I especially like this portion of her oped.

"Ignoring what might have happened had the government not launched a vigorous response may be irresponsible, but it can be good politics. That's because many Americans -- seeing the weak job picture and forgetting their own terror during the early days of the economic freefall -- can be convinced that such polices were ineffective and possibly counterproductive.

They remind me of family members who, four weeks after a quadruple bypass, want to know why Grandpa isn't dancing. At least the family knows that the operation was needed."

It takes an awful lot of faith and naivite to believe the stimulus did anything but reward the hacks.

Washington Saved Our Economic Hide

I think it may be more accurate to say that Washington protected the status quo. Sometimes I think it may have been a good thing if Washington let this economic system we live under collapse and the streets ran red with the blood of bankers.

Looks like we have our weekly Mark Zandi thread about how he and WH are right the stimulus and everyone who doesn't agree is wrong. I see that Alan Blinder has been included as an endorsement. What happened to Rhomer? Oh yeah, she got tired of echoing Zandi and being right, so she decided to quit. lol

Using econometric models, Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi argue that the bailouts, the stimulus and other extraordinary actions saved America from nothing less than another Great Depression. Blinder was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. Zandi is chief economist at Moody's Analytics and advised Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

"Sometimes I think it may have been a good thing if Washington let this economic system we live under collapse and the streets ran red with the blood of bankers."

If it could be limited to only the bankers I think I might agree but unfotunately there is no way to be sure only they will be the victims of the angry mob known as America.

Bankers, welfare recipients, Illegals, union leaders,, you know

"If it could be limited to only the bankers I think I might agree but unfotunately there is no way to be sure only they will be the victims"

No, of course not. Instead we guaranteed that the victims would all be working stiffs. Looks like we did a hell of a job, too.

Why do some people think the government has a right -even a responsibility- to choose the winners and losers? When that happens, they always designate themselves and their money sources as winners.

The system should have been allowed to implode and clean out the weaker players. Would it have created a blood bath? Yes, however, six months after the implode, the economic parts would have begun working toward recovery. With the path taken our economy will continue to limp along for the foreseeable future. Welcome to the mistakes that Japan made during the early 90's. Unfortunately, our dear leaders on capital hill subscribe to revisionist history rather than the cold hard facts.

"Yes, however, six months after the implode, the economic parts would have begun working toward recovery."

Despite what the majority of economists around the world say there are still know it alls who imagine they actually have a clue about what would have resulted had we not bailed out the banks. My parents lived through the Great Depression, it took ten years and a world war to pull us out, in the end the huge amounts of spending on the war effort finally pulled us out. Those who today say we should have risked such a disaster are completely clueless. Be aware, the Great Depression cost millions of people their lives. More suffering occurred than any of us here posting have ever endured yet fools pretend we should have risked it. Thank God Almighty none of these folks sat in a position of power at the time.

No, Washington did not save our hides. It's ironic that Washington and the FED put us in the toilet and then they saved us? A savior usually saves someone else from their dilemma. We didn't put ourselves in this situation except some of the partisans that place people in office that ultimately put us in a position to be saved. The same thing occurred in the Great Depression---Washington and the FED put this country in a similar position as today and then they ultimately took credit for rescuing the populace. Danni, you and others are so easily conned by government and their mainstream media minions. The very institutions that get us in these fixes then convince folks like yourself that they're your saviors. It'll never end until the folks wake up and change the institutions that represent the elite and moneyed interests.

Whenever you here a bell ring, it's a Tea Partier getting their Oblivious Wings.

Using econometric models, Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi argue that the bailouts, the stimulus and other extraordinary actions saved America from nothing less than another Great Depression. Blinder was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. Zandi is chief economist at Moody's Analytics and advised Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

#4 | Posted by crispee_oc

I don't listen much to what a member or former member of the FED has to say. They represent an institution that should be abolished; that has caused untold damage to this country on 2 major occasions. How we allow a private, closed, nontransparent group of bankers (making money off our labors) to control our money supply is beyond me.

Whenever you here a bell ring, it's a Tea Partier getting their Oblivious Wings.

#11 | Posted by Corky

It's not oblivious but obvious that the bell tolls for the Cork.

"The same thing occurred in the Great Depression---Washington and the FED put this country in a similar position as today and then they ultimately took credit for rescuing the populace."

Apparently Matsop, you are unaware of the fact that the Federal Reserve System was begun to prevent panics which were fairly common before we had that institution.

"It'll never end until the folks wake up and change the institutions that represent the elite and moneyed interests."

