Pajamas Media

88 Comments

1. David Thomson:

“businesses and investors are responding to their total lack of seriousness by battening down the hatches and preparing for the worst.”

You were very prophetic. The situation is now going to get a lot worse. America’s economy was somewhat doomed once the feckless John McCain and Barack Obama captured their respective party’s presidential nomination. Both these gentleman fail to fully comprehend the inherent benefits of free market economics. Soon to be President Obama may not be an ultra-liberal—but he still believes in far too much government interference in the economy. Obama will more than likely embrace the failed economic policies of Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Business and investors should indeed get ready for the worst.

We also need to talk more about the looming disaster in California. This single state is perhaps the biggest drag on our national economy. Many of the so-called red states have their act together. Sadly, the majority of blue state citizens seem to think money grows on trees. It behooves us to make sure that these immature blue staters don’t foolishly destroy the country.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:21 am 2. fear Obama:

And Senator Charles Shumer A Liberal Democrat from NY caused the market investors to panic.

He pointed a finger at banks in California and other banks that had bought/sold the Democrat approved Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack junk housing loans.

He either knew or was to dumb to know that several big bank runs and stock market crashes would get his man elected.

Democrats never dreamed it would work so good.
Lehman Bros. AIG and many others went under.

But the Robin Hood Democrats would come to the rescue with all that bailout money Bush’s economy had stolen.

Obama beat McCain by a landslide, his extra 600 million internet funds helped a little.
Now where did all that money come from?

Now we have a master disaster caused by the Demorats but blamed on Bush.

But Democrat Robin Hoods will save us,
and steal taxes from the rich and give to the poor- 5 percent taking care of 95 percent- figure those odds?

I hope Al Gore shows up at the Inauguration Ceremony in Washington and it snows 3 foot deep.
Its called the Gore effect.

That 110 million dollar party money will have to be used for one hell of a snow removal.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:46 am 3. DoesNotMatter:

I vote you add Olbermann in that acronym. Both to make the media complicity and the pun more obvious.

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:49 am 4. Ann141:

The premise of the article may be flawed.

It’s quite an assumption that the Democrats want to bring the economy back to life.

Trouble for the nation is usually a positive for the Democrats. As Rahmbo himself has pointed out, there’s nothing like a good (apparent or real) sense of emergency for making things happen that would never be tolerated in quieter days.

If you need visible evidence, just linger on Nancy’s hysterical grin every time she comes out of some meeting or other. The woman is positively, generically giddy.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:25 am 5. Ann141:

1. David Thomsen

“It behooves us to make sure that these immature blue staters don’t foolishly destroy the country.”

I’m afraid that train has left the station. The momentum created by “immature blue staters” across the country is considerable.

Is any one of any intellectual significance showing any potential for real influence, wisdom and practical impact? I’m sure not seeing it.

It looks to me like they’re all figuring it out as they go and loving the chaos that allows each of them to do whatever they want (secure in the fact that nobody will ever have the will or the time to trace anything back to any individual or group).

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:34 am 6. Too Much:

What a load of unsupported nonsense. When did Joe the Plumber start blogging? The Executive who failed to execute his regulatory responsibilities remains in charge of this economy until noon on January 20, 2009.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:09 am 7. Dougf:

I have come to the conclusion that there is no ‘right’ side left in politics. Only competing interests. Them —Us.

The economy is melting down because it has been fueled for the past decade at least by fiscal slight of hand and accounting practices that might charitably be described as questionable and more realistically labeled as CRIMINAL. To blame the Democrats for this is as fundamentally misguided as the Democrats blaming Bush for all the evils of the World. It’s clearly much easier to blame bad things on the ‘enemy’. But easier does not equate to correct. The economy is in a systemic abyss. Certain ‘policies’ and commentary might have had some very marginal effects but the foundation itself is structurally unsound. If you use VERY bad concrete and defective reinforcing bars to build, sooner or later the structure will collapse. Whether or not someone keeps jumping up and down on the top floor.

You can’t live forever beyond your means and sooner or later the piper really does want his cash. He wants it NOW. And he doesn’t care whether you are a ‘D’ or an ‘R’. He just doesn’t care. Politics has become increasingly akin to the conflicts between the Blues & the Greens in the Byzantine Empire. Much ado about nothing while things unravel all around the feuding entities.

Thge economy is truly scary but the state of ‘politics’ is just sort of sad. If we really do get the kind of Government we deserve, then we must have some really bad karma we need to work off.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:15 am 8. ThinkingPerson:

Pelosi, Reid, Obama = The 3 Stooges . Hopefully they’ll leave at least a few nickles after they plunder the treasury so the Republicans can come back in 4 and fix what they’ve been screwing up for years if not decades. Still chuckle whenever I read about Obama’s grand fix for the energy crisis….airing up our tires! Geez.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:25 am 9. Cybergeezer:

We’re in for four years of “honest mistakes”.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:31 am 10. AnninCA:

The stimulus package makes no sense to me yet. I see only a budget that Obama would like to push through under the guise of emergency and skip over the processes established by law.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:03 am 11. Tex Taylor:

If people were to fairly criticize George Bush for anything, it would be his encouragement to further stimulate consumer spending. That is the last thing most consumers I know should have been doing. Many ‘consume’ more than they ‘make’ and now even those who played by the rules and lived within their means (that would be me) are suffering major consequences.

And I am getting real tired of suffering consequences for others poor decisions and behavior.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:05 am 12. Jim Baker:

Too Much,
What would you think that executive should have done? Blame the economic news on the President if you want to, but support your claim. Otherwise, you just sound like another mindless person.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:27 am 13. Mike_K:

Bush could have vetoed a few spending bills. Greenspan and Bernanke could have raised interest rates when the housing bubble started looking too hot. Even I knew these houses were overpriced and wondered where young people got the money to buy $900,000 houses on postage stamp lots. What I didn’t know was that all the old rules about down payments had been dropped. These were decisions made by people who should have known better. I know the Democrats were pushing this string with all their might. There is a letter to the Wall Street Journal today from a Hispanic Congressman who still doesn’t get it. Still, Bush took the heat for good decisions in Iraq. I wish he had taken the same on the economy. When you see people like Bob Rubin presiding over the destruction of his company, you wonder what these people were thinking. The Wall Street Journal has been publishing editorials warning about Fannie Mae for five years. It wasn’t a mystery. It just needed a decision that it was time to take away the punchbowl. This is a massive failure of the governing class in this country.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:21 am 14. J. Rockford:

Why would Pelosi, Obama or Reid — and Bill and Hillary — want to fix the economy? They have won. The future is incredibly bright for them. They must be positively giddy at this point. Thanks to the meltdown of the U.S. economy — caused by them as Tom Blumer so effectively points out –there are now no limits on their spending. They can spend as much as they want, to benefit whoever they want. Moreover, they still have the media, academia and demographics. Like Hitler’s panzers, they have smashed through the last line of resistance and entire country lies open to them, undefended. There is no significant resistance to stop them from reaching whatever objectives they have. Given their shady associates, their past corruption, their manifest lack of ethics, we can guess what their objectives will be. By the time the United States has descended to bankrupt banana republic status, Pelosi, Obama, Reid and the Clintons will be long gone — retired on private islands somewhere.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:32 am 15. Wahine:

This is a good article. But I’ve long felt there’s more to know about Henry Paulson. He sure didn’t seem to be a conservative to me.

