The know-nothings' slogan:

You're entitled to your own facts, but you're not entitled to your own opinions

Beat me to it, Hans. Well put.

The Know-Nothing movement was a nativist American political movement of the 1840s and 1850s. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to Anglo-Saxon values and controlled by the Pope in Rome. Mainly active from 1854 to 1856, it strove to curb immigration and naturalization, though its efforts met with little success. Membership was limited to Protestant males of British lineage over the age of twenty-one. There were few prominent leaders, and the largely middle-class and entirely Protestant membership fragmented over the issue of slavery. Most ended up joining the Republican Party by the time of the 1860 presidential election....

"Well put."

Thanks, Doc.

With just a few (very, very few) exceptions, what the author of this article has written pretty much describes the right-wingers here on the Drudge.

The biggest class of know-nothings are those who put their faith in government. That includes the Right AND the Left.

One of the most thoughful and accurate postings from the comment section:

All that you have said here is true, but the Sarah and Rush and Sean and Glen believers will never buy it. They need a devil to fight, and have found one in the White House. History will call it them racist reactionaries. The beauty of their lies is that they are so unbelieveable and detached from reality that you would think even the most gullible and stupid among us would get it. What has been discovered by their fabrications is that the stupidity of the electorate knows no limit! There truly are folks out here in the world who believe that Elvis is alive. Why would they not believe that the President is a muslim or that he was born in Kenya?

If anything, the current "debates" on talk radio and within the right wing spheres of influence concerning mosques in New York and the fascist Obama regime; those diatribes that abandon all truth and reality, should prove to us that our public school systems have failed miserably in teaching students the basic functions and foibles of mass communication, and the importance of good citizenship. We should be talking about education reform that brings civics and history back into the curriculum of all public schools.

Too many of our citizens seem almost eager to throw off the bondage of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to get their way with the rest of us. They seem to think that the loudest shouter is the winner. That is not how democracy works.

"The biggest class of know-nothings are those who put their faith in government."

"The biggest class of know-nothings are those who put their faith in government."

So, apparently, the solution here is for the people to put their faith in anarchy.

[snark] Good suggestion. [/snark]

So, apparently, the solution here is for the people to put their faith in anarchy.

Now where did I ever mention anarchy?

"Now where did I ever mention anarchy?"

From the article:

You see how he works. He drops in suggestions, hints, notes that "people are questioning" things ("The biggest class of know-nothings are those who put their faith in government."). The design is to make Obama un-American. Then he says it's a tweak, a provocation. He says this as a preemptive way to keep the press from calling him out.

You're making up shit I haven't said or even implied.
Do you have even the foggiest idea what "faith" means?

The biggest class of know-nothings are those who put their faith in government. That includes the Right AND the Left.

#5 | Posted by Ray at 2010-08-28 08:29 AM

The biggest class of delusional fools is the one that includes Ray.

Hey Hans. When you have Jackass taking your side, you know you're in trouble.

Ray name a single prediction you were accurate on? Nothing ever pans out the way you want it to. I think you want the country to fail. It hasn't happened yet. If it does you'll be a forgotten memory by then.

"When you have Jackass taking your side, you know you're in trouble."

When I have even a jackass recognizing a delusional fool for who he is then I know I'm on target.

The Bankers Manifesto of 1892

Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, SR from Minnesota before the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the years of 1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens.

"We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance.

The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them.

At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation.

The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

"I think you want the country to fail."

So he can drive his car, full of his precious gold, down to the gasoline station to fill-up with the non-existent gasoline, and then bop on over to the grocery to load-up on the non-existent groceries.

All non-existent stuff paid for, naturally, by gold (which will not run a car, and which no one can eat).

When I have even a jackass recognizing a delusional fool for who he is then I know I'm on target.

I gave you the benefit of doubt, Hans. I guess I overestimated you. LMAO!

Keep the faith!

Ray name a single prediction you were accurate on.

Every fucking one. This economic crises is only going to the worse.

I think you want the country to fail. It hasn't happened yet. If it does you'll be a forgotten memory by then.

Yeah sure, blame the messenger.

NY Times:
"fully half of them believe falsely that the big bailout of banks and insurance companies under TARP was enacted by Obama, and not by President Bush"

Question: On the {TARP} Amendment (Dodd Amdt. No. 5685 ) October 1, 2008
S.Amdt. 5685 to H.R. 1424
(A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets)

Obama (D-IL), YEA

"By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us (such as birth certificates and the president's faith), except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

Pretty much what the author of this article is saying.

Personally I'd rather have a small farm and guns if there was a complete collapse of society. Gold would be little more than rock in that instance. I was told stories by my great grand mother how during the great depression she paid two guys in food to remodel her kitchen.

Correction: This economic crises is only going to get worse.

All non-existent stuff paid for, naturally, by gold (which will not run a car, and which no one can eat).

Keep the faith in your paper dollars, Hans. Like all Libs, you have NO understanding of money. Not a fucking clue!

Every fucking one. This economic crises is only going to the worse.
#21 | Posted by Ray at 2010-08-28 09:01 AM

Are you saying we are going to have a complete economic meltdown and the dollar is going to become worthless??

Oh and that Anarchy will settle in like they have in parts of Somalia?

"it appears that the know-nothings KNOW SOMETHING and are waaay more savy than the author & hans"

Not quite the sharpest tool in the shed, eh?

But fully half of them believe falsely that the big bailout of banks and insurance companies under TARP was enacted by Obama, and not by President Bush.

