps it a state secret but I don't see any of the teabagging patriots and lovers of freedom and rights saying a word about it. Teabaggers as worshippers of sociopaths, makes perfect sense to me. It sort of explains the insanity of protesting health care reform even while the sociopathic CEOs of the health care industry raise rates 39% in one year. These guys are literally heros to the teabaggers. Those folks need to be recognized as the pathetically disturbed folks they are.

Where do the greedy CEOs have the manufactured goods made these days and why???
#38 | POSTED BY DANNI

For the simple reason that anti-capitalists like you turned America into hostile business environment. You'll be bitching about business all the way to the bottom of this collapse.

For the simple reason that anti-capitalists like you turned America into hostile business environment. You'll be bitching about business all the way to the bottom of this collapse.

#39 | Posted by Ray

We only need to look at the current healthcare debate as Exhibit A.

Health insurance providers have a profit-margin that is below 3% yet, according to the so-called progressives, they are the scum of the earth.

The recipient class and the public sector are completely funded by the private sector. Per capita, the recipients and the beaurocrats are growing. If the current trajectory continues, an implosion is imminent.

Where do the greedy CEOs have the manufactured goods made these days and why???

As if 'progressives' and politicians aren't greedy.

Give me a break.

Jeff

What happened to the term "liberal"? Has the word become such a pejorative that the socialists went back to their 19th century cosmetic label? I won't give them that courtesy.

What happened to the term "liberal"

Excellent question, Ray.

I always laugh when BBob ardently states that this country was founded upon liberal ideals. It was, but in the classic liberalism-sense. Today, the word means something completely different. The founders were FAR closer in views and beliefs to modern-day conservatives and libertarians than modern-day 'liberals'.

"Health insurance providers have a profit-margin that is below 3% yet, according to the so-called progressives, they are the scum of the earth."

Your naivite is charming Jeff but sorry to burst your bubble anyone who ever owned a business can tell you it is easy to appear to have a low profit, especially when they are busy buying other companies.

"UnitedHealth Group offers a broad spectrum of products and services through seven operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice, Uniprise, OptumHealth, Ingenix, and Prescription Solutions. Through its family of subsidiaries and divisions, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70 million individuals nationwide. In 2008, the company posted a net income of $3 billion.[3]"

"The founders were FAR closer in views and beliefs to modern-day conservatives and libertarians than modern-day 'liberals'."

Considering there were many slave holders you might have a point but it is very likely that their views would have evolved right along with the rest of us and they would still be interested in improving conditions form Americans. There is absolutely no reason to believe they would have become conservatives like the people they rebelled against and it is impossible to believe they would have today been in favor of huge insurance companies monopolizing the health care industry. I think United Health Care would be synonymous with the The Great East India Tea Company of yesterday.

Your naivite is charming Jeff but sorry to burst your bubble anyone who ever owned a business can tell you it is easy to appear to have a low profit, especially when they are busy buying other companies.

You didn't explain how the health insurance industry is uniquely poised to 'appear to have a low profit' relative to other industries.

Talk about naive! Look in the mirror.

"...they would still be interested in improving conditions form Americans." - DANNI

I would tend to agree with you that that would be a goal. However, and it's a major difference here... would they have looked to an ever-growing government as the solution? If you think so, how do you support that view?

but it is very likely that their views would have evolved right along with the rest of us

Purely speculative. I base my comments on what they actually did and advocated along with the system of government they instituted; not based on how their views might have evolved over decades and centuries.

'Progressive' programs like the New Deal were flagrantly unconstitutional sans an ammendment or 3. They NEVER would have supported the 'process' that so-called progressives used to implement their agenda.

how do you support that view?

She can't. The sysemt of government that they set up was the complete antithesis to the progressive agenda.

"For the simple reason that anti-capitalists like you turned America into hostile business environment."

That's just stupid Ray, America is not a hostile environment for business and the health insurers are proof of that. It is a good environment for business it just is not as good an environment for the laissez faire capitalists which we decided were destructive to our nation but that dictatorships like China have decided are welcome because of their need for developement. So, in the end, Ayn Rand and her amoral followers are even willing to provide huge wealth to their avowed enemy in the name of profit. Profit gained that way has a way of coming back and biting us in the ass and China is busy using the wealth they are gaining because of our trade imbalance to build a military which will soon rival our own. They are building that military to fight Taiwan, trust me on that.
It is not surprising that Hitler had many friends on the right because of his seeming economic miracle in Germany and that our corporate CEOs have many friends today in China for the very same reason.
Those friends of Hitler should have been called out as traitors and so should our corporate CEOs today.

"You didn't explain how the health insurance industry is uniquely poised to 'appear to have a low profit' relative to other industries."

You're plenty smart enough to figure that out, don't play dumb with me Jeff.

"Danni is obviously delusional."

She's just a couple of clowns short of a circus, that's all.

"George Soros has made billions in returns off investments in companies in China and SE Asia that directly benefits from cheap labor and lack of environmental protection."

But that's OK because he supports democrats.

"The DNC and aligned organizations such as the Center for American Progress and the Appollo Project have taken millions from George Soros."

But that's OK because they're democrats.

"As a matter of fact Henry Reid thanked the Appollo Project on the Senate floor for helping write the Stimulus package."

But that's OK because they're democrats.

"Danni is a hypocrite for criticizing these "greedy CEOs" and then openly supporting the DNC that benefits from these greedy CEOs."

But that's OK because she's a democrat.

"If you think so, how do you support that view?"

WE had slow but continual growth of government for the first decades of the nation and then huge growth under Lincoln and he is regarded as one of our best presidents. It grew considerably again under Roosevelt, also regarded as a great president and I reallize righties will pretend differently about Roosevelt but they sure as hell wouldn't willingly give up their middle class life style which only became possible for because of his presidency.
It is ironic that we even argue this stuff on the internet which would not even exist in Ayn Rand's small government utopia.

52 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-28 10:20 AM

Way to answer the question.

#51 | Posted by danni

Without profit companies cease to exist.

Look at General Motors for proof. When companies dry up workers lose jobs.

The Founding Fathers were worm food by the time Lincoln came around.

What evidence is there that the Founders looked to an ever-increasing federal government control/involvement in order to create a better society? I just don't see it, given my limited knowledge of history. Do you have other resources that would refute that?

To the contrary, the Founders explicitly sought to LIMIT the federal reach, leaving much of the legislative power at the state level.

#54 | Posted by danni

Public workers and government entitlements are completely funded by the private sector.

A point is eventually reached where the ratio of government workers and entitlement recipients relative to the number of private sector producers becomes unsustainable. That's precisely what has happened in Greece with much of the rest of Europe very close behind and the US not too far behind them.

Check out my userblog - I linked an article that explains this in more detail.

In the long-term, the massive growth of government that you advocate is a recipe for economic implosion.

"Danni is a hypocrite for criticizing these "greedy CEOs" and then openly supporting the DNC that benefits from these greedy CEOs."

I support the Democratic party but I disagree with the DNC all the time. It is pretty obvious that the DNC is a bunch of corporate lackeys and I say all the time we need to get rid of Emanuel. However, our system is so focused on money that it is almost hard to fault them because until the system is changed to get the money out they are almost forced to accept corporate donations.
It is almost ridiculous that we even pretend to expect honest representation with their need to fund raise continuously. I think we should either fundamentally change the system or quit bitching about it or pretending either party is more or less dependent on corporate money. Isn't it obvious that the reason single payer wasn't even on the table in the first place was just that.