I yahooed – henry paulson is a democrat

and found his ties to democrats (environmental interests in particular) are more than one might have thought.

One article, “Who is Henry Paulson”, flatly states he shares alot of the blame for this collapse. He stubbornly encouraged risk-taking while at GoldmanSachs. The movement of GS execs to government posts and back again is uncomfortably high for me. Mostly, they’re democrats, it seems.

Though it says he gave considerably to republican candidates in the past ten years (some 300K) another 300K isn’t accounted for – only a mere 14K or so is said to have been given to democrat candidates. I find that hard to believe.

Paulson’s own ethical lapse was noted, and I have little confidence going forward if his successor is confirmed after his blatant disregard of the law. No “honest” mistake was that. In fact, he was even recompensed for those taxes he didn’t pay!

I think that info can be found at gatewaypunditdotblogspotdotcom.

No, I think we’re in a world of hurt with POR. And I’d like to know how friendly all these guys are with George Soros.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:50 am 16. anon for now:

Bush failed to meet his regulatory duties. At the same time, the things that he thought were important to do to help the economy (drill drill drill) were blocked by a Democrat congress. So Bush had the responsibility to manage the economy, but not the authority. Responsiblity without authority is a guaranteed recipe for failure.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:53 am 17. iowahawk:

Being a car restorer, I chuckled at the POR acronym for a different reason. POR is also brand of metal primer/sealant, an acronym for “Paint On Rust.”

And what better way to summarize the bailouts than “Paint On Rust”?

That’s irony. Rusty, rusty irony.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:59 am 18. Rex:

Too Much,

Why on Earth do you think that the President is in charge of the economy? You sound as ignorant of economics and the economy as Bill O’Reilly does.

We have basically a free market economy with substantial government regulation. The governmental regulation comes from laws passed by Congress and implemented by the Executive. Thus Congress is to blame for any over or under regulation. The President has very little say over the economy, other than to veto bills passed by Congress or to appoint the head of the Federal Reserve.

I know everyone does it, but blaming the economy on the President is really stupid.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:03 am 19. David S:

This is a joke, right? Trying to blame the Democrats for the failures of an eight year Republican administration is just pathetic.

The cause of the economic crisis lies squarely with Wall Street mortgage lenders, and the Republican congress and president who failed to take regulatory responsibility for managing the massive risks.

It is GOP policies that have led to a massive rise in unemployment, a net loss of private sector jobs, huge federal deficits, a ballooning federal debt, and poor performance in the stock market and GDP growth.

It is not hard to see that Bush is the worst leader the US could have. Pretending that the Democrats are the prime movers in this massive, eight year failure is absurd. Bush and the GOP had their opportunity to experiment on the US economy, and they delivered the worst performance ever recorded. Blaming the Democrats is just typical of the times – nobody in this administration is willing to be accountable for anything.

Bush cut taxes for the rich, reduced employment and health coverage for the poor, and failed to take any action to prevent the collapse of the credit markets. He was granted unprecedented powers and resources to fix the problem, and instead has pushed us even further into the red.

Keep on trying to pretend that Bush was really a wonderful president – it just makes it all the more obvious that you have not been paying attention to reality for eight years and counting.

Peace.

DS

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:29 am 20. Jim Baker:

Pelosi and Reid are a problem, but mainly because they are just politicians whose reality is trained on the perceptions of voters. They will pass anything that they think can make them look good with the people who vote for them. The real economic danger is Carol Browner, newly designated environmental czar. This woman is a committed socialist, and the regulations she passes will do more to destroy capitalism than anything the Pelosis and Reids of the world can accomplish.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:43 am 21. BackwardsBoy:

We could change all this. The power belongs to us, but no one seems think anything is wrong with leaders who continually deny the will of the majority of America (see offshore drilling for an example).
Perhaps when things get really bad enough and our standard of living takes a nosedive, as it soon will thanks to the ignorant leaders we now have, maybe the populace will stop voting for the Reids, Pelosis, Franks, and Obamas in Washington. We’re getting exactly the government (and economy) we deserve.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:46 am 22. LogicalUS:

As can be seen with the liberal who troll by the country in for a pretty long slide as they lack the basic reasoning skills to understand economics and if Barney Franks says it is Bush’s fault then that MUST be true.

So as their brilliant VP has said: “Gird your loins”. Only true inbeciles would believe that Barney Franks and Chris Dood have any clue about “fixing” the problems. And B. Hussein Obama? A man who has spent his entire life living off the appropriation of other people’s money to enrich his friends, his wife and himself.

So throw your barbs liberals, but anyone who wants to see this fiasco will play out only needs to go down to the local money for title shop and watch. Only a fool believes that when you are in debt over your head, the way to get out of it is to triple your debt load.

And Barney Franks idea is to facilitate more bad borrowing by breaking contracts and allowing judges to rewrite the loan agreements. That is really going to improve the lending markets! Of course when no one is willing to accept the risk, along will come Barney and Barry with laws which mandate that banks lend money and of course once again, those will be back by taxpayers.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:08 am 23. David S:

@22

Take a close look at the history of economic growth and job creation in the USA, and you can’t help but be struck by the stark differences between Dems and Reps.

Democratic administrations achieve greater GDP growth, greater job growth, and improve the manufacturing base in the USA. Republican administrations offer massive government deficits, reduced GDP growth, and reduced manufacturing employment.

This is nothing new. Democrats have been better for the economy for at least eighty years.

Keep on with the personal attacks against Obama – they reinforce the public perception that the GOP is out of touch with the People, and out of touch with reality.

DS

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:25 am 24. Subotai Bahadur:

I have to go along with those who state that the Democrats have no intention of fixing the economy. Aside from the fact that their ideological blinders prevent them from having any idea of what the economy really is [and no, it is not a "successfully accomplished 5 Year Plan from the Ministry of the Economy"]; we are about to be looted to Zimbabwean proportions.

I have to take issue with those who believe that the Democrats will be subject to sanctions by the voters. Were you not paying attention to the last election? The fundraising, voter registration, and vote counting were all done outside the law by Democratic party officials, with no objection by the collaborationist RINO’s. This being cheer-led by a media that is a wholely owned subsidiary of the Democratic party and which is salivating at the prospect of receiving bailout funds from the government so that they will be finally independent of those pesky citizens/readers/customers. One master being easier to serve than many.

The Republican party is trying to settle into a secure position as a tame “opposition” with all the perks and none of the responsibility. Any opposition that they offer in the event there actually is a vote of sorts in 2010 and beyond will be purely token. And in any case, the votes will be counted by Democrats.

I offer two little bits of news for you to ponder. First, the census of 2010, which will determine the makeup of the Congress is going to be run by the same Democrats who made a mockery of the law and Constitution in the last election. Second, a New York Democrat Congressman yesterday introduced into the House a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment, thus abolishing term limits for the president. Can you say, “President for Life”?

#1 David Thompson

The “battening down” is progressing. In my small county, I know of 3 small businesses which are in the process of shutting down or have shut down, deliberately. They had survived the financial strains of the period of fuel price increases and were back on track until the election. In each case it was the judgment of the owners that under the coming regime, it would be impossible to survive. Their feeling was that if they liquidated in an orderly fashion now, they would have some assets to preserve, rather than being forced into bankruptcy by government policy later.

Subotai Bahadur

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:45 am 25. godlessliberal:

Lets see, mentioned in the article and in the comments (mostly)are the following;

George Soros, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Obama, Al Gore,liberal democrats, socialists, environmental, etc.

How do you wingnuts sleep at night? Really,with all these “booggiemen” lurking about wanting to steal your money. You do know that Bush and the wingnuts have been in charge for the last eight years? This problem did not start yesterday or last month. Are democrats clean in all of this? No. But the republicans have the most dirt under their fingernails. Are you better off now than you where 8 years ago?
The hate for anything different than “white bread” is so palatable here.
What are you so afraid of? Either get on the bus or you will be left behind with that bag of sh*t know as conservatism.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:49 am 26. deguello:

David S and Brainless liberal: Let’s see,Democrats are better for the economy than republicans? Jimmy Carter, 13% inflation,18%interest rates, 10% unemployment,blue (dem) states like California and NY bankrupt,Frank and Dodd colluding with demlib Wall street plutocrats to blow up the banking system,and yet fools like you vote to give carte blanche to these criminals to save the economy they destroyed? and Brainless liberal calls conservatives wing nuts, and conservatism a bag of sh*t?The only bag of excrement involved, is the one that resides between the ears of the typical Obama fanatic,where his brain should be.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:15 am 27. J. PINKERTON SNOOPINGTON:

David S.
#19
A few root causes you might like to consider: Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid,, Charles Schumer …all Democrap leaders involved in the recent, lamentable meltdown. Pull your Lib head out of your a$$ man….

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:28 am 28. Anonymous:

#25 BRAINDEAD LIBERAL- The problem with you and your COMMIESCUM and ISLAMIC SUPREMACIST PALS is that you scum ALWAYS FAIL. You FAIL because you are STUUUUUPPPIIIDDDDD. The repubs have been in charge for the last 8 years? I seem to remember this woeful economy started in the summer of 2008. Right about the time your BOLSHEVIK B**CH NASTY THE PIGLOSI and her COMMUNIST cohorts like CHARLIE THE CROOK RANGEL, CHRIS DOODLEHEAD, BARNEY THE BACKDOOR SANTA THE FA**OT,ETC got control of the ecomonic levers. Even before that, it was RINOS likethe idiot CHRIS SHAYS and the fellow senate IDIOTS John Mcshame, Lindsay Grannasty, George Whinerwitch of Ohio, Warner of Va, Orrin Hatched of Utah who destroyed America by acting like DEMONRAT COMMIES. BRAINLESS # 25, you always have your COMMIE “paradises” like RED CHINA, NORTH KOPREA, CUBA,VENEZUELA, VIETNAM, LAOS or your socialist wonderland of YOUR UP if you think COMMUNISM is so great. Im sure the TALIBAN will enjoy your STUPIDITY. Or you can always “volunteer” to be a member of HAM ASS. Im certain your “dying” to go there.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:30 am 29. Tex Taylor:

Let’s not forget to remind all the feckless libs trolling by the board here dreaming of those wonderful Clinton Dimocratic years, blaming the last eight years exclusively on Bush & Co, that the patron saint of Dim economics, the “GREATEST TREASURY SECRETARY EVER”, one Robert E. Rubin, just presided over the inevitable downfall of a multi-billion dollar corp Citigroup.

As a matter of fact, walked away in disgrace as his former boss should have in 1997.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:40 am 30. J. PINKERTON SNOOPINGTON:

Godlessliberal
#25
Hey Moron – your godless asinine Lib Supremes who approved Roe v. Wade in ‘73 killed off an entire generation of taxpayers whose Social Security taxes would have supported your worthless a$$ if, and when you ever get to retirement age. Keep your horses++t liberal
ideology…you are truly foolish and pathetic….

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:11 pm 31. rocketeer:

Ann141 – Shrewd observation of the circumstances that few people are making yet. I firmly believe that these people know exactly how they’re going to tank the economy, but since it helps them politically, they’re going to do it. Our pain has always been democrats gain.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:12 pm 32. J. PINKERTON SNOOPINGTON:

Godlessliberal
#25
Oh yeah – I forgot to offer the proper genuflection to that incredible guardian of the economy (and paragon of
American virtue) Jimmy Carter…he really got the country off to a memorable economic start !!!!
Another liberal eunuch !

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:16 pm 33. Dittydo old man:

Its the way of a democracy, one party at odds with the other…. Blame should be placed where it belongs, we are all to blame. Throw out the Republicans, throw out the Democrats and start over. Prosecute the crooks that are doing this to our government and our country. Those that want to do business with us from outside our boarders should have to pay the same price as those with in our country.

No more bailouts, no more free rides for any. If you borrowed more than you could afford, to bad but you should lose it, if you lend money out its your responsibility and you should pay the consequences.

Hold those responsible to the same standard you expect yourself and others to be held to!

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:23 pm 34. Hal:

Nancy Pelosi stated last week that this is the first time since 1993 that the democrats have controlled both houses. In 1993 the demcrats passed a bill putting a moritorium on energy development. Clinton signed the bill and energy development stopped in this country. The bill had to be renewed each year and the democrates were able to keep it in effect. They had enough seats to block any vetos. Energy reached a crisis in gasoline last year, and the democrates allowed the bill to lapse, Pelosi and Reid want to reinstate the bill, now that they control congress and the president.
We have a five to ten year window to solve the problem, if the democrates continue to prevent energy development and production we are through.
If you don’t believe this look at California. They can survive now because the rest of the country can carry them, but if the country tanks out then there will no other country willing help us.
We need a crash program for energy. An investigation in congress for their corruption, an investigation on voting corruption, and put the crooks in jail.

Hal.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:37 pm 35. bear:

#24’s take is interesting and one that I tend to agree with. #23. I’d argue with you but it’s a waste of time.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:41 pm 36. Sandy Salt:

Wow, this is productive. I would say that if you want to fix the economy you need to stabilize the screwed up housing market because until you do that nothing else financial is going to be stable. Instead of wasting $800 billion on new spending with zero hope of getting a dime of it back, I say we implement a student loan type program for home buyers. They would apply for low interest government loans to pay their mortgage to stave off foreclosure. They would be required to pay it back when they were in a better position to do so. They would be required to apply annually for aid, deferment, or payment. This would cost a hell of a lot less then flushing money down the Wall Street Toilet and the tax payers would eventually be paid back. That is a helpful discussion. If you want to whine about who is to blame for driving the economy, look in the mirror and at your neighbor, everyone is to blame and until we rise up and throw off the shackles of bad government we will continue to be to blame.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:42 pm 37. Bear:

#24. good post

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:45 pm 38. Bear:

Sandy, how do we throw off those shackles? Are you suggesting mutiny?

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:48 pm 39. JED:

Square one observation on the economic morass is that it is Global. It is human nature to blame others or wish them up for human sacrifice, and while that superstition is carthartic it does not make for better crops. POR fixes the blame, not the problem.
Anyone who claims to know the reason for the meltdown probably does not know what they are talking about, except to vent conspiracy theory. Please let the workable theories come forward.
My theory is that the system broke because of the transition from national to global economies. The technology was there to move trillions but the rules of the game for the larger and faster scale were not in place. We overloaded and are seeking a correction.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:52 pm 40. MakeAmericaHappen:

AFSCME’s Making America Happen – Again

Check out the new video by AFSCME as part of their Make America Happen campaign. The video reminds us that we have overcome financial crisis before, and we can do it again. It compared FDR’s solutions to the Great Depression with Obama’s plans to tackle our current economic crisis.

As AFSCME President Gerald McEntee pointed out in his Huffington Post piece yesterday,

“President-elect Barack Obama’s call for bold action and civic engagement in response to our present crisis echoes FDR’s inspiring call to pull the nation out of the Great Depression and forge the New Deal. The video shows how our nation triumphed over economic crisis once before and can do so again by reinvesting in public service, providing health care for all Americans and growing the middle class.”

With a severe economic recession, an unemployment rate that reached 7.2 percent in December and continues to grow, and with more Americans falling into poverty, Americans are demanding action. Please sign our petition and make your voice heard.

The Make America Happen Campaign is dedicated to helping President-elect Obama revitalize our economy, provide health care for all, and strengthen the middle class. Our best days are still ahead of us.

http://www.afscme.org/makeamericahappen/

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:07 pm 41. Jim Baker:

Democrats have been in firm control of congress since January of 2007. This recession did not start until September of 2008. What were these Democrats doing during that 20 month time frame? This calamity did not get created by George Bush who, according to Democrats, has been a lame duck since early in 2005.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:16 pm 42. Cybergeezer:

The Democrats are behaving just like unsupervised adolescents with a trust fund; So much to spend and nothing to be to be responsible for. And their irresponsibility is condoned by the main stream media. This irresponsibility does have it’s effects as collateral damage in the form of unemployment at the media firms. And therefore less oversight and exposure from the media.
“We The People” need to find a more direct method of protest, by consensus, that has a direct effect on the politicians. Obviously, as it is now, politicians can readily ignore consensus. And it has been the politicians ultimate objective to suppress dissension. And the media might even call dissension HATRED!

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:30 pm 43. garrett:

Sandy. How do you ensure that people will pay off low interest student-loan like morgatge assists? Why not keep them going on until retirement and then default? I’ve heard that the rate of default of student loans is staggering.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:39 pm 44. RE:

Ayn Rand was quite prescient.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:43 pm 45. Jeff Perren:

“The Executive who failed to execute his regulatory responsibilities remains in charge of this economy”

Try as they might, no Federal official, nor group of them, is yet “in charge” of our economy, nor should they be. There is still some measure of freedom, mixed with far too many controls. Bush bears much blame for many things – not least is acquiescing too often to the Democrats (as have most spineless Republicans) – but dictator he is not.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:44 pm 46. Jeff Perren:

“Bush had the responsibility to manage the economy,”

Not in a free country, he doesn’t. The United States is a constitutional republic and the leader of the executive branch has no authority under our constitution to “manage the economy.” No one does. To the extent he does so, far from shirking any ‘regulatory responsibilities’ he is violating the basic law of the land.

What you are describing is a fascist regime.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:54 pm 47. Sandy Salt:

Bear – we throw off the shackles of poor government by forcing them to recognize whom they work for and if they fail us again then we will forcefully throw them out of office. If we need to we can always march on Washington with torches and pitchforks, and get down right dark ages on their collective butts.

Garrett – we would garnish their wages just like everyone else, we would also know where they live already. The government has been draconian enough with student loans because people default on them because they can without too serious of a consequence. If you up the consequence then the pain isn’t worth it. This would be a good deal to keep roofs over peoples heads and not just another free ride. There will be serious negative consequences for default. I am thinking rowing on a roman galley type consequences or military service which is about the same.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:59 pm 48. Bear:

JED …I’ll give you the theories credit. It was a perfect storm of events that led to this, which gives you pause to think…the speculative run up of oil prices that jacked up prices on most everything, surely put a strain on those that were barely living within their means. Whose to blame one can only guess. There’s enough greed and corruption in the world to pick pretty much any target. I look first at those with deep pockets,motive and the means to manipulate.

Dismissing this as just an inability to adapt to a global economy sounds naive to me. Just like believing that if you declare the rules everyone will follow, not to mention if you constantly change the rules.

Countries have been trading with one another for as long as I can remember.
Maybe you meant adapting to a global economy in the technology era? (which I can appreciate)

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:03 pm 49. Sandy Salt:

Speaking of a gobal verses a national economy, why do you think that other industrialized countries have socialized medicine? The answer is that in a global economy companies can not afford to pay for the health care and pension for their employees. That is a high variable cost that goes on for years after the employees productivity ends, so the company is stuck with a huge labor burden that adds zero to the bottom line. How do you compete with this? You make bigger products (trucks and suvs) that have high profit margins or you build really crappy small products (american low end cars) that ends up driving you out of business. This is the problem in today’s manufacturing sector because they are forced to compete with companies that have no requirement pay health care or pensions. You want to fix this then everyone pays and companies would again be able to at least compete here with Germany, Japan and other European companies. As for third world sweat shop products there is no chance of competing until the workers rebel.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:07 pm 50. Sandy Salt:

that should be hasn’t been draconian enough on student loan defaulters

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:16 pm 51. Steve P.:

You hypocrites. A months from now, you’ll all be screaming mindlessly that “Obama owns the economy now and that anything that happens under his watch is his fault!” But you’ll never accept that Bush, the worst president in recent American history, had any influence on, or responsibility for, the total cluster#%&$ we are in now. Have fun being marginalized for the next 8 years. You certainly earned it.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:27 pm 52. ATM:

David S,

What makes you think that it is Democratic admistration that does good things for the economy? Republicans were firmly in control of the Congress during the boom years of the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.

In contrast Democrats have been in control of at least one house of Congress during recessions of the last thirty years. During the Bush administration, Democrats have been in control of the Senate for essentially 4 years, the first two after the Jeffords switch when there was a recession, and the last two when the current recession started.

Of course there is an advantage in having the Democrats controlling the White House. When they are in the Whitehouse, the out of power Republicans return to the private sector and fix the problems caused by the out of power Democrats.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:28 pm 53. fred:

I wasn’t fooled by the machinations of the frantic oil futures’ buying that was driving up energy costs before the shit really hit the fan. Vested international interests were driving this, through the hedge funds. Anyone with any brains knows that a modern economy runs on oil. If you double, triple, and quadruple the cost of oil, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand what this does to an economy. Therefore, in an election year, one can guess who the overseas actors are who stand to gain from an American economy tanking AT JUST THE RIGHT TIME (before an election). I can easily surmise that Putin, Soros, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and OPEC had a vested interest in having a weak, appeasing, and obviously socialist candidate winning the election.

Once the economy was really sinking right after the election, oil futures were tanking along with it. Straight down.

The people who run the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs knew that the last patina of underwriting standards went out the window in 1995, when Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, and Jaime Gorelick (once again, that toxic woman!)put the screws to the banking system and told them to get with it on the double. Float enough bad paper derivatives in the system – with no way of properly valuing it – and it’s only a matter of time before it blows up.

The short-selling done by individuals and hedge fund managers who may have had information about the toxic ramifications of these derivatives got the ball rolling.

Jan 15, 2009 - 3:08 pm 54. JED:

Bear: Nicely phrased, that is “adapting to a global economy in the technology era.” For example, WaMu was hit with $14 billion in overnight withdrawls on a rumor and then went under. That is, they closed the books, locked the vault, and the next day they were irreversibly in the hole.
There seems to be much more in play than politicians, pundits, and investment houses. If that leverage existed then Bush could be blamed for driving up the price of oil and given credit for bringing it down.
The banking system/commodity market/stock exchanges had been playing with the re-invented rules of the 1930s when ticker tape and bicycle messengers were hot. The volumes of trades have grown expodentially. The Big Board had to be upgraded numerous times in the 90’s. National markets close at night, international markets are played 24/7. Money since the end of the gold standard is all digital. A correction could occur if allowed, which does not seem to be the way of the world. It is no wonder that entrenchment is the current stategy.

Jan 15, 2009 - 3:09 pm 55. godlessliberal:

#28: “BOO”
Off the meds? Such hatred. Enjoy your solitude in the wilderness for the next eight years. You can screech all you want, no one is going to hear you.

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:07 pm 56. freetoken:

Tom Blumer said: “The POR economy kicked in during the latter part of June, when its architects — Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid — decided that starving the economy of energy by refusing to allow more offshore drilling in the face of $4 gas prices was a winning political position.”

You’re really reaching here, Tom. To think that any vote on an item that would not affect oil supplies until years in the future somehow has effects that reach back in time (years) … is just fantasy.

There is good analysis of our current economic situation, on the internet, but Tom’s essay is not one of them. In short, long term, systemic, issues in housing and finance caused instability in the markets; also, not surprisingly, an overexpansion of productivity (worldwide) is followed by a contraction.

No more looney theories, please.

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:10 pm 57. David S:

@52

ATM,

I’m speaking historically, here. Look at the facts, and then tell me that a Democratic administration has no relation to economic growth.

Democrats are better for the stock market:
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/futureinvest/3022

Clinton far surpasses Bush 1 & 2 in many ways:
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm

There are some people who really appreciate Reagonomics (hint: it’s not the 95%):
http://www.cbpp.org/3-29-07inc.htm

Even before the most recent chaos in the financial markets, which skews the numbers even farther against Republicans, it is clear that Democrats, at least for the last eighty years, have been better leaders of our economy, if in fact Presidents have an impact on the economy.

The policies of the GOP since 1980 have resulted in a shrinking share of income for the vast majority of Americans, reversing a trend toward more equitable distribution of income that had been ongoing for most of the century. The erosion of job security and purchasing power, and the massive increases in the burden of health care are destroying the American dream for many.

Everyone in their right mind would like to leave this country to our heirs in better shape than we found it – why not the GOP?

DS

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:22 pm 58. fear Obama:

I find it ironic that the Democrats will have to get the Republicans back to work making money and creating jobs so that the country will not tank.

Hey Repubs spend some money!

The 800 billion dollar stimulation will build roads & infrastructure.

Hispanic workers will earn about 2/3rds of that money as they will be the only ones digging holes and running jackhammers.

But we should feel proud that Obams stimulation will revive Mexico’s economy.

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:48 pm 59. fred:

#55 “godlessliberal”

If we are irrelevant, why are you here?

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:57 pm 60. venividivici:

DavidS,

The policies of the GOP since 1980 have resulted in a shrinking share of income for the vast majority of Americans, reversing a trend toward more equitable distribution of income that had been ongoing for most of the century. The erosion of job security and purchasing power, and the massive increases in the burden of health care are destroying the American dream for many.

We’ve definitely moved toward an economy where individual talents are more highly compensated since the 1980’s, but that’s a good thing, because we want talent to be compensated. If that leads to inequality, it’s primarily because talent isn’t equally distributed. And please don’t talk to me about someone’s “environment” not being conducive to developing talent, because “environment” today is just the result of the distribution of talent yesterday.

Job security has eroded for a variety of factors. The primary one is automation. Quite frankly, most people are just glorified machines when they’re on the job. When a machine becomes sufficient to do the job, you replace the person. No matter how much of an awesome person the person is, that’s the smart business thing to do.

I’m not sure what you mean by “purchasing power”. Most consumer goods, when you control for quality, have gone down in price over time. Certainly inflation drives all prices in the opposite direction, but think of how cheaply you can buy almost any good now compared to the comparable good 30 years ago. If you mean wage earning power, yes, but that again is a function of many factors like automation and globalization. Both of those are functions of technological developments that are perfectly legitimate. Unless you want to be a Luddite, how can you be against technological development?

As far as health care goes, again blame innovation. If drug companies and medical equipment makers didn’t invent so many new treatments, costs wouldn’t go up. I’m pretty sure the cost of an aspirin has remained fairly constant, adjusted for inflation. It’s the drug that clears bad cholesterol and keeps good cholesterol or the medical device that enables a doctor to find a tumor much sooner that makes medical costs go up. Again, unless you’d rather that we stick with medical procedures that are essentially commodities at this point, costs are going to go up.

As for the American Dream, I’ve pretty much accomplished it, so it can be done. I slept 5 hours a night and didn’t watch TV on my way to accomplishing it, so maybe that’s what people who are struggling should try doing: sleeping less and turning off the boob tube. Then, come talk to me about how the GOP’s policies are taking away your chance at the American Dream. I’ve never liked that phrase anyway, having a preference for reality over dreams. And, let’s also face the fact that no country of 300 million people can have all “winners”. There have to be some “losers”. It’s just a fact of nature.

I just don’t understand why people don’t think about the underlying causes before spouting off on complicated topics.

As long as Pelosi, Reid and Obama stay out of the way of intelligent business people, the economy will recover. The three of them seem like the nosy neighbor who doesn’t know squat, yet sees fit to throw his opinion in while you’re trying to get something done.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:08 pm 61. Ann141:

59.fred….what you said

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:33 pm 62. Jeff Perren:

venividivici,

#60. Superb commentary. Well done.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:02 pm 63. Jim Baker:

Steve P,
So this time I am a mindless hypocrite. Okay, I am not screaming yet, so please tell me what you think George Bush foisted upon the American economy to cause this clustersomething? If you won’t, then shut the hell up, okay. By the way, I am still waiting for your non-hypocritical highness to answer the global warming question I asked you a couple of weeks ago.

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:33 pm 64. David S:

@60

Vvv,

You have to be kidding, unless you consider wealth a “talent”. The top 1% have massive advantage because their wealth exceeds their needs. The bottom half of earners are living in wage slavery by comparison. The fact is that the wealthy have grown wealthier, and the poor are poorer. It’s math, not talent, that is the cause.
I agree that automation has had some impact on job security, but I would argue that the decline of unionized labor is a much bigger factor. It goes along with the offshoring of manufacturing. Purchasing power is a
measure of what one can buy with one’s wages, and is down as well. It’s not a problem of technology, it’s a problem of politics and policy.

Health care costs are massively inflated to cover the costs of insurance administration and billing – most western countries provide equivalent or better healthcare for much less money. It is absurd to blame the cost of treatment, when we don’t address the massive money wasted on administration.

I’m glad for you that you have achieved your American dream, and I fully accept that some will always do better than others. I simply disagree about the reasons and morality supporting the distribution of wealth. There will always be losers, but there need not be so many losing so much.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:20 pm 65. Dittydo old man:

I can honestly say, the majority here just don’t get it.
(1) Most all are to party orientated.

(2) There is no cure for the current problems, only blame. We can only learn from our past mistakes and not let it happen again.

(3) Greed will always cause the downfall of nations. This is like the Great Depression all over again. Suck in your belts and prepare for some lean years, they are coming.

(4) We will recover from this but it will mean nothing if we learned nothing from it.

(5) God Bless America

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:32 pm 66. myth buster:

Bush did an excellent job for 7.5 years, although he did a lousy job at selling it because he speaks poorly. However, he has really lost his mind in the past six months.

Re: Student loans- student loans are collateralized by Social Security. If you do not repay your loans in full before you retire, they garnish your Social Security until they are paid off. They can also garnish tax refunds and any other check from the government.

Re: Liberal Malice- if Democrats push the Constitution too far, i.e. stealing elections, fraudulent census, passing and enforcing laws that blatantly violate the Bill of Rights, etc., they will have a military revolt on their hands. We will not tolerate the murder of our country.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:21 pm 67. Doug:

“…and the massive increases in the burden of health care are destroying the American dream for many.” As a certified healthcare executive, I can tell you that the rise of healthcare costs has nothing to do with conservative values and everything to do with the ‘entitlement’ frame of mind. Government overregulation and litigation happy lawyers, linked with HMO standards and unions demands have skyrocketed healthcare costs. In our defense, most healthcare organizations had to develops a system of redundant checks and balances to ward off litigation and ensure that insurance companys actually pay us. Employees pay part of his/her healthcare insurance, the company pays the rest to an insurance company, who then pays the clinic after they pay their own employees. The clinic pays for the doctor, nurse, medical records specialists and on and on. One reason why veterinarian costs are so much lower (comparatively speaking) is because you, the consumer, usually pay the veterinarian’s office directly, there is no middle person, and veterinarians are so much less likely to get sued.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:24 pm 68. Doug:

I hear the phrase “redistribution of wealth” so much, it has lost its meaning. How wealthy does a person have to be in order for his/her earnings to be taken away? If I earn just $1, should I keep it? How about $10,000 or $1,000,000? Where do you draw the line? Perhaps if everyone who earned even dollar or more a year would be taxed 10 – 15% then there would be more than enough to run our government and help the needy.

Hey, I live in Turkey, and have lived in Mexico. The standards or “poor” or “livable wages” are much different in third-world countries. American minimum wages may be less than adequate, but a minimum wage earner in the USA might be considered wealthy here – so do we redistribute our poor’s earnings to help these poor folks?

Also, I used to run housing for poor people in Texas with low rent apartments. The main reason we had to evict even on low rents wasn’t because they needed redistribution of wealth sent to them (Section 8, etc…) it was because they didn’t wisely spend and save what they had.

A good work ethic, coupled with some savvy, can take a person far in life. We shouldn’t be punished for it.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:46 pm 69. venividivici:

64

You have to be kidding, unless you consider wealth a “talent”. The top 1% have massive advantage because their wealth exceeds their needs. The bottom half of earners are living in wage slavery by comparison. The fact is that the wealthy have grown wealthier, and the poor are poorer. It’s math, not talent, that is the cause.

Wealth can never exceed needs. Sorry, that is ridiculous. It can exceed immediate needs, but then wealth provides capital for the needs of others through the wealthy individual’s investments in other enterprises and/or through inheritances being passed down. Allocating wealth to these investments is best done by the individuals holding the wealth, supported by a regulatory regime that makes things like Madoff difficult to impossible. Anyway, your analysis puts the cart “wealth” before the horse “talent”. Wealth doesn’t just show up one day and take up residence with an individual. People can be born into wealth, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will be equally talented as the individual who generated the wealth originally. It’s “regression to the mean” and it happens everywhere in nature. That said, talents do tend to be correlated due to the fact that subsequent generations are genetically related to the talented individual of earlier days. Other than winning a lottery, how has anyone in this world become wealthy without blood, sweat and tears? Even a Joseph Kennedy worked himself to the bone to get where he wanted to get, regardless of whether his activities were legal.

I agree that automation has had some impact on job security, but I would argue that the decline of unionized labor is a much bigger factor. It goes along with the offshoring of manufacturing. Purchasing power is a
measure of what one can buy with one’s wages, and is down as well. It’s not a problem of technology, it’s a problem of politics and policy.

And why did unionized labor decline? Because technological advances meant that manual labor was more easily replaceable by technology, which gave labor less negotiating power and forced those who in earlier days would have gone into industries utilizing manual labor into industries that required other forms of labor that were less easily unionized. Add to that the fact that in those new industries incentives were put in place so that the most talented (there’s that word again) were provided with compensation packages that rewarded excellence, not union organizing, and the end result is that the people who would have been leading the march on management’s office to demand a union were instead working on their next project to get that big performance bonus and maybe some stock options.

As for your contention that purchasing power as a measure of wages is down, there was a study done by the Dallas Federal Reserve on the number of week’s of a worker’s wage that it took to buy a number of common consumer goods over time. It showed a clear downwardly sloping curve across all categories. Unless you have better data than the Dallas Fed, I would state that you’re just empirically wrong, however much it may intuitively feel like purchasing power has gone down.

Health care costs are massively inflated to cover the costs of insurance administration and billing – most western countries provide equivalent or better healthcare for much less money. It is absurd to blame the cost of treatment, when we don’t address the massive money wasted on administration.

I keep hearing this over and over, but haven’t seen any good data. Plus, the orders of magnitude cost differences that are claimed (what was it, something like 98% lower billing and administration costs?) don’t jibe with either the labor cost differentials between private insurance companies and the government or the relative IT sophistication of private sector companies versus the government sector. Those are two huge factor costs in billing and administration, right? Labor and capital. You’re telling me that government workers get paid 98% less (pick your own number on the cost differential) than private workers? Or that government IT systems are that much more efficient than private sector IT systems? Your argument about cost differentials in billing and administration are the equivalent of saying that the DMV is the most cost-effective way of providing licenses, registering vehicles, etc. If you believe that, fine, but you can’t seriously expect everyone else to share your delusion, however nice it may sound.

Then, as far as the relative cost of treatment versus administration costs, one specialist in the health care field can make as much as ten or fifteen non-specialists. Think of what a brain surgeon or heart surgeon make versus what a medical insurance claims processor makes. Since the ratio of specialists to non-specialists in treating an individual will rarely be 1 to 10 or 1 to 15, the costs of having the specialist involved are actually a larger proportion of the final bill than all of the non-specialists supporting the processing of the billing, at least when direct labor costs are the measurement being made. There are other benefits-related costs that need to be accounted for that are more similar across specialists and non-specialists, e.g. the amount of money it costs a company to process the specialist’s paycheck and the non-specialist’s paycheck are the same.

I simply disagree about the reasons and morality supporting the distribution of wealth. There will always be losers, but there need not be so many losing so much.

Well, you can disagree all you want, since it’s a free country, but you have no facts to back up your disagreement. Put in that context, your disagreement is just stubborn ignorance. Read some facts and think about the logic underlying human interactions (try studying game theory, for example), otherwise you’re just going to be an ineffectual debater against someone who has actually done those things and you’ll end up losing to someone with superior command of those factors (like myself) every time you debate.

Plus, you’re too emotional in your writing. It lacks the crisp logic and smooth transitions from fact to conclusions that my writing exhibits naturally.

Jan 16, 2009 - 5:07 am 70. ajacksonian:

When purchasing antiques you always know when you have something that is unreasonable… it has POR on it.

Price On Request.

They don’t want to tell you what the price is unless you ask for it. Pretty much what the new aristocracy in America is all about, up there Upon the Hill. What is the cost of this antique bailout? POR.

And you still get an antique way of approaching the economy, to boot. Just keep those presses running at Treasury, I’m sure we can ’spend our way out of this’ into true poverty for the Nation.

Jan 16, 2009 - 5:46 am 71. David S:

TEST

DS

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:44 am 72. The Historian:

HOUSE STIMULUS PLAN IS A HOSE JOB
The Pelosi proposal is a payoff for Democrat special interests.

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/house-stimulus-plan-is-special-interest.html

Jan 16, 2009 - 12:08 pm 73. David S:

Thread terminated due to moderator failure.

DS

Jan 16, 2009 - 12:23 pm 74. David S:

Here’s a link to my response, which has been moderated into the ether:

http://www.drudge.com/news/116817/working-around-moderators-pm

DS

Jan 16, 2009 - 12:28 pm 75. M. Simon:

Speaking of a global verses a national economy, why do you think that other industrialized countries have socialized medicine? The answer is that in a global economy companies can not afford to pay for the health care and pension for their employees.

So in order to help companies afford socialized medicine we will raise taxes on them, or on investment capital (the rich), or on just average joe.

And through the miracle of modern finance the costs will disappear. You know, such an obvious idea and I never thought it.

Jan 16, 2009 - 1:42 pm 76. Pat J:

A lot of our economic problems are directly tied to the war in Iraq. We’ve spent and borrowed close to a trillion dollars which could have been used to help our economy. Money and lives wasted.

Jan 16, 2009 - 1:54 pm 77. Cybergeezer:

Yea! I know how a lot of you feel! I could have upgraded my central heat/air and installed a spa if the economy hadn’t taken a dump. Those rag heads owe me big time!

Jan 16, 2009 - 4:36 pm 78. venividivici:

First, I ask: Can you see the contradiction? Wealth doesn’t just show up one day and take up residence with an individual. People can be born into wealth… Most rich people are rich because they are born that way. This is not a subject for debate – it is a fact.

Of course people can and are born into wealth every day, but that wealth can’t be traced back to the beginning of history, for crying out loud. The fact is that somewhere along the way every wealthy person today had an ancestor who was dirt poor. I started my life pretty poor and by the time I retire, I will have multiple millions of dollars, the majority of which I will leave to my children. How did I get it? Because I busted my butt, and still do, working 15 to 18 hour days many days and being focused like a laser beam on what I wanted. If a person can’t muster up that sort of diligence to succeed, and that person doesn’t succeed, I don’t f-in’ care one scintilla of an iota of a sh*t. Do you understand me now? Your, or anyone else’s lack of success is not my concern. Conversely, I can look at the richest person in the world and not feel one jot of a tittle of envy or a sense that they should be taxed more for others’ consumption needs. I’d rather they keep nearly all their money and invest it in productive uses, because there are always more productive uses for capital than to hand it over to some bureaucrat.

That NEJM study leaves out one major cost: patient’s time. The time a patient spends waiting to get treated in the Canadian system is itself a form of “administrative cost”. In fact, it’s such a large cost that the entire Canadian system has come under question by a man who was among the systems founders.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931

You keep talking about inflation when you say purchasing power. They’re two different things among those who understand financial terminology, among which number you apparently are not. Of course a dollar today is worth less than a dollar yesterday or a dollar in 1920. The question is what does a dollar buy today and is it more or less than the equivalent of a dollar back in 1920. If it cost a nickel to go to the movies in 1920 and that same nickel is worth $12 today and a movie ticket today costs $10, purchasing power has increased, not decrease, in real, not nominal terms.

The fact is, you don’t want to know the truth, because it disagrees with your preconceived notions. Nearly half of the full-time workers in the US make less than they need to get by, yet you insist there is no problem. In my book, that makes you part of the problem. The underlying logic is that there is a group of very rich people who exert influence on the government to help them stay that way. The rest of us get the short end of the stick.

All of my notions have been built from deduction, not induction. I see the world around me as it is and I draw conclusions from what people do, not what they say. My mind is always calm and centered and I never get flustered by what I see, so I am always in a rational frame of mind to form my judgments. My job requires it and it’s just how I live. If that makes me part of the problem to you, see paragraph above on my thoughts on how important your success is to me. There are rich people who influence the government, no question about that. I say that’s to the better for the government because the correlation between wealth and intelligence is pretty clear, even if it isn’t perfect, it’s still statistically significant. You get the short end of the stick because evolution doesn’t love you.

Jan 16, 2009 - 4:54 pm 79. Cybergeezer:

The Department of Health and Human Services is offering free internet prostate exams an January 20th at 12:00 P.M. If you go to http://www.Obama’sHealthPlan.org, turn on your web cam, drop your pants and place your posterior over the key board, you shall be given this free exam. You will have to be patient, since the turnout is expected to be large, This offer shall not be repeated. The results will be emailed to you.

Jan 17, 2009 - 6:27 am 80. Marc Malone:

David S – Your statement that incomes are shrinking is not true. I am completely familiar with the statistics. Dems were offering those links all last year. The thing is, the data doesn’t compare apples to apples. Medical costs have soared out of control. However medical compensation doesn’t get included in the statistics for income. If you add it in, then wages have indeed grown considerably, commensurate with the increase in productivity.

As far as the distribution of wealth, this is the essence of the debate. Dems just feel like the little guy should get more of the pie. It’s just not fair. That’s just childish thinking. It’s based on the fiction that it all belongs to us all.

The fact is wealthy people have a lot of money… and it belongs to THEM. Period. It’s not your damned money! You don’t get to determine how it’s spent. The money doesn’t belong to the government either! When the government taxes people, it is TAKING the money away from them. All this pity for the poor and bitterness towards the rich is simply covetousness. Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not steal. Be thankful for what you have, not bitter for what you don’t have. Redistribution is Marxism. Marxism is always Godlessness.

One more thing about redistribution. Money in rich people’s hands is productive. It creates more wealth. Don’t give productive resources to unproductive people or the resources will become unproductive. That’s why Marxist States are always less productive. The degree to which wealth is redistributed determines the amount ot which the economy is less productive.

Rich people can just sit on their money if they want. If the risk exceeds the reward, that’s what they’ll do. It’s not like they’ll actually miss any meals. They just stop playing the game, and the most productive people stop being productive. Atlas Shrugs.

Jan 18, 2009 - 3:34 am 81. Derek Moyer:

Really? Really? The democrats destroyed the economy! They hate freedom and democracy! They want us to suffer! Uncritical, malevolent, boring, and, well, ignorant. Do you even really believe this? Every bad thing=Democrats. Every good thing=Republicans. Are you even interested in the actual structures and power relations within which this recession was caused? Do you really even care? If you did, why would you write this?

Jan 18, 2009 - 9:02 am 82. venividivici:

Derek Moyer:

Really? Really? The democrats destroyed the economy! They hate freedom and democracy! They want us to suffer! Uncritical, malevolent, boring, and, well, ignorant. Do you even really believe this? Every bad thing=Democrats. Every good thing=Republicans. Are you even interested in the actual structures and power relations within which this recession was caused? Do you really even care? If you did, why would you write this?

Rather than criticize what others say, why don’t you tell us your own, no doubt both brilliant and Democrat-exhonorating, version of what happened?

I’ve got it as, Democrats push lower underwriting standards on mortgage lending, followed by Wall Street and ratings agencies failing to do job of identifying and being compensated for risks, followed by Republicans warning things were getting out of control, followed by Democrats playing race card to shut down Republican criticism, followed by Republicans failing to show spine and pass reforms anyway, followed by present day. Notice who set the ball in motion: Democrats. Notice too who wanted to keep the party going after it had been realized that it was a mistake: Democrats.

Overall larger share of blame, then, has to go the the Democrats.

That’s how you do an analysis of causes and effects.

Jan 18, 2009 - 1:15 pm 83. David S:

@82

The WSJ does a decent job explaining how to spread the blame around:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123215327787492291.html

While the Fed is most to blame, the Administration encouraged the credit excesses. It populated the Fed Board of Governors with Mr. Greenspan’s protégés, notably Ben Bernanke and Donald Kohn, who helped to create the mania and even now deny all responsibility. Meantime, Mr. Bush’s three Treasury Secretaries knew little about the subject, and if anything were inclined to support easier money and a weaker dollar in the name of reducing the trade deficit.

The fact is that the President, and only the President, was in a position to take direct and substantial action to forestall this type of crisis, via the Executive authority vested in him by Congress.

Congress can be blamed for writing the laws, but the Executive must bear responsibility for their implementation.

Bottom line is that Bush deserves most of the blame being directed his way, and pointing fingers at the Democrats is not going to change this fact.

Peace.

DS

Jan 18, 2009 - 8:43 pm 84. venividivici:

Bottom line is that Bush deserves most of the blame being directed his way, and pointing fingers at the Democrats is not going to change this fact.

I agree that Bush and the Republicans failed to show leadership on the issue, but one of the primary reasons they failed to show that leadership was because to do so was to be denounced as being against lower-income people “owning” houses. Focusing solely on laws and implementations of those laws and ignoring the social pressure Democrats brought to bear on the issue is to ignore the greater part of the story.

If the Democrats, especially Frank and Dodd, had been warning about the potential for a blow-up in the mortgage markets, you’d have a point, but they weren’t. The Democrats were only too happy to run the show at Fannie and collect private-sector financial rewards for public-sector quality work.

Jan 19, 2009 - 10:03 am 85. David S:

@84

Vvv,

Under Bush, low income people ended up in far more sub-prime loans than they did under Clinton. They were taken advantage of, as Wall Street found another cash cow to milk.

Democrats had been warning about the potential for a problem in the mortgage markets for some time, but Bush dragged his feet until it was far too late, threatening to veto reform.

In truth, the largest part of the damage was done in 2004-2006, before the GOP lost their majority in both houses. You can check details at the links provided. Your talking points are showing…

Peace.

DS

http://financialservices.house.gov/Timeframe%20for%20Fannie.pdf
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/9/12/speaking-frank-ly–barney-frank-fires-back-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/blog/comments/how-sub-prime-lending-created-the-housing-bubble/

Jan 19, 2009 - 4:49 pm 86. JackT:

anyone with half a brain and were paying attention from 2001 forward knows damn well that the Republicans are to blame for the mortgage meltdown. and no amount of spin will change that.

Jan 19, 2009 - 11:36 pm 87. Dotdot:

I say the Democrats are to blame they where in charge of the whole program. Republicans are not known for government hand outs its always been the democrats that love government hand outs. I don’t understand how jackt got this idea I guess he has half A brain!! barney frank A democrat he was suppose to be in charge I rest my case.

Jan 20, 2009 - 1:22 pm 88. David S:

@87

Thanks for confirming JackT’s assertion.

DS

Jan 23, 2009 - 10:55 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: