The next president we get will be baseless.

'I'm from the government and I'm here to make your life miserable'.

Sounds more like it.

It wasn't funny then, either.

One thing I am glad about, I am glad that the age of trickle down economics, deregulation, etc. is known as Reaganomics. I think it is right and just that his name will forever be associated with the eventual meltdown of the American economy.

What about Fannie and Freddie and the Fed? Did Ronald Reagan create them too? Because Fannie, Freddie and the Fed are to blame for this crisis.

Some Liberal will probably blame this crisis on Reagan firing the air traffic controllers, Liberals are still whining about that!

"What about Fannie and Freddie and the Fed? Did Ronald Reagan create them too? "

Maybe we should ask Obama's advisers, and the Dems who got campaign contributions from them. How about that?

If you are a financial organization, in the defense industry or have a lot off off shore employees, the government has been a big help.

If you are Iranian,Chinese or saudi arabian, even more so of late.

"If you are a financial organization, in the defense industry or have a lot off off shore employees, the government has been a big help."

In other words, BIG BUSINESS LOVES BIG GOVERNMENT. northguy3 you are positively Randian today.

What about Fannie and Freddie and the Fed? Did Ronald Reagan create them too?

That was Mcsame and Gingrich and the boys-Reagan's spawn if you will. You remember their Contract on America?

And Member-it'd be easier to ask McSame's campaign director-he was pimpming for Fred and Fannie long after Obama's people had left the building. Or any of his advisers-about half have pimped for the now evil to McSame financial institutions.

I'm a liberal and went back to work when PATCO went on strike. PATCO endorsed Reagan in 1980 and deserved what they got. The strike just opened up more oportunity, better wages and a better retirement.
Thanks Gipper.

"George W. Bush never once not one time challenged Americans to do anything hard, let alone great."

I would argue that he challenged Americans to stand up to a government that betrayed us and we failed his challenge miserably.

I think it's funny that the same human feces that has wanted to add reagans bust to mt. rushmore is now being bailed out by the very government that it supposedly hates so much.

dumb ass inbred mother fuckers.

"Thanks Gipper."

You said it, deregulation really got started under Reagan, so did trickle down economics. Ronnie Raygun could be called the beginning of the end of American prosperity.

Yeah! You are right Shawn let's put Clinton's face in MT. Rushmore, after all, he continued deregulating, like that bill he signed into law in 1999 doing away with Glass Steagall! Yeah! How many dems voted for that?

"Ronnie Raygun could be called the beginning of the end of American prosperity."

Oh yes! America was soooo prosperous in the 1970's with Nixon, Ford, and especially Carter. And then Reagan came fucked it all up!

"Nixon, Ford, and especially Carter. And then Reagan came fucked it all up!"

Correct

'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"

"Appreciate that, Ronnie. You're a blast."
Ayatollah Khomeni.

"Me too. You're a gas".
Saddam Hussein

"Count me in. Just don't count the mass graves."
Pinochet

"Us too. "At least until that anglo bitch took your balls."
Argentinian Generals.

"Thanks for the nun sex."
Contras

One thing I am glad about, I am glad that the age of trickle down economics,

#4 | Posted by danni

I know, you believe in trickle up economics. That is where you give every poor person in the US $10,000 and then expect them to give you a job that pays $70k per year.

Maybe we should ask Obama's advisers, and the Dems who got campaign contributions from them. How about that?

#6 | Posted by member2586 at 2008-09-22 12:54 PM

I couldn't agree more. Back in 2005, McCain co-sponsored a bill that would have averted this financial mess we are in today. Here is a quote from an article from Bloomberg.com.

"If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.'' "

Now it's clear why Dems like Dodd and Obama got more money from those financial institutions than did McCain.

Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

Yeah, their majorities in both Houses couldn't get it voted on.
McSame/Gramm had no problem passing the Loot and Pillage Bill and McSame is on record saying he opposes regulations on banking or health care.

#5 | Posted by member2586 at 2008-09-22 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What about Fannie and Freddie and the Fed? Did Ronald Reagan create them too? "

Maybe we should ask Obama's advisers, and the Dems who got campaign contributions from them. How about that?

This is a big misconception that you are propagating.

Obama and the dems did not get campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie -- they got campaign contrib from their employees.

Perhaps more notable is that Obama and Kerry took in $8K total from PACs, where as the top two Repubs took in over $210K

Check it:

Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Name.. State...Party....PAC Total....Indiv Total
Dodd, CT...... D...... $48,500.......$116,900
Obama, IL..... D.......$6,000.........$120,34
9
Kerry, MA..... D...... $2,000........$109,000
Bennett, UT... R.......$71,499.......$36,500
Bachus, AL.... R.......$70,500.......$32,800
Blunt, MO..... R.......$78,500.......$18,450

One thing I am glad about, I am glad that the age of trickle down economics, deregulation, etc. is known as Reaganomics. I think it is right and just that his name will forever be associated with the eventual meltdown of the American economy.

#4 | Posted by danni

Danni you are one ignorant twit, if the government under Clinton had not required the banks to make loans to the disqualified, then they would not have the debt to write off...you cant blame Reagan for something that did not remain in place after he left. stupid Danni stupid Danni, no doggy treat for you!!!

" if the government under Clinton had not required the banks to make loans to the disqualified"

You're full of it. Show me the language in the bill which "required" the banks to make loans to the "disqualified".

Which bill is Libssuck talking about?

Danforth
One of my GOP buddies told me this same language "Clinton required the banks to fill quotas on loans"...

I searched the web a bit this morning and could find NOTHING to back this up. Must be Limbaughs latest talking point.... In other words GARBAGE.

On the other hand, I found a lot on Bush relaxing various rules and regulations.... go figure...

I've read the talking point a couple times myself, yet no links to a specific bill. I can only wonder which one they're supposedly talking about.

You said it, deregulation really got started under Reagan,

#13 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-22 01:34 PM | Reply

Actually, it got started under Carter and accelerated dramatically under Reagan.

You're full of it. Show me the language in the bill which "required" the banks to make loans to the "disqualified".

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-09-22 02:24 PM | Reply

The right-wing talking point of the day is that left-wing agitators; i.e., "community organizers" such as ACORN, et al, are to blame for the irresponsible lending because such agitators threatened protests and lawsuits against lending institutions if minorities (known to the prior poster as the "disqualified") were not given mortgages. Therefore, the lenders had no choice but to capitulate and give out bad loans in the face of legal threats from the disciples of Saul Alinsky.

In other words: It's Obama's fault.

Libsuck

Got a link to the ass you just pulled that 2:21 post from?

if the government under Clinton had not required the banks to make loans to the disqualified

Discredited sound bite of the week goes to Libsucker fer that audacious piece of crap.

On Topic?

Rotten Ronnie Raygun was always a fucking joke and no, he never was very funny.

He delivered the first one trillion dollar budget, and bought into Milton Friedman's ammoral economical philosophies hook, line and sinker.

Spud is still surprised at how much of this "Cult of Reagan" crap continues to this very day.

Oh well, they say there are cab drivers in Moscow who still hang a picture of Stalin from their rearview mirrors so it's not altogether w/o precedent.

Be Well.

Aww spud i figured you would love reagan seeing that he is responsible for your hero, bill's economy. Oh thats right he had an R next to his name, that make him evil and he probably eats babies and such. It's funny now though that he is criticized for his budget by the same people that support adding 3/4 of a trilling in obamas first term. The real joke is how the left has portrayed reagan in recent years but refuse to see his real effects.

"The right-wing talking point of the day is that left-wing agitators; i.e., "community organizers" such as ACORN, et al, are to blame for the irresponsible lending because such agitators threatened protests and lawsuits against lending institutions if minorities (known to the prior poster as the "disqualified") were not given mortgages. Therefore, the lenders had no choice but to capitulate and give out bad loans in the face of legal threats from the disciples of Saul Alinsky.

In other words: It's Obama's fault."

#28 | Posted by anton

Is this at all related to the other talking point I've been seeing that McCain warned us all this would happen, and that Democrats shot down some other mysterious bill that would have prevented it?

"Spud is still surprised at how much of this "Cult of Reagan" crap continues to this very day."

The cult is comprised of this new super-anti-reagan bullshit that is propagated by those looking to fool the american people into electing a substandard idiot. Instead it serves, at least to those willing to think for them selfs, to display the contempt the left has for this nation and their willingness to destroy it to get them selfs a little more power.

the contempt the left has for this nation and their willingness to destroy it to get them selfs a little more power.

~Slimin'gator

The left?

Yer kidding right?

The right, as evidenced by BushCo, have shown nothing but contempt fer the principles and ideals that the US was founded on, and their greed knows no bounds.

The right have destroyed a lot of wot made America great in the last eight years and all so they could make themselves a little richer.

Yer connection to reality goes beyond tenuous to being practically nonexistent.

Seek help.

Be Well.

The real joke is how the left has portrayed reagan in recent years but refuse to see his real effects.

His real effects?

Tell that to the people of the Southern cone who were kidnapped, raped, tortured, forced to torture their own loved ones, dipped upside down in buckets of human feces, and mass murdered while their children were stolen from them all because of Reagan's adoption of Milton Friedman's so-called Free Market Policies.

You don't haff a clue who Raygun really was.

Be Well.

"The left?

Yer kidding right?"

I don't see the right putting up a candidate that fails even the most loose scale of legitimacy. I don't see the right running constantly on a lack of any platform but it not so and so. I don't see the right preying on the people fears being considered a racist or sexist or bigot of they don't elect their candidate. I don't see the right as offering up unsupported economic claims as obams "lets raise the capital gains tax, it sure to work cause i sat so" crap. I don't see the left offering anything but fear and distrust in this election cycle.

That is not to say the right has no responsibility for our problems, but they at least appear to offer a solution rather then fear, empty promising of change, and hatred.

"You don't haff a clue who Raygun really was"

Of course not, i mean listening to the way the lefts propaganda portrays him as i mus be wrong. So, he was a heroine dealing, seal bashing, baby eating, dog kicking, shit throwing, blood drinking, lower-er of children into open manholes, piss-drinking, grandmother trampling, kitten torturing, blind man tripping, yeller of fire in a crowded theater, stealer of the homless's cardboard, old man kicking, asshole, right?

You don't haff a clue...

~Spud

Of courses not...

~Newtocroc

Well, glad you admit it. That's a good start.

heroine dealing

Is true.

He used to sell bootleg copies of Nancy Drew Detective stories in order to buy cocaine to sell fer arms which were then given to Iran.

Be Well.

" if the government under Clinton had not required the banks to make loans to the disqualified"

You're full of it. Show me the language in the bill which "required" the banks to make loans to the "disqualified".

#23 | Posted by Danforth

Dear Dumbfuck
You simply can not understand the impact that the required earmarked community development loans had on the lending process by banks, it cant be explained with pictures so go back to your Gerber "stink tank"

Signed Libssuck

Am I laughing? No, now with people like you out there professing "Government as our Saviour to any and all problem that may face us" I'm drop dead scared and mad as all heck you expect me to pick up the tab.

Read very carefully, the Government is the *CAUSE* of the economic problem. They created the bubble after 9/11 with their 1% federal interest rates and this is the result.

Capitalism requires risk, if a business makes bad choices, they should go out of business and make room for people to do it correctly. The economic term for this is called "Creative Destruction".

When Government attempts to give a boon to the economy it is always temporary. Government has NO MONEY AT ALL that it did not steal from someone else. Eventually the "giving" and benefit to the economy is replaced by the negative effect of the "taking" to provide it.

When government removes the risk, it encourages the problem. When government provides bailouts all it does it push the problem downstream to happen again at another time while robbing the people with inflation.

Now they are talking about bailing out foreign banks on the backs of the tax payers too.. you should be absolutely outraged!

Politicians in their blind aim to just "do something" are mortgaging your grand children's future, it is absolutely criminal.

I know, you believe in trickle up economics. That is where you give every poor person in the US $10,000 and then expect them to give you a job that pays $70k per year.

#18 | Posted by Sniper at 2008-09-22 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

???

If that's going to be the cornerstone of your argument, you should simply stop now and save yourself the embarrassment.

So, according to our "conservative" friends, the cause of this meltdown is a few thousand working-poor families getting mortgages during the Clinton years on really cheap properties in inner city and rural areas, back when prices for such properties were probably around $100K.

Darned poor folks!!! Always dragging us down.

Is this at all related to the other talking point I've been seeing that McCain warned us all this would happen, and that Democrats shot down some other mysterious bill that would have prevented it?

#32 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-09-22 04:46 PM | Reply

Yes, I think they are related. They both translate into: "It's Obama's fault."

Now it's clear why Dems like Dodd and Obama got more money from those financial institutions than did McCain.

Posted by Republican4ever at 2008-09-22 01:49 PM

Yup, clear as mud.

Obama is the largest individual recipient at about $112,000, federal campaign finance reports show.

One reason Obama has collected the most is that he has raised far more than any other federal candidate, $390 million so far. The mortgage money has not influenced Obama's stands, a campaign aide said.

Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, took just one donation, for $500, from one Freddie employee.

McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, is Fannie- and Freddie-free, having never run for federal office.

Republican nominee John McCain has taken $16,400 from Freddie and Fannie employees since 2005. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis is past president of the Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy group whose members included Freddie and Fannie. In that role, he defended the companies against increased regulation.

That "mysterious bill" died in Republican committee in 2005 before McCain signed on in 2006. He was not a co-sponsor until after it was dead, and then he dropped it. But, he's milking it for all it's worth.

Reagan's trickle down economics theory is dead.

Free trade is dead.

Deregulation is dead.

Stock speculation is dead.

Hedge funds are dead.

Sub-prime mortgages are dead.

Any future Republican scheme to privatize Social Security is dead.

Federal rules and regulations are back in style.

Stock speculation is dead.

the rest of it maybe, but not stock speculation

You're dead.

You're dead.

No. There may be a neat investment opportunity in the future for the very same investors to buy assets from the gov't (for which taxpayers paid a premium price), at a grotesque discount. That way, they can make money coming AND going, after being bailed out.

Libsuck

Banks were not required to make loans to unqualified people.

You are a true idiot--and liar.

You are a true idiot--and liar.

How Does it Feel?

You have to ask? LOL

That's like a fish what it's like to be wet.

AMEN! flag for Sully's #11 post!

Eberly

"Stock speculation is dead."

the rest of it maybe, but not stock speculation.

Perhaps I used the wrong term. Stock speculation as to whether a stock is going to increase or decreas in value will always be done! But I was trying to mean the guys who would buy up a lot of stock, drive the stock's value down to next to nothing, and then make a bunch of money. Are they called "speculators"? Or maybe it has something to do with those guys who do "short sells"?

Sorry, my whole answer after the sentence in bold should not have been in italics.

Repubs have no valid arguments. Their whole ideaology is based on aristocratic society.

Dear Danforth:
Libssuck's #39 post translated:
I have no proof to back up my outrageous bullshit, so I will call you a "dumbfuck" for daring to question me.

"Reagan's trickle down economics theory is dead."

Not quite, Chris. It's a vampire. You need to put a stake in it.

Goatman

I'm surprised a lying punk like you has the courage to show up after the beating you took last night. Well, brains was never your strong point.

Still trying to say steel girders don't act as heat sinks? Still saying they retain heat and don't dissipate it? Still looking for your ass? You seem to forget--I handed it to you yesterday.

"Reagan's trickle down economics theory is dead."

Trickle down only works if you understand that "peon" is an active verb.

...And if yer the one doing the peeing.

In short: "I got mine. Piss on you"

Be Well.

"I'm surprised a lying punk like you..."

Bob, I have to second your opinion: From what I've seen this "goatman" is a disingenuous liar and a coward. Good call on your part.

Friedman has NEVER been funny

thank the Lord, he didn't say, "trust me - i'm a proctologist."

so, if the government doesn't bailout a completely private enterprise like AIG then we would be in worse shape then we are right now?

Say what?

Free-market capitalism REQUIRES that fat pigs like AIG, Lehman, F&F to go bankrupt.. thats the natural cycle. Sure it will be painful but what the government proposes will only delay it and makes the final outcome 100 times worse.

This is for the idiot who thinks Bill Clinton had a budget surplus. I guess he flunked economics or has been listening to Keith Odorman.

#63 is right.

Should you stay in business if your costs exceed your profit? NO!

Pretend that AIG sold a tangible product, say widgets for example, instead of insurance. If you made a product that nobody wanted to buy, then you *SHOULD* go out of business, this is normal.

What is not normal is the Government buyouts. This is exactly the same as the Government spending your money to buy all those bad products that nobody wanted and flushing them down the toilet.

Republicans want to blame Democrats, Democrats want to blame Republicans but we need to get past that to see that the real problem is government control on the whole.. they simply do not know how to run our economy.

It didn't work for the Soviet Union and it won't work for us.

What's it going to take to get a decent candidate to run. Neither of these are up to the task, certainly not Obama Bin Laden.