[excon]

Hello wingers:

If the Democrats had acted like the Republicans are NOW acting, we wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. It would be as if on the morning after 9/11, Democrats said they wanted no part of any war against Al Qaeda, “George Bush, you're on your own.”

Instead, the Democrats BELIEVED, along with the Republicans, that we needed to respond to the crisis with one voice.

And we did.

The Democrats, fearful of being called soft, rallied around the Republican mantra. People who strayed were labeled UNPATRIOTIC.

So, I wonder why NOW, when we face an even greater crisis, the Republicans, as a group, are saying NO. And, I wonder why nobody is calling them UNPATRIOTIC.

Nahhh. I know why. It's either because the Democrats ARE soft, OR because the Republicans are stupid. I think it's both.

The Republicans only know BANG! If we haven't been attacked with BOMBS or airplanes flying into buildings, there's no crisis. Since the financial meltdown didn't go BANG, it's too subtle for them to grasp. They don't get that we're on the precipice of the Great Depression part deux. Really, they don't get it. Not at all. Not even close.

I wonder if that could be because there's no foreign sounding enemy to blame?

In fact, the enemy is their own Wall Street Al Qaeda (the "have mores" as Bush called them), who attacked us with derivatives and credit default swaps instead.

Let me tell you this, my fine Republican friends, flying airplanes into buildings ain't NOTHING compared to what we got going on today. This is August 1914. This is the morning after Pearl Harbor. This is 9/12.

But, for you, it's business as usual – even with Hoover hovering in the background. I'll betcha Hoover got the email about Fanny and Freddie, too. Bwa, ha ha ha.

You Republicans are silly. If your silliness wasn't so UNPATRIOTIC, and DANGEROUS, I wouldn't bring it up.

excon

[tomder55]

Have you read the recent CBO report from the beginning of the month ? Those unpatriotic Democrats in the CBO don't think that the stimulus package or creating bogus "green jobs" (whatever that means) and health care reform proposals will work to turn the economy around.

The CBO report points out that the debt created by the bucket list will actually drag the economy down.

So what do those unpatriotic Democrats in the CBO suggest would be a better approach? The study confirms the value of cutting taxes rather than spending money we don't have. The stimulus package won't really stimulate the economy as effectively as tax cuts. So it turns out that unpatriotic Republicans who opposed the stimulus package were right.

[excon]

The stimulus package won't really stimulate the economy as effectively as tax cuts. So it turns out that unpatriotic Republicans who opposed the stimulus package were right.

Hello tom:

I'm sure Hoover thought it was good to do NOTHING too. I'll even bet he found some wingnuts to agree with him.

Nonetheless, what's happening, is happening, and it's unfolding right before your eyes. Yet, you can't see it, cause it didn't go BANG. Don't surprise me none.

excon

[tomder55]

You are wrong about Hoover too. Hoover in fact (regettably like Bush with TARP) set the table for Roosvelt's flawed policies through action and not inaction.

It is a lie of convenience by the left to claim he was a laissez fare do nothing President .In fact (according to Wiki ) he was just the opposite.

After his successful election in November 1928, Hoover entered office with a plan for reform of the nation's regulatory system. A dedicated Progressive and Reformer, Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by encouraging volunteerism. Long before he entered politics he denounced laissez-faire thinking.[19] As Commerce Secretary he had taken an active pro-regulation stance. As President, he helped push tariff and farm subsidy bills through Congress.

Hoover expanded civil service coverage of Federal positions, canceled private oil leases on government lands

You would think Obama was his reincarnation!!

Wiki continues...

At the outset of the Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach.

Hoover increased federal spending, imposed excise taxes and hiked the top income rate to 63 percent. According to Hoover biography "The Herbert Hoover Story," by Eugene Lyons published in 1959 He sought to provide jobs through public works; more was spent for this purpose in his administration than in the preceding thirty-six years, including the building of the Panama Canal.

Maybe you have heard of some of his projects... The San Francisco Bay Bridge , the Los Angeles Aqueduct... Hoover Dam??


During the campaign of 1932 FDR lied and claimed he would reverse Hoover's failed polices of tax increases and increased government spending and to get rid of the destructive Smoot-Hawley tariffs .
But FDR did none of the above. Instead FDR put Hoover's policies on steroids once in power.

[speechlesstx]

What, we're not supposed to join with the left in defending the constitution that Bush trampled? We're not supposed to join with the left in objecting to unrestrained wasteful spending now? We're not supposed to root out the culture of corruption in Washington now? We're not supposed to join with the left in opposing a president that's in over his head now?

Man, things sure did "change" since the election. What was once our patriotic - nay, our universal duty to humanity - is UNPATRIOTIC.

[tomder55]

Fineman is a traitor... just like Jim Cramer ,Warren Buffett ,Jack Welch , Maurine Dowd , Robert J Samuelson... even that traitor Chris Matthews is losing the tingle .
Matthews: "I thought 8,000 was the floor, and it looks like 6,000 is the floor. People are angry, I'm getting angry."

Whoopie Goldberg??

[inthebox]

Hello wingers:

If the Democrats had acted like the Republicans are NOW acting, we wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. It would be as if on the morning after 9/11, Democrats said they wanted no part of any war against Al Qaeda, “George Bush, you’re on your own.”

Instead, the Democrats BELIEVED, along with the Republicans, that we needed to respond to the crisis with one voice.

And we did.

The Democrats, fearful of being called soft, what they could not think for themselves?rallied around the Republican mantra. People who strayed were labeled UNPATRIOTIC.

So, I wonder why NOW, when we face an even greater crisis, have about 3000 people died as a direct result of this crisis?the Republicans, as a group, are saying NO. And, I wonder why nobody is calling them UNPATRIOTIC.
maybe because the citizens are not as gullible as you think they are

Nahhh. I know why. It’s either because the Democrats ARE soft, OR because the Republicans are stupid. I think it’s both.

The Republicans only know BANG! If we haven’t been attacked with BOMBS or airplanes flying into buildings, there’s no crisis. Since the financial meltdown didn’t go BANG, it’s too subtle for them to grasp. They don’t get that we’re on the precipice of the Great Depression part deux. and as Tom is pointing out President Obama is pursuing the same economic policies. Isn't insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? :rolleyes: Really, they don’t get it. Not at all. Not even close.

I wonder if that could be because there’s no foreign sounding enemy to blame?

In fact, the enemy is their own Wall Street Al Qaeda (the "have mores" as Bush called them), who attacked us with derivatives and credit default swaps instead. which was possible because of certain laws and government agencies, while the government's own SEC did not do their job and Democrats like Barney Frank obstructing reform

Let me tell you this, my fine Republican friends, flying airplanes into buildings ain’t NOTHING compared to what we got going on today. This is August 1914. This is the morning after Pearl Harbor. This is 9/12.

But, for you, it’s business as usual – even with Hoover hovering in the background. I’ll betcha Hoover got the email about Fanny and Freddie, too. Bwa, ha ha ha.

You Republicans are silly. If your silliness wasn’t so UNPATRIOTIC, and DANGEROUS, I wouldn’t bring it up.

excon

Wow, and to think the MSM feeds you this stuff :rolleyes::p






G&P

[TexasParent]

Perhaps part of the problem is that business greed, fraud, the pursuit of profit by any means, lack of regulations and oversight helped put us in this mess.

Of course it would be unpatriotic to criticize business in any way, so that's why they are staying clear of what is obvious to anyone else. Was the government, Republican's and Democrats also responsible for this mess, of course. However, the solution to leave everything to the free market which has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in the financial sector to be unable to regulate themselves by hiding risk, bundling it with other financial products and selling it to the latest sucker in the pursuit of profit.

Financial institutions having loan to deposit ratios of 40 to 1 leaves them completely exposed to bankruptcy if there is the slightest run on the bank.

They will never admit that business can be the enemy, so I agree, since they can't have an enemy in this instance (something or someone to demonize) they play bait and switch and blame everything to come on the Obama admin for doing something rather than nothing.

[ETWolverine]

excon,

There are a few assumptions in your post that are not in evidence.

1) That Democrats and Republicans responded to 9/11 with a single voice. I seem to remember, within hours of the 9/11 attacks, some Democrats already warning against "overreaction against Muslims". Others, started saying almost immediately that America brought it on itself through its policies (Ward Churchill comes to mind, but he was not the only one).

2) Your next assumption is that there is some sort of corallary between a military attack brought on by enemies of the USA and a financial/economic recession. There is no similarity whatsoever between them. Furthermore, while there is really only one reasonable way to deal with military enemies (kill them), there are quite a few different possible ways to deal with a financial crisis. Some of them actually even work. But the point is that when it comes to economics, finance and monetary policy, there are legitimatly different approaches that can be taken to deal with it, and not supporting one approach is not the same as not supporting the military or the President in time of war.

3) Your next assumption is that the recession is "an even greater crisis" than 9/11. This is, of course, a ridiculous statement. I haven't seen any buildings falling down or 3000 dead people caused by the financial crisis. Even those hit hardest are still alive and kicking, even if they are homeless. 92% of those who wish to be employed still are. 94% of homeowners with mortgages are still paying their mortgages. With all due respect, there is no way that one can argue that this crisis, while awful, is in any way even remotely close to being as bad as 9/11.

Even comparing apples to apples, 9/11 caused an immediate shut-down of the entire economy for days. No financial markets traded, no commerce took place, no travel took place, the country's information systems were drastically effected by the loss of the network TV antennae on to of the WTC buildings. That we recovered so quickly from it is a miracle. But the economic devastation was complete for over a week. Nothing we have experienced in this recession even comes close to the devastation we saw on 9/11.

4) You are again making an assumption that "only things that go BANG" get noticed by Republicans. Sorry, not true. McCain and Bush both warned about the real estate crisis several years before it took place. Bush talked about it in 2001, 2003 and 2005. McCain talked about it in 2005 and 2006. Frank, Dodd and Schumer worked hard to convince the rest of the world not to listen to them. Bush and other Republicans were reacting to the problem BEFORE it hit. It took the DEMOCRATS the economy going BUST before they took notice. I think you are missing some facts here.

5) You are assuming that the problem begins with the derivatives markets and the "greedy bankers" that traded in that market. I will say it again, the problem was caused by the existence of Fannie, Freddie and CRA. Without those three factors, there never would have been a derivatives market. Were the investors greedy? Yes. But their greed was made possible because the government, led by Dems, created the environment that made those derivative markets possible. With the best of intentions (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt) the government created Fannie and Freddie, and legislated CRA, and the result was mortgages that nobody wanted to hold for themselves, a market for the trade of those mortgages, and demand for an insurance product that would protect those mortgages for those holding them. So your assumption that the problem started with the derivatives traders misses everything that predated the derivative markets.

In short, with assumption after assumption, you prove the old saying about assumptions. :)

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Of course it would be unpatriotic to criticize business in any way, so that's why they are staying clear of what is obvious to anyone else. Was the government, Republican's and Democrats also responsible for this mess, of course. However, the solution to leave everything to the free market which has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in the financial sector to be unable to regulate themselves by hiding risk, bundling it with other financial products and selling it to the latest sucker in the pursuit of profit.

Tex, the problem with your statement is that banks and brokerage houses are among the most highly government-regulated industries in the entire world. The only business that has more regulation is nuclear power plants. The problem isn't regulation. It's OVERREGULATION.

The only reason that sub-prime mortgages even exist is because the government mandated them. Banks were FORCED to make 40% of their loans to sub-prime borrowers, or else be sanctioned, fined, or closed for business. After the first few banks were forced to pay penalties and fines, or were disallowed to expand to new branches, because they failed to meet their requirements under the Community Reinvestment Act, they realized that they either had to get along with the program, or go out of business. There were no other options. So we made the loans that we really didn't want to make... not out of greed, but because we were being forced to. (And yes, I am using "we" because I am a banker... a lender, as a matter of fact. Chief Credit Officer at a small bank in New Jersey. So I know whereof I speak.) It wasn't the failure of the government to regulate us that caused these problems. It was their overregulation that caused it.

I can tell you that I never would have made a single one of those sub-prime loans if I had a choice in the matter. There's no money in it. You can just as easily make a profitable GOOD loan as a risky bad loan. The cost is the same, and your risks are much lower. Plus, there's no advantage in income to making a risky bad loan... we're not allowed to charge more money for a risky CRA loan than we would for a good loan. That's part of the CRA regulations. Who in their right mind wants to do a riskier type of business if the potential pay isn't better than doing the good business? Certainly nobody in finance is that stupid. Risk is supposed to be dependent on reward... no reward, no risk.

If we were so greedy as you seem to be accusing, we would have charged credit-card-like rates for sub-prime mortgages. THEN it would have been worth doing those risky loans in exchange for the potential reward. But that wasn't the case. We did risky loans for the same pay as for those that weren't as risky. What kind of greed is that?

Answer: it wasn't about greed. It was about following the regulations or being forced out of business by the government.

We bankers have known for years that this was going to happen. It was predicted back in the 70s and we got a taste of it in the SNL crisis in the 80s. We weren't just forewarned. We were the ones who were giving the warnings. There's no way that we would have been caught dead with these bad loans if we had a choice. But we didn't. Government regulations took that option away from us. Government overregulation caused this, not greedy corporations or a lack of regulation.

Elliot