Great article about why the GOP is falling

[bobblehead]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29302

quote 1:

A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

(yet the GOP can't get behind a flat tax)



quote 2:

Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared. Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

(wow...bush 2 sounds more like a democrat)

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081101/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_media


Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

ABC's "World News" had more balance than NBC's "Nightly News" or the "CBS Evening News," the group said.

Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel's "Special Report" with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters, although it was dominated by negative evaluations of both campaigns. The center didn't evaluate programs on CNN or MSNBC...

ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain).

Hume's telecast had 39 percent favorable comments for McCain and 28 percent positive for the Democratic ticket...

It was the second study in two weeks to remark upon negative coverage for the McCain-Palin ticket. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded last week that McCain's coverage has been overwhelmingly negative since the conventions ended, while Obama's has been more mixed.

[MJZiggy]

That just proves that they hate Palin....just kidding.

I know that there is very serious research done as to the tiniest mannerisms of the newscasters when it comes to personal thoughts and reporting on the candidates. I read The Tipping Point not too long ago and the author wrote up studies that looked at everything from the favorability of the stories to the expressions on the newscasters' faces and then compared that to the results of the elections and poll data examining how many viewers of which broadcasts voted for whom. I loaned the book to a friend, but do recall that the facial expressions of the newscasters had an affect on voting and don't quote me, but I think Brokaw was listed as least biased.

[hoosier]

Can you imagine if media coverage of McCain campaign had to run as many "positive" stories as "negative" just to meet a quota, even when the wheels are falling off the bus? Now that would be true media bias!

[mraynrand]

(wow...bush 2 sounds more like a democrat)

I've been saying this for a long time. Bush and JFK have tons in common: Pro Big business, pro tax cut, pro 'Government can solve problems' pro spreading democracy.

Why is govt. spending out of control? Many programs passed by congress (mostly dem programs, but repubs are not off the hook at all) have automatic increases built in that expand programs far more rapidly than inflation of GDP growth, like medicare and medicaid. Tax cuts get passed by Bush, and they have an expiration date - meaning you have to refight the same battle to keep the cuts, rather than fighting a battle to get rid of them. Most government entitlement programs, once instituted, are as hard to get rid of as crabgrass.

And no one learns their lessons. The housing industry tanked because artificial demand for homes was created - prices rose dramatically and supply tried to keep up. Once the rug was pulled from the artificial demand, the price structure collapsed. Dems (and a good number of repubs) keep repeating the same thing with education and want to do the same thing with health care (we already have huge problems with health care because many people have plans that barely restrict anything). When you subsidize something, you get more of it and typically costs rise, quality drops, and demand, if subsidized from the consumer side, outstrips supply.

[HowardRoark]

And no one learns their lessons. The housing industry tanked because artificial demand for homes was created - prices rose dramatically and supply tried to keep up. Once the rug was pulled from the artificial demand, the price structure collapsed. Dems (and a good number of repubs) keep repeating the same thing with education and want to do the same thing with health care (we already have huge problems with health care because many people have plans that barely restrict anything). When you subsidize something, you get more of it and typically costs rise, quality drops, and demand, if subsidized from the consumer side, outstrips supply.

Excellent pithy explanation on the housing problem; too many homes were built with fake money provided by touchy feely social engineers. It was NOT the fault of Bush.

As far s the other two issues.

I think in education, it is not a demand issue; rather it is a supply issue. The supply is constricted by the government and the demand is forced down one path. The result is an inferior product.

In healthcare (and I get the feeling you may have some expertise in this area, so I will defer to you), again the free market is interfered with (via third party payers), so both sides get screwed up. Quality and quantity.

[mraynrand]

I think in education, it is not a demand issue; rather it is a supply issue. The supply is constricted by the government and the demand is forced down one path. The result is an inferior product..

I was thinking more along the lines of college funding. And you have a point about interference at many levels. It's not a just a simple manipulation of demand.

[bobblehead]

And no one learns their lessons. The housing industry tanked because artificial demand for homes was created - prices rose dramatically and supply tried to keep up. Once the rug was pulled from the artificial demand, the price structure collapsed. Dems (and a good number of repubs) keep repeating the same thing with education and want to do the same thing with health care (we already have huge problems with health care because many people have plans that barely restrict anything). When you subsidize something, you get more of it and typically costs rise, quality drops, and demand, if subsidized from the consumer side, outstrips supply.

Excellent pithy explanation on the housing problem; too many homes were built with fake money provided by touchy feely social engineers. It was NOT the fault of Bush.

As far s the other two issues.

I think in education, it is not a demand issue; rather it is a supply issue. The supply is constricted by the government and the demand is forced down one path. The result is an inferior product.

In healthcare (and I get the feeling you may have some expertise in this area, so I will defer to you), again the free market is interfered with (via third party payers), so both sides get screwed up. Quality and quantity.

come on howard....low interest rate fiscal policy had a lot to do with the housing problem....a republican policy.

education spending....no child left behind.

healthcare.....medicare part D.

Our Grand old party ain't so grand anymore...they are simply obama lite.

[mraynrand]

And no one learns their lessons. The housing industry tanked because artificial demand for homes was created - prices rose dramatically and supply tried to keep up. Once the rug was pulled from the artificial demand, the price structure collapsed. Dems (and a good number of repubs) keep repeating the same thing with education and want to do the same thing with health care (we already have huge problems with health care because many people have plans that barely restrict anything). When you subsidize something, you get more of it and typically costs rise, quality drops, and demand, if subsidized from the consumer side, outstrips supply.

Excellent pithy explanation on the housing problem; too many homes were built with fake money provided by touchy feely social engineers. It was NOT the fault of Bush.

As far s the other two issues.

I think in education, it is not a demand issue; rather it is a supply issue. The supply is constricted by the government and the demand is forced down one path. The result is an inferior product.

In healthcare (and I get the feeling you may have some expertise in this area, so I will defer to you), again the free market is interfered with (via third party payers), so both sides get screwed up. Quality and quantity.

come on howard....low interest rate fiscal policy had a lot to do with the housing problem....a republican policy.

education spending....no child left behind.

healthcare.....medicare part D.

Our Grand old party ain't so grand anymore...they are simply obama lite.

Your points are valid, but not quite that simple.

[Joemailman]

I think the GOP's biggest problem is that they are increasingly becoming a party that appeals only to whites in a country that is becoming increasingly non-white. They better figure out a way to start connecting with minorities, or what happened this year will keep happening. I believe there are no black Republican congressmen or Senators, and only 2% of the delegates to the Republican convention were black. They do somewhat better with hispanics, but have slipped there too. Bush saw it coming and tried to push through immigration reform, but was shot down by the right wing of his own party.

[rdanomly]

Excellent pithy explanation on the housing problem; too many homes were built with fake money provided by touchy feely social engineers. It was NOT the fault of Bush.



I agree with the glut of useless homes built with fake money, but I'm not sure what you mean by the touchy feely social engineers. To me that sounds like you are talking about the non-profit housing organizations. If that is who you are referring to, they've had a much smaller rate of foreclosures than the for profit mortgage outfits (sorry the article is a bit old): http://www.slate.com/id/2168413

As for the housing problem and Bush, it doesn't look like his admin tried too hard to stem the tide of shady mortgages: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_42/b4104036827981.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

I'm not bringing this up to flame a bad president (ok, just a little), but to show some info that might help prevent messes similar to this in the future.

[mraynrand]

I think the GOP's biggest problem is that they are increasingly becoming a party that appeals only to whites in a country that is becoming increasingly non-white. They better figure out a way to start connecting with minorities, or what happened this year will keep happening. I believe there are no black Republican congressmen or Senators, and only 2% of the delegates to the Republican convention were black. They do somewhat better with hispanics, but have slipped there too. Bush saw it coming and tried to push through immigration reform, but was shot down by the right wing of his own party.

Nobody elects black republicans. When they run, the blacks all vote for the white liberals. When black conservatives get nominated for the supreme court, white liberals concentrate on pubic hair on coke cans.

John McCain also promoted the Bush amnesty bill. Still, he was painted as a hard line conservative, even in spanish and at a rate of three to one. I wouldn't vote for him either listening to those Obama commercials.

Republicans lost their way - Bush was basically JFK. JFK supported medicare. Bush supported medicare (drug bennies). JFK supported the presidential physical fitness program. Bush supported no child left behind on a multiple choice test. JFK supported tax cuts. So did Bush. JFK ramped up a war. So did Bush. JFK strongly responded to a crisis he partly helped create. So did Bush.

Bush wanted all gays killed, wanted all muslims put in prison, wanted to spy on all americans (to find the muslims and gays, so he could kill or imprison, or torture them), and established a theocracy. The constitution was shredded under Bush. Thank goodness he is soon gone. Woof!

[bobblehead]

I think the GOP's biggest problem is that they are increasingly becoming a party that appeals only to whites in a country that is becoming increasingly non-white. They better figure out a way to start connecting with minorities, or what happened this year will keep happening. I believe there are no black Republican congressmen or Senators, and only 2% of the delegates to the Republican convention were black. They do somewhat better with hispanics, but have slipped there too. Bush saw it coming and tried to push through immigration reform, but was shot down by the right wing of his own party.

See, there is the problem...trying to connect with a voting block instead of simply residing over a constitutional capitalist society as the founding fathers mandated. how would you propose such "connecting"....maybe we could pay restoration to all the black people who were slaves....Or we could make gov't loans available to minorities for housing whether they qualify or not...that seems like nothing could go wrong.

[texaspackerbacker]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29302

quote 1:

A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

(yet the GOP can't get behind a flat tax)



quote 2:

Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared. Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

(wow...bush 2 sounds more like a democrat)

And to think I used to like Pat Buchanon. He just doesn't get it, and he hasn't gotten it for some time now.

I'll give you/him Eisenhower and Nixon--both piss poor excuses for conservatives anyway--neither would even have claimed the label. But he goes on to decry Reagan's massive defense spending--which was absolutely necessary to rebuild what Jimmy Carter screwed up, and which WON THE COLD WAR! That's just WRONG on at least two levels.

First of all, the anti-Reagan statement denies the absolute necessity and magnificent success of returning America--actually BRINGING America to the pinnacle of world dominance. Secondly, it completely ignores or disputes the obvious economic BENEFIT of Reagan's defense spending.

The clear difference between Eisenhower/Nixon and Reagan was that Reagan CUT taxes, while Ike and Dick did not. If they had, they probably could have gotten away with perpetuating FDR, Kennedy, and Johnson's damn social programs.

What Buchanon really doesn't comprehend, though, and several of our forum conservatives right along with him, is the POLITICAL aspect. That is especially ironic since Buchanon himself, when he achieved his greatest success, ran as a POPULIST--an anti-free trade/anti-elitist/pro-working class candidate. The ONLY difference between Buchanon in the 90s and Obama in '08 was that it was all lies and demagoguery with Obama.

The class warfare rhetoric, though, is extremely damned effective. And countering it with this STUPID "it ain't fair" and "Joe the Plumber" crap just played right into the hands of Obama and the leftists. What Buchanon doesn't get/what Bobblehead, Howard, possibly Aynrand and others also just don't get is that there are a helluva lot more of "them" than there are of "us"--a helluva lot more lower/lower middle/middle class Americans who were conned into believing they would get tax relief from Obama than there are upper income people whom Obama made no pretense about screwing--because there are so few of them--at least that's the way Obama's damned demagoguery made it sound.

We lost because instead of explaining effectively that Obama was lying, McCain capitulated to the lies, just claiming it was "wrong", "socialist", "wealth sharing", whatever.

Don't you people understand? A huge slice, possibly a majority of the electorate WANT to Share the Wealth/WANT to screw the very rich--never mind the fact that Obama's scheme is doomed to failure because his net effect is NOT to cut taxes/never mind the fact that he will undoubtedly find an excuse to not even cut taxes for most in the middle and lower end. The point is that what McCain attacked Obama on--class warfare and sharing the wealth--is, politically speaking, a WINNING issue for Obama and a LOSING issue for McCain.

And the greater problem is that we/McCain/Republicans in general, should not even have gotten sucked into discussion of this trumped up/leftist mainstream media contrived pseudo-crisis over the economy. Rather, the good guys should have hit Obama on his GLARING WEAKNESSES--Security from terrorism--the most important issue of all, the war, social/moral issues like abortion and the gay agenda--link his ass with opposing Prop 8, for example.

But no, McCain--followed closely by most of our forum "good guys" blundered right into the class warfare argument--on the LOSING side.

THAT is why the GOP failed/lost/whatever.

[mraynrand]

We lost because instead of explaining effectively that Obama was lying, McCain capitulated to the lies, just claiming it was "wrong", "socialist", "wealth sharing", whatever.

Don't you people understand? A huge slice, possibly a majority of the electorate WANT to Share the Wealth/WANT to screw the very rich--never mind the fact that Obama's scheme is doomed to failure because his net effect is NOT to cut taxes/never mind the fact that he will undoubtedly find an excuse to not even cut taxes for most in the middle and lower end. The point is that what McCain attacked Obama on--class warfare and sharing the wealth--is, politically speaking, a WINNING issue for Obama and a LOSING issue for McCain.

And the greater problem is that we/McCain/Republicans in general, should not even have gotten sucked into discussion of this trumped up/leftist mainstream media contrived pseudo-crisis over the economy. Rather, the good guys should have hit Obama on his GLARING WEAKNESSES--Security from terrorism--the most important issue of all, the war, social/moral issues like abortion and the gay agenda--link his ass with opposing Prop 8, for example.

But no, McCain--followed closely by most of our forum "good guys" blundered right into the class warfare argument--on the LOSING side.

THAT is why the GOP failed/lost/whatever.

I agree with much of what you wrote above. I remind you that it was almost impossible for McCain to talk of anything else because the economy dominated. McCain also lost the 'socialism' argument because he supported the bailout and he lost because the bailout is bailing out banks (if you read the current state of the bailout, it looks like banks have used bailout money to secure their cash position and aren't any more liquid than before). If McCain had rejected the bailout, he might have done better. If he had hammered more on Obama's weaknesses he might have won. But that's all unlikely. McCain was ahead, the economy tanked, and he lost. It was the economy stupid. And yes, people want their handout and McCain NEVER effectively pointed out that if you tax the producers you might get a nice $500 or $1000 dollar check, but you better make it last, because you're going to lose your job due to increased taxes on business.

[texaspackerbacker]

We lost because instead of explaining effectively that Obama was lying, McCain capitulated to the lies, just claiming it was "wrong", "socialist", "wealth sharing", whatever.

Don't you people understand? A huge slice, possibly a majority of the electorate WANT to Share the Wealth/WANT to screw the very rich--never mind the fact that Obama's scheme is doomed to failure because his net effect is NOT to cut taxes/never mind the fact that he will undoubtedly find an excuse to not even cut taxes for most in the middle and lower end. The point is that what McCain attacked Obama on--class warfare and sharing the wealth--is, politically speaking, a WINNING issue for Obama and a LOSING issue for McCain.

And the greater problem is that we/McCain/Republicans in general, should not even have gotten sucked into discussion of this trumped up/leftist mainstream media contrived pseudo-crisis over the economy. Rather, the good guys should have hit Obama on his GLARING WEAKNESSES--Security from terrorism--the most important issue of all, the war, social/moral issues like abortion and the gay agenda--link his ass with opposing Prop 8, for example.

But no, McCain--followed closely by most of our forum "good guys" blundered right into the class warfare argument--on the LOSING side.

THAT is why the GOP failed/lost/whatever.

I agree with much of what you wrote above. I remind you that it was almost impossible for McCain to talk of anything else because the economy dominated. McCain also lost the 'socialism' argument because he supported the bailout and he lost because the bailout is bailing out banks (if you read the current state of the bailout, it looks like banks have used bailout money to secure their cash position and aren't any more liquid than before). If McCain had rejected the bailout, he might have done better. If he had hammered more on Obama's weaknesses he might have won. But that's all unlikely. McCain was ahead, the economy tanked, and he lost. It was the economy stupid. And yes, people want their handout and McCain NEVER effectively pointed out that if you tax the producers you might get a nice $500 or $1000 dollar check, but you better make it last, because you're going to lose your job due to increased taxes on business.

And I, in turn, agree with much of what you wrote.

As you may recall, I talked against the bail out from Day One, and was wishing McCain would do the same.

I am firmly convinced that this economic "crisis" is completely contrived by the political left and the leftist mainstream media. I wish McCain had seen it that way and said so too--and gone on to point how exactly how bad things would be, including economically, if Obama let acts of terror happen.

The fact is, the huge huge majority of Americans felt no direct effects of the "problems" at all. They were, however, convinced by the damned media and leftist politicians that a lot of others WERE suffering--the same line of bullshit they have used many times in the past.

It's partly the ineptitude on the part of McCain and his people, but it's mostly the brilliantly evil way the bad guys played the game of politics.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I believe the financial crisis was manufactured by the left and the complicit media, just like the Iraq crisis.

[swede]

I believe the financial crisis was manufactured by the left and the complicit media, just like the Iraq crisis.

Owning it is part of getting better, Ty.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I believe the financial crisis was manufactured by the left and the complicit media, just like the Iraq crisis.

Owning it is part of getting better, Ty.

You are judged by the company you keep, Swede.

You gonna go on record that this financial crisis is just bs created by the left?

[swede]

I don't think the media spanked the left for changing the mortgage rules, and they should have.

As far as the recession, I believe that these things are cyclical and government has more power to make it worse than to make it better. If I had cash I'd be sticking it into the stock market right about now on the audacious hope that Barack is smart enough to let things be.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I don't think the media spanked the left for changing the mortgage rules, and they should have.

As far as the recession, I believe that these things are cyclical and government has more power to make it worse than to make it better. If I had cash I'd be sticking it into the stock market right about now on the audacious hope that Barack is smart enough to let things be.

Nice side step. Answer the question.

Should the media have spanked the right for Gramm's role?

[swede]

I thought I had answered the question about whether or not the financial crisis was "bs" and/or "caused by the left."

I do believe the credit crunch really was caused by government tinkering in a goodhearted attempt to offer mortgages to everyone who wanted one.

I don't think the market drop and the looming recession were ipso facto caused by the left since we were due for a down cycle anyway, but the failure of major financial institutions and the ensuing credit crunch kind of gave that ball of sh!t a nice big push downhill.

You'll have to help me out with the Gramm question. Did he do something bad?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I guess i don't understand...unless you are saying that the gov't is completely under control of the left.

Tex's position is that the whole crisis is bogus..concocted by the left to ultimately drive voters to the dem party. Do you believe that?

Gramm: Do a little research on the 1999 Gramm Dereg Act.

In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed 1930's legislation that had separated commercial and investment banks. Commercial banks, where people deposit their paychecks and do personal banking, have regulation. Investment banks didn't have that "fettering" as Republicans saw it.

With the 1930's Glass-Steagall Act repealed, the theory was competition could happen now in financial services. The evil enemy of regulation was gone, free markets would reign. Mergers happened that couldn't before. A broader range of institutions could offer a broader range of products. Which grew to include obscure, unregulated financial products with no collateral to support them. Like sub-prime mortgages. Regulated banks couldn't take those kinds of risks. Unregulated companies could.

[texaspackerbacker]

I believe the financial crisis was manufactured by the left and the complicit media, just like the Iraq crisis.

OK, Tyrone. You got me. Sarcasm or not? I can't believe you are serious, but you do sound serious--especially in trying to play some weird "moral equivalence" game of the war with the financial "crisis".

First of all, either you are spinning what I said or I didn't say it clearly enough. Just this one time, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What I SHOULD HAVE SAID is that the "crisis mentality" is contrived.

The facts are what they are. There was a drop in real estate values--in some parts of the country, certainly not all or even most of it. Some mortgages lost value--but not all of the value even in the worst cases, as there was the security of devalued real estate which still did have value at a reduced figure. The big mortgage insurers took a beating, even though that should not have been the case because the properties and therefore the mortgages they owned were only devalued, not worthless. All of that could hardly have been contrived by the left.

My position, though, is that the number/percentage of people affected by those things is miniscule. Yet we have leftists from Obama on down ranting about how bad things are--similar to the Great Depression, and enough of the people bought the lie that Obama got elected. It is the PANIC that is contrived--the massive con that was successfully perpetrated on people to get Obama elected.

Now I suppose if your line above is serious, you would claim the same thing for getting America into war in Iraq. I would ask, Why? What motivation could the Bush Administration have for conjuring up bogus justifications for the war? To bolster Bush's chances in the 2004 election? I doubt it. He was already popular, and the war would have been a risky thing politically, so why do it for bogus reasons? And besides, Bush is too stupid for a grandiose scheme like that--isn't that the line you guys keep pushing?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Was Bush, who proposed the bailout, also in on the con?

[mraynrand]

Gramm: Do a little research on the 1999 Gramm Dereg Act.

In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed 1930's legislation that had separated commercial and investment banks. Commercial banks, where people deposit their paychecks and do personal banking, have regulation. Investment banks didn't have that "fettering" as Republicans saw it.

With the 1930's Glass-Steagall Act repealed, the theory was competition could happen now in financial services. The evil enemy of regulation was gone, free markets would reign. Mergers happened that couldn't before. A broader range of institutions could offer a broader range of products. Which grew to include obscure, unregulated financial products with no collateral to support them. Like sub-prime mortgages. Regulated banks couldn't take those kinds of risks. Unregulated companies could.

Yawn. Most Senators of both parties and Clinton supported the passage of the bill. They must have thought it was a good idea. If the subprime mortgages hadn't been pushed, there would have been nowhere near the amount of toxic securities out there. Less risk, both for companies or countries, etc, who peddled or bought the securities.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Gramm: Do a little research on the 1999 Gramm Dereg Act.

In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed 1930's legislation that had separated commercial and investment banks. Commercial banks, where people deposit their paychecks and do personal banking, have regulation. Investment banks didn't have that "fettering" as Republicans saw it.

With the 1930's Glass-Steagall Act repealed, the theory was competition could happen now in financial services. The evil enemy of regulation was gone, free markets would reign. Mergers happened that couldn't before. A broader range of institutions could offer a broader range of products. Which grew to include obscure, unregulated financial products with no collateral to support them. Like sub-prime mortgages. Regulated banks couldn't take those kinds of risks. Unregulated companies could.

Yawn. Most Senators of both parties and Clinton supported the passage of the bill. They must have thought it was a good idea. If the subprime mortgages hadn't been pushed, there would have been nowhere near the amount of toxic securities out there. Less risk, both for companies or countries, etc, who peddled or bought the securities.

We've gone thru this many times. Yet, you continue to lie.

[mraynrand]

Gramm: Do a little research on the 1999 Gramm Dereg Act.

In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed 1930's legislation that had separated commercial and investment banks. Commercial banks, where people deposit their paychecks and do personal banking, have regulation. Investment banks didn't have that "fettering" as Republicans saw it.

With the 1930's Glass-Steagall Act repealed, the theory was competition could happen now in financial services. The evil enemy of regulation was gone, free markets would reign. Mergers happened that couldn't before. A broader range of institutions could offer a broader range of products. Which grew to include obscure, unregulated financial products with no collateral to support them. Like sub-prime mortgages. Regulated banks couldn't take those kinds of risks. Unregulated companies could.

Yawn. Most Senators of both parties and Clinton supported the passage of the bill. They must have thought it was a good idea. If the subprime mortgages hadn't been pushed, there would have been nowhere near the amount of toxic securities out there. Less risk, both for companies or countries, etc, who peddled or bought the securities.

We've gone thru this many times. Yet, you continue to lie.

Clinton didn't sign?

[texaspackerbacker]

Was Bush, who proposed the bailout, also in on the con?

Good question.

The "Con", as I have stated, was the convincing people of the seriousness of the situation, when it really wasn't all that big a deal, on Main Street, anyway.

Bush and Paulson and Senate Republicans and the Wall Street beneficiaries ALL had to be in on the effort to get the bailout. Obviously, those people, however, would not have been trying to get Obama elected.

I would suggest that SOMEBODY BIG has a whole lot to gain financially from this "bailout". That may well be a separate conspiracy, and yeah, maybe Bush might be in on it.

As for the con of the people to see the situation as important enough to their lives to vote for Obama, and in particular, to repeat incessantly the idea that the economic issue was so important, THAT was all the leftist politicians and mainstream media--and they were damn effective in that con.

[HowardRoark]

Which grew to include obscure, unregulated financial products with no collateral to support them. Like sub-prime mortgages.

Do you want to rethink this? Maybe type something else? It kind of makes everything else you say useless.

[MJZiggy]

Gramm: Do a little research on the 1999 Gramm Dereg Act.

In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed 1930's legislation that had separated commercial and investment banks. Commercial banks, where people deposit their paychecks and do personal banking, have regulation. Investment banks didn't have that "fettering" as Republicans saw it.

With the 1930's Glass-Steagall Act repealed, the theory was competition could happen now in financial services. The evil enemy of regulation was gone, free markets would reign. Mergers happened that couldn't before. A broader range of institutions could offer a broader range of products. Which grew to include obscure, unregulated financial products with no collateral to support them. Like sub-prime mortgages. Regulated banks couldn't take those kinds of risks. Unregulated companies could.

Yawn. Most Senators of both parties and Clinton supported the passage of the bill. They must have thought it was a good idea. If the subprime mortgages hadn't been pushed, there would have been nowhere near the amount of toxic securities out there. Less risk, both for companies or countries, etc, who peddled or bought the securities.

You guys keep saying "pushed." All these companies needed was permission and my mailbox cried for all the trees that died and the weight of all the mortgage ads. My phone rang off the hook with people offering me a mortgage at only 1% interest (for 6 months and then we raise it to 26%) Yes that's an exaggeration, but not by much.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Which grew to include obscure, unregulated financial products with no collateral to support them. Like sub-prime mortgages.

Do you want to rethink this? Maybe type something else? It kind of makes everything else you say useless.

and, that just sums up why there wont' be an honest discussion.

[texaspackerbacker]

Which grew to include obscure, unregulated financial products with no collateral to support them. Like sub-prime mortgages.

Do you want to rethink this? Maybe type something else? It kind of makes everything else you say useless.

and, that just sums up why there wont' be an honest discussion.

Since when have you EVER been about an HONEST discussion, Tyrone.

What I think Howard is saying (although you never really know with Howard) is it is pure unadulterated ignorance to refer to sub-prime mortgages as "financial products with no collateral to support them".

While the collateral may become a lot more relevant because of less qualified buyers, and while the collateral may be devalued in some geographic areas due to decreasing real estate values, the simple fact is, ALL mortgages are secured by collateral--the real estate financed.

[wist43]

It's pretty simple... you can't outleft the lefties.

America will continue down the path of socialism until it dies... I've known this for many years, my only hope has been that I live out my days before the end arrives.

The Republicans, to compete with the Democrats, will have to adopt ever leftist policies... for those of us who value freedom, there is nowhere left to run.

Would love to see a secessionist movement... the promise of freedom. Never happen though. Those of us who don't agree, we go along, or pay the price... hardly sounds like freedom to me.

[Zool]

Would love to see a secessionist movement... the promise of freedom. Never happen though.

Didn't they try this in Montana a few years ago?

[HowardRoark]

Which grew to include obscure, unregulated financial products with no collateral to support them. Like sub-prime mortgages.

Do you want to rethink this? Maybe type something else? It kind of makes everything else you say useless.

and, that just sums up why there wont' be an honest discussion.

Since when have you EVER been about an HONEST discussion, Tyrone.

What I think Howard is saying (although you never really know with Howard) is it is pure unadulterated ignorance to refer to sub-prime mortgages as "financial products with no collateral to support them".

While the collateral may become a lot more relevant because of less qualified buyers, and while the collateral may be devalued in some geographic areas due to decreasing real estate values, the simple fact is, ALL mortgages are secured by collateral--the real estate financed.

Exactly Tex. See, I'm not that tough to understand.

[bobblehead]

It's pretty simple... you can't outleft the lefties.

America will continue down the path of socialism until it dies... I've known this for many years, my only hope has been that I live out my days before the end arrives.

The Republicans, to compete with the Democrats, will have to adopt ever leftist policies... for those of us who value freedom, there is nowhere left to run.

Would love to see a secessionist movement... the promise of freedom. Never happen though. Those of us who don't agree, we go along, or pay the price... hardly sounds like freedom to me.

Not true..the very rich are seceding. They are moving their wealth to other places where the USSRA can't get at it. In many cases they are moving jobs too. See rich people are funny that way....tax the shit out of them and they take their ball and go home. Some will remain, actually the most talented difference makers will. But so many of the lower upper class won't....and they provide the grease in the economy. A gates or a buffet can withstand the taxes, but the guy who makes 1million a year can't. He moves his wealth and/or business anyway he can...and he is more important to the countries success than Ted Turner.