Actually no matter what we do it will never end, economies grow and shrink, prosperity comes and goes, many factors effect economies, the Federal Reserve is simply a system to try and lessen the effects of the normal ebb and flow of money through the system. It's not perfect but I haven't yet read any suggestion of a system which would really be any better. Blaming all of our problems today on the Fed System seems like overkill to me because Alan Greenspan did not have to hold interest rates so low right into 2004 which fueled the housing bubble and created the opportunity for disaster. Of course the alternative would have been to raise interest rates sooner and thus burst the housing bubble sooner but that would have revealed the recession we were actually in at the time and caused the defeat of George Bush for his second term. Had he done that we would have been in recession and we would have seen high unemployment like today but we would not have had so many consumers with so much home equity debt so we would be in a slightly better position than we find ourselves in today.

"I don't listen much to what a member or former member of the FED has to say. They represent an institution that should be abolished;"

Review the economic history previous to the creation of the Fed and you won't be able to say that with any confidence.

Apparently Matsop, you are unaware of the fact that the Federal Reserve System was begun to prevent panics which were fairly common before we had that institution.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2010-09-03 09:48 AM

Danni, you should brush up on your history a little and then you might change your rigid belief system a little. The Fed wasn't created to prevent panics but to protect the banking interests. If you would go back to the early 1900s and read about one of the "panics", the panic of 1907 you would find (since there was no fed; that the bank and bankers took a huge loss and mainstreet was not affected to much of a degree). It was then that bankers such as J.P.Morgan swore it wasn't ever going to happen to them again---they then plotted to form the Federal Reserve which was ultimately (surreptitiously) plotted and passed when many of those opposed were home over the holidays. You're, unfortunately, one of the brainwashed.

-No, Washington did not save our hides.

Thousands of firefighters, police, and teachers were able to be retained by states, many more seniors kept their pensions, and children were fed due to the economic stimulus that only the ebil gubmint could manage.

I know rightwingers are basically Social Darwinists, despite many of them pretending Christian beliefs, and aren't concerned about the trivial lives of trivial people, but the "just nuke 'em it'll teach 'em a lesson" BS works about as well in economics as it does in foreign policy.

It's just feigned outrage by the ignorant.

"Sometimes I think it may have been a good thing if Washington let this economic system we live under collapse and the streets ran red with the blood of bankers."

#5 | Posted by danni

Don't leave the politicians out that caused the bubble in the first place with their "home ownership for everyone" pollicy. You can't just look at the effect, you gotta find the cause.

Furthermore, my dear Danni, are you aware of the fact the wage of the average working man/woman has not kept up with inflation since the early 70s when Nixon took us off the gold standard and the Fed was given carte blanche to print money at will?

It's just feigned outrage by the ignorant.

#17 | Posted by Corky

Understands ignorance well.

#20 | Posted by matsop at 2010-09-03 10:04 AM | Reply | Flag: Substantive retorts optional

YOur version of history does not match anything I have read about it, JP Morgan actually loaned millions of dollars to banks so that they could quell the panic of depositors. Later a Congressional Commission investigated the panic and proposed the FEderal Reserve System to handle any such future panics.

"Furthermore, my dear Danni, are you aware of the fact the wage of the average working man/woman has not kept up with inflation since the early 70s when Nixon took us off the gold standard and the Fed was given carte blanche to print money at will?"

I'm well aware of the fact wages have not kept up with inflation but I do not attribute that to going off of the gold standard, it is far more likely, IMHO, that the wage stagnation has resulted from a huge increase in the available work force when women entered the work force by the millions, by the dramatic increase in imported goods and the reduction of top tax rates which make extremely high executive compensation far more likely than when so much of the amounts over 3 million would be paid in taxes. How you connect wages to the gold standard would be an interesting thing to understand.

Furthermore, my dear Danni, are you aware of the fact the wage of the average working man/woman has not kept up with inflation since the early 70s when Nixon took us off the gold standard and the Fed was given carte blanche to print money at will?

#19 | Posted by matsop

We didn't have federal reserve notes before then? Taking us off the gold standard didn't do that.

YOur version of history does not match anything I have read about it, JP Morgan actually loaned millions of dollars to banks so that they could quell the panic of depositors. Later a Congressional Commission investigated the panic and proposed the FEderal Reserve System to handle any such future panics.

#22 | Posted by danni

And my well read Danni; why do you think the panic was referred to as the "1907 Bankers' Panic". Because it was almost segregated to the banking industry (since there was not a Fed to put the general populous at risk---which we have today). I'm beginning to think more and more you're really an apologist for the very shenanigans by the bankers and the Fed that got us into this mess---you must be a closet Rethuglican.

"I'm beginning to think more and more you're really an apologist for the very shenanigans by the bankers and the Fed that got us into this mess---you must be a closet Rethuglican."

Actually, I don't have any reason to defend the Fed, I'm not a rabid fan but I also don't know that our present economic problems would be much different without the Fed. I think outsourcing jobs is a much more real reason for our economic problems than what type of banking system we have. You seem more concerned with how we bank our money than on how we earn our money. WE won't have anything to bank without dealing with the more obvious problems, when we solve them then maybe it will be time to look at the Fed.

Gosh, if only we'd indebted future generations to the tune of 5 trillion, instead of only 3, we'd be out of the recession by now!

Borrow and blow 6 trillion, then things would be really booming.

And thank God we "saved" all those Union Government Jobs.

Spending is the problem.

Vote for smaller Government in November.

#17 Corky> I know rightwingers are basically Social Darwinists, despite many of them pretending Christian beliefs,

Under 'Christian beliefs', forcibly taking money from person A to hand out to person B is _not_ charity! Christian charity is giving to the needy from your own pocket (with a cheerful heart, I might add). The motive for doing so is at least as important as the amount one gives.

Those beliefs have almost nothing in common with what the government does under the guise of helping people.

#9 Danni> My parents lived through the Great Depression, it took ten years and a world war to pull us out, in the end the huge amounts of spending on the war effort finally pulled us out.

Just a quick note of hypocrisy: you stated in the past numerous times that FDR's programs pulled us out of the Great Depression (which many of my relatives also lived through). Myself and others quoted notable economists who said that WW II actually pulled us out of the Great Depression. Have you changed your mind or did you forget which position you were cheerleading for?

"Using econometric models, Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi argue that the bailouts, the stimulus and other extraordinary actions saved America from nothing less than another Great Depression."

Using econometric models of course. Why not use the facts?

-Those beliefs have almost nothing in common with what the government does under the guise of helping people

Another person who gave up on Lincoln's government of, by, and for We the People.

Just a lot of Commie talk, eh?

Insisting on personal Christian values while advocating social and economic survival of the fittest is hypocrisy indeed.

Early Christians lived communally, having sold all they owned. An example not demanded by the religion today, but hardly in line with Social Darwinists who think they are Christians.

"Insisting on personal Christian values while advocating social and economic survival of the fittest is hypocrisy indeed."

Not when one considers the reality of giving a hand up instead of a hand out.

There is a need to paint an unrealistically dire picture at all costs. Faux News, sLimebaull, Coultergeist, Angry Andy Not-So-BrightBart, Glenn Beck et al have made this their agenda.

/Fixt.

Be Well.

"Just a quick note of hypocrisy: you stated in the past numerous times that FDR's programs pulled us out of the Great Depression (which many of my relatives also lived through). Myself and others quoted notable economists who said that WW II actually pulled us out of the Great Depression. Have you changed your mind or did you forget which position you were cheerleading for?"

I have always claimed the FDR's programs reduced unemployment and had largely pulled us out of the depression before WWII started but I also recognize that the massive amounts of government spending required for the war effort catapulted us from the lowest unemployment in ten years to full employment in a very short time. We were largely out of the depression but we weren't exactly prosperous yet when the war started, the war spending brought us all the way to the greatest level of prosperity we had ever seen.

"Insisting on personal Christian values while advocating social and economic survival of the fittest is hypocrisy indeed."

Not when one considers the reality of giving a hand up instead of a hand out.

In which Crispy suggests that mouthing the same old Repub platitudes equals real action. The crispy tea baggers don't want to save anything. They merely want to kvetch. herm

In which Crispy suggests that mouthing the same old Repub platitudes equals real action. The crispy tea baggers don't want to save anything. They merely want to kvetch. herm

#35 | Posted by herm at 2010-09-03 01:17 PM

I can only speak for myself and my actions. I am not surprised it is a foreign concept to you, and knowing your backward thinking that giving only hand outs will inevitably improve ones future disposition, I am not surprised.

What herm said.

The purpose of downturns during business cycles is to correct the imbalances and malspending. By not allowing the market to correct those errors, they tend to accumulate. Then the next downturn is worse, requiring more stimulus to prevent the market from correcting itself. After 70 years of minor stimulus corrections from the bottom of the end of the last depression, the federal government has absorbed debts and obligations beyond any chance of managing without borrowing and creating new money. The federal government has been insolvent for about 30 years.

So take your bows now libs and cons before TSHTF. This economy is in a depression that promises to be the mother of them all. You morons earned it the old fashioned way - by spending and borrowing your way to poverty. You can lie, but you won't be able to hide.

What herm said.
#37 | Posted by Corky at 2010-09-03 01:25 PM

Naturally. Maybe you can point out where the line "a hand up instead of a hand out" is some sort of complaint or whine?

"The federal government has been insolvent for about 30 years."

That's what I keep saying over and over.

And yes Ray, I realize you are not referring to the same causes as I am.

Yeah sure Fromma, meanwhile back at the ranch.

High-frequency trading (HFT) is algorithmic-computer trading that finds "statistical patterns and pricing anomalies" by scanning the various stock exchanges. It's high-speed robo-trading that oftentimes executes orders without human intervention. HFT allows one group of investors to see the data on other people's orders ahead of time and use their supercomputers to buy in front of them. It's called frontloading, and it goes on every day right under the SEC's nose.
On CNBC, market analyst Joe Saluzzi was asked if the big HFT players were able to see other investors orders and execute trades before them. Saluzzi said, "Yes. The answer is absolutely yes. The exchanges supply you with the data, giving you the flash order, and if your fixed connection goes into their lines first, you are disadvantaging the retail and institutional investor."

Frontloading is cheating pure and simple, but rather than go after the "big fish" who run these enormous computerized skimming operations; regulators have been rolling up rogue traders who abscond with the trading code. Right; so stealing from stock cheats who are gaming the system is against the law? Roger that.

No one wants to fix the problem, because then the big players would lose boatloads of money, and that just won't do. So the vehicle continues to speed faster and faster down the mountain veering wildly from one side of the road to the other.

Capital Hill is awash in Wall Street's dirty money, which means that congress will block any law that threatens the main profit-centers of the big banks or brokerage houses. HFT, complex derivatives, securitization and repo transactions will all be preserved in their present state until the next big tremor rumbles through lower Manhattan bringing the markets down in a thunderous roar. Make sure your cupboards are full.

Wxcerpted from Mike Whitney @ Counterpunch

What herm said.
#37 | Posted by Corky at 2010-09-03 01:25 PM

Naturally. Maybe you can point out where the line "a hand up instead of a hand out" is some sort of complaint or whine?

#39 | Posted by crispee_oc

I second that! What Herm said.

Anyone can spend money to dig a hole and fill it up again just to make work. But, what does that accomplish? This is the dilemma ObamaCo faced. Something needed to be done FAST but what? It takes true leadership and vision to dig a hole that also changes the course of a Nation for the betterment of mankind.

For some insight to what course really is see the aug 26th issue of TIME (HINT: it is NOT what Faux SNews, Lush sLimebaull, Coultergeist, Angry Andy Not-So-BrightBart, Glennda Beck et al are spewing).

(HINT: it is NOT what Faux SNews, Lush sLimebaull, Coultergeist, Angry Andy Not-So-BrightBart, Glennda Beck et al are spewing).

how much medication and how many therapists do you need to get through the day? Without all of it you would certainly go on a rampage and kill many many innocent people.

#44...

Fucking clown is quoting Time magazine, that should be the first indication of a need for meds and therapy. Take a gander at the latest cover about Israel. Anther soon to be non partisan Dooonerboy reference.

Corky sez:
"Early Christians lived communally, having sold all they owned. An example not demanded by the religion today, but hardly in line with Social Darwinists who think they are Christians."

Note those early Christians did this of their own will, giving directly to the poor. They did not have their money collected by an over-arching Government to redistribute.

You keep your COLLECTIVE SALVATION vision Corky.

It's just a ruse for Bigger Government.

I love how Big-Gov advocates attempt to use religion to argue in favor of Marxist concepts.

Also entertaining is invoking WE THE PEOPLE. Spare me.

More power to the central government does not equal power to the people.

Poor people need real jobs with viable companies, not a bigger Gov TEAT.

WE THE PEOPLE are starting to see that, and frankly could use your help.

Come home Corky. We need you.

-More power to the central government does not equal power to the people.

Another who has given up on Lincoln's creed and America's ideal of representative government.

If you believe the government is systemically challenged, then work to change back to a government representative of We the People and strengthen it, don't weaken the government and give up it's power to the wealthy and the corporations who always fill that power vacuum.

Which is exactly what they have brainwashed you to do.

However optimistic assuming you actually have that organ in working condition may be.

Corky sez:" then work to change back to a government representative of We the People and strengthen it"

I think we may be agreeing in that the current situation is not representative of the governed. The "strengthening" part? Not so sure. Plenty of power there, it's just no longer serving the governed.

I also agree we need regulation as a check on Corporations. Anti-trust laws are necessary use of government power. Anti-trust laws enhance real competition which serves "The People".

You're sounding a little Conservative Cork.

Why do some people think the government has a right -even a responsibility- to choose the winners and losers? When that happens, they always designate themselves and their money sources as winners.

yeah, the illegals, the welfare recipients, the disabled, all winners chosen by government, no this particular WH and its wise governing of western capitalism..

puhLEASE. give it a REST. or be listed as just another greedy western creep.

"The federal government has been insolvent for about 30 years."

That's what I keep saying over and over.

#40 | Posted by danni

It started with LBJ and his great society.

Year----Debt
1959---290,797,772---2.78----- --D------D------Eisenhower
1960---310,000,000---6.60----- --D------D------Eisenhower
1961---296,168,761---(4.46)--- --D------D------Kennedy
---------End of decreases------
1962---303,470,080---2.47----- --D-------D------Kennedy
1963---309,346,845---1.94----- --D-------D------Kennedy
1964---317,940,472---2.78----- --D-------D------Johnson

Na, I guess it started with JFK.

"I guess it started with JFK."

Posted by Sniper at 2010-09-03 09:43 PM | Reply

Try Reagan.

JFK was as violent as Reagan. But, unlike Reagan and J Edgar Hoover, Jack & Bobbie were targeting bosses Marcello, Trafficante, and Rosselli, until they assassinated him. It had to be covered up because otherwise Russia would have learned about JFK's Almeida coup plot against Castro. For a detailed report see Waldron & Hartmann's "Legacy of Secrecy".

Looks like we have our weekly Mark Zandi thread about how he and WH are right the stimulus and everyone who doesn't agree is wrong.

#4 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-09-02 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

I see you conveniently decided to ignore the George W Bush BAILOUT and instead concentrate on the stimulus.

Here, just in case you missed this part:

Mark Zandi argue that the bailouts, the stimulus and other extraordinary actions saved America.............

Republiclowns create the illusion of economic boom by extending credit... not by creating tangible assets.... no secret to that.

Mark Zandi argue that the bailouts, the stimulus and other extraordinary actions saved America.............

They saved America no more than a bank could save you from your wasteful spending habits by extending your maxed out credit line. As we are going to see, the feds are maxing out their credit too, and there is no one to bail them out. We're fucked.

Actuall 100% would be more akin to "slave." I"m curious, Ray, when on your continuum is that magic "slave" point reached? 0%, 1%, 10%?

Tax Freedom Day was April 9th this year. Shortest in many, many decades due to tax cuts. Tax cuts which are swelling the deficit ATR is complaining about.

That "article" is complete bullshit. How could they come up with August?

Oh. Grover Norquist, president of ATR and CNS is Brent Bozell.

Their "analysis" is completely made up.

Damn, you want to be taken seriously when you offer absolute crap like that, or are you just trolling?

Try Reagan.

#51 | Posted by Zatoichi

I guess the real facts of our deficit have NO meaning to zit. Regan and Bush did it.

1961 was the last year we paid money against the deficit. It's all been down hill since then. I guess that doesn't mean shit to you cause you have published.

I see you conveniently decided to ignore the George W Bush BAILOUT and instead concentrate on the stimulus.

Here, just in case you missed this part:

Mark Zandi argue that the bailouts, the stimulus and other extraordinary actions saved America.............

#54 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-09-04 01:04 AM

OK Mark Zandi has been wrong about both administration's actions. Feel better Sparky? Or were you jonesing to bring up a Bush repsonse?

#59 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-09-04 02:24 PM | Reply

Sorry goober, the debt/gdp ratio bottomed out at the end of the Carter administration.

Tax Freedom Day was April 9th this year. Shortest in many, many decades due to tax cuts. Tax cuts which are swelling the deficit ATR is complaining about.

#58 | Posted by YAV

Only for federal income tax unless you are one on the dole.

Debt/GDP back to 1870.

#52 | Posted by Zatoichi

Don't give me this debt to gdp shit!!! Debt is debt no matter how much you make.

#63 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-09-04 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag: not real bright

Consider two persons with a $10K debt.

One of them makes $1M a year, one of them $10K.
Which one's more in debt?

Only for federal income tax unless you are one on the dole.

Not according to the people that calculate that date each year:

Tax Freedom Day will arrive on April 9 this year, the 99th day of 2010, according to our annual calculation using the latest government data on income and taxes. Americans will work well over three months of the year -- from January 1 to April 9 -- before they have earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels.