Insert right wing talking point here accusing Democrats of creating this mess.

Insert Danni, as usual, more concerned about shooting the messenger than the message itself.

Yes, Bill Clinton started it by pressuring Fannie and Freddie to give loans to unqualified applicants --- and defended and shielded by Barney Franks, Maxine Waters (and other dems, 2004 hearing). The evidence is in video. Newsmax.com has an article with the video.

IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT LOL

YEAH!

Speaking of Talk Radio shenanigans, here is an example of how anyone who dared say a meltdown was eminent was chastised and marginalized by the mouths of the "republican" party.

Less than three weeks ago, Sean Hannity had a temper tantrum when a guest dared to say that the American economy is in "dire straits."

TAKEITEZ,
Wow! You dittoheads are really pushing the shit out of that Newsmax video. Is that all you've got?
You're going to have to do a lot better than that to shift the blame away from where it belongs: you and the other right wingers who are responsible for this mess.

What makes David Brooks think that to vote the way they did is nihilism.

I think it is exactly the opposite.

To vote against this abortion of an ideal is the essence of morality. for once the house stood up for the people and not for the fat cats.

Now here's the funny part; This crisis has nothing to do with the mortgage crisis. It has everythign to do with mortgage backed security deriviatives. Some of them are leveraged more than once.

THIS IS GREED OF THE HIGHEST ORDER AN THEY NEED TO FAIL.

Yes, Clinton started it, but he got out before things went belly up. Its not about assigning blame, its about knowing the root cause and its history. At the root was Bill Clinton.

Where was Bill Clinton when Reagan was preaching antiregulation to the right wing choir? There's your root cause.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that to shift the blame away from where it belongs: you and the other right wingers who are responsible for this mess.

If you refuse to acknowledge the role that the Community Reinvestment Act played in this whole mess, then you're an ignoramus.

Furthermore, if you agree that said Act plays a role doesn't mean that Republicans aren't to blame as well.

"Its not about assigning blame, its about knowing the root cause and its history."

Sorry but yes it is about assigning blame. The Bush administration is to blame regardless of your Clinton deflections. The Republican party is to blame regardless of the bull shit you post.
Only the sorriest, lamest fools still defend the Republicans now.

Sorry but yes it is about assigning blame.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-30 09:22 AM

Obvious flag.

Neil Boortz was asked Monday to define greed. He wouldn't do it. That's how bad the ideological box some of the right is in.

So I'll define greed. Greed is wanting money more than you love your country. To hell with Neil Boortz.

"Wow! You dittoheads are really pushing the shit out of that Newsmax video. Is that all you've got?"

Do you like the premier newspaper, the New York Times better? Here's an article from nine years ago to the day, September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

Read the whole article. Learn some historical facts:

I can't make lying right wing tools stop making dishonest accusations but I can try to post links that disprove their dishonest bull shit.

"The new line we're hearing is that the financial meltdown was really the product of the Community Reinvestment Act, a piece of legislation from the late-70s that required federally-insured banks to lend throughout the areas from which they take deposits, including poor neighborhoods, which were being systematically excluded from credit. The legislation, by all accounts, worked. Now, however, conservatives are trying to argue that it's behind the crisis: If the CRA hadn't been pushing these banks to make all these unsafe loans, then the birds would still sing...

As Robert Gordon shows, however, this is crap. First, there's the timing. CRA came in 1977. The crisis came in 2007. Indeed, by 2004, the Bush administration had weakened the CRA -- and after that (though not, presumably, because of it), bubble lending really took off. Further, CRA only governs a certain class of federally insured banks. Problem is, half of the subprime loans came from mortgage companies with no CRA involvement at all. Another 25%-30% came from companies with very little CRA exposure. For those who left their abacus at home, that's 80% of the loans which were fully or largely outside CRA jurisdiction. More than that, the non-CRA mortgage firms made subprime loans at twice the rate of CRA-covered firms. Which basically leaves a stake in the heart of this particular theory. Indeed, until now, some conservatives have been moaning that no one is talking about the CRA part because it's so racially charged. Poppycock. It's just a false charge..."

"To vote against this abortion of an ideal is the essence of morality. for once the house stood up for the people and not for the fat cats."

Lipz got it right his time.

"Do you like the premier newspaper, the New York Times better? Here's an article from nine years ago to the day, September 30, 1999"

Earth to Jestgettingalong....George Bush became president in 2000, only four months after this article. He had a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. He could have but did not fix these problems. Pretending that Bill Clinton's signature in 1999 prevented Bush and the Republicans from dealing with these growing problems is just dishonest bull shit, which is, about what I expect from you.

Democracy in action, folks. Many of these House members are up for re-election in November. Even with all the government propaganda, executive cheerleading, and bi-partisan kissy-face, the 700B bailout is polling at less than 10% among voters. If this bill was put to a vote in December it would pass without nary a word. The lack of support from House Republicans has little to do with altruistic motives and everything to do with pre-election public pressure.

A "yes" vote on the bailout = a "no" vote in the re-election campaigns of November.

""To vote against this abortion of an ideal is the essence of morality. for once the house stood up for the people and not for the fat cats."

Hope they are right but most experts don't think they are. If they aren't the economy will tank and those people will feel the wrath of voters as they should. Most voted out of political cowardice not conviction, they didn't want to have to tell voters they voted to give Wall St. 700 Billion but most that amount will seem small if the crisis developes the way most financial experts are predicting.

At the root was Bill Clinton.

#8 | Posted by takitez

Hey takeashitski, I can't stand Bill Clinton and will not defend him but you are only a very miniscule part right.

Let's cover this again for you retards.

1) The government found itself with tons of extra cash because of a real increase in american productivity during the dotcom boom.

2) they created the act to get more people into mortgages with that money. This was bill clinton and it was only mildly questionable because it was paid for already. Actually, it weas a pretty good ideal.

3) The bankers took those mortgages, because they were backed by the gov and packaged them into 'mortgage based securities' pacakages.

4) now here's where the problem comes in. The banks leveraged those security packages 300, 400% of their capital and whammo, as soon as their value fell, the scam was exposed.

So you see, Clinton's intention and plan were not that bad and certainly not to blame for our current mess, the greed of the bankers was to blame for that.

Now they need to fail to punsih them for doing it and to punish the american people for letting it happen. I'll bet if Grandma bessy looses her retirement account, some Washington insiders will go to jail.

Takeashitski, I am getting tired of educating your stupid ass. Why don't you go to jesus.com and blog?

Hope they are right but most experts don't think they are.

#19 | Posted by danni

Danni, don't listen to anyone that is loosing their ass right now. The experts are as leveraged in the mortgage backed securities as the banks are.

Do you think they will look at thier balance sheets and say, 'hey it would be a good day to loose all my savings'.

no, it's easy to say, 'hey people, this is your old friend, please vote for the bail-out'. Meaning, 'hurry before i loose my shirt'.

They should implement a one month waiting period before doing anything.

That will expose the crooks and the give our economy and new fresh start. Stocks will skyrocket if they did that.

"Yes, Clinton started it, but he got out before things went belly up. Its not about assigning blame, its about knowing the root cause and its history. At the root was Bill Clinton.
#8 | Posted by takitez at 2008-09-30 09:14 AM |"

Is your real name Monica Lewinsky?

David Brooks is talking about the dittoheads who've destroyed the Republican Party. And he's got a good point: Like some DR posters, they've mistaken talk radio for reality. All this yammering about "socialism," and the "evidence"/"proof" being in "the video" is pathetic.

Have a nice day liars.

If you'd stop ignoring reality punching you in the face, you'd know we are talking about 1995, not 1977. But you don't care to know what is actually going on, because all you care about is blame.

"Earth to Jestgettingalong....George Bush became president in 2000, only four months after this article. He had a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. He could have but did not fix these problems. Pretending that Bill Clinton's signature in 1999 prevented Bush and the Republicans from dealing with these growing problems is just dishonest bull shit, which is, about what I expect from you."

Danni...read carefully!

I AM NOT EXCUSING AND NEVER HAVE EXCUSED REPUBLICANS FROM BLAME IN THIS MESS AS YOU HAVE TRIED TO EXCUSE THE DEMOCRATS! THE DEMOCRATS ARE JUST AS MUCH TO BLAME, IF NOT MORE, AS THE REPUBLICANS ARE.
LEAVE THE BONG ALONE AND READ SOME MORE, DANNI!

"Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.

ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans."

"IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.

When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff."

HERE, READ IT ALL, DANNI...THEN RATIONALIZE IT.

Blaming poor people for the mess? Hey, great idea! Wall Street's total abandonment of any prudence or the principles of risk analysis is not involved, of course. Their invention of synthetic derivatives with no underlying value in order to make commissions is not to blame. An overinflated housing market is not to blame. Mortgage companies writing variable mortgages to people on false paperwork is not to blame.

It's the poor. Now I understand.

Yes, Clinton started it, but he got out before things went belly up. Its not about assigning blame, it's about knowing the root cause and its history.

YEAH!
So what you are saying now is that GW never did actually "Preside Over the Largest Home Ownership Increase in American History" after all and that all of this is all Clintons Fault?

Yeah right, lets let Wall Street Scam artists use up another $700 billion. I wonder what they'd do with it this time. Swiss Bank Accounts, Yachts, Second home in Florida, Rolls...? Its not like they don't don't have our best interests at heart or anything. Easy come, easy go.

"Danni...read carefully!"

Can't bother when you don't bother to read any of the links I posted. Mine were actual sites with decent reputations not just repitions of Rush's latest bull shit.

"It's the poor. Now I understand."

No you don't, it's obviously way over your head.

Anyway our founding fathers got something right when they made the House responsible for funding and elected every TWO YEARS. This would have been a done deal except for the fact that November is just ONE month away.

"IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT LOL"

#4 | Posted by Kinger

No, but he seems to think the Democrats helped create this mess.

Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC's Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"

Right wing talk radio is a parody of what an information medium should be. Its only virtue is that it so transparently biased.

I'll tune in every once in a while. Same old shit every time.

It is never Bush's fault. It is never the Republicans' fault. It is always Clinton's or Carter's fault. It is always the Democrats' fault. Reagan is a demigod. Pelosi is a bitch.

Even here in Texas, Bush hardly gets a mention these days. When he does it's along these unconsciously contemptuous lines, both of which I heard within the last week.

From the host: "President Bush, bless his heart, knows what he wants but seems unable to get it done". And back to bashing Pe-lousy.

From a caller: "Dear old George, I voted for him twice but only because the alternatives were so awful". Said without any discernible trace of recognition that the current situation is beyond awful.

"Can't bother...."

Well, I knew that Danni. It's my fault. I keep forgetting that you don't have all the dots on your dice and you're impaired by your self-admitted daily use of pot as well. Relax, Sweetie, it'll be nappy-poo time for you soon.

"Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC's Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"

So what. Many Democrats resisted the bankruptcy bill....didn't prevent it.
Many resisted the Iraq war....didn't prevent it.

The Republicans need to take responsibility for what occurred while they held the majority in Congress. Funny that since 2006 all I have heard from Republicans is "why can't the Dems change this, fix the energy crisis, etc." even though in reality their majority in the Senate is too slim to be a real majority. Bill Clinton accepts his share of the blame but that in no way eliminates the blame from the majority at the time.

