Great article about why the GOP is falling

[texaspackerbacker]

Re: Great article about why the GOP is falling

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.