"The Founding Fathers were worm food by the time Lincoln came around.

What evidence is there that the Founders looked to an ever-increasing federal government control/involvement in order to create a better society? I just don't see it, given my limited knowledge of history. Do you have other resources that would refute that?

To the contrary, the Founders explicitly sought to LIMIT the federal reach, leaving much of the legislative power at the state level.

#57 | Posted by OohRah"

See Shay's Rebellion. You have to pay wars with tax increases and you need a standing army to keep the people in line. The "Founding Fathers" screwed their people in the same manner as the British but also used the threat of revoking voting rights from Revolutionary Veterans as a motivating factor for tax collection.

Isn't it obvious that the reason single payer wasn't even on the table in the first place was just that.

No. Single-payer wasn't on the table because the public was strongly opposed to it.

The 'public option' died due to public backlash - yes, those townhall meetings in August did actually happen.

"No shit Sherlock! Socialism attracts sociopaths because it glorifies power, the power to oppress individual liberty and the power to confiscate personal property.

#33 | Posted by Ray"

Dipshit see my post above on Shays Rebellion. The US was founded on forced oppression. "Freedom" is simply a motivational slogan for fools. A democracy is no more free than a socialist republic when you really get down to it. Everything is constrained by the psychology of humans. People like you just try to pretend there is easy solution to a perpetual problem.

JEFFJ

You know very well a 'public option' was popular with the public. The LOWEST approval was 57%. Highest? Close to 80%.

The GOP have been disingenuous about health care and told a bazillion lies. Why? A 'defeat' to hand to a Democrat. That's it.

You know very well a 'public option' was popular with the public.

No, it wasn't. The House bill was extremely unpopular. The public option died because blue-dogs couldn't stomach it, and more importantly, their constituents couldn't stomach it.

The GOP have been disingenuous about health care and told a bazillion lies

The GOP sucks but they have told far fewer lies than the DNC when it comes to this healthcare debate.

JEFF

A 'public option' never polled below 57% support. Highest was close to 80%. You protestations to the contrary don't match facts.

Dipshit see my post above on Shays Rebellion. The US was founded on forced oppression. "Freedom" is simply a motivational slogan for fools. A democracy is no more free than a socialist republic when you really get down to it. Everything is constrained by the psychology of humans.
#62 | POSTED BY FURIO

I agree.

People like you just try to pretend there is easy solution to a perpetual problem.

I never claimed, nor am I sure there is a solution to a problem that has festered for at least as long as written history.

That doesn't mean I should give up being free in my personal life as much as practically possible. Nor does it mean I should give up preaching the ideals of liberty and disparaging its enemies.

AU,

The house bill, which had a public option, was well below 50%.

Ah, the main thing I'm interested in today is a hockey match anyway. If the U.S. wins border crossings will be testy LOL

The public doesn't want government to take over the healthcare system. I would have thought the death of Hillarycare would have made that clear.

Well, the GOP told everyone grandma would go in front of death panels. Any honest person couldn't argue the GOP didn't put one lie after another like 'death panels' and 'government takeover of healthcare', which was a complete lie since we're talking about a pool of private insurance companies in the government employee pool.

There's another one: Medicare will be CUT!!

Bullshit. It's about reining in abuse by Medicare Advantage providers - who provide nothing but raking in more than they were supposed to.

"I never claimed, nor am I sure there is a solution to a problem that has festered for at least as long as written history.

That doesn't mean I should give up being free in my personal life as much as practically possible. Nor does it mean I should give up preaching the ideals of liberty and disparaging its enemies.

#66 | Posted by Ray "

No you do Ray. You go on and on about gold being the panacea to all the world's financial problems. Now it's socialism is about sociopaths.

Anyway, predictions on the hockey game?

"The public doesn't want government to take over the healthcare system. I would have thought the death of Hillarycare would have made that clear.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-02-28 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag: "

Then give up your granny's medicare, bitch.

The ultimate goal for Obama and the DNC was single-payer and they had the majorities in congress necessary to get it through. The problem is the public - they don't want it or anything close to it. So, the Dems started as high as they felt they could and everything that has transpired since has been a series of small concessions trying to reach a point where they can pass something as leftist as possible without massive public backlash. Mercifully, a small handful of Dems not only care about their own re-election prospects, but also give at least a modicum of care toward the will of their constituents.

I am not on medicare, furryhole.

Medicare is going bankrupt.

Eligibility age needs to be rolled-back.

I could actually kinda support the Dems cutting Medicare spending if the money was actually being used to bolster the program's solvency.

Well, the GOP told everyone grandma would go in front of death panels. Any honest person couldn't argue the GOP didn't put one lie after another like 'death panels' and 'government takeover of healthcare',

A public option (which was very much on the table at the time of the death panel predictions) not only would have quickly morphed into single-payer, but it would have also resulted in, you guessed it, death-panels.

As for the hockey game...I think Canada wins 4-2.

I think the one belief of the founding fathers that relates to health care or anything else is that if the people of a nation feel that their system treats them unjustly they are within their rights to try and change that system. The concept of women's equality with men was probably not seriously considered by the founding fathers but I am sure they would have approved of them had they been modern men as they were for their own time.
Well, the idea that health care is also a right it becoming accepted in our time and I believe that as they were the avante garde of their time they would probably also be now. I sure as hell couldn't picture Ben Franklin at a tea party whining about tax increases when taxes have actually decreased nor screaming against health care reform while enjoying the benefits of Medicare. The one thing we inherited from those founding fathers was the right to change things like they did.

"As for the hockey game...I think Canada wins 4-2."

Didn't the US already sort of kick their butts???

DANNI

Yes, but this is the final. I don't quite get how you lose and make it to the finals.

A public option (which was very much on the table at the time of the death panel predictions) not only would have quickly morphed into single-payer, but it would have also resulted in, you guessed it, death-panels.

Conjecture, speculation, nonsense - courtesy of the GOP talking heads.

Willy,

You've been tased too many times, bro

Didn't the US already sort of kick their butts???

Yes.

Conjecture, speculation, nonsense - courtesy of the GOP talking heads.

#85 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

I laid out my reasoning on more than one occasion for my claim, but it was during your self-imposed exile.

I have to move on for the day - more important things beckon.

If I can find the time I'll shoot you an email with my reasoning.

Have a great day!

Go US hockey!

Hmmmm...so everyone who admired Tiger Woods is a sex addict....

"Yes, but this is the final. I don't quite get how you lose and make it to the finals."

That is sort of confusing to me too.

There are 535 opinions in Congress. So?

"
Medicare is going bankrupt.

Eligibility age needs to be rolled-back."

I tried to respond to this before Jeff left but my puter locked up and I had to reboot. Anyway, I just think that he should consider that health insurance for people between 65 and 70 would be so expensive that most people couldn't afford it. Any major illness would be automaitic bankruptcy. Inheritances would evaporate including family businesses. No one is going to invest money needed for Mom's chemo when there is no insurance. The consequences of raising the age to qualify for Medicare would be absolutely devastating to the majority of those between 65 and whatever year you set the new qualification age.
One more episode of "Talking Points Kill People".
Brought to you by Danni and her unbrainwashed mind.
Like I always say, "a mind is a terrible thing to brainwash."

"THe Public Option is will worth going to war over"

I'm pretty sure I agrew with you.

agree with you.

Objectivism is extreme.

#10 | Posted by nullifidian

I guess its extreme to use your mind instead of your emotions to run your life.

"I guess its extreme to use your mind instead of your emotions to run your life."

Like Greenspan did, only thing is at least he later admitted he was full of shit. When do you have your moment of clarity Sniper??

Like Greenspan did, only thing is at least he later admitted he was full of shit. When do you have your moment of clarity Sniper??

#100 | Posted by danni

Your first clue that he was full of shit should have been that he was the head of the Federal Reserve bank.

"Your first clue that he was full of shit should have been that he was the head of the Federal Reserve bank."

Why, Paul Volker isn't full of shit?

It would be better if Obama came out and said "You know, before we do this HealthCare thing, we need to straighten out our own house so people believe we can do it."

And then get to reducing waste, fraud and in general making things work at least as well as they do in the private sector.

PROVE that the Government can actually run WELL and then maybe we'll believe it can run something NEW.

Until then....

Why, Paul Volker isn't full of shit?

#102 | Posted by danni

He has been involved with and appointed by politicians. Why should you think he is any different? He may have been OK in his early life butttttttttt.

One reason why most countries don't find the time to embrace her thinking is that Ayn Rand ...

#1 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2010-02-26 04:56 PM

"Most"? Is there another society on the planet where this whackjob would be taken seriously by more than a handful of fringe weirdos?

Actually, how much time do "other countries" find to embrace any American (immigrant or not) philosophies? I mean the American Deities like Jefferson, Madison and Co.

""Most"? Is there another society on the planet where this whackjob would be taken seriously by more than a handful of fringe weirdos?"

Not that I know of.

""Most"? Is there another society on the planet where this whackjob would be taken seriously by more than a handful of fringe weirdos?"
Not that I know of.
#106 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Duh! Karl Marx's philosophy is the underlying cause for the destruction of billions of people. A sociopathic wackjob like Nulli wouldn't see it.

No you do Ray. You go on and on about gold being the panacea to all the world's financial problems. Now it's socialism is about sociopaths.
#72 | POSTED BY FURIO

You misread me again, asshole!

#72 | POSTED BY FURIO

You misread me again, asshole!

#108 | Posted by Ray

Lighten up, Francis.

I'll try to say it nicer.

In the past hundred years, the dollar has lost 98% of its value against gold. One would have to be a fool to trust that the sociopaths in Washington won't go all the way. They don't give a shit if they destroy this country.

Ayn Rand saw it coming.

"I'm pretty sure, Norway is living off of its North Sea oil deposits."

Iirc, it accounts for either 30% of GDP or 30% of state revenues. Most countries don't have that sort of luxury.

"That's bullshit. That wasn't Marx's vision of socialism, nor of the utopian socialists, the social-democrats, or the libertarians AKA anarchists.

Let's examine Marx's "vision" for a second. A world in which no one would ever want for anything. A world were dedicated laborers worked tirelessly to supply the wants and needs of society. A world where Marx (or men like him) replaced the gods as the objects of devotion for all of society. The problem with Marx's "vision" is that any half-wit would have recognized that it was completely unachievable, even without having to go through all the pain and misery of trying to prove it.

But Marx did correctly understand that his system, like all others, would rely on the needs of society being met by a relatively small number of people, and that coercion would be necessary to convince them to supply those needs without respect to remuneration. Ultimately, he felt that after a sufficient time, people would forget that wages had once been a function of productivity...of actual value. Rather than government mandate.

"Any opportunist can use an ideology to gain and maintain political power, or maybe to rip off the public. Your laissez-fantasyland ideology for example, was used to deregulate the financial sector and helped bring out the last economic crisis."

Actually, the last economic crisis was created by a corporatist collusion of leftist politicians and reckless investors. I guess you must have forgotten Barney Frank's role in the housing bubble...demanding that Fannie and Freddie offer credit to the otherwise un-creditworthy? In fact, the Bush administration had attempted to increase regulation on those organizations, but was severely castigated by the left for making home ownership harder for the poor.

"In the past hundred years, the dollar has lost 98% of its value against gold."

You've said that a thousand times and it's just as meaningless now as the first time. Who cares? If the standard of living had diminished by 98% you would have a point.

"I guess you must have forgotten Barney Frank's role in the housing bubble"

You mean when he was in the minority party, and had all the power of a fart in a windstorm?

"...demanding that Fannie and Freddie offer credit to the otherwise un-creditworthy?"

Then explain to us while some banks got involved in the sub-prime mess, while others stayed away like it was the plague? I mean, if banks were feeling "pressure", why did only some banks start ignoring risk?

"In 2008, the company posted a net income of $3 billion"

It was $2.977 billion. On sales of $81.186 billion. For a profit margin of 3.6%. You are kind of making Jeff's point for him. He should thank you.

"WE had slow but continual growth of government for the first decades of the nation and then huge growth under Lincoln and he is regarded as one of our best presidents. It grew considerably again under Roosevelt, also regarded as a great president and I reallize righties will pretend differently about Roosevelt but they sure as hell wouldn't willingly give up their middle class life style which only became possible for because of his presidency."

Growth was 5.9% Last Quarter. Economists agree almost universally that many aspects of the New Deal actually prolonged the great depression. Finally, the halcyon days of the 1950,s, where industrial labor earned record wages, was possible only because the US was the only functioning industrial economy left on the earth. If you wanted something made in a factory, it was going to come from the US. That gave producers enormous pricing power, and allowed unions to demand much higher wages. As those economies redeveloped as global competitors, pricing power decreased, and so did wages.

The key to going back to those "good ol' days" is to once again destroy the industrial capabilities of our competition. Nuke em. It's a small price to pay so that the proletariat can earn high wages.

You've said that a thousand times and it's just as meaningless now as the first time. Who cares? If the standard of living had diminished by 98% you would have a point.

Of course you don't see anything unusual. Events on this scale take years to evolve. At minimum, you can't say fundamentals have improved since I first warned about it. You should have studied Mises instead of Marx.

"You mean when he was in the minority party, and had all the power of a fart in a windstorm?"

Yes. When he stood up in front of congress and berated Bush for trying to hurt the poor. Now in all fairness, Bush should have told the little shit to fuck off. But Bush was also spending money like a shitfaced sailor, and may have figured that pissing off the finance committee would have been a bad move. the point is, even if Bush hadn't been in office, it wouldn't have made any difference. Barney Frank was a dem, and almost certainly would have gotten far more support had the dems been in a better position of power.

I'm curious, do you think that if Gore had been elected in 2000 or Kerry in 2004, the outcome would have been any different. Frank didn't support lax credit because it was good for the economy, he did so because of his ideological commitments. Something that all too many democrats share.

"Then explain to us while some banks got involved in the sub-prime mess, while others stayed away like it was the plague? I mean, if banks were feeling "pressure", why did only some banks start ignoring risk?"

When the government is encouraging, or in some cases demanding that lenders relax their standards, it can be difficult to say no. After all, let's consider the early 2000s, when real estate investors were making money hand over fist. So basically, you had the government encouraging banks to do something that was marketed as being very lucrative and very risk free. Obviously that wasn't the case. Furthermore, had any investment manager told his clients in 2001 to avoid anything related to real estate, he would have been replaced...for the exact reasons I just described.

Bawney Fwank Bawney Fwank! Squawk Squawk!

(you can pull this shit off the same list all FauxNews watchers learn. Bush and the deregulating GOP will be taken out of history books wherever possible)

"deregulating GOP will be taken out of history books wherever possible" - AU

LOL read your books, I will watch the video and see the facts...

"Barney Frank was a dem, and almost certainly would have gotten far more support had the dems been in a better position of power. "

So the fuck what? Republicans were in power, and Barney Frank couldn't write a damn thing which would have been passed by the Republicans and signed into law by the Bush.

"I'm curious, do you think that if Gore had been elected in 2000 or Kerry in 2004, the outcome would have been any different."

Of course. We wouldn't have slashed taxes by 60% on the wealthiest, or invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

"it can be difficult to say no."

Again, so the fuck what? Banks made the final decision, and it became all about profits and market share. Banks have been able to lend to folks who couldn't pay back for longer than any of us have been alive. Only recently did they decide to ignore all the lessons they learned in risk management classes. And again, had ALL banks leapt into this sub-prime mess, you might have a point. The fact some could see this was a disaster waiting to happen, suggests it was less about outside pressure and more about inside greed. And it's hard to argue otherwise when you factor in junk loans re-rated much higher than they deserved.

"encouraging banks to do something that was marketed as being very lucrative and very risk free. Obviously that wasn't the case. "

But I knew that the first time I saw a 125% LTV, or a reset loan. Why didn't the guys who went to business school know the same? Oh, wait...they did...they just chose quick money over big-picture common sense.

"I will watch the video and see the facts..."

Too funny. Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, but the Party of Responsibility can't stand to be held responsible for anything. It was all the nasty Dems fault, despite the fact the shapeless Dems haven't written and passed a financial bill in over a decade and a half.

Using that "logic", if Obama bombs Iran, it's all John McCain's fault.

"So the fuck what? Republicans were in power, and Barney Frank couldn't write a damn thing which would have been passed by the Republicans and signed into law by the Bush."

I guess I'm not really clear on your position, so please enlighten me. The bottom line is that the housing crisis resulted from credit being extended to people it probably shouldn't have. Bush was the president, so that makes him ultimately responsible. Do you both agree on these?

Now come the ideological questions, which is where we are likely to part ways. We know that Bush attempted to curb the lax lending practices but was unable to do so. SO the question is would you have supported such a measure, or would you have sided with the Frank camp, which held that risky loans were necessary in encouraging home ownership for the poor?

Oh, and BTW, the camp in which Frank represents was able to defeat Bush's attempt to regulate Fannie and Freddie, which kind of makes your first statement, um, untrue.

"Of course. We wouldn't have slashed taxes by 60% on the wealthiest, or invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11."

Really? You do know that a plan to invade Iraq had been in places since 1992. There was a lot of speculation that Clinton would have invaded in 1998 had it not been for the Lewinsky affair.

But that really wasn't the point of the question. Do you think that a dem controlled government would have worked harder to curb the lax lending practices, because I don't. Is there something you see that suggests that the housing crisis would not have occurred had Kerry been in the white house? Lemme know because I am definitely not seeing it.

The bottom line is that's it's intellectually dishonest to criticize tha financial industry without at the same time doing the same to Frank and Dodd. And Bush.

"Why didn't the guys who went to business school know the same?"

Interest rates reflect several elements. One is risk. If you a high risk borrower, expect to pay more money in interest. The guys holding the credit cards charging 30% interest have demonstrated a higher likelyhood of default, so it makes sense for the lenders to get as much money as possible as early as possible, in case they do default. At the same time, lenders will lower rates for those folks that have demonstrated the responsible use of credit, in order to entice them into using it more often.

But that's just the MBA in me talking. Mostly common sense stuff.

"Bush was the president, so that makes him ultimately responsible. Do you both agree on these?"

I don't. Bush wasn't the one forcing these greedy fucks to loan to people they knew couldn't pay back. It was the greedy fucks' fault.

"We know that Bush attempted to curb the lax lending practices but was unable to do so."

No, we don't. I don't have it on this computer, but on my desktop I have a link showing where Bush blocked tighter restrictions.

"the Frank camp, which held that risky loans were necessary in encouraging home ownership for the poor? "

If you can show ALL banks participated, you'd have a point. You can't.

"The bottom line is that's it's intellectually dishonest to criticize tha financial industry without at the same time doing the same to Frank and Dodd."

I never said that. I said blaming Frank, when the Republicans held all the reigns, is bullshit. Again, the Dems haven't written and passed a financial bill in nearly 20 years.

"You do know that a plan to invade Iraq had been in places since 1992"

So the fuck what? I'm sure "plans" exist today to invade Canada. The only thing that matters is the guy who pulled the trigger. There's a difference between rhetoric and invasion, between planning and execution.

"But that's just the MBA in me talking. Mostly common sense stuff."

Okay. Using your best MBA logic, would you have loaned your money to these deadbeats, at 125% LTVs, or reset loans which pretended their income would go up 20% over two years? How about liars' loans, interest-only loans, or negative amortization loans...AOK out of your pocket?

Really? You do know that a plan to invade Iraq had been in places since 1992.

We've had plans to invade China and Russia for 60 years too, yet we haven't.

Please explain why the housing meltdown didn't happen during the 40 years straight Dems controlled Congress.

Barney Frank makes a nice talking point for the right, but it's ridiculous to point the finger at him. Bush and the GOP kissed regulation bye bye at every turn and encouraged an 'ownership society' where mortgage companies sprang up like dandelions - with no regulation, no oversight - all during a time when the GOP had the whole enchilada.

Sorry, the usual right wing finger pointing is merely a distraction tactic. We didn't have these problems until they took control of government lock, stock, and barrel.

"I don't. Bush wasn't the one forcing these greedy fucks to loan to people they knew couldn't pay back. It was the greedy fucks' fault."

Are you denying that the government encouraged or demanded it via Fannie and Freddie, along side programs like the Community reinvestment act?

"No, we don't. I don't have it on this computer, but on my desktop I have a link showing where Bush blocked tighter restrictions."

Hmm. Interesting...check this out:

"A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats."

"These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said."

MADBOMBER

Are you saying the Democrats filibustered in the Senate in 2003? Link please? Not some lone dude blog.

If you recall, the GOP had both chambers of Congress and the WH in 2003 and pretty much did whatever they wanted to. They passed the 2 tax cuts and several other deficit creating measures via reconciliation.

"Are you denying that the government encouraged or demanded it via Fannie and Freddie, along side programs like the Community reinvestment act?"

The CRA? Are you for real? Something that was passed in, what, 1977 didn't have catastrophic effects for 30 years??? If it were the CRA, why didn't we have massive defaults in the 80s? Or the 90s? Or after 9/11? Try again. From Wiki:
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business in.[3] [ ... ] The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution."

DANFORTH

You're going to make someone's head explode if you keep posting simple facts that destroy right wing memes.

I see the righties were trying their best to rewrite history here last night, I also see MADBOMBER showed himself to be a repeater of talking points which didn't cut it in an argument with folks who have actual facts.

Barnie Frank indeed, pathetic.

Where was he factually wrong, Danni?

Let's not forget that Anita Dunn, Obama's White House Communications Director, admired that wonderful mass murderer Mao.

"Where was he factually wrong, Danni?"

"Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal."

Explain to me how Democrats killed ANY proposal as the minority on every committee. Righties love to quote Barnie Frank who probably did say things which were irresponsible at the time but he did not hold any power to either prevent or to cause any change.

Jeff, also from yesterday:

Medicare is going bankrupt.

Eligibility age needs to be rolled-back."

I tried to respond to this before Jeff left but my puter locked up and I had to reboot. Anyway, I just think that he should consider that health insurance for people between 65 and 70 would be so expensive that most people couldn't afford it. Any major illness would be automaitic bankruptcy. Inheritances would evaporate including family businesses. No one is going to invest money needed for Mom's chemo when there is no insurance. The consequences of raising the age to qualify for Medicare would be absolutely devastating to the majority of those between 65 and whatever year you set the new qualification age.
One more episode of "Talking Points Kill People".
Brought to you by Danni and her unbrainwashed mind.
Like I always say, "a mind is a terrible thing to brainwash."

Danni,

#132 | Posted by danni

You raise an extremely valid point regarding the inability to afford insurance for those in the 65-70 range.

Think about this though - if those wou couldn't afford it on their own continued to work until the age of 70 - how many would then find it affordable?

I've said it before - we are on an unsustainable trajectory. The ratio of producers relative to recipients and public workers is rapidly approaching a tipping-point. While it's not the ONLY solution, staggering the boomer entitlement-grab is absolutely critical to the future of this country.

"Think about this though - if those wou couldn't afford it on their own continued to work until the age of 70 - how many would then find it affordable?"

Great, just make the employer pay for it and keep more jobs filled with older folks during a time of extreme unemployment. That way you can hurt that business and at the same time keep more young folks unemployed and not paying taxes. I think it is sort of ridiculous to claim that our entitlements are growing unmanageable during an era with the lowest tax rate in fifty years and wealth concentrating at an alarming rate with the top 3%. Ever think that you may need to rethink your ideological straight jacket that prevents a second look at the economy we had before REagan and his massive tax cuts???

Great, just make the employer pay for it and keep more jobs filled with older folks during a time of extreme unemployment.

You're thinking WAY short-term.

We have a huge bulge in our population that, when they are eligible, will begin drawing benefits which will result in an impossible ratio of payees to recipients. The point is to slow and stagger the recipients all while trying to maintain a plausible ratio of payees to recipients.

Jesus.

I linked an article about Greece just yesterday - give it a read.

Ever think that you may need to rethink your ideological straight jacket

You have no business calling ANYONE an idealogue as a perjorative - you are FAR more ideologically-bound than many with whom you disagree.

What you don't seem to understand Jeff is that we purposely raised SS taxes back in 1983 to create a trust fund which will pay the benefits for the boomer generation. The problem isn't with SS, it's with the general revenue fund which doesn't take in enough tax dollars to pay our government's expenses and so they keep borrowing from SS. If we paid back SS the money borrowed we would have no huge problem but there in lies the rub....we would have to increase the taxes on the wealthy to ever pay back SS. In essence all these tax cuts passed by the Republicans have robbed SS and now those same Republicans are unwilling to pay it back with appropriate taxes. You know that 2.5 trillion Reagan borrowed way back in the 80's???? That money was partially our SS trust fund.

"You have no business calling ANYONE an idealogue as a perjorative"

I don't call you and ideologue as a perjorative but as an accurate description of you.

I think it is sort of ridiculous to claim that our entitlements are growing unmanageable during an era with the lowest tax rate in fifty years and wealth concentrating at an alarming rate with the top 3%. Ever think that you may need to rethink your ideological straight jacket that prevents a second look at the economy we had before REagan and his massive tax cuts???

#134 | Posted by danni

Once again dear, during the Reagan tax cuts income to the US treasury increased by 52%. The sad part of the story was expendurtures increased by 57% ot make up for Carters huge decreases in national defense.

You keep thinking the answer to all our problems is increase taxes when the real solution is decrease spending. Over half of the federal budget is entitlements which need to decrease. Do you balance your wild spending by getting a large raise every year? Only problem is, raising taxes isn't the answer. Look at NYC or Calif. People are bailing out. Look at the large companies that have left the US.

Obama Admires Terrorists.

This headline would be a lot closer to the truth. One of Obama's closest advisers bombed the Pentagon.

No conjecture. Just a simple fact.

Danni,

I understand it perfectly well. If you recall, it was the Clinton administration that counted SS revenues as part of the treasury hence the 'surplus'.

Look, SS is far less problematic than Medicare. Medicare is on a horrific trajectory and they already have a reimbursement-rate (mandated, not negotiated) that is below cost for providers. This 'wonderful' bill that Obama and the Dems are pushing includes a provision to reduce the Medicare rate by 21% - that is an absolute impossibility.

Absolute-control is the ultimate problem. However, since you love to break things down onto strict party-lines, please point to a period of total GOP control that even closely resembled the fiscal H-bomb that is the Obama and Dem-lead treasury.

"If you recall, it was the Clinton administration that counted SS revenues as part of the treasury hence the 'surplus'. "

And If you recall, it was the Bush administration that counted SS revenues as part of the treasury, yet couldn't mount a surplus in 8 years.

"This 'wonderful' bill that Obama and the Dems are pushing includes a provision to reduce the Medicare rate by 21% - that is an absolute impossibility"

And how much of that is removing the 20% rake by Medicare Advantage?

I don't call you and ideologue as a perjorative but as an accurate description of you.

Uh huh - this coming from the person who gives current politicians a complete pass in order to blame "Ray-Gun" for ALL shit that occurred within a 30-year radius of his presidency.

Look in the mirror.

"Once again dear, during the Reagan tax cuts income to the US treasury increased by 52%."

"Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up only 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which is directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. Hence, the claim that the doubling of TOTAL revenues proves the effectiveness of tax cuts is including revenues which resulted from a tax hike to prove the effectiveness of a tax cut. This seems like the height of hypocrisy.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them."

And If you recall, it was the Bush administration that counted SS revenues as part of the treasury, yet couldn't mount a surplus in 8 years.

For the nth-time I found the Bush-lead GOP fiscal policies to be absolutely abhorrent.

Obama and the DNC are quintupling-down - are you cool with that?

"Uh huh - this coming from the person who gives current politicians a complete pass in order to blame "Ray-Gun" for ALL shit that occurred within a 30-year radius of his presidency."

Jeff the fact that you still don't even recognize that it is largely Reaganomics which is destroying this country kind of brands you as an ideologue in that you actually can't even look at that proposition honestly.

"For the nth-time I found the Bush-lead GOP fiscal policies to be absolutely abhorrent."

But voted for them anyway?

"Obama and the DNC are quintupling-down - are you cool with that?"

That isn't even true and most of what is being spent is for non-discretionary spending that they have not choice about anyway.

"Obama and the DNC are quintupling-down - are you cool with that?"

Cool with your sloppy math? Not at all.

Jeff the fact that you still don't even recognize that it is largely Reaganomics which is destroying this country kind of brands you as an ideologue in that you actually can't even look at that proposition honestly

So - If I don't agree with your economic views, in lockstep, I am everything that you castigate me as such and then some. Is that about right?

But voted for them anyway?

...Because I feared that a Dem-lead majority in congress coupled with control of the executive would be 5-times worse - I was right.

That isn't even true and most of what is being spent is for non-discretionary spending that they have not choice about anyway.

Don't be an apologist - their majorities are something only seen twice a millenium.

Where is Danforth?

He blasted Bush and the GOP for being cowed by partisan Dems hurling the race-card for not reigning in Fannie and Freddie. It would be refreshing to see him hold Dems to a similar standard.

Cool with your sloppy math?

Please expound upon my sloppiness.

"Please expound upon my sloppiness."

Please show how Obama "quintupled". Don't forget to factor in the trillion-dollar TARP, the trillion dollars injected into the banking system a few days before TARP passed, the off-budget Iraq war, the inherited costs for the same, and the extra burden of having to pay interest on the Bush-Reagan-Bush debt.

Don't forget to factor in the trillion-dollar TARP, the trillion dollars injected into the banking system a few days before TARP passed

Solid point.

Let's be honest though - Obama supported TARP.

Look, given the inherited economic-collapse a deficit-budget was a given. However, what he have VASTLY exceeds what Bush and the GOP mustered in the wake of 9-11.

the inherited costs for the same, and the extra burden of having to pay interest on the Bush-Reagan-Bush debt.

Let's assess blame honestly here OK?

Reagan's initial budget had MASSIVE spending cuts to coincide with his proposed tax-cuts. During that time the Dems owned the House and a deficit-budget was the comprimise.

Clinton was pretty-bad out-of-the-gate, but a hawkish-'94 house kept him in check and we actually achieved a degree of fiscal sanity.

The Bush-lead GOP was terrible - too much power.

The Obama-lead DNC, on a purely-numerical standpoint, is worse 5-fold.

Granted, that differential comes with a lot of caveats, which is what you seemed to be getting at.

My question to you is at what point to you quit blaming the GOP 100+% and turn a remotely-critical eye toward the DNC?

At what point do they take an even modicum of responsibility for our progression in your view?

"It would be refreshing to see him hold Dems to a similar standard. "

Start paying attention. I've said more negative things than positive things about this administration, as I haven't liked most of what they've done. I didn't like Cash for Clunkers, or the Home Buyer's Credit, or the appointment of Geithner. I've hated the way this administration has screwed up on vetting their nominees, never said a single good thing about Pelosi or Reid, called for Charley Rangel to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and come out foursquare against the current health bill.

Too often around here, posters assume if you bash one party for lousy governance, you therefore must agree with the other party. For me, nothing could be further from the truth. But I'm not going to be silent while someone blames a relatively powerless Dem, and gives The Party of Irresponsibility a pass. It's ludicrous to blame the rhetoric, yet exonerate the authors.

Most stunning is when folks ignore the big picture: Bush inherited true surplus budgets (i.e., without counting SS overcollections), and despite the fact anyone with half a brain saw this economic tsunami coming, chose to loot our Treasury via slashing taxes for his "base", and a war of choice for his PNAC buddies. Three years before he left office, I began warning that Bush was setting things up for massive explosions in debt after he left office. Turns out the macroeconomist in me was right again.

"Reagan's initial budget had MASSIVE spending cuts to coincide with his proposed tax-cuts. During that time the Dems owned the House and a deficit-budget was the comprimise."

Sorry, simply not true, in fact Democrats passed virtually everything Reagan asked for. They did it reluctantly but they did it. Reagan's bigger problem came with the recession which slashed tax revenue.

-During that time the Dems owned the House and a deficit-budget was the comprimise.

Ronald Reagan never proposed a budget with less spending than what the Congress eventually passed.

That's a fact.

"Clinton was pretty-bad out-of-the-gate, but a hawkish-'94 house kept him in check and we actually achieved a degree of fiscal sanity."

Riiight. The Republicans waged a war against Clinton, 74,000,000 investigation, never before seen such absolute unbridled partisan attack on any president in history....and they are trying to do the same thing today with Obama and all these filibusters even on things they propose.

"For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before and the poverty rate had actually risen."

"My question to you is at what point to you quit blaming the GOP 100+% and turn a remotely-critical eye toward the DNC?"

Is using "DNC" instead of Democrats a new talking point??? They are not one and the same though I can sort of see why the right would try to conflate them. Funny thing too, the DNC is more conservative than most Dems.

'Obama Admires Terrorists.

This headline would be a lot closer to the truth. One of Obama's closest advisers bombed the Pentagon.

No conjecture. Just a simple fact.'

#139 | Posted by BENDOR

It is not close to the truth at all.

Which advisor? You have no name no proof just BS.

Maybe it is a simple fact for a simpleton like yourself but in fact you lie.

What does this have to do with the topic of Ayn Rand admiring killers?

If you want to educate yourself read the play she wrote THE NIGHT OF JANUARY 16th. It is a play set in a courtroom where the defendant is accused of murder.

Too often around here, posters assume if you bash one party for lousy governance, you therefore must agree with the other party. For me, nothing could be further from the truth.

I of all people should recognize this.

I called bullshit on the 9-11 'truther' crap and became labelled as a Bush apologist as a result.

Sorry for the misattribution.

"Let's be honest though - Obama supported TARP."

Then lets be really honest: had Congress been 100% Republican, TARP would've passed. There's no way Rs would have let the economy freeze up three weeks before a national election.

"Look, given the inherited economic-collapse a deficit-budget was a given."

Massive deficit budgets were predicted before the meltdown. And one of the big players was Bush's hand-picked SEC, who allowed the usual 8-1 leveraging to swell to 30-1, or in some cases, much more.

"Reagan's initial budget had MASSIVE spending cuts"

And MASSIVE increases in defense spending.

"The Obama-lead DNC, on a purely-numerical standpoint, is worse 5-fold. Granted, that differential comes with a lot of caveats, which is what you seemed to be getting at."

I guess your dictionary defines "caveats" as "ignored facts" and "partisan math".

"At what point do they take an even modicum of responsibility for our progression in your view?"

That's hilarious, seeing how The Party of Responsibility hasn't taken responsibility for a single damn thing, ever.

I'll say one thing for the Obama Presidency: a lot of people have become a lot smarter in a very short time. Folks on the right side of the aisle have all suddenly learned about the dangers of debt and taking responsibility, two things they hadn't a clue regarding until a year ago January.

Then lets be really honest: had Congress been 100% Republican, TARP would've passed. There's no way Rs would have let the economy freeze up three weeks before a national election.

Given the vote-tally, had congress been 100% Democrat, TARP would have passed.

"5 Myths About Ronald Reagan"

I'll add a sixth: Reagan was a tax-cutter.

Reagan's tax codes included putting a 7.5% (of AGI) floor on the deductibility of medical expenses, a 2% floor on employee expenses*, and cutting the deductibility of business meals in half. Those three changes have cost more taxpayers more money than anything else I've seen.

*a direct shot at Unions, and the deductibility of Union dues.

"Given the vote-tally, had congress been 100% Democrat, TARP would have passed. "

What choice were any of them given? Especially when Paulson & Bush had known for months. But look again: while the R's voted against it, the margin was relatively small. 91 Rs voted for it in the house, despite Rush's claim that number was zero.

#7 would be the myth that Reagan had lead credits over Bonzo in their movies.... no way!

Everyone knew who had the star power and who was the extremely white guy side kick.

"Massive deficit budgets were predicted before the meltdown."

Not being an accountant I probably figure things out for myself in a different way than one who is. What I saw back in about 2004 or 5, maybe earlier but I wasn't quite so sure then, was that people's incomes were not large enough to pay the mortgage payments on their houses if and when real interest was charged on the loan. People were getting these variable rate loans at ridiculously low interest and I realized at the time that no bank could make money that way and when the interest rose, so that the bank would make money, these people were going to default on their loans. Just that one thing along convinced me that the entire economy was based on nonsensical accounting tricks to make it appear to be sound and help Bush and the Republicans get reelected in 2004. If the truth had been known then by the majority of Americans neither would have been returned to office.

"For the nth-time I found the Bush-lead GOP fiscal policies to be absolutely abhorrent."

But voted for them anyway?

#146 | Posted by danni

Because the other option was even worse. Just take a look at little o's spending if you think Bush was bad.

-Just take a look at little o's spending if you think Bush was bad.

Yes, Obama should have cut back ebil gubmint spending and sent us spiralling down the toilet of another real Great Depression.

Cleaning up after Bush failures with spending is at least three things.... extremely expensive, Keynesian economics 101, and would have been done no matter who was elected Pres.

Atlas Shrugged.......squatted, grunted.....and took a shit all over Ayn.

in order to understand what a bunch of fuckers the people putting out this trash are ..all you need to read is this part

The loudest of all the Republicans, right-wing attack-dog pundits and the Teabagger mobs fighting to kill health care reform and eviscerate "entitlement programs" increasingly hold up Ayn Rand as their guru. Sales of her books have soared in the past couple of years; one poll ranked "Atlas Shrugged" as the second most influential book of the 20th century, after The Bible.

and then you know this source is good for the bottom of your birdcage, not as a source for news.

You know that 2.5 trillion Reagan borrowed way back in the 80's???? That money was partially our SS trust fund.

#136 | Posted by danni

You are a little late on your shot dan. The SS fund was raided in the 60s by LBJ to pay for HIS guns and butter.

"The SS fund was raided in the 60s by LBJ to pay for HIS guns and butter."

He may have been first but he certainly wasn't the last and certainly not the worst offender. He left close to 350B in debt, that skyrocketed to 2 Trillion 600 Billion by the time Reagan left office. If only Reagan, Bush and Bush could have been as responsible as Johnson.

"There have been many reports of sensible bankers warning their CEOs, and they were told to STFU and enjoy the party. In the meantime, other bankers saw what I saw the first time I ever watched a 125% LTV ad."

Agreed. a 1999 article in the New York Times predicted that this could happen. And I specifically mentioned earlier that any banker who, in 2002 had advised his clients to avoid real estate based investments would have very likely been replaced. because so many people were making money doing something that was actively being encouraged by the federal government.

"True, but it's called loan approval, and the process is secretive, because the bankers want it that way."

Uh, no. You agree to the terms up front. You sign a piece of paper stating that you understand the terms. So does the lender. There is nothing secret about it, or at least there never has been in any loan I have ever taken. I once got screwed on a loan. When I went back and re-read the contract, I realized that they had included language that I had not agreed to, would not have agreed to at the time. Of course none of that matters because I signed a contract stating that I had read and understood the terms.

"Regular folks lost homes, and any equity in them, and lenders got bailouts and record bonuses."

The people who lost their homes were the people who couldn't pay for them...people who had no business being extended loans in the first place. And that's the root of the whole goddamn problem right there.

You are sounding more and more like one of those that thinks home ownership is a right that should be afforded without regard to ability to pay. In other words, like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Is that what you believe?

"Riiiiiiight. And once again The Party of Responsibility accepts no responsibility."

I think you would find that the vast majority of fiscal conservatives were disgusted by Bush's spending practices, as were many on the left. of course now that the left are actively in control, their unprecedented spending is completely justified. And those same fiscal conservatives who complained about Bush are now just being partisan or racist or reactionary. It's Bullshit. Obama's fiscal plans are far more threatening than Bush's every were. He's quadrupled government spending, and for what?

"Explain to me how Democrats killed ANY proposal as the minority on every committee. Righties love to quote Barnie Frank who probably did say things which were irresponsible at the time but he did not hold any power to either prevent or to cause any change."

At the time, Frank was the ranking democrat on the Financial Services Committe. And you call him powerless.

"Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing."

It wasn't always the repubs that were known as
the party of "no."

"Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once."

"Ever think that you may need to rethink your ideological straight jacket that prevents a second look at the economy we had before REagan and his massive tax cuts???"

It was an era of incredibly low entrepreneurial activity. The reason for the increasing disparity in wealth is that government has allowed more people to keep the remuneration society has given them in return for the goods and services they provided. And it's not like if the Reagan tax cuts hadn't taken place more of this wealth would have found its way into the hands of the poor. It wouldn't have been created in the first place. There would have been no reason for anyone to put forth the effort? Why should I make the emotional investment in something when I know that I really won't benefit from it all that much. Let someone else do it and I'll go skiing.

And I ask you this. Are you honest enough to admit that, while you may not want the rich to get richer, you are not willing to make due without the goods and services they provide you? the services that you pay them for, making them richer?

"It is not close to the truth at all."

Actually, it is. Ever heard of Bill Ayers?

* Leader of the 1960s and 70s domestic terrorist group Weatherman
* "Kill all the rich people. ... Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents."
* Participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972
* Currently a professor of education at the University of Illinois

"Uh, no. You agree to the terms up front. You sign a piece of paper stating that you understand the terms. So does the lender."

Except in these cases, the lenders didn't have to bear the brunt of their terms (bailout), but the borrowers did (bankruptcy & forfeiture).

"There is nothing secret about it"

I said secretive; there's a difference. FICO won't tell you how they arrive at their number, but that's what the lenders use, and they come back from their pow-wow and tell you whether or not you can afford that house. Yes, the buyer's signed it, and yes, they have an absolute responsibility to understand the terms, but when there are only consequences for one side...well, that doesn't seem very fair, does it?

"The people who lost their homes were the people who couldn't pay for them...people who had no business being extended loans in the first place. And that's the root of the whole goddamn problem right there."

And the folks who lent them to them got bonuses, and a lot of up-front money in fees. Did they have to pay that back when it was shown their judgement was faulty?

"I think you would find that the vast majority of fiscal conservatives were disgusted by Bush's spending practices..."

Before, or after they re-elected him?

"...of course now that the left are actively in control, their unprecedented spending is completely justified."

I've never said that, and I never will. But whose economy would you rather have inherited: the one Clinton left Bush, or the one Bush left Obama?

"Obama's fiscal plans are far more threatening than Bush's every were. He's quadrupled government spending, and for what?"

Quadrupled? Where did you get that bullshit talking point? Bush's last budget was $1.3 trillion in the hole, and how that number came out of a half-trillion dollar deficit, a trillion dollars injected into the banking system a few days before TARP, and a trillion dollar TARP, I'll never know. And add to that, Obama is stuck with paying the interest on the debts rung up mainly by Bush, Reagan, and Bush. Boy George had the chance to shore up some of the problems, but instead left exploding debts, seemingly on purpose, something I've seen and been screaming about for over three years.

"At the time, Frank was the ranking democrat on the Financial Services Committe. And you call him powerless.'

Ranking Democrat? Gee, excuse me...he DID have the power of a fart in a windstorm. Republicans controlled everything, including the agenda and what came to the floor for a vote. Bush hand-picked the SEC. Blaming Frank and Dodd --- and not a single Republican --- merely admits the Republicans can't govern, even when they hold majorities in both houses and the WH.

""Among the groups denouncing the proposal today..."

Waaaaaaaaaaaah! We can't do what's right because an opposition group complained! Waaaaaaaaaaaah!!!

"Bush may have been part of the problem for not doing more to reign in the GSEs, but he wasn't near as big a contributor as those congressional democrats dedicated to the goal of providing houses for everyone."

How revisionist can you be?

The Christina Romer rule of thumb on tax increases is that a 1% increase in a 3% decline in the long run. Romer is a well known economist, nominally regared as a Keynesian who has developed some theories on the historical economy, especially during the great depression.

read more here is you wish:

"The Christina Romer rule of thumb on tax increases is that a 1% increase in a 3% decline in the long run."

And how did her rule work with the Bush tax cuts?

"Except in these cases, the lenders didn't have to bear the brunt of their terms (bailout), but the borrowers did (bankruptcy & forfeiture)."

Really? Maybe you can explain to me how the lenders saddled their borrowers with debt that they hadn't agreed to. If it wasn't in the terms of the contract, then they weren't legally bound to honor it. My credit card company can send me a letter tomorrow saying they are going to tack on an extra $2k at 50%, but they have no legal authority to demand that I pay it.

"Yes, the buyer's signed it, and yes, they have an absolute responsibility to understand the terms, but when there are only consequences for one side...well, that doesn't seem very fair, does it?"

Are you shitting me?! consequences for one side only? Where have you been. Bank of Las Vegas issues a mortgage on a house for $200k. The market crashes, and the house in now valued at $100k. The lenders, realizing that they are now paying $200k on a house that is only worth half that, walk away, leaving the bank with a loss of somewhere close to $100k. And that's a best case scenario. In Vegas, mortgage holders were selling off the valuable part of their houses (appliances, windows, heating units) piece by piece before they abandon them, leaving only unlivable shells. These that has been repeated time and time again across the country.

There are consequences for both sides. Think about the investors who saw their wealth halved because people were unwilling to live up to their financial obligations. And you think they are faultless? What the fuck?

"And the folks who lent them to them got bonuses, and a lot of up-front money in fees. Did they have to pay that back when it was shown their judgement was faulty?"

faulty? how was it faulty. They made contractual obligations with people who failed to live up to those obligations. Is my cable company at fault it I decide not to pay my bill? What about the company I finance my car through?

Then why my mortgage lender. I made and agreement to abide by certain terms. If I choose not to, it's not their fault, is it?

"Before, or after they re-elected him?"

There was never much of a choice...Bush or Kerry? Ron Paul wasn't running in 2000 or 2004. Personally, I just didn't vote. As much as I didn't like Bush, Kerry was even worse.

"Ranking Democrat? Gee, excuse me...he DID have the power of a fart in a windstorm. Republicans controlled everything, including the agenda and what came to the floor for a vote. Bush hand-picked the SEC. Blaming Frank and Dodd --- and not a single Republican --- merely admits the Republicans can't govern, even when they hold majorities in both houses and the WH."

The bottom line is that all dems voted against any regulation of the GSEs, while all repubs voted for it. Fact.

"Again, not a single word from you about the SEC, or any Republican. It's as if they never even visited Washington during their tenure."

Again, Bush was the pres and was responsible, for anything that happened under his watch...he was is the big seat. And good luck trying to find someone who will defend his practices. But while his were bad, Obama's are worse, and the dems are known for being fiscally irresponsible specifically because of guys like Frank and Dodd who put ideology ahead of common sense.

Anyway, my questions can be answered very simply. Are as pissed at Obama for his irresponsible spending as you were at Bush?

Are as pissed at Obama for his irresponsible spending as you were at Bush?

I can pretty much guaruntee the answer to that question is a resounding "No".

" Maybe you can explain to me how the lenders saddled their borrowers with debt that they hadn't agreed to."

I never claimed that. RIF.

"Are you shitting me?! consequences for one side only?"

I mean personal consequences for one side only. The buyers lost everything. The lenders got up-front fees.

"There are consequences for both sides. Think about the investors who saw their wealth halved because people were unwilling to live up to their financial obligations."

Unwilling? Again, interesting how you've barely mentioned the guys who went to business school, and presumably passed risk management classes, as well as economic theory and history, yet thought somehow housing would continue to go up double digits annually, forever, so they began lending to folks you or I would never have lent to, and then began leveraging bad paper against bad paper at unheard of ratios.

"And you think they are faultless?"

Again, I never said that. Why can't you form an argument without making shit up?

"And the folks who lent them to them got bonuses, and a lot of up-front money in fees. Did they have to pay that back when it was shown their judgement was faulty?"

"faulty? how was it faulty."

Liar's loans? Interest-only loans? Reset loans where a 20% or more bump in income was needed over a short time? 125% LTVs? What the fuck are you talking about?

"They made contractual obligations with people who failed to live up to those obligations."

Contractual obligations they knew (or should have known) could never be repaid. You mentioned Vegas; I remember a story of an approval for a $300,000 loan on a $30,000 annual income. When -- if ever -- is it the contractual obligation of the lender to lend wisely?

"Is my cable company at fault it I decide not to pay my bill?"

If they "sell" you the $4000 monthly package after seeing your income is only $20,000 a year...yes, partially.

"Then why my mortgage lender."

Because the taxpayers are the ones ultimately on the hook.

"There was never much of a choice."

Oh, I forgot. Bush was the only Republican in America. My bad.

"The bottom line is that all dems voted against any regulation of the GSEs, while all repubs voted for it. Fact."

Then it would have passed. If it was that important, they could have used several methods to get it to become law. Instead, the SEC went the other way.

"Again, Bush was the pres and was responsible"

STOP THE PRESSES!!! AN (R) JUST USED THE "R" WORD!!!

"my questions can be answered very simply. Are as pissed at Obama for his irresponsible spending as you were at Bush?"

Absolutely. And I've said it many times. And had this blog been around during the Clinton years, you would've heard me bitch when he expanded the government instead of paying down the debt. That said, it's a bit disingenuous for Bush to leave a looted treasury, no money, a melted down economy, & exploding debts, and expect the next guy not to have to take out the charge card. Bush left a $1.3 Trillion annual deficit. Obama will add $300 Billion to that this year, less than the interest on the Bush-Reagan-Bush debt. Not that it justifies Obama's overspending -- it doesn't -- but let's at least be honest. Bush inherited a sound economy and left a piece of shit.

I noticed you didn't answer which economy you would've rather inherited: Clinton's, or Boy George's?

And feel free to link to where you excoriated Bush for his overspending while he was President. Hindsight is easy. I want to see proof you were against it while it was happening.

"I can pretty much guaruntee the answer to that question is a resounding "No"."

And JeffJ continues his losing streak.

Stay away from Vegas, man....