"I've spoken with several House Republicans over the past few days and most admirably believe in free-market principles. What's sad is that they still think it's 1984. They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy." David Brooks

THIS is the most interesting thing in Brooks' piece and possibly the truest thing he, at least, has written on the matter.

That is the crux of it: Most of our members of Congress think it's 1984. Most of them are not fit for the job. Look at these guys on TV - they are clueless. They care more about their own positions in the hierarchy than anything else. They spend most of their time campaigning. Two-term limits, and get "real people" to run for Congress. That is what we need!

"The Republicans need to take responsibility for what occurred while they held the majority in Congress."
--DANNI

Then Democrats (especially Pelosi) need to take responsibility for what's occurring while they're holding the majority.

"to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"

I'm still looking for the wording which forced lenders to offer 125% LTV, no money down, interest-only, and balloon payment readjustment loans. I'm also looking for the wording which forced bankers to repackage bad loans, get them re-rated, and sell them in bulk. And wording which forced them to then leverage bad paper against bad paper.

"Then Democrats (especially Pelosi) need to take responsibility for what's occurring while they're holding the majority."

Pelosi's a jagoff.

That said, give me 41+ Senators and a President with a veto pen, and you won't even be able to close a debate. Which begs the question: how much do you blame the most obstructionist Congress in America's history?

"That is the crux of it: Most of our members of Congress think it's 1984. Most of them are not fit for the job."

Amen...hell, most of 'em have BEEN there since 1984. It's ridiculous to think that changing ONE person in the Oval Office every four or eight years will change anything. Clean sweep...then term limits! No more career congressmen.

"That said, give me 41+ Senators and a President with a veto pen, and you won't even be able to close a debate. Which begs the question: how much do you blame the most obstructionist Congress in America's history?"

#40 | Posted by Danforth

Who needs an obstructionist minority when ~40% of the majority party's own members won't support the agenda?

"I'm still looking for the wording which forced lenders to offer 125% LTV, no money down, interest-only, and balloon payment readjustment loans. I'm also looking for the wording which forced bankers to repackage bad loans, get them re-rated, and sell them in bulk. And wording which forced them to then leverage bad paper against bad paper."

#39 | Posted by Danforth

I don't think I made either claim. Keep looking.

"It's ridiculous to think that changing ONE person in the Oval Office every four or eight years will change anything."

Not so ridiculous when you look at the surplus left by Clinton and compare it to the deficit today.
Not so ridiculous when you consider the unfunded unnecessary war in Iraq.
Not so ridiculous when you look at the economic mess we have today.

George Bush did changed EVERYTHING for the worse.
Much worse.

This thread is not ALL ABOUT YOU, Live or Die.

Danforth made a good point and you take it as a personal attack.

Yes, Danni, with a compliant Congress for six years, and now they can't do anything to support him because they know everybody hates him.

"George Bush did changed EVERYTHING for the worse."

"...did changed..."?

Why don't you go take your little nappy-poo early today, Sweetie. Come back when you're rested and away from the bong for a while. You'll feel much better...trust me.

"Yes, Danni, with a compliant Congress for six years, and now they can't do anything to support him because they know everybody hates him."

Their choice of when to stand up to him may be problematic for the country....or then it may end up being the right thing....does anyone really know for sure???

"...did changed..."?

OMG! I've been caught by the spelling police!

place blame after looking at the basic premise of the problem.

wall st. problem stems from a whole slew of actions surrounding mortgages (repackaging, leveraging, etc).
the mortgage in questions are reportedly zero downpayment, interest only and/or adjustable rate mortgages.

what do these mortgages have in common?

there is zero investment in the mortgages by the borrower.

If any of that is incorrect, please point that out.

So what does that mean?

you have 2 people on a contract-usually a mortgage broker who will sell the mortgage nearly immediately and the homeowner. One side has zero invested, the collataral is the land and building. His only downside is the potential black mark on his credit score-and if we are talking low income people, their credit scores wont be too favorable to begin with.

on the other side we have lenders with the money buying the property-they have the downside of having to foreclose on the property should the borrower default.

so who is to blame?

to my knowledge, no law in the land forced anyone to sign a mortgage contract.

I think what we will see is, no mater whom is elected all this will just go away after the election. You have to wonder if this is just another "the sky is falling" scam. It's complicated and has been in the making for a long time. I'm not saying someone did this to sway the election, but someone connected to this mess will benefit big time! It could be money or power or both. Something just smells!

"This thread is not ALL ABOUT YOU, Live or Die.

Danforth made a good point and you take it as a personal attack."

#45 | Posted by sitdown

I'm still looking for wording suggesting that I took Danforth's comment as a personal attack. All I can see is that I took it as a response to something I said prepackaged to counter the right wing talking point that the dems forced bad loans (a point that I denied making). Also, wording suggesting that you have the right number chromosomes.

right number chromosomes

Son of a bitch...

Just call me Trig_Or_Die.

"Something just smells!"

It does have a Rovian aroma.

"I don't think I made either claim."

I never said you did. But until you can find the wording which placed the gun at the heads of the lenders, I'm going to place most of the blame on the guys who went to business school, but still did 125% LTV, no money down, interest only, etc., etc., etc., and then repackaged those loans and leveraged bad paper against bad paper.

Where have you blamed the folks in the deal who were supposed to know?

The House Republicans voting against this bill are right in principle NOW but were wrong in practice THEN. When they were in power they allowed this situation to develop by rubberstamping every lunatic fiscal irresponsibilty that Bush pushed for. From Iraq, to tax cuts the country couldn't afford, to the politicization of the internal machinery of government and the unthinking pursuit of deregulation for ideology's sake. Thank God that the attempt to privatize Social Security went into the shitter before Bush and the Republicans could fuck that up too.

Now that the chickens have come home to roost their principled stand is just too late. The situation is what it is and the probable outcome of allowing everything to fail would be a 1930's depression. At a gut level most of us want to see the fuckers stripped of all their ill-gotten gains and Wall Street to come crashing down but that's not dosble and it's us who would pay dearly in the end, not them. These fuckers are rich, well-connected and can afford battalions of corporate lawyers to save their sorry asses. We can't.

As Brooks says, it is the same old shit that caused the country's immigration crisis. Stand by, do nothing but make the situation worse and then propose self-defeating and impractical solutions to the problems that their own inaction and connivance allowed to develop. Rightly or wrongly and despite all the propaganda spewed out on their behalf most people blame the GOP for these kind of things going wrong since they have been in power the most in most people's memory. The blowback is at last here. For instance, how are Republicans doing with Hispanic voters these days? In a word. Badly.

These fuckers are rich, well-connected and can afford battalions of corporate lawyers to save their sorry asses. - Blue

And you could be also talking about the vast majority of Members of Congress

Well, yes. And your point is?

I just listened to the speech by Pelosi that Boeher was whining about. The only partisan thing about it was Clinton left the country with a budget surplus. Worse yet with a budget surplus that lasted the last 4 years of his presidancy and if followed was projected to last another five after he left office. She pointed out that within 2 years Bushling had wiped that out. No wonder the republicans were pissed.

All they have to say in return is "dot com bust". Well when you have a surplus you can afford a bust now and then... you have breathing room.

Oh and by the way... for all of you republican voters and supported Bush based on "protection of family values"... for the first time in Americn history during this administration... homosexuals have legally wed in this country. Another success you can add to the Bushole legacy...

I remember the bin Laden video that help get Bushling elected where supposedly from a cave he said that he understood men like Bushling.... the spoiled sons of rich men because he grew up with men like that. For some weird reason that got a few more Republicans off the couch to run down and vote him 2% over and into office.

Could you guys, just on this one issue, put aside your obssessive need to cast blame so as to build up your own party while tearing down the other.

This is a crisis that needs cool heads and not partisan party hacks.

Save the politics for the election and let's make our congress solve this to all OUR best interests.

"Sorry but yes it is about assigning blame. The Bush administration is to blame regardless of your Clinton deflections. The Republican party is to blame regardless of the bull shit you post. Only the sorriest, lamest fools still defend the Republicans now." #11 | Posted by danni

Spoken like a real tool. Here is a message that will make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside sung by children of the Obama Youth:

The only partisan thing about it was Clinton...

failed to impose discipline on Wall Street during his administration, and basically joined with Lieberman to gut the SEC. So we've had 16 years of laissez faire policy with regards to the financial markets, though a case could be made to add another 8 years due to the leveraged buyouts that began during the Reagan admin.

So we've been on the slippery slope for a long time. Bush just greased the skids.

So KBM's argument is Bush wasn't that bad for that long...he was shitty for a few less weeks.

This is a crisis that has only one solution. Bail them out. All we can get in return is revenge against those who we think allowed it to happen and left us with that one disagreeable solution. Bush is a dead duck but his party isn't. Yet.

There are people that actually believe we need this bailout

"Understanding $700,000,000,000.00"

"700,000,000,000 / 33,000,000 = Over $21,000 cash the government could just give to everyone with a mortgage! What kind of stimulus would that have on the economy to hand 33 million people $21,000?"

"If the Treasury simply took the $700 Billion and started paying off taxpayer mortgages, they could pay off every mortgage in the country worth less than $75,000... Or put another way, $700 Billion could pay off well over half of all outstanding first mortgages in the entire country."

What a wizbangblog good idea. Just how would you implement it? Fairly.

"Danni, Danni, Danni. Bush was elected in November 2000 and was sworn in January 2001."

Ok, so then they could have changed any law they wanted startign in Jan. 2001. What difference does the date make (though is was a dumb mistake on my part)? The point was that they held the power to change whatever needed changing.

"Could you guys, just on this one issue, put aside your obssessive need to cast blame so as to build up your own party while tearing down the other."

No because the economy is one of the central issues of this election. Republicans need to be rightly blamed for the situation and rewarded accordingly at the voting booth.

The bailout will pass... the Repubs are just twisting to find a politically expedient way out of this mess... but there ain't one.

If the bailout passes, they lose and look like fools for holding it up. If it doesn't, then the economy tanks and they lose because they are held responsible for not supporting it. Its a no-win situation for them.

even though in reality their majority in the Senate is too slim to be a real majority

Ok, so then they could have changed any law they wanted startign in Jan. 2001. What difference does the date make (though is was a dumb mistake on my part)? The point was that they held the power to change whatever needed changing.

Boo Hoo.. no they couldn't because...sniff... they didn't have a real majority. Wha! Wha!

See how stupid it sounds?

Wow, some people are tools.

I actually worked at a bank, in the homelending division, reviewing loans, for a few years right as this whole bubble started to build.

You do all remember the housing bubble, right?

I got the supreme joy of sitting there listening to my bosses talk about how this whole fiasco was going to bite the economy in the ass as they fed it and watched it grow. This was over 5 years ago.

Looks like they knew what they were talking about, and believe me, it was very obvious that it revolved around low interest rates and Bush's push to get everyone in their own home.

Put the blame where it obviously goes instead of trying to fool everyone into believing some ridiculous steaming pile about how the fault is Obama's, the poor's, the Clintons', etc.

revjack23

Three words: adjustable rate mortgage.

The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97-320, H.R. 6267, enacted 1982-10-15) is an Act of Congress, that deregulated the Savings and Loan industry. This Act turned out to be one of many contributing factors that led to the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s.[1]

The bill, whose full title was "An Act to revitalize the housing industry by strengthening the financial stability of home mortgage lending institutions and ensuring the availability of home mortgage loans," was a Reagan Administration initiative.[2]

"Boo Hoo.. no they couldn't because...sniff... they didn't have a real majority. Wha! Wha!

See how stupid it sounds?"

It would sound stupid if the Democrats had filibustered like the Republicans do so often these days but unfortunately they didn't so your point is senseless.

"No because the economy is one of the central issues of this election. Republicans need to be rightly blamed for the situation and rewarded accordingly at the voting booth."

#69 | Posted by danni

Along with the Democrats who helped create this mess.

I got the supreme joy of sitting there listening to my bosses talk about how this whole fiasco was going to bite the economy in the ass as they fed it and watched it grow. This was over 5 years ago.

Looks like they knew what they were talking about,

#73 | Posted by revjack23

But the question is this;

Did any one of those folks modify their lending practices based on what they knew?

Hell no. They laughed all the way to the...er.. well, they were already in the bank, but it was very clear that they knew what was up and who to thank. And so far, they are the only local bank in my area not hurting. At least, not badly.

Deregulation is a sin of both sides of the aisle, and both Reagan and Clinton had their hand deep in it, but Bush Jr, that's the guy that came along and opened basically turned the unstable system up to full capacity, with a little help from Greenspan.

My real question is, who is actually going ot lead the charge back into regulating these beasts?

The guy that's been charging forth demanding we deregulate for oh, 25+ years? Or the guy who may have a few embarrassing votes under his belt, but is at least capable of seeing reason?

Big black eye for Obama, but for McCain, this is lights out....

Deregulation is not a bad thing if and only if you allow the market to work. That means no bail-outs.

If you have regulation, you shouldn't need bail-outs but we've seen that doesn't work that way either.

So deregulate and let businesses live and die based on their own decisions. Or regulate and bail them out when your regulations cause their business to crash.

But you can't have deregulation and bailouts.

Good post #79.

Deregulation worked so well for energy. Enron, anyone?

Or how about those cable and telephone bills? Energy rates?

Most people seem to forget that the reason we regulate is because NOT REGULATING caused the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, etc.

When will people learn? Another good question is, why does it seem like 'free market capitalists' can't handle the concept that like communism, it sure looks good on paper, but is not reality based? Not all capitalism needs to be free market in order to not be Socialism, sheesh. My preteen gets this already. Reality calls for a blend of the two...

Most people seem to forget that the reason we regulate is because NOT REGULATING caused the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, etc.

The problem with Regulations is simple-they cut into profits.
What????
And deprive all those "Capitalists" of obscenely large profits?
How Un-Rethuglican!
We gots to have more and more profit! All the time-every day-more, and more, and more...

I must be a nihilist because with every day that goes by without the bailout happening, I want it less.

At first I thought a bailout was probably necessary - just not the piece of shit, no account plan that was originally presented.

Now I don't want one at all.

for the life of me I dont understand why brooks is called a conservative
I know that it is probably because he is in the belly of the leftist beast known as the times but I mean REALLY............

sully.......I am about to get on board with you.
didnt the market right itself a little yesterday and even though its down this morning........

of course the market is not what many of the so called experts are telling us is the problem...its the credit deal.........is that what you are hearing?

and just how much of this is OUR PROBLEM.......people who use credit cards all the time and who make the minimum payment and make these companies rich and complacent........
just wondering........

"of course the market is not what many of the so called experts are telling us is the problem...its the credit deal.........is that what you are hearing?"

Yeah, something about how many companies rely on short term low interest loans because they don't keep any cash.

They'll probably need to adjust.

Revolt of the Nihilists?

David Brooks has long been a thinking conservative, at least since 1984 when Bill Buckley offered him a job at the National Review. That he has changed his mind on some things, esp. the Iraq war, has turned die-hard conservatives against him. Personally, I very much enjoyed hearing his views as part of the Shields/Brooks commentaries. He definitely does keep questioning his personal views to ensure their ongoing soundness and is very willing to hear opposing views.