"Keep the faith in your paper dollars, Hans."

Pretty much what the author of this article is saying.

The Bible has the same kind of warnings against infidels.

BTW, I haven't mentioned Obama once, nor do I give a shit about his faith or citizenship. That's Rightwing babble. You keep bringing up issues of no concern to me. The issue I raised is "faith," meaning willful ignorance.

Which is what you're implying.
#29 | Posted by Hans

Bullshit! It's what you are imagining.

"You keep bringing up issues of no concern to me."

So, your only intent is to hijack a thread.

Point made.

I think Ray has grandiose visions of himself being some type of modern day prophet.

"It's what you are imagining."

In communication there are the things which are said and then there are the things which are heard.

Another point the author of this article is making.

The author is dead-on accurate.

Are you saying we are going to have a complete economic meltdown and the dollar is going to become worthless??
#26 | Posted by jackass

Traditionally, whenever governments find themselves with debts and obligations they can't manage, they resort to devaluing their currency by creating massive amounts of new currency. Will the dollar become completely worthless? I don't know. What I do know is that any assets you have denominated in dollars are in for massive losses.

"Traditionally, whenever governments find themselves with debts and obligations they can't manage, they resort to devaluing their currency by creating massive amounts of new currency. Will the dollar become completely worthless? I don't know. What I do know is that any assets you have denominated in dollars are in for massive losses."

A reasonable opinion/conclusion ("...any assets you have denominated in dollars are in for massive losses") backed by a reasonable historical reference ("Traditionally, whenever governments find themselves with debts and obligations they can't manage, they resort to devaluing their currency by creating massive amounts of new currency."), with a reasonable caveat ("Will the dollar become completely worthless? I don't know.").

I believe I heard what you said.

"The author is dead-on accurate."

Agreed, Yav.

In communication there are the things which are said and then there are the things which are heard.
Another point the author of this article is making.
#35 | Posted by Hans

I've had the same kind of arguments with Christians. You're so ignorant, you don't know who is right.

Back to my original post: The biggest class of know-nothings are those who put their faith in government."

The key words are "faith" as in willful ignorance. And "government" as an institution with a monopoly on coercion and violence. No good ever comes out of coercion and violence. Yet, sadly, both Wings think they can mold humans to their will by those means. It always leads to disaster.

A couple of thoughts on this:

The opinion hinges around a question asked to candidate McCain (whom the NYTimes endorsed in the Republican Primary) about President Obama being a Muslim, and then points to a poll where half the Republican base believes he is a Muslim.

In the Time poll, the question was simply:

"Do you personally believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim or a Christian?"

That poll gives legitimacy to the very idea the Time people think American's are ignorant for believing. If they asked if people believed that President Obama had previous history as a child molester, it would not only be malpractice, it would certainly have a significant amount of "yes" answers - be it because people hate him so much they'll say anything that will make him seem worse, or they think that Time wouldn't be asking the question if there was a tinge to truth.

The Pew poll is much better (the 18% one) has 1/3 of Republicans believing that. So I immediately took the rest of this opinion peice with a huge grain of salt.

The sad truth is we should all think President Obama is a Christian but the fact that a poll was conducted regarding his faith at the height of a religious controversy (you can tell in the Pew poll that timing of the poll is everything...the percent of people thinking hes Muslim went up 1.65 times) makes the results less than surprising.

22% believed President George W. Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, with 35% of Democrats believing so.

I believe I heard what you said.
#38 | Posted by Hans

And?

opion=opinion. There are also a plethora of other typos in my rebuttal of the idea of Republican ignorance, damnit!

Way to fucking early.

"He then brings up Rush, who made a comment about the President's birthday. The writer is assuming there is some sort of controversy about it (there isn't, this is the first I have heard about it, and I'm sure people would be all over it on the DR here) and there isn't a poll to show that a large contingency of people believe his birthday may not be the 4th, but if a poll asked "Is the President's birthday on August 4th (as is maintained by the President) or is it another day?" that poll would certainly give people pause, and raise the question "Why would the poll this? It's obviously in question when the birthday is if Pew would poll me on this!"

Hook, line and sinker. It wasn't raising doubts about Obama's "birthday," it is a comment filled with innuendo about not knowing his birthday because, falsely, no one has seen his birth certificate. You have heard about that one, right?

"See: the article about 88% of network news people and donations to the DNC."

Network news people are individuals making donations of their own money to causes and individuals in which they believe. The other ("Finally, there is Fox News, whose parent company has given $1 million to Republican causes....") is where a corporation (representing the so-called "fair and balanced" network) donated, not individuals.

People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders...

I'm not so sure about this.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us... www.federalobserver.com

Great citation, Ray.

Gets at one of the reasons the partisan squabbling on the DR gets to me sometimes. There are large groups within both parties who are united in their anger about the bailouts and the assault on civil rights (e.g., Obama's death lists). Seems like if we could work together we might be a powerful force -- perhaps even a large enough coalition to support a viable third party.

"Obama's death lists"

WTF is that?

Some on the right wing media need to be executed. It is the only way I see to stop them. Obama needs to have these guys tried for treason and then executed. It will set an example that lying on radio and TV will not be tolerated.

Fascinating. "Know nothings".

Most Americans are dumb, and woefully misinformed. No doubt. But to pretend it's all on one side is retarded. How many left-wing Americans believed that George Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11, if not planned the thing? How many Americans who pretend to be so multicultural that they're willing to put on the pompoms for the mosques, could tell you the capital of Saudi Arabia or Yemen, without pulling up google first? Or the difference between the Sunni and the Shi'a? How many lefties believe that Palin said that she could see Russia from her front porch? or that John McCain was responsible for the fire on the USS Forestal?

How many DR libtards have taken the Rumsfeld quotes "you go to war with the Army you have, and not the Army you want", and ignore the other two paragraphs? How many of them tune into Comedy Central or MSNBC, then rush over to here or to Facebook to link to the newest rant from one of those dumbasses? There are people on this 'blog who really believe that this depression was planned by George Bush and Dick Cheney, but it blew up before schedule.

Retards. Dumbass retards. No, the right doesn't have a monopoly on know-nothings, or on bad writers, if this libdouche is anything to go by.

RIR quit crying like a little girl. It makes you look more weak and pathetic than you already are.

"Obama's death lists"

WTF is that? -- #46 | Posted by Hans

The Obama administration has continued the Bush administration's policies of targeting terrorism SUSPECTS and assassinating them without any judicial process, and in fact has gone one step further -- it approved the assassination of a U.S. citizen.

Some on the right wing media need to be executed. It is the only way I see to stop them. Obama needs to have these guys tried for treason and then executed. It will set an example that lying on radio and TV will not be tolerated.
#47 | Posted by jackass

One thing I like about Jackass. He expresses the sentiments of the left they try to hide.

He expresses the sentiments of the left they try to hide. -- #51 | Posted by Ray

Guess my #45 fell on deaf ears.

"The Obama administration has continued the Bush administration's policies of targeting terrorism SUSPECTS and assassinating them without any judicial process, and in fact has gone one step further -- it approved the assassination of a U.S. citizen."

Thanks for the clarification.

I was afraid you were talking about the lastest "Clinton Death List," only now one for Obama.

But fully half of them believe falsely that the big bailout of banks and insurance companies under TARP was enacted by Obama, and not by President Bush.

Should have kept your mouth shut. #28 | Posted by Hans

Jan 20 Barack Obama Takes Office

Jan 26 Geithner Takes Office

February
109 bailouts: $43,027,927,000 (list)
Feb 10 Geithner Pitches "stress tests"

Feb 17 Stimulus Bill Passes, Limiting Exec Bonuses
President Obama signs the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Feb 18 Rollout of Mortgage Rescue

Feb 18 Treasury Ups Limit for Fannie and Freddie to $200 Billion

Feb 25 Stress Tests Begin

Feb 26 Obama Administration Makes Room for $750 Billion more to stabilize the financial sector.

Feb 26 Fannie Mae Asks for $15.2 Billion
Fannie Mae reports a 2008 loss totaling $58.7 billion.

March
69 bailouts: $82,148,541,000 (list)
Mar 2 Fourth AIG Bailout

Mar 3 Fed Launches TALF
Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) bailout

Mar 4 Administration Launches Homeowner Bailout

Mar 11 Freddie Mac Asks for $30.8 Billion More

Mar 15 AIG Pays Out Bonuses to Execs
AIG pays out $165 million in retention bonuses

Mar 16 Treasury Announces Small Biz Program
The program never gets off the ground.

Mar 19 Treasury Announces Auto Parts Program

Mar 23 Treasury Announces Toxic Asset Program

April
50 bailouts: $24,125,734,377 list)
Apr 20 AIG and the Treasury Department finalize the agreement to provide AIG up to $30 billion more

Apr 30 Chrysler Files for Bankruptcy Protection
The Treasury will get an eight percent stake in the company.

May
57 bailouts: $46,600,038,198(list)
May 7 Federal releases the results of its stress tests

May 8 Fannie Mae Asks for $19 Billion More

May 12 Freddie Mac Asks for $6.1 Billion More

June
44 bailouts: $27,341,804,395 (list)
Jun 1 GM Files for Bankruptcy Protection
U.S. government agrees to provide the company up to $30.1 billion more & receive a 60 percent stake in the company

July
30 bailouts: $10,465,163,495(list)
Jul 8 Treasury Launches Toxic Securities Program
up to $30 billion of TARP funds will be invested alongside private investors.

Jul 10 New GM Begins Operations

Jul 30 Treasury Completes Exchange of Citigroup Shares
the Treasury owns 7.7 billion shares of Citi's common stock, a 34% stake in the company.

August
19 bailouts: $14,481,577,000 (list)
Aug 6 Fannie Mae Asks for $10.7 Billion More

. . . . the list goes on

"Guess my #45 fell on deaf ears."

Not entirely, Phoenix.

Although, due to the nature of this medium, shouldn't that be: "Guess my #45 fell on blind eyes."

I voted third party in the last election, straight-ticket for everyone except state governor and sheriff--and the sheriff was a Democrat. And I would do it again if I lived in Florida, where we have a thief who won the gubernatorial primary there.

It won't matter much. I would rather support a small handful of small-government (anti-government would be even better) candidates, and let the free markets take care of the rest.

where we have a thief who won the gubernatorial primary there.

#56 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-08-28 10:20 AM

I thought you would have liked him seeing how you have so much in common with him.

Most Americans are dumb, and woefully misinformed. No doubt. But to pretend it's all on one side is retarded... Retards. Dumbass retards... --
#48 | Posted by rightisright

Careful, or I'll sic Sarah Palin on you.

#52 | Posted by Phoenix

Figuratively speaking, Jackass is blind, deaf, and dumb.

How many liberals believe that our deficits were caused by "cutting taxes for the wealthiest"? Or--for that matter--on the Iraq War? How many of them believe that Obama's big executive order to close Gitmo actually closed Gitmo? How many believe that under Obama, prosecutions and deportations of illegal aliens have gone up?

For that matter, how many of them can tell me what GDP is? How it's calculated?

And this, my friends, is how a community organizer can become a president. And why--in the runup to and after the election--confidence in the American enterprise system went down for the count, and remains there.

I thought the disclaimer on the end of the piece was funny too:

"Note: In an earlier version of this piece, a statistic for the percentage of Republicans who believe the president is Muslim was given wrong; it has been corrected."

A New York Times "journalist" wrote an article about right-wing know-nothings, and didn't bother to fact-check his own piece before publication. And neither did his editors.

"Jan 20 Barack Obama Takes Office"

Which has nothing to do with:

But fully half of them believe falsely that the big bailout of banks and insurance companies under TARP was enacted by Obama, and not by President Bush.

You do realize that October 03, 2008 predates (as in "came before") January 20, 2009. Right?

You do know that George W. Bush was president on October 03, 2008, not Barack Obama. Right?

You do realize that Bush signed into law ("enacted") TARP on October 03, 2008, not Obama. Right?

U R slow to catch on . . . perhaps someday U will, and then U can become a productive member of society

Oh, and it still stands: Should have kept your mouth shut.

Well, it depends on how the question is asked. Obama voted for the bailouts, along with a solid majority of the Democrats. Republicans initially voted against.

But that's another thing you get when you elect a legislator-community agitator president. He can vote for the package, then his supporters can say he didn't want anything to do with it.

That said, Bush's TARP has been paid back. All the follow-on bailouts have not been, and will never be. That doesn't mean that Bush's bailout money was well-invested--it shouldn't have happened at all--but it does make one wonder why Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley have paid theirs back, but GM-AIG-Fannie-Freddie-FHA-
Chrysler-et al will be on the books long after we're all dead. Remember when the libbies ran around complaining that Paulson put TARP money to work without any accountability? All paid back. Then Joe Biden was given oversight of Obama's bailouts. None of it paid back.

re# 62, Hans, just sayin' . . . you may have already reached the tipping point where ya NEVER can become productive

I voted third party in the last election... It won't matter much. -- #56 | Posted by rightisright

I voted third party too -- between disgust for the way the Dems treated Clinton, Obama's Beaumont speech and support of FISA, and Obama's AND Clinton's support of TARP, I'm no longer a Democrat.

Third-party votes WOULD matter if people quit buying the argument that they're throwaway votes.

...let the free markets take care of the rest. -- #56 | Posted by rightisright

?? One of the issues on which you and I have consistently agreed is importance of re-regulating Wall Street.

"Obama voted for the bailouts..."

Which has nothing to do with:

But fully half of them believe falsely that the big bailout of banks and insurance companies under TARP was enacted by Obama, and not by President Bush.

"re# 62, Hans, just sayin' . . . you may have already reached the tipping point where ya NEVER can become productive"

So you finally figured out why I said that you should have kept your mouth shut.

When you're not learning you are dying.

?? One of the issues on which you and I have consistently agreed is importance of re-regulating Wall Street.

#65 | Posted by Phoenix
* * * * *

Go ahead. Won't matter. The part of Wall Street that blew up was highly regulated. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and AIG were regulated by Congress, by regulators at the federal and state levels--and it didn't matter. Let me know when you figure out how to outlaw stupidity and regulate morons out of business. You can't. Last I checked, Barney Frank is still heading House Financial Services, and wants more bailout money for housing. Nancy Pelosi is still Speaker of the House, and passes regulations and laws all day long, and it's improved nothing.

Accountability on Wall Street comes when they know that when they lose money, there are no bailouts, and their fortunes would be laid waste. But a few hundred million in campaign contributions to key NY and CONN Democratic Senators, and Barack Obama himself--and suddenly it's bailout nation.

How many conservatives believe that "cutting taxes for the wealthiest" has no effect on our deficits?

But fully half of them believe falsely that the big bailout of banks and insurance companies under TARP was enacted by Obama, and not by President Bush.

#66 | Posted by Hans
* * * *

Well, which one? There have been three versions of TARP, two of which were enacted by the Obama Administration. Then you have TALF--a Fed program which needed Congressional funding--under Obama. Four mortgage bailouts that were funded by recycled TARP money and additional borrowing--also under Obama.

I would have to see very carefully how the question was asked, before deciding whether this in particular can be used to show how ignorant Republicans are. Plus--what do the numbers say when you poll Democrats? And if TARP was such a horrible idea, why is Obama continuing it? Why did he give us six more rounds of it? The original TARP legislation called for the repaid funds to be returned to the Treasury, and used to retire bonds of 10-year and longer duration. Instead, the Democrats changed the legislation to give Obama authority to reinvest the proceeds in other financial firms--"financial" now coming to mean any firm that lends or borrows money.

?? One of the issues on which you and I have consistently agreed is importance of re-regulating Wall Street.
#65 | Posted by Phoenix

Things are not what they seem. Wall Street is heavily regulated - the way they like it. With the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Security Exchange Act of 1934, the Banksters, Wall Street and Washington became united at the hip. Two have control over money; one has control over people.

That's why all this squabbling over party differences distracts from the real enemies of the people.

Cutting taxes for the wealthiest--which is the newest parlance; it's funny--hasn't made a dent at all. Take everyone over $250,000, push their taxes back to Clinton era, and you'll collect an extra $40 billion a year. On a deficit of $1.5 trillion, you've got a long way to go.

"Look at Bush! He cut taxes on all those rich people!" Uh huh. And 12 million American households dropped off the tax rolls altogether. Taxes were cut for everyone, the wealthy now pay a higher percentage of the tax bill than any time in history, and the libbies want more.

Well, they'll get it.

Uh huh. And 12 million American households dropped off the tax rolls altogether.

#72 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-08-28 10:53 AM |

Was it because they became unemployed and had no income?

The part of Wall Street that blew up was highly regulated. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and AIG were regulated by Congress...

Collateral damage. The part of Wall Street that blew up was the derivatives market.

Accountability on Wall Street comes when they know that when they lose money, there are no bailouts, and their fortunes would be laid waste. But a few hundred million in campaign contributions to key NY and CONN Democratic Senators, and Barack Obama himself--and suddenly it's bailout nation. -- #68 | Posted by rightisright

Yes, it's appalling -- like I said, I'm no longer a Dem. But where's the fury at Shelby and Grassley? Why aren't you holding them at least as responsible as you are Frank and Dodd?

"Well, which one?"

"But where's the fury at Shelby and Grassley? Why aren't you holding them at least as responsible as you are Frank and Dodd?"

Indeed. Thank you, Phoenix.

No. The part of Wall Street that blew up was mortgages and fixed-income. Derivatives did just what they were supposed to do: they moved up and down depending on the value of the underlying assets, many of which went to zero. So naturally the derivatives on the short side would have gone to the moon.

And by the way, derivatives are highly regulated too. It's a myth that they aren't. Posting of collateral, settlement of trades on a real-time basis, liquidity--there's a lot more of that in the derivatives trades than in the huge pool of mortgage bonds, which were assumed to be nearly as risk-free as Treasuries. At least derivatives guys know the risk they're undertaking, and that their losses could be total. Good luck convincing anyone of that in the mortgage market before 2007.

"But where's the fury at Shelby and Grassley? Why aren't you holding them at least as responsible as you are Frank and Dodd?"

* * * * *

I do. Anyone who voted for the bailouts should be thrown out of office. And the same goes for anyone who continues to put Fannie and Freddie guarantees on the taxpayer.

I'm not being deliberately disingenuous. There have been multiple TARP's. I just want to know how the question was asked, that's all. Even the "is Obama a Christian" question is ambiguous. If you believe, as many Catholics do, that abortion and Catholicism is mutually exclusive, then many of them would say that Kennedy wasn't really a Catholic, and neither is Nancy Pelosi. You Dems pretend that Rasmussen "mines for answers" by asking questions a certain way to get answers favorable to conservatives, never mind that they're the most accurate election pollsters in the business. Why am I being obtuse just to wonder how the questions were asked in the first place?

The reason it WAS asked was that the bailouts are now considered to be a failure. So why is Obama continuing them?

Wall Street is heavily regulated - the way they like it. -- #71 | Posted by Ray

Fair enough, we've got bad government. But "no government" isn't the answer. Because of the connection between risk and return, and risk-tolerance and size, there's an inherent tendency in free markets toward "too big to fail" corporations that take on too much risk.

And the individuals heading failed giants don't face any consequences -- John Meriwether is a good example. People just keep giving him money. Bizarre.

But "no government" isn't the answer.

The answer is an ethical government. This one is criminal to the bone.

Because of the connection between risk and return, and risk-tolerance and size, there's an inherent tendency in free markets toward "too big to fail" corporations that take on too much risk.

There is no free market. That's a boogie man. Free implies an absence of government intervention. Bailouts are the antithesis of free market principles and a consequences of a highly regulated market as I alluded to.

The part of Wall Street that blew up was mortgages... #77 | Posted by rightisright

First of all, the mortgages that blew up were typically those that were NOT under government scrutiny.

But more important, to explain why bankers suddenly started approving mortgages that would never have been approved even 10 years ago, you have to look at derivatives. Fannie and Freddie aren't new. The ability to bundle mortgages into securities in ways that obscure the riskiness of the underlying loans IS new.

Here's Barry Ritzholtz's list of UNDER-regulation (and Fed missteps) referred to in the Business Week article:

We on Wall Street feel somewhat compelled to take at least some responsibility...
But here's a news flash for you, D.C.: We could not have done it without you...

THIS MEMO PROVIDES A BRIEF HISTORY OF your actions that helped create this crisis.

1997: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's famous "irrational exuberance" speech in 1996 was somehow ignored by, um, Fed Chairman Greenspan. The Fed missed the opportunity to change margin requirements. Had the Fed acted, the bubble would not have inflated as much, and the subsequent crash would not have been as severe.

1998: Long Term Capital Management was undercapitalized, used enormous amounts of leverage to purchase all manner of thinly traded, hard-to-value paper. It failed, and under the authority of the Federal Reserve a "private-sector" rescue plan was cobbled together. Had these bankers suffered big losses from LTCM, they might have thought twice before jumping into the exact same business model of undercapitalized, overleveraged, thinly traded, hard-to-value paper. Instead, they reaffirmed Benjamin Disraeli's famous aphorism: "What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."

1999: The Financial Services Modernization Act repealed Glass-Steagall, a law that had separated the commercial-banking industry from Wall Street, and the two industries, plus insurance, came together again. Banks became bigger, clumsier, and hard to manage. Apparently, risk-management became all but impossible, even as banks had greater access to larger pools of capital.

2000: The Commodities Futures Modernization Act defined financial commodities such as "interest rates, currency prices, and stock indexes" as "excluded commodities." They could trade off the futures exchanges, with minimal oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor the Federal Reserve, nor any state insurance regulators had the ability to supervise or regulate the writing of credit-default swaps by hedge funds, investment banks or insurance companies.

2001-'03: Alan Greenspan's Fed dropped federal-fund rates to 1%. Lulled into a false belief that inflation was not a problem, the Fed then kept rates at 1% for more than a year. This set off an inflationary spiral in housing, and a desperate hunt for yield by fixed-income managers.

First of all, the mortgages that blew up were typically those that were NOT under government scrutiny.

Not true. The Federal Reserve is the source of the cheap money that drove the housing bubble. Fannie and Freddie were conduits for unqualified buyers.

THIS MEMO PROVIDES A BRIEF HISTORY OF your actions that helped create this crisis.

That memo doesn't get at the underlying principles that created this crises. Again, the Washington, Wall Street and Bankster cabal.

Fannie and Freddie were conduits for unqualified buyers.

You can't explain a variable (suddenly lax lending practices) with a constant (Fannie and Freddie).

That memo doesn't get at the underlying principles that created this crises. Again, the Washington, Wall Street and Bankster cabal. -- #85 | Posted by Ray

It may not spell it out as closely as you'd like, but it does assign joint responsibility to the three, mostly in sections I didn't include -- e.g.,

...here's a news flash for you, D.C.: We [Wall Street, bankers] could not have done it without you. We may be drunks, but you were our enablers: Your legislative, executive, and administrative decisions made possible all that we did. Our recklessness would not have reached its soaring heights but for your governmental incompetence.

We on Wall Street do not deny our part. We created these securities, we rated them triple-A, we traded them without understanding them. Now that they have gone bad, we are real close to getting the rest of the country to take them off our hands.

Thanks, D.C. None of this would have been possible without you.

You can't explain a variable (suddenly lax lending practices) with a constant (Fannie and Freddie).

As I recall, legislation outlawed the banking practice of red-lining. The bankers were under pressure to loosen lending standards.

But again, our government has too much power to interfere in the market, a practice that creates the imbalances and distortions we see in this economy. We need an ethical government when we have a criminal government. The two reigning ideologies turn honest people into criminal conspirators against themselves.

...legislation outlawed the banking practice of red-lining. The bankers were under pressure to loosen lending standards.

None of these standards have anything to do with red-lining:

Things are not what they seem. Wall Street is heavily regulated - the way they like it. With the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Security Exchange Act of 1934, the Banksters, Wall Street and Washington became united at the hip. Two have control over money; one has control over people.

That's why all this squabbling over party differences distracts from the real enemies of the people.

#71 | Posted by Ray at 2010-08-28 10:51 AM

Ray nailed it.

Divide and conquer.

History repeating itself (again).

The people never learn to unite.

None of these standards have anything to do with red-lining:
#88 | Posted by Phoenix

By neglecting the underlying political motives, you're treating effect as cause. The Federal Reserve is a legally sanctioned banking cartel. It shouldn't exist. The dollar is not real money; it is a unit of debt that must expand to keep the economy from collapsing. All the events you cite from Barrons were politically encouraged to keep the debt Ponzi scheme from collapsing. The Dow publishers are corporatist hacks who treat the Federal Reserve as a sacred institution.

The people never learn to unite.

That's why people do best when there's a strong central government committed to human rights.

That's why people do best when there's a strong central government committed to human rights.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2010-08-28 08:43 PM | Reply | Flag: Know-Nothing.

Human rights? Are you out of your mind? Strong central governments have a long history of war and repression.

Strong central governments committed to human rights do not have a long history of war and repression.

So, apparently, the solution here is for the people to put their faith in anarchy.
[snark] Good suggestion. [/snark]

#8 | POSTED BY HANS

Without rule of law.. people like Ray end up penniless and enslaved or dead.

A madmaxx world would be my oyster though. Just call me "Lord Humongous"

"Without rule of law.. people like Ray end up penniless and enslaved or dead.

"A madmaxx world would be my oyster though. Just call me "Lord Humongous"

#94 | Posted by Lord Humongous at 2010-08-28 10:13 PM

"Strong central governments have a long history of war and repression."

Actually nations that don't have strong central governments are prone to being susceptible to strong men who sweep into power in hard times and promise prosperity and nationalistic resurgence.

Egan: Nation of Know-Nothings

Have to agree with Egan on this one...look who we elected as POTUS...

"This economic crises is only going to the worse."

Ray:

If, as I suspect, the English translation of this is: "This economic crisis is only going to get worse," I think you're right - far right.

You want to stir up the boogeyman so that people will turn to your party and its principles (a term I use in its loosest possible sense) to find solutions simple minds can grapple with.

This economic crisis might get better if we put some fucking brakes on Corporate America and Wall Street, but anything that's proposed to fix anything that's wrong with this nation is cause for a fresh set of ravings from the Rush and Beck, plus filibustering or threats of same from some righty assholes masquerading as members of Congress.

The likes of you have done so much damage that I have begun to have a recurring fantasy:

God suddenly appears to me in a blinding flash of light. I am frightened, but He says to me: "Fear not, Mary, for I am the Lord. I have come because you are heavy laden, and I have good tidings."

I ask, in a quavering voice, "And what are they?"

And the Lord says, "I have been watching you lo these many years, and your struggles here on Earth, and while I find you far from perfect, I have always found you of good heart, and a seeker of truth."

"Thank you, Lord," I say. "I try."

The Lord continues, saying, "As a result of your strivings, I have decided to reward you. I have a choice for you, and whichever you choose, so shall it be granted."

"And what choice is that?" I ask in the utmost tones of wonderment.

In His most stentorian voice, the Lord tells me, "There are two things you detest above all else, and I shall eliminate one of them. The first is AIDS. On your request, I shall wipe it from the Earth, nevermore to return. The other is the far right wing of America's Republican Party. On your request, I shall make all these people seekers of equality, liberality and justice unto even the least among you. Now CHOOSE!" bellows the Lord.

And in a tiny, shaking voice I say:

"Thank you, Lord. We'll wear lots of rubbers and keep our needles real clean."

Must be nice to more enlightened than the rest of us

"Must be nice to more enlightened than the rest of us"

Nope, it's an absolute bitch. Thinking about straightening out you righties is like contemplating potty-training every bird on this planet.

It is amazing how many idiots there are in this country, dull witted grazers who think one lick of the stupid salt entitles them to the title of expert on world affairs.

These people are half witted downer-cattle who believe the local NBC news channel is all they need to form a world view.

Thankfully, this subset of low grade moron is shrinking.

They are known as Obama voters.

I am anexpert on world affairs.
Victoria'sMusk

Victorymask:

Fine - if you think Obama is such a poor President, then give us a better one. One who will curb the greed of corporations and Wall Street. One who will give the Constitution of this nation every respect, even when it pains him personally or politically to do so. One who will say to the ignorant and superstitious among us: "Other religions and races and orientations are not responsible for your troubles; your votes for bullying, greedy cretins are the problem." One who will enforce equality, who will work tirelessly to uphold the rights of the little guy, one who will see to it that every American has a world-class education and health care and a fair mortgage and a pension that no company or crooked lawyer can steal from him.

Give us somebody like that, and I'll vote for him. Or her. Or hell - it.

Mary, you don't know your president very well. Obama is in the bag with wall street, he artificially manipulated the markets down to get the stimulus package passed, and he is trying desperately to manipulate the markets up leading into the mid term elections.

This guy is suing the state of Arizona for upholding federal law while stopping the prosecution of terrorists, he attacks law officers doing their job, while ignoring the massacre of a fledgling democracy movement in Iran.

Obama makes a 75 year old woman with a 'Don't Tax me Sign' the devil, while giving billion dollar pay offs to unions.

Obama is not what you think he is, if you took the time to look at the reality of the situation, you might see that.

Obama is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business and the unions.

subsidiary of big business and the unions

So now big business and the unions are colluding together?
You just lost your arguement,VM.

No Bruce, my statement of fact is sound.

Obama is in the bag for the Unions, but he is reliant on big business to prop up his failed policies.

But big business is punishing the president, they understand his policies are fail, and they are pissed that they put him in power and he has done nothing to increase growth in the economy.

Obama is a puppet of both interests, but he has failed one of them.

Mary, you don't know your president very well. Obama is in the bag with wall street, he artificially manipulated the markets down to get the stimulus package passed, and he is trying desperately to manipulate the markets up leading into the mid term elections.

This guy is suing the state of Arizona for upholding federal law while stopping the prosecution of terrorists, he attacks law officers doing their job, while ignoring the massacre of a fledgling democracy movement in Iran.

Obama makes a 75 year old woman with a 'Don't Tax me Sign' the devil, while giving billion dollar pay offs to unions.

Obama is not what you think he is, if you took the time to look at the reality of the situation, you might see that.

Obama is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business and the unions.

That still sounds like better governance to me than McCain/Palin. Particularly, the Palin half.

Victorymask:

If you will go back to Post #103 and read what I actually wrote instead of running it through the Republifilter (TM), nowhere did I say that Obama represented the virtues I would like to see in our next President. I am actually rather disappointed in Obama. I think he's better than Bush was, but that is a depressingly low bar, and he has not lived up to the lofty rhetoric of his campaign.

I do not think he has done nearly enough to increase job creation, I don't think his vaunted health care bill does much, and I abominate his foot-dragging on DADT, among other reservations.

But if the alternatives are Palin, Romney, Pawlenty, or McCain, I'm forced to stick with Obama. If you think Obama is a "wholly owned subsidiary" of Big Bidness, you ain't seen nothin' till you elect one of those four.

But Snoofy, you have to factor into the equation that you are mentally ill.

Palin is never going to be president, nor is McCain ...Palins job is to run cover for all the other possible candidates, taking the fire while the others are largely ignored.

I personally believe that anyone off the street would be better than the misfit lowlife Obama, but I agree that a viable opponent must be chosen to deseat the incumbant.

I personally believe that anyone off the street would be better than the misfit lowlife Obama

I would be more than happy to sign a petition to get you on the ballot should you choose to run.

I love my country. Period, bottom line, I would always work for the benefit of America.

I love my country. Period, bottom line, I would always work for the benefit of America.

You already sound more qualified than Sarah Palin and her "Real America."

Sara is a powerful woman, she has already changed the course of this country, and will play a part in picking the next president of the United States, (weather it be a republican or Obama reelected) but it won't be her.

REX/VICTORYMASK, first you need to learn how to spell Palin's first name.

Is that really what you want to say to me, AU?

It's a start, REX. You really should be able to spell her name by now.

Sara is a powerful woman, she has already changed the course of this country...

She is and she has. Her fan club made me notice the ignorance and blind resentment of a significant segment of modern society and the litany of complaints of the new Confederacy.

Never takes very long for a thread to turn into another anti-Palin rant.

It's all the libbies have. This disaster of a presidency, with the worst collection of total dumbasses in the history of the Republic, leaves his dwindling number of supporters with nothing else to stand on. Palin will have to do.

"This disaster of a presidency, with the worst collection of total dumbasses in the history of the Republic"

* stunned *

You're serious, aren't you?

It's all the repubbies have. This disaster of a presidency, quack,quack, quack.

Good, good.

If, as I suspect, the English translation of this is: "This economic crisis is only going to get worse," I think you're right - far right.
#98 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-08-29 12:44 AM | Reply | Flag: Knows nothing

First of all, I have nothing to do with either the right or the left. Both sides are economic illiterates and stupid to the core.

This is Economics 101. This has to do with debt, miles and miles of fucking debt going to the moon. Debt so bad, that the feds have to hide it behind names we don't understand. Thanks to modern technology, Wall Street and the Banksters created debt derivatives with a nominal value over a quadrillion dollars. You have no clue to the corruption and manipulation going on to keep up normal appearances. When it breaks, no asset denominated in dollars is safe.

The likes of you have done so much damage that I have begun to have a recurring fantasy:

I stopped voting over 25 years ago when I realized our political system is rigged for failure. If there is any consolation, both the Right AND the Left are going to get what they deserve - good and hard. The shame is that innocent people have to suffer.

Don't stop voting. Local is key.

Fine - if you think Obama is such a poor President, then give us a better one.
Give us somebody like that, and I'll vote for him. Or her. Or hell - it.
#103 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Ethical people don't go into politics. If they do, they don't don't last long. Our political system is dominated by sociopaths at the top and a stupid electorate at the bottom.

Ethical people go into local politics. Again I say, local is key.

Ethical people go into local politics. Again I say, local is key.
#126 | Posted by wurster

Conversely, politicians rise to their level of corruption.

You're right.

I have quite a bit of faith in my state government.

I have quite a bit of faith in my state government.

I don't. I live in New Jersey. That said, our new Governor Christie may be of a different breed. We'll see.

I'm along ways away from NJ. Take your things and move.

I'm lucky to live where I do. We have tangible resources.

"Ethical people go into local politics. Again I say, local is key."

Perhaps some but from my experience, at least here in Florida, it's hard to keep up with the indictments of those ethical people in local politics.

"46 percent of Republicans believe the lie that Obama is a Muslim, or that 27 percent in the party doubt that the president of the United States is a citizen. But fully half of them believe falsely that the big bailout of banks and insurance companies under TARP was enacted by Obama"

The funny/sad part is that these morons honestly think they are doing the right thing. They are going to be the downfall of this nation and they are going to do it under a misguided flag of false patriotism. Proper education would go a long way to solve this issue.

Proper education would go a long way to solve this issue.

#134 | Posted by boyracer_x

yet the Pew poll results are; "31% repubs, 10% dems, 18% indys believe Obama Muslim"

guys living in cardboard homes under bridges don't usually talk to pollsters

is the Obama-Muslim thing a lie simply because you don't believe it? or is there some other definitive measure?

Is the fact that morons such as yourself shit a brick because Obama attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ considered definitive?

Or are you wise enough to not take anything you say seriously?

Is the fact that morons such as yourself shit a brick because Obama attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ considered definitive?
Or are you wise enough to not take anything you say seriously?
#137 | Posted by snoofy

just asking a fair question here . . .

If snoofy says that Obamy attending Wright's church makes him Christian in snoofy's eyes, yipee

- - wondering would Obama's stance that he never actually heard Rev Wright's preaching affect your determination?

then, beacuse snoofy is satisfied . . . does actually make it so?

Timothy Egan is ignorant and unschooled.

The false theology of the flat earth was perpetrated by pagan Rome and continued through the pagan rome religion through the dark ages.

Bible scholars have always known the earth was round way back to noahs time.

So if timothy refeered to the "flat erth" portion of the party he must have ment the pagans who do not have Judeo-christian ethics.

He is mixed up.

Is the fact that morons such as yourself shit a brick because Obama attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ considered definitive?
Or are you wise enough to not take anything you say seriously?
#137 | Posted by snoofy

did I made such claims or shit such bricks?

Maybe, maybe not. Either way you're still a moron.

I'm sure Egan believes that Mao did not kill 70 million of his own people, and Stalin was not responsible for 60 million of his own. He, like the left, just think they did it wrong. You lefties are not only stupid, you are dangerous. Oh, and a bunch of 0bama's administration adore Mao, in their own words, on tv and everything.

You're not sure of anything. You right wingers make up shit and act as though it's true.

Like FoxNews making ridiculous assertions and putting a question mark at the end.

You righties are not only stupid, you are dangerous.

You righties are not only stupid, you are dangerous.

#142 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Wow you just made my point stunningly! Ridiculous assertions about Mao and Stalin? You are a total, complete and utter moron, but a great useful idiot.