dave, there is no such thing as a liberal. If we split the country it would be Conservative and Communist.

Dave,

Then decide if you want to inhale or exhale, a would of all men or all women, do you want to always be awake or always asleep. Conservative and liberal are simply two parts of one whole. They can't live without each other. They just need to find a way to not kill each other.

The lefties would tare each other to pieces once they finally reached "equality" and there were no wealthy people to pay for everyone else.

Hate to tell ya America, but this is really bad news. If you thought not enough has been getting done in this country to-date, it's going to be orders of magnitude worse if this "new crop" of conservatives come to power. My one and only hope is that come November voters who claim to be conservative/republican (particularly the less well-to-do) will realize that the GOP no longer represents them as a political party, but instead is nothing more than a corporate shill.

"Undecideds" need to realize this too.

Yes, I DO realize many Democrats are in bed with the corporations too, but not on the same level as the GOP.

heck maybe THEY can write a budget. Harry Reid sure doesn't seem to know how to.

@dave - I agree. But again, judging by the comments already written, americas biggest problem will continue - absolute inability to see one side and insistent that the other is correct. Yes, we need rich people to invest. But yes, you need to spend tax money on poor people so they can continue making minimum wage and surviving. What about that do people not understand? It can't be all for me or all for you.

Sadly, though I believe a mix is needed in the house and senate, it appears nothing gets done unless all three chambers are of one side. Since far fewer people vote for their states senators and congressmen, it appears only the die hard fanatic extermists will get out their again. It just depends on what people want it more. And that is sad.

Harl...read again

k

Hey, Brockton Barlow

Did you see they chose your question on yesterday's boiler room thread? That was pretty neat.

"The Senate is likely to assume an even more conservative tenor come January as a crop of insurgent-minded Republicans replace some of the GOP's old guard in the upper chamber."

Reality check- There are a LOT of Americans that are fed up by the career politicians that "represent" us by both parties. The Republicans are experiencing the masses saying that the old Republican guard isn't getting the job done- all they are doing is playing the game in DC. We are tired of DC determining what we want and regulating to get that. We are tired of DC taking more and more of our incomes while providing us with more and more excuses for why the aren't doing their jobs. We are tired of DC wanting more power. We'd just assume retain some of our own money, choices, and power. That's why you are seeing career politicians going down, they've lost their vision and are going to be taken out by people of principle and action.

All we can hope for is that once a new crop of representatives get into office that they can stay out of the trough with the other pigs on the Hill and do the job of the people. It's time for DC reform.

it would be Conservative and Communist.

lolllllllllllllllll

restore

If you do not understand how the financial sector caused the recession you are willfully ignorant. The cause has never been in doubt, even by conservative economists.

Do your own research. Don't expect someone on Newsvine to write you a term paper.

Really. I love to hear how? Why don't you break it down for us?

with a name like "restoreCapitalism" I would think you'd be well-versed on this topic, but alas, such is not the case. Take don's advice (post #1.36)...

Think Bill Clinton.

Think Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and you'll be even closer to reality.

Nevermind that CRA covered loans did not make up the bulk of foreclosures, nor did the CRA ever force banks to bundle said loans (and take side bets on them to boot!).

If you think a couple people taking out mortgages they couldn't afford caused a recession THIS bad, you have a lot to learn about finance...

Restore,

about the banksters, if you haven't already, you should watch both "house of cards" and "money, power and wallstreet". MP&W was done by PBS and is available online. It was a very good recount of what happened without being politically sided.

http://video.pbs.org/program/frontline/

The Senate is DESIGNED to prevent divisive bills with margin support to pass. That's why they have longer terms and a supermajority rule. If something is that marginal, take the hint and pass it down to the states for each decide their own variation then watch the laboratories of democracy for a decade or 2 before thinking about forcing the whole country to comply.

It seems to be that to get elected as a Republican, you have to be far right. To get elected as a Democrat, you have to be far left.

I'm surprise these two can piss standing next to each other without arguing over who's doing it the right way.

We need people that will tackle the issues on a case by case basis, not along party lines just because they think they have to. This is the problem with this country. Elected officials are too afraid to do what they need to do due to fear of not being re-elected.

lolll.

I do.

Let's start... shall we?

As we entered the recession, as many as half of all mortgages in the U.S. were considered inferior and liable to default. This was a clear result of government housing policies to encourage home ownership, which resulted in a broad misallocation of capital, loosened mortgage standards, and created distortions in the real estate market.

Think Bill Clinton.

George Bush was very involved in this, and none of this excused banks from packaging loans they new were be falsified by their lenders then selling them to other banks under false info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

read this and pass it around. This act went into affect in 2003

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/index.cfm

and for more info read this article from 2004 The FBI warned of mortgage fraud

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-17/justice/mortgage.fraud_1_mortgage-fraud-mortgage-industry-s-l-crisis?_s=PM:LAW

Bush did nothing to stop it.

Nice try but Republicans are a biggest problem to this once great nations.

Taxes were 70% and higher 50 years ago and we boomed, today taxes have never been lower for the wealthy and corporate America and yet they do nothing to create the jobs needed NOTHING.

The money pushed up top does our economy no good... A capitalistic society thrives on the ability of the working classes to consume goods and services.
If the wealth pushed upward is not pushed back into our economy down low to the workers..., then we have what we have today, a barley growing stagnant economy.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire, return capital gains tax rates to normal income rates for those making over $250K a year, close tax loopholes.
Reward corps that create good paying jobs domestically, increase taxes on corps that take their jobs overseas, or import mostly foreign products.
Use the increased tax revenue to start up some major infrastructure jobs and put lots of people back to work at good pay with solid benefits.

once more people down low are spending money, local businesses will pick up, suppliers will pick up and they both will hire more to handle increased demand...
This will progress to the next level of the economic pyramid which will start seeing increased demand and they will hire, all this hiring creates more demand..
Each step along the economic pyramid will see an increase in tax revenue generation, and by the time all that money pushed down low trickles all the way to the
top it will have an exponential effect our economy, tax revenues and our ability to pay down debts and further stimulate the economy with more infrastructure projects.

the very infrastructure by which all wealth is built upon and maintained.. Tax breaks to the uber wealthy starve this nations ability to function as a capitalistic country...
We are well on our way to being a plutocracy..

We are on the verge of the next dark age. The GOP has become America's Taliban in belief and practice.

They speak of freedom and then legislate against it. They flat out lie (see Mitt) use scare tactics, endless repetition wrapped up in so called patriotism.

They pray to the alter of a unelected shill, who promotes a no tax ever agenda at his corporate masters behest. Have a war.......cut social programs. Tax cuts for the rich.........end WIC, let baby's starve. (but you must have them)

They release no plan, no guide on how they will be better, only how bad the other guy is "oh and by the way he's not one of us you know".......Just trust me, I know whats good for you. I paid all my tax's. <14% or perhaps none I'll have to check...........

Judging by what these tea terrorists have done in the house we can look forward to tax cuts for the rich, and corporation (foreign and domestic) plenty more restrictions on women's health (BTW; if your a woman and vote GOP you can't mark Female you must mark breeding stock) No health care unless your rich, NO clean air, NO clean water, NO unemployment, NO minimum wage, NO, NO, NO, to the people, YES, YES, YES, to the 1%. Oh and if your raped they will force you to bear you rapists baby. Attention all rapists the GOP is mandating that your victims produce your offspring. Keep in mind that these are religious, turn lemons into lemonade, believers.

Take a look at China/India is that what you want? Live in a hut and cr*p in a ditch? Enjoy filth much?

Of course then there's the religious aspect to GOP governance. Be prepared for religious indoctrination in schools, in the workplace if so desired by the owner. They already require a religious means test to run for office. Read up on the Inquisition.

Folks you better pay attention to what's coming down as this may be the last true election due to the supremes traitorous 'citizen united' ruling and the wholesale hijacking of the voting process by the GOP.

Well I suppose you could always open a Burka store.

as many as half of all mortgages in the U.S. were considered inferior and liable to default.

and the vast majority of those were not covered by the CRA, so stop using it as a catchall. Also, half have not defaulted, so it would seem as if that concern is slightly overstated.

In addition, besides the homeowner, who was the other party signing those mortgage documents? It's been well documented that Banks pushed borrowers to more expensive loans (when they qualified for better ones), pimped ARM's and interest-only loans, and generally partook in nefarious practices (predatory lending, for example). Yet you wish to absolve them of any wrongdoing in the whole sordid affair...

Not to mention, how on earth did the banks take billions of dollars worth of mortgage losses and turn it into TRILLIONS of dollars in investment losses? I'm sure you're ready and willing to blame the homeowners for that one too (e.g., "well, those greedy homeowners shouldn't have given banks the collateral they needed to take out trillions in side-bets on by the banks admission 'inferior and liable to default' mortgages").

Restore,

about the banksters, if you haven't already, you should watch both "house of cards" and "money, power and wallstreet". MP&W was done by PBS and is available online. It was a very good recount of what happened without being politically sided.

But that might blow a hole in the entire "Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, the DEMOCRATS are to blame" theory. We can't have that, now can we!

none of this excused banks from packaging loans

Another big plus was that credit rating agencies such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's would put their 'AAA' or 'A+' stamp of approval on many of these securities, signaling their relative safety as an investment.

Capitalism is healthy as it gives incentive, but it needs to be kept in check. When too much wealth gets tied up in so few, you get what you have today which is quickly becoming the have's and havenots in an extreme way.

Economists will tell you that if you grow the pie, everyone gets some. The problem has been that as the pie grows, 90-something percent goes to the top 1-2% of the earners and the other 98% split the rest. This is part of the problem when trickle down doesn't work because nearly all the trickle is diverted to a select few.

The real question is what to do about it, if anything. Can it be reversed? Have we gone too far down the rabbit hole?

This is why taxes were so high on the highest of earners. It kept things in balance and lightened the load for the low earners.

The real problem, ladies and gents, is not the tax wage scale - it is, but to a much lesser extent - the real problem is the corruption in Washington and it starts with campaign contributions. NO money should be allowed to be contributed to campaigns. ALL campaign funding should come from tax dollars and be STRICTLY followed like they do in some European countries. This way if guys like you or I feel capable of taking a leadership position, we won't be out-dueled by the, um, well funded candidates.

Restore,

And they were paid to do it by the very companies that needed the ratings! Ouch. Doesn't seem right, does it? There were lots of "friends" involved as well.

DrowningGrover

Nice try.

lollllllllll

nice retort.

So you're going to blow off well documented evidence of banks scamming borrowers, well documented evidence of banks improperly packaging CDO's to sell off to other investors, well documented evidence of collusion between banks and ratings agencies to rate said improperly packaged CDO's as 'AAA', and well documented evidence of banks exponentially increasing their exposure to said improperly packaged and collusively rated CDO's with a "nice try, lol" one-liner.

Yeah, it's all Slick-Willy's fault. Smart...

without that AAA rating none of this could have happened !!!! and who is in charge of watching the rating agencies ??

Drowning,

It was Clinton and Greenspan that terminated Glass-Steagal (spelling?). Bush and Greenspan helped things along with pushing for "easier" loans (read: subprime). Cheney pushed Bush to cut the capital gains tax rate to 15%. This was the classic "let's pay back the rich folk that donated and we are friends with".

Very frustrating.

And they were paid to do it by the very companies that needed the ratings!

We aren't talking about individual stocks here, we are talking about mortgage backed securities. These packages received a triple AAA for one reason - backed by the US GOVT.

without that AAA rating none of this could have happened !!!! and who is in charge of watching the rating agencies ??

based on restoreCapitalism's posts, i think it was Bill Clinton and individual homeowners...

It was Clinton and Greenspan that terminated Glass-Steagal (spelling?)

yeah, Gramm-Leach-Bliley was the name of the bill. Old news. I'm not necessarily trying to absolve Clinton of skin in this game, he was a corporatist like the rest, but he signed that bill (and Phil Gramm authored it) at THE BEHEST of the banks, not the other way around.

without that AAA rating none of this could have happened !!!! and who is in charge of watching the rating agencies ??

Why the AAA? The MBS weren't 'normal' companies, they were GSEs. You get that right?

Bill Clinton and Greenshakes

Yes, correct. These two were major players in the meltdown.

Cheney pushed Bush to cut the capital gains tax rate to 15%

NO. Look it up. Who cut capital gains to 15% - It was CLINTON.

So you're going to blow off well documented evidence of banks scamming borrowers, well documented evidence of banks improperly packaging CDO's to sell off to other investors

Who's ultimately responsible when you take out a loan? The bank?

Restore,

did you watch house of cards and MP&W?

I continue to be amazed that the current brand of GOP, led by Norquist, insists on harkening back to the days of Reagan, when the reality is that they would run him out of town on a rail if he were around today.

The far right does not know what they stand for anymore... a far cry from true Republican conservatives.

In 1997, President Clinton signed a Republican tax cut bill that slashed the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent. His critics in his party's extreme left wing said it would benefit the wealthy and the lost tax revenue would drive up the deficit.

On the contrary, Clinton's capital gains tax cut fueled an investment boom in the technology sector and the rest of the economy, taxable capital gains nearly doubled over the next three years that led to a budget surplus. Notably, as a result of an explosion in new jobs, unemployment fell below 4 percent

Clinton never mentions his capital gains tax cut in his speeches about his stewardship of the economy, or in his latest book about how to grow the Obama economy and create jobs.

President Bush, too, cut the capital gains tax in his 2003 tax reform, reducing it to 15 percent. Between 2002 and 2005, capital gains reported as income shot up by 154 percent.

http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2012/01/20/cutting_the_capital_gains_tax_boosts_growth_rate_and_jobs/page/full/

All that this article is saying is the truth. The majority of Americans are going to put conservatives in office in November. We are sick and tired of the progressive/liberal agenda. Jusy reading most of the statements from the lefties on here should show any thinking person who it is that has no tolerance for the other side. Liberalism is dying, live with it.

1/20/2013 - the end of an error

The reason capital gains shot up is because more and more executives were being paid via stock instead of cash. When they sell the stock, it's "captial gains" thus granting a HUGE tax break to the highest of earners while the cash earners needed write-offs to offset the standard tax brackets.

he was a corporatist like the rest

I can't believe I'm about to take up for Clinton. Believe it or not, his intentions were solid. He really believed that everyone should be able to afford the American dream. He went to great lengths to pressure all parties involved to 'make it happen.' Greenspan then stepped in and made sure derivatives would not be regulated.

Clinton knew how to walk down the middle. We need leaders that can focus on each issue rather than just take a side because that's how they are labeled.

I continue to be amazed that the current brand of GOP, led by Norquist, insists on harkening back to the days of Reagan, when the reality is that they would run him out of town on a rail if he were around today.

The far right does not know what they stand for anymore... a far cry from true Republican conservatives.

What bunk. Republicans are for the same things that they were for in Reagan's time. The real difference is that JFK would not have a place in the Democrat party of today - what with his ideas about tax cuts, his anti-communism and his pro-military views.

did you watch house of cards and MP&W?

Nope. I will though.

watch MP&W. It's really good and explain everything from the very beginning.

I'm not crazy about Obama. Like most leaders, some things good, some not so good. I really don't like Romney. He just rubs me the wrong way. Could be the flip-flopping, could be he seems like he's hiding something (refusal to release tax returns). I don't know. He just doesn't have "it". Neither of them really do IMO.

Q22,

You don't know your recent history. Check how many times Reagan signed tax hikes.. do some investigation into Iran Contra.. check his record on compromise. Reagan would not stand a chance in a GOP primary these days.

As to your "anti-communism" remark: I think that pretty much sums up your position, and thus your credibility (i.e., you have no credibility).

restoreCapitalism,

No, all of the mortgage backed securities were not backed by the US Gov. Only those from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were. The background behind the AAA rating is a well reported tale of extortion and virtual bribery. Paraphrasing -- the banks said "Give us our ratings or we find another agency that will and give them all our business. Play ball and we'll find you more lucrative business." The ratings were little more than mass fraud.

That said, the fraud and government banking did not precipitate the crisis. Over-building, over-pricing and over-lending did. Too many houses built at too high a price and then sold to people as an investment, rather than as a home. But this investment did NOT come with the typical warning that ALL investments were subject to risk, nor did they come with a prospectus. A prospectus would have revealed the over-building of houses in the local market sold to customers who could marginally afford them and would warn that the investment was highly susceptable to local downturns rather than national or international markets.

Finally, the emergence of the mortgage-broker and the private nationalization turned the mortgage into just another credit card. No local responsible loan officer, no local customer service, and no local recourse.

In short, unbridled, unregulated, and in some cases illegal practices, CAPITALISM led to this mess. To paraphrase Alan Greenspan, "We expected the banks to act altruistic. They did not. They acted to maximize returns through whatever means available."

Yup. If one can cheat to earn a profit, they generally will. Not what Greenspan thought would happen.

Only those from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were

The Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) had been bundling and selling securitized mortgages as ABSs for years; their 'AAA' ratings had always had the guarantee that Ginnie Mae's government backing had afforded . Investors gained a higher yield than on Treasuries, and Ginnie Mae was able to use the funding to offer new mortgages.

In short, unbridled, unregulated, and in some cases illegal practices, CAPITALISM led to this mess

Sorry dude. No subprime = no MBS = No CDOs = No Great Recession.

No bank trader in the world would have bought subprime sh!t loans if they weren't backed up the full faith of the US govt.

You don't know your recent history. Check how many times Reagan signed tax hikes.. do some investigation into Iran Contra.. check his record on compromise. Reagan would not stand a chance in a GOP primary these days.

As to your "anti-communism" remark: I think that pretty much sums up your position, and thus your credibility (i.e., you have no credibility).

I know all about Reagan's record. I was a huge Democrat back then and followed the liberal line that he was a moronic figurehead who was being controlled by some group from the military industrial complex.

The left never changes. They think every Republican is stupid and extreme until they leave office. Once they are out of office there is strange new respect for them. They are magically seen as pragmatic, honorable and would never get elected by the current batch of extremists. It's getting old.

tiggle,

You have obviously missed many of Clinton's more recent interviews in which he advocates cutting long-term capital gains even further, if not eliminating the tax altogether. He states that he was never anti-business, nor anti-investment. However, he has expressed concern about investment banks which dismantle firms, offshore jobs and bankrupt companies while taking fees and charges which are then treated as capital gains rather than real income. It was not hard to understand who he was talking about.

Well goody, because the fringe bullies in the far-Right who only want to protest, obstruct, and bring everything to a halt (anarchy) will further alienate not just progressives, or Independents, but also the remaining sane Republicans in their Party. And when the majority of voters have had their fill, there will be a large swing back to Democratic control, and a return to peace and prosperity as we enjoyed during Clinton. The only thing is let's hope this happens now rather than later after further destruction of our country.

How convenient!!!

Just pretend that the American Dream Downpayment Act didn't happen in 2003. You know, passed by a republican house majority and a republican senate majority and signed by a republican president???

It gave qualifiers up to $10 grand so that they didn't have to come up iwth their own money for down payments or closing cost on a house....to the tune of $200 million in the first 3 years alone.

Instead blame something from over 30 or even 50 years ago...because it suits your lame narrative.

Laughable!

my2cent$ -- For every Ted Cruz from Texas added (albeit now we're talking the Senate, not the House), hopefully there will be a Teabagger removed. In the Senate, for example, Scott "Darling of Wall Street" Brown -- In the house we are likely to say b-bye to Joe Walsh, Michele Bachmann, and maybe even Eric Cantor.

Throw the Teapublicans out, and restore sanity!

Well goody, because the fringe bullies in the far-Right who only want to protest, obstruct, and bring everything to a halt (anarchy) will further alienate not just progressives, or Independents, but also the remaining sane Republicans in their Party. And when the majority of voters have had their fill, there will be a large swing back to Democratic control, and a return to peace and prosperity as we enjoyed during Clinton. The only thing is let's hope this happens now rather than later after further destruction of our country.

HaHaHaHa!!! You guys are screwed because of your far left wacko policies that have not worked and created more poverty. Dream all you want about those wonderful Clinton years because the new face of the Democrat party is Barack H. Obama - and he is not associated with a winning economic record.

Throw the Teapublicans out, and restore sanity!

Well don't send them to Guam. It's a tiny island and it may flip over. :)

IMHO, the principal reason that we are electing so many right-wing hyper-conservative deficit hawks is that the Democrats have driven the country to do it. Everyone I talk to is sick of being taxed to death, horrific unsustainable deficits every year, more people doing nothing for their living, constant whining and crying about how evil making a profit and staying in business to provide jobs for others is, the downgrade on US debt on the Democrats' watch, cities controlled by Democrats declaring bankruptcy.......

The list goes ever on and is apparently endless with absolutely no end in sight as long as the socialist Democrats are in control of our government at all levels. I have no compunction about voting against a political party that tells me that my religion is outmoded, that God has no place in a country that was founded to find religious freedom, that I should pay for anyone who wants to lay about all day and manufacture babies like a factory, that most of my money has to go for bloated government bureaucracy at all levels, that we can't afford civic services anymore because the city (or county or state or federal) pension system is so overloaded that all taxes collected have to go to support that system.....

Do you Democrats have even the faintest clue as to why America is in revolt against you and your tax-and-spend leader?

Since Oblameo can get away with blaming everybody else, maybe I can get away with this! Oblameo has added more to the deficit in 3&1/2 years that any president before him in their entire term of office. If you think the deficit is bad now, just wait until 2016 if he is reelected. Of course, by then it won't make any difference to us because he will have signed an executive order annointing himself king of the world and that we have to send all tribute to his magnificence to Washington. Oh, wait, we have to do that now anyway.

Just pretend that the American Dream Downpayment Act didn't happen in 2003

So, you are saying that caused the Great Recession? wow.

restoreCapitalism and Q22,

Read some more. Over half the mortgage bundles were created and sold by private banks, NOT GinnieMae. Most mortgages lately are brokered, and brokers often would get more commission money from the private banks than through Fannie or Freddie.

A BOA or Citibank would create a bundle of mortgages, then sell it to a JP Morgan, who would split the bundle into shares, the shares were then sold to investment funds (typically pensions or insurance companies) or to private investors. Pieces of paper, divided into pieces of paper and sold like money. Many of these bundles were either all good loans, or good loans with a scattering of sub-prime. But as the demand for more paper (which that AAA rating said was good, but paid better than Treasuries, grew the bundles became increasingly poorer in quality. Unfortunately, we see the effect of adding one or two bad apples to the barrel. Once one bundle is seen as corrupted, all bundles are corrupted, and all the shares of those bundles.

Further, the actual servicing of the loans was handed over to third parties. These third parties became overloaded, not by defaults, but by the volumes of loans to track and maintain. So they did not have accurate information concerning the true owner of the mortgage or the true status of the loan. Thus robo-signing, foreclosure on current mortgages, failure to observe federal law regarding active service military mortgages, and a host of other sins, if not crimes. And the real mess will occur when those private investors and investment funds come looking for their money or property through the courts.

Over half the mortgage bundles were created and sold by private banks, NOT GinnieMae

The point your missing, have missed is that none of this would have possible without the AAA rating and govt guarantee.

restoreCapitalism,

Well it certainly didn't help that the Republicans bought the 2004 election with the fruits of encouraging people to buy more house than they could afford. And then put those loans into a system they knew was headed south. Or that they allowed the use of Credit Default Swaps to protect and even to enrich the chief actors.

@ TruePatriot

Yeah, one can only hope.

Cruz definitely doesn't appear to be cut from the same conservative cloth, does he? Our country sure could use more "conservatives" like him. Yeah, I know, fat chance.

*Sigh*

Yeah, split America and you have to look no further than Canada and Mexico to see the result. Mexico is run just like the conservatives want America to be run. Corporate interests run the government, few regulations and no middle class. Canada has universal health care and a relatively strong middle class.

The strongest countries on earth are progressive. Germany, Japan, China etc. If the South had won independence during the Civil War, the North would have to put up border fences to keep poor southerners from coming and taking our jobs.

The teabaggers can't see beyond the black man in the White House to realize they are voting against their own interests.

True Patriot

Scott Brown was not tea party, but they did vote for him. He was actually mentored by Mitt Romney.

Given your misguided posts I can understand why you would error so bad.

History rears it's ugly head and nut jobs vote for fascism...unfffffing believable!

The strongest countries on earth are progressive. Germany, Japan, China etc.

I think we are still the strongest country on Earth. Laughing at the inclusion of Japan on your list. Scratching my head at the China inclusion as progressive. Is it now the policy of progressives to be a military dictatorship while forcing women to get abortions???

Bill Marvell

Where do you get that crap?

First of all, Big Banks lose $4000 per loan for low income (fha) loans made, and therefore only make the federally mandated minimum. If they made more than the minimum, it is only from federal pressure to do so.

I'm glad you asked how they ended up with them!

Most mortgages were made by banks that really were mortgage companies, better put mortgage mills. They make their money by getting the loans done for less than the federally mandated minimum. Then they put together a bundle (porfolio) group and sell the loans to investors ranging from insurance, retirement, and banks. This has been done for years because although the banks would lose money making the loans, but homes previously had a good track record on defaults were considered a good investment. When the defaults came in substantially higher, Chase saw the trend and sold what they could, and from inside, packaged exactly how they were sold to them.

BoA and CitiBank operated a little differently. They went on a buying bing of mortgage companies and mortgage servicers.

How do I know this? Research, knowing some of the right people, and asking people the right questions without being threatening to them or their business.

China is moving away from Communisim, progressing away from it's past and increasing workers/ civil rights under international pressure. Sure, they have a long way to go but it'll happen. China is becoming more capitalist as time goes on as well. Japan has been becoming more and more like European nations ever since their defeat in WW2.

What I never understood is why don't we look at history and what has worked and what has not? Like ObamaCare - Obama had a belief it would lower costs. Conservatives say nonsense and have a different direction. Why don't we do what businesses do and "test" first? Rather than initiating a country-wide policy that if it doesn't work (and it won't - already seeing that) would be impossible to reverse?

When a business has a new idea, say a new product, they don't buy a new factory and produce millions of these!! They put together a "test" production run, make a small batch, put to market, and if it sells THEN expand production. Why didn't we do ObamaCare the same way? Pick a city willing to "test" it (might as well make it Chicago) and initiate the program. Then watch it for three years. If it works I'll be the first to stand up and say I was wrong. But if it DOESN'T work you only have to reverse ONE city and not 50 STATES!!

Why don't we do the same with taxes? What has worked? Do you realize the states seeing the biggest growth right now, and decreases in unemployment, are states with Republican governors and conservative lower tax rate and reduce spending philosophies? Florida, Ohio, Texas, etc. What states are failing? Those with Democrat governors and liberal philosophies. California, Illinois, Michigan, etc.

Sidebar: what is frustrating is Obama is saying "but we created 80,000 jobs in June 2012" but the bulk of the jobs created are due to Republican policies squeezing a few jobs created DESPITE the anti-business policies of Obama. But I digress............

End result is I am looking forward to getting more conservatives in D.C. that understand our only solution is smaller government, less spending, and stop borrowing. And Republicans have really sucked at that lately (including George Bush. That's right I criticized George Bush. I appreciated his protecting our country but he spent like a freakin' Democrat. He increased annual tax revenue (2003 - 2007) with his tax cuts but allowed us to spend MORE than the increased tax revenue thus more borrowing!!). We need more conservatives!!

If you value your country and your family you will surely vote out the square head T Party the number one threat to our country

WOW! Polling of senate races across the country must really be bad for democrats if MSNBC is jumping ship already. OH Happy Day!! Liberals will rationalize it by declaring anyone other than their ilk as stupid, evil, racist, sexist, homophobes, or all the previous. So be it, I just consider the source.

Conservatives have no heart, liberals have no head?

Kindness and generosity used indiscriminately are selfish and inhumane.

Adversity strengthens, assistance weakens.

America is occupied by dumb and dumber and you can't get dumber than TEA party! I must say I find the level of intellect present in their adherents to be incomprehensible. No one that stupid could possibly survive without welfare.

America is occupied by dumb and dumber and you can't get dumber than TEA party! I must say I find the level of intellect present in their adherents to be incomprehensible. No one that stupid could possibly survive without welfare.

Obviously never heard the incoherent rantings of the OWS. Also never heard a Tea Party person suggest that Guam might capsize.

elliot-3020456

The lefties would tare each other to pieces once they finally reached "equality" and there were no wealthy people to pay for everyone else.

You know Elliot, I suspect we'd do just fine. Anyway, I'd rather die in a progressive world than try and live in a conservative one.

White Collar Auto

heck maybe THEY can write a budget. Harry Reid sure doesn't seem to know how to.

I think it would be much more interesting to watch the conservatives fighting over who can gain the greatest control over their women's reproductive organs. Hey, you could create a new reality show...something like "My Redneck Girlfriends Uterus". Man, a show like that, a case of beer and a bag of pork rinds and you're looking at Republican heaven.

What a horrible thought. The crazy train is long enough. Look out women of America, more old geezers coming up to take more of your rights away. The Republican party is on the way down as this country is sick of their lunacy. Just a matter of time. Can't wait.

Bill O'Riley of FOX News has already claimed that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake.

Here's what to come:

Every Progressive move for the last 100 years (economic, social and cultural) have now been successfully decried by the righties and is being steadfastly being embedded into the American conscience as being bad. In a few years America will become fully acceptance of Apartheid, legality of restricted voting affecting women and all non-whites in general, stamped with a Christian Taliban Government, a mirror image of the Arabs. The War on Drugs has just begun, for the Prison Industrial Complex will be established to provide production for all low skill employment. Imagine; walk into a McDonalds and the workers will be wearing bright orange with the company's logo above the prison number.

This is a rudimentary but very true summary as to where this Tea Party agenda is heading.....

I'd rather die in a progressive world than try and live in a conservative one.

Funny how true that is considering that what happened to the fine people who lived under the
"progressive" Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and Cuba.

I love how you people bastardize language. "Progressive" is nothing but warmed over 19th century Socialism.

" is to inflict my opinion on someone else"

and THERE you have it folks! a TEA PARTY DICTATOR!

vote democrat, as if your life depends on it. it does.

"I love how you people bastardize language. "Progressive" is nothing but warmed over 19th century Socialism."\

ahh bull$hit. its people who wanna progress, move forward, as opposed to people lik eyou who wanna move backwards.. into serfdom, kings and subjects, when you could call a black man a boy to put him in his place, gays were either silent or killed, and you can put your wife in her rightful place if she does somthin' you dont like.

please disappear off the earth now!

ya know who sees a commie behind every tree? you.

one word to the gop if they should take control - filibuster

all dems - filibuster everything the gop proposes. everything. just like they are doing now.

pigotry, eevie, tmc

Conservatives ARE communists who want corporate welfare and other types of welfare for the rich to last forever,

Clearly none of you could not have read and understood Marx's writings including "The Communist Manifesto. You can trust me on that the real ones would be laughing at you for that statement if they ventured here to read it Pigotry. Try reading their websites, they say most of the same things the democrat party says except more robustly and that the democratic party doesn't go far enough!

BTW. There is really only one reason to call Republicans communists, but it is not going to work because it is preposterous!

I wonder where the die hard left is...some of the usual comments but nothing like ususal. The Teaparty is not dead, not stupid nothing but conervative people. Get used to it, this country needs fiscal reponsibilty not more government controls, we have enough regulations for 10 countries now.

But we do need cooperation from both sides to get this nation rolling again and business back to our shores, screw the Chinese.

Restore capitalism is just another ignorant sadistic tea banger phase designed to pull the wool over sheeples eyes. With the private unconstitutional Federal Reserve, with trickle down Raygun-omics still on vogue, repeal of the Glass Steagall Act from Demolican Clinton and all the Free Trade agreements republicans LOVE and all the rest of the low down weapons and war profiteering slime going on in this country the ZioNazi spawn are still whining while they deserve long jail sentences; this form of capitalism is mentioned in Revelations 2:9. In fact they whine about the news media saying they are slanted 'liberal' at the same time they make neo-Republo-Nazi propaganda statements predicting themselves to own the Senate at a time we need the return of the guillotine because the money grabbing war profiteering Neo-Republican spawn that has taken over this nation serves no useful purpose. They make kings of yesteryear seem useful and loving of a nations people. Lincoln was a republican and he freed the slaves. If there was a real republican fine but there are just outsourcing America hating elitist spawn in the Republican party these days except for Ron Paul and the rest of the lot hate him. Shame on the Republicans. Unless they change their animal mascot to a PIG, they are nothing but liars.

Wow such hatred of truth and fiscal responsibility...why not hate the lies and innuendo, try getting to the bottom of the problem, stop drinking the lies and misdirection from O these days.

God help this country, we will need it if more Teabaggers get into office!

Everyone knows the Koch Brothers are funding the so-called tea party. Everyone that has HBO watch the forth and fifth episode of the Network. Aaron Sorkin writes about the taking over of the tea party by the Koch brothers and the fact that they pay for much of the movement's photo ops.

The tea party is the GOP "Good 'Ol Party (aka good old white man party) being bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers.

The Koch Brothers are worth aprox $50 billion - Ten times that of Soros.

its people who wanna progress, move forward, as opposed to people lik eyou who wanna move backwards.. into serfdom, kings and subjects, when you could call a black man a boy to put him in his place, gays were either silent or killed, and you can put your wife in her rightful place if she does somthin' you dont like.

You THINK it's progress. Seriously, there is not a single new economic idea since FDR and even his ideas came from Woodrow Wilson. It's the Conservatives who are the individualists. We want more power to the individual. Your side wants more power to the State. You are far closer to desiring a serfdom than are we. You want everyone to be taken care of - womb to the tomb - but don't you dare get out of line or question the elites.

According to opensecrets.com 14 of the top 20 donors give exclusively to Democrats, 5 give about equally to Democrats and Republicans and only one gives exclusively to Republicans.

Koch Industries is #74

DB Akron -- Is there any difference anymore? Look at all the "less extreme" Republicans leaving the Party in droves. They have to give the GOP/TP their wallet and voting card if they want to stay in office and be on committees. Party members are bullied per the psycho Teabag profile just like the rest of the nation. And Boehner has been dragged along rather than leading, rejecting the word "compromise" out of necessity to save his own arse. It's pathetic!

justredd64 -- The Tea Party, even before it was usurped by the religious-Right, gives lip service to things like "fiscal responsibility," but they are merely ignorant anarchists who want to shut government completely down -- Unpatriotic, un-American anarchists who have zero interest in actual governance. Puleeze!

Tony Smith 7734 Comment collapsed by the community

dave, there is no such thing as a liberal. If we split the country it would be Conservative and Communist.

I love when Republicans try to use "Communism" as a way to insult Democrats, when in political terms, communism is much more consistent with the GOP. They are collectively given given their marching orders from the top and follow along blindly in lockstep.

Democrats, even when we have the majority, still disagree and amongst ourselves and have to find ways to compromise in order to get anything accomplished. True democracy.

I love when Republicans try to use "Communism" as a way to insult Democrats, when in political terms, communism is much more consistent with the GOP. They are collectively given given their marching orders from the top and follow along blindly in lockstep.

You really have no idea what Communism means.

Pearls before swine....look, restoreCapitalism has this about right. It isn't relevant that not every mortgage that was inferior failed, or that not every mortgage wasn't backed by the US government, whether explicitly or not. The point is that people began decades ago making irrational decisions because government policy incentivized them to do so. Because of this a bubble was created. Because the incentives kept building, the bubble kept inflating. Had the government not incentivized these investments, whether through tax benefit or risk insurance or simply by making it more costly to show why you did NOT fulfill the dreams of the CRA, then none of this would've happened.

What is truly astounding to me, after reading all the posts about this, is that restoreCapitalism is presenting the only way to prevent a future bubble from again occurring, and his detractors continue to argue in their various manners that what we need is even more government to protect us from ourselves. Geesus we are in deep kimshee.

Even when the liberals here are arguing that the government failed, their solution is yet MORE government! You can't make this stuff up.

Q22 -- Do you? Communism is not socialism. The way communism has been practiced, it has been a pro-military, one-party state in which an small elite have all the wealth and power. This is definitely more like the GOP. The GOP is also closer to fascism, and once again not per the populist propaganda to gain power, but in practice.

Rich-281385 -- Wrong. Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders. Deregulation of Wall Street and "Too Big to Fail" FDIC-backed money is the cause of the meltdown. BTW to another poster above, Glass-Steagall was ended during Clinton, but go back and look at the make-up of congress at the time. Now even Glass-Steagall would need to be updated if reenacted, but the risky investment side of banking MUST be kept separate from tax payer guaranteed deposits -- Period.

Seriously? You're using Aaron Sorkin's fictional show on HBO as evidence in a debate about how much the Koch's actually donate to causes and candidates? I'm not saying it's wrong, but only because I haven't watched the show, but don't you think it would be easier to get someone, say someone who doesn't ask for crayons when they go to a restaraunt, to side with you if you used something other than Sorkin's fiction as your facts supplier?

Communism is not socialism. The way communism has been practiced, it has been a pro-military, one-party state in which an small elite have all the wealth and power. This is definitely more like the GOP. The GOP is also closer to fascism, and once again not per the populist propaganda to gain power, but in practice.

I have never interchanged the two. I will say - in terms of goals - there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Socialist, the Fascist or the Communist. The are all State centric governments that see their role as taking care of the people. They really only differ in their attitude towards business (Communists making everything state owned, Fascists nationalizing many things but leaving some private ownership and Nazis who allowed complete private ownership so long as it worked for the state).

All three of these governing models are reactions to Western lassiez faire capitalism (that you and other "progressives" disdain so much) and were - in their beginnings - lauded by the "progressives" of the day. FDR, by the way, was a huge fan of the Italian Fascists.

So, TP, do a little homework first.

/

To me it has become clear that we do not have a Representative government anymore. We Americans seem to vote for the one with the most money. Well now we have the Koch brothers and others like them that have a long term plan to give tons of money to these so called tea party people. Look at the last election, and the people the tea party put up to run. The Lady that run against Harry Reid. The single mother from Pa. It is easy to see the dumber the better, After all these people are just going to be puppets. They will just vote just the way they are told, by there masters. That is not Representative Government. That is paid Government, and the ones getting the representative are the people that gave all the money to elect these people. ie Koch brothers. People think they are electing there representatives to represent them, Not the Koch brothers and other rich people. If Mitt Romney only pays about 10% tax, what do you think the Koch brothers pay? I would bet 2% or less, yet they think they should run this country. People we need to take our heads out or our A$$es and see things for what they are. With all this money flowing freely into our elections today, we do not have representation. When did we stop being We the People. We have allowed it to be We the Koch brothers, Big business, big oil, health care, Farma......... We the people that vote have to vote in people that cast there votes to help us. Not to let big business get away with anything they want. Look at all these clean ups we have had to pay for. These company's have made trillions in profits and we have to pay to clean up the mess they left. They have taken there money and left town. And when these big company do contaminate the land and water, the tax payers have to pay to clean it up. They have there lobbies t pay off someone to vote to limit on judgement's against them. I say we start up a petition to outlaw lobbing and outside money. Give all who are running the same time on tv and radio for there message. No more bought elections. The Only way we will ever have a representative Government again is to get the money out of elections. And make these people represent WE THE PEOPLE again. Make them start doing what is good for America and Americans again.

The Republicans need 4 net Senate wins to take control (3 if Romney wins the Presidency).

As of now, it looks like they will probably do that, but the problem for the Democrats is that they have far more Senate seats to defend in 2014 as well.

It looks like the Democrats totally wasted that 'filibuster proof' control of the Senate while they had it.

Former Carter adviser, Pat Cadell, stated that the White House is actually having Bill Clinton "stump" for the Obama camp. Cadell freely admits that the Obama camp is clearly in "panic mode", in that the Clintons (yes, Hillary as well), and Obamas do not, nor have they ever liked each other. The strategy may well backfire, as many of the administrations policies have done.

It's very interesting when someone like Cadell (an uber-liberal) would come out and make such a comment in all sincerity. So, in concurrency with this comment, I would tend to believe the rhetoric of this particular article...

Chuck, you are stupendously wrong. As posted above:

According to opensecrets.com 14 of the top 20 donors give almost exclusively to Democrats, 5 give about equally to Democrats and Republicans and only one gives mostly to Republicans.

Koch Industries is #74

@ chuck-2111043, your incessant whining will get you nowhere anymore. Obama might as well start packing....it isn't the GOP who will deal the fatal blow, but the members of his own party and constituency which he has lied to and ultimately, let down....

Who cares if you think they followed or led? You have completely missed the point. Had they not been buying up large swaths of risky paper on the secondary market then lenders would have had no one to buy up the garbage they were writing. This really should not be hard to figure out. At 40%, which was their market participation rate, they were easily the largest players out there. All you need to ask yourself is this: Would you, as a banker, mortgage lender, or broker, have written such inferior loans if there was no governmentally backed buyer for them?

If your answer is yes, then the risk would be on you and you'd have lost everything in the debacle, just the kind of creative destruction capitalism envisions. Bad judgments are penalized, smart judgments are rewarded.

If your answer is no, then the loans would not have been written and the bubble would have never reached the size it did. restoreCapitalism is EXACTLY correct in pointing out that in 2003 the Bush administration sought regulatory reforms, ALL OF WHICH WAS BLOCKED BY DEMOCRATS, which would have mitigated the size of the bubble which was already inflated to dangerous proportions. What you should want to know is why did democrats oppose this.

Is it possible, given the left's infatuation with the connection between contributions and voting patterns, that since the vast majority of campaign contributions Fannie and Freddie made went to Democrats, that Democrats opposed reforms which would have slowed the gravy train?

ROY WILSON-336103

The Republicans will NOT get the senate seats they need to take control and Obama will be re-elected.

When that happens though, we can expect the teaparty to continue what they do now... Worrying about who is going to marry who, telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, try for the 35th time to overturn obamacare (but offer no solution in its place), and ensure more jobs are exported to other countries and keep the tax credit for doing so.

Obama/Biden 2012.

@ don97524, Don, I don't see you citing any sources to substantiate your position....the fact is, we come here to air our arguments and feelings, not post research papers for some self-appointed authority (as you seem to see yourself). The true pulse of America is showing its face, and the liberal left is livid about it.....what can I say...it sucks to be you!

Actually, I sort of look forward to the Democrats being the party of NO, NO, NO! It would be worth it to watch the Teabaggers' heads explode on national TV.

Q22 -- Uh, no. There are political ideology tests (and how I know I'm a moderate leaning to the Left) and also ideology spectrum's from Left to Right. YOU look it up. Socialism is to the left, fascism--as we know it now--is to the Right, and both are different from communism in significant ways.

I used to be a staunch Republican. I donated to, helped campaign for, and absolutely supported Ronald Reagan. Of late I've been voting Democrat. My party? Un-Tea-Party, aka Old Republican, aka current moderate Democrat.

The Tea Party is built on hate.

Their platform is ignorance.

Their strategy is to NOT.

Their tactics rank right down there with terrorism by a load of third graders.

They convince with lies.

They leverage racism, nationalism, sexual preference, gender, religion, and hypocrisy.

They think they know it all but constantly miss the point.

They have no basis in fact.

Their stated religion is no where near what they follow.

If they get more power we can count on another decade of idiocy and inaction.

We're leaning so far right that center is now far left.

I have totally enjoyed reading these comments. To the liberal economists/bloggers, the verdict is in and conclusive: restoreCapitalism has owned the discussion and you have all been dominated by facts, a superior intellect, and just common sense. Well done, restoreCapitalism! Well done!

I'm a dem but I'd vote for a true, moderate republican before a 'bagger any day. The only sane ones in the GOP primaries were Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman.

Texson55 -- BS. All candidates have surrogates who can say things the candidate cannot say. Seeing as Hillary is part of the Obama administration, former President Clinton would naturally campaign for him. BTW, ya gotta love this quote from Clinton:

"Who would have thought, after years and years, even decades, in which the Republican right attacked 'Old Europe' that they would embrace the economic policies of the euro zone – austerity and unemployment now at all costs." Clinton said to laughter.

He went on to say the unemployment rate due to austerity is 11%, and if we work real hard we could get right up there.

Rightwingers are the ones in panic mode.

True Patriot, Where do you get those numbers?

I've studied the party registration patterns.

It is true that moderates leave the party when it moves right, but it gains 2 new members for every member it loses. When the Party goes moderate, it loses 2 people for each moderate it gains.

The last Rasmussen count puts republicans just a shade higher than democrats in identification, gallup is similar and current actual registrations seem to be following this. Where you are getting the republicans are losing scores is polling companies totally random polls to determine this mix or setting their polling mix to what they THINK the mix should be.

Big Example is the Recent Quinnipiac poll. They deliberately did not publish what the mix of the responders were to determine what the and Florida margins were. Florida was showing Obama up 6 in Florida on Romney. The actual mix was published somewhere and someone located it. In Florida, Quinnipiac used 9 points higher in Democrats than Republicans. In 2008, Obama won with 6 points more in democrats thatn Republicans voting. In the 2010 midterms, when the enthusiasm for obama down from 2008, the turnout was democrats 3 points higher than Republicans. Enthusiasm is lower today than in 2010 you tell me why they are using 9 points in favor of Democrats.

BTW the same practice was used in Pennsylvania, and Ohio. When you take the assumed cushion away, Romney and Obama are neck and neck in Ohio and Florida. Pennsylvania would show that Romney is closing the gap.

LMarcT -- I have always been registered Independent and up until Bush Sr., I voted a split ticket. After voting for Clinton, I voted a straight Democrat ticket.

For those who are not low-information voters, do you remember the Terri Schiavo fiasco? It was one of the reasons the Dems won seats in 2006. Even fundamentalists felt that was going too far. And yet here we are only six years later and the Teavangelicals want abortion completely banned, even limiting when the mother's life is at risk -- Even contraception!

Terri Schiavo looks like a Sunday picnic in comparison to the Tea Party Taliban running amok these days. If there was a backlash before, surely there will be one now. SOS, get a friend or two and vote a straight Democrat ticket!

DB Akron -- What numbers did I quote? I just named some Teabagger names as examples of seats in trouble. Rasmussen? Stick with Quinnipiac. But there is a reason neither candidate is running ads in PA now.

Tiggle,

I'm not crazy about Obama. Like most leaders, some things good, some not so good. I really don't like Romney. He just rubs me the wrong way. Could be the flip-flopping, could be he seems like he's hiding something (refusal to release tax returns). I don't know. He just doesn't have "it". Neither of them really do IMO.

Romney did release his tax information. He paid 14.9% most of the reason is because that most of his income came from capital gains. If you invest you should be rewarded it is insane to think that we need to give so much of our money to the government when most people don't even pay a federal income tax, that is the real scam. As far as Clinton he did one thing right he limited the number of years that you could be on welfare in this country to five years. So that people could not keep having kids to game the system. So if that was still in affect the country probable wouldn't be so bad off. I is foolish to think that 1/2 of the people of this country should pay for the other half get your a88es to work you freaking use our roads and service you should not be exempt unless disabled.

Goodbye middle-class...hello poor and super rich!!

All politicians are whores for someone. Greed, lying, corruption, anger, ignorance, shallowness, meanness, cruelty, love of war, love of killing the environment, love of pollution, love of gun, etc. You'll find it all in the American people, and they vote for the losers who most represent their vicious views and bad personalities. America is a jerry Springer form of democracy.

Bill1488 -- Romney has only released his 2010 returns, and that is still not complete. The tax rate he paid in 2010 was 13.9% By the time Romney releases his 2011 returns, it will be close to election -- "now isn't that special." If you work hard, whether through investment or earned income, folks should enjoy their success -- No one disputes this. But gaming the system to evade taxation needs to end, for everyone.

About the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes -- including the self-employed/business owners that misuse write-offs to show zero income, here is a great reminder during and interview by Ezra Klein of Robert Greenstein president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

KLEIN: So, one argument Republicans make on some of these tax credits
and benefits … is that they go to people who aren`t
paying federal income taxes at all, people who due to the deductions in the
code and they`re very low incomes, they`re actually just getting a rebate
from the government. If you take that away from them, that is not a tax
increase, it`s a reduction in a kind of spending.

Do they have a point there?

GREENSTEIN: Well, but we need to understand -- excuse me -- that
these tax credits are in part to offset the payroll tax. It doesn`t work
administratively, physically, to do the relief within the payroll tax
itself, so we use these credits in the income tax to offset the payroll
tax, excise tax, in addition --

KLEIN: Wait. And just we should quickly say, so the federal income
tax is one that a lot of folks don`t pay because their incomes aren`t high
enough. But pretty much everybody with a job pays a payroll tax.

GREENSTEIN: Everybody with a job pays payroll tax.

KLEIN: And that`s not included in these numbers like 50 percent of
people don`t pay income taxes.

GREENSTEIN: The 50 percent, and in a normal year like 40 percent, are
people who don`t pay income tax, but only about 15 percent in a normal
economic year don`t pay income or payroll tax, and they`re not people who
get these credits, either. They`re like -- you only get these credits if
you`re working. And they help offset your payroll tax, often gasoline,
excise taxes.

But there`s another function they have -- we in this country have let
the minimum wage and wages in general for people at the bottom of the
income scale erode badly. The minimum wage is 20 percent lower in
purchasing power today than in the late `60s. The deal policymakers
basically made is they let the minimum wage erode, but they said we`ll make
up for part of that by supplementing wages through the earned income tax
credit. That`s part of what it does.

Some of the very Republicans who were saying let this expire,
attacking it now, in past years, when there was a big move to raise the
minimum wage, all of a sudden, they opposed the minimum wage and they
wanted increases in the earned income credit as a way to beat the minimum
income increase.

So, now, we let wages erode, and we`re talking about pulling the rug
out on the credits as well.

KLEIN: So, let me ask you a broad question about this whole debate.
I see where the rich are being asked to sacrifice, because we talked a lot
about shared sacrifice. So, I see what the Democrats, where the rich are
being asked to contribute. I see in both the Democratic and Republican
plans, although more so on the Republican plans, where the poor are being
asked to sacrifice in terms of programs they rely on like Medicaid and food
stamps being deeply cut.

One thing I actually don`t see is the people in the vast middle, the
upper middle class or middle class really having much of a role in this
budget conversation. And because you have spent so much time on this, I
want to ask you if I`m wrong, if I`m missing something. It seems that
shared sacrifices come to mean the very poor and very rich, and sort of the
broad middle gets held blameless.

GREENSTEIN: Well, that`s certainly the way the tax proposals are laid
out. But, you know, if you look at the people in the top, the point you
made, Ezra, is exactly right. People who are millionaires under the Obama
proposal, they still get large tax cuts because they get all of the Bush
tax cuts on the first $250,000 of their income.

So, for example, for people who make between half a million and a
million dollars a year, their average tax cut under Obama is $10,500 a
year. Under the Republican proposals, it`s eventually over $100,000 a
year.

Meanwhile, we got a mother working full time at the minimum wage,
raising two kids. And under the Republican proposal, she would lose $1,500
of her child credit. It would be cut from about $1,700 to just $250.

So you know, the idea that the Obama proposal is upside down because
it lets her keep the $1,500 and the people at the top keep $10,000 instead
of $100,000, it`s not exactly soaking the rich.

So everyone pays taxes like sales tax, which are harder on the poor. And the reason the working poor get refunds on federal income tax is because the GOP/TP have blocked the minimum wage from being indexed to inflation.

Once again, Clinton ended welfare in part due to the make-up of congress. Now there are food stamps and Medicaid, but that's it. And in many states new enrollment in Medicaid has been frozen for some time now, though due to the recession people need it more than ever.

Adolph Hitler, and his Brown Shirts are alive and well in America. Politics for most of history has been about getting the best deal possible for the people of your district. Now it's "your way no, and if I don't get my way, nothing gets through". The primary reason Obama took up George Bush's tactics, was because he realised the House was in Republican hands, and the Republicans could block any action by filibuster. It's an arms race, and the people of our country will suffer endlessly because of it. Gain the Senate, without a super-majority, and you have won nothing. Our government has been held hostage for twelve years, and it looks like more of the same. These morons are creating things they don't want. They are not the only fanatics in this country. America's going bye-bye.

RE: Texson55

"I have totally enjoyed reading these comments. To the liberal economists/bloggers, the verdict is in and conclusive: restoreCapitalism has owned the discussion and you have all been dominated by facts, a superior intellect, and just common sense. Well done, restoreCapitalism! Well done!"

Hardly, ...he has owned nothing. I don't see any sources in his so called facts. He is just another right wing shrill spewing rubbish. And your verdict is self proposed. Means nothing. Thanks for the opinion but no thanks.

Diverdown1

Well, we, as a country are already in trouble and if this happens, we are REALLY in TERRIBLE trouble. These morons who claim to be trying to help are doing the opposite. I am frightened by the mentality of the uber conservatives liberals who think they know what is best for me.

Conservatives want individual responsibility less government intrusion. Liberals are intrusive with more regulations, bigger governments , telling me what to eat , what not to eat , increasing the size of government. And the last, Religion discrimination over store owners that express their Christian belief.

Do you understand that politicians get elected by the marjority of the voters? Generally, a large percentage of them are not voting for anyone but against someone. Can you understand the significance of that?

Re: Bill1488

Maybe around half of the people don't pay income taxes because wages have not kept up with inflation. While it is true tax credits are a part of the equation it is just one slice of the pie that is the problem. When ole shrubby cut taxes that weren't paid for added with two wars and millions of job losses which equated to trillions of loss tax revenue it is a no brainer that neo-conservatism coupled with Grover Norquist ideology and pro corporate trickledown economics is a formula for failure. This is the GOP platform that republicans follow and the tea party has taken an even more extreme stance on these conservative values. Expect the rich to get richer and the middle class to shrink while those in poverty will see there class grow thanks to these conservative values. This is where the new republican brand is taking us, backwards.

Here comes the second civil war. Republicans will start the shooting.

If this country elects more of these ultra conservative nut jobs we as the backbone of this country are doomed. If the Teabaggers were definitely serious about saving money, cutting the deficit and reducing taxes they would cut the spending on the Military Industrial Complex as was slated to happen by default. It is beyond belief that the Right nor the Left could agree on cuts so they defaulted. Now that we are in the default mode the Ultra Conservative Teabaggers are trying to save their sacred and beloved war machine that make them feel like men. Are we devolving back to cavemen when all we want are war toys, death and destruction as our mantra instead of making OUR country economically stronger and sustainable? I have had enough of these Teabaggers already. They are destroying this country and are not intelligent enough to see this. I guess that's what happens when you are a knuckle dragger.

And we think "bedbugs" are bad. Just what the country needs, various mental and moral dregs on the scout for illicit sexual adventures and the power to steal without accountability. That'll fix them gwaddamn high minded women and all them bastard young'uns. Do away with that gwaddamned communistic minimum wage too. Sons-a-bitches will have to work for whatever the owners say. Want a life? Join the military, work for wal mart, or go to hell! Now, residents of sh^t creek, let us pray!

oskar-1391552

Diverdown1

Well, we, as a country are already in trouble and if this happens, we are REALLY in TERRIBLE trouble. These morons who claim to be trying to help are doing the opposite. I am frightened by the mentality of the uber conservatives liberals who think they know what is best for me.

Conservatives want individual responsibility less government intrusion. Liberals are intrusive with more regulations, bigger governments , telling me what to eat , what not to eat , increasing the size of government. And the last, Religion discrimination over store owners that express their Christian belief.

C'mon, Are you telling me that conservatives want less government intrusion? Really! They are hypocrites. They cherry pick what they want less of while wanting increased intrusion into the lives of women, gltb's and those who don't conform to right wing religious conservatism. Not all Christians are so bigoted as the conservative movement. It is not Christianity that is under fire but right wing christian extremism that has grown in numbers and has decided to gain political favor to discriminate against others. If your a religious organization and are throwing your hat into the political ring then criticism is fair. Quit your b*itching. Your fair game politically.

Pigotry (1.48)

1999 Sen. Gramm (Se. R-TX) and other Repugnants repealed Glass-Steagal (1933) which put a firewall between commercial and speculative banking and preserved market stability for more than 60 years).

OK Piggy, it’s time to educate you because you obviously only read the Liberal revisionist “books” as you so claim in your post.

First I’ll teach you about Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Here we go. Ready?

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley) on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1), two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).

When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

So Piggy, take notice, the Democrats refused the Bill in Committee until more “redlining” was eliminated which opened the door for the eventual evolution of NINJA (No Income, No Jobs/ Assets) loans. What happened with Gramm-Leach-Bliley had nothing to do with deregulation, actually none of the changes were “deregulations”, they were more appropriately reregulation. The expansion of banking to allow insurance, mortgages and financial vehicles wasn’t necessarily bad legislation, it was a matter of a Congress unfamiliar with the financial industry. We should have learned our lesson in the 70’s and 80’s with the S&L crisis, but Congress never learns its lesson. This is what happens when one bad government policy is used to change or justify another bad government policy.

Banks and other financial institutes hire the latest economics and math geeks from Harvard, MIT, Berkley and Wharton’s and pays them hundreds of thousands of dollars to find new ways to create new wealth for themselves, LEGALLY! The Code of Federal Regulations is over 144,000 pages long, not including State and Local government agencies. Our criminal progressive tax code is over 72,000 pages long. These are breeding grounds for the geeks to find the next “loophole” or manipulation of a regulation. This is what happens when Wall Street hires the geeks and pays them 10 times what our government does.

Wall Street gets the geeks, Washington gets Geithner and Bernanke.

Anyway, by the final vote it doesn’t look like the “Repugnants” pushed that hideous POS bill through. 90-6 in the senate and 362-57 in the House looks awfully BIPARTISAN to me. No?

I’ll wait for your list of “books” that you have read that can refute this. Oh, I’ll give you the site where you can get the results of the above votes from our own government.

govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/s900 (cut & paste into your browser)

Now, let’s address a significant part of the housing crisis. When did the housing bubble and its attendant price bubble begin?

We all know that despite the revisionist’s attempts to protect the Community Reinvestment Acts role in this massive collapse in equity, its effect was significant. Reagan and Bush added to it during their terms but the biggest secret occurred during Clintons terms.

Clintons National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream was most likely one of the biggest causes for the incredible redistribution attempt of home ownership and the housing bubbles expansion.

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros organized what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994.

The group formulated a plan for “creative” measures to promote home ownership. One of the WORST ideas, which fortunately never gained approval but points to the extremes that his administration wanted to enable unqualified people to own a home, was to allow first-time homebuyers to tap into their IRA or 401(k) plans with NO PENALTY to create a down payment.

The most glaring part of the Strategy was,,,

“For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required down payment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.”

This “creativity” brought about more of the famous NINJA loans that catapulted the housing collapse.

Here is a very good link to explain its incredible effect:

theaffordablemortgagedepression.com/2010/03/11/origin-of-the-housing-bubble-the-national-homeownership-strategy.aspx

Piggy, if you don’t want to read it, because we all know Liberals don’t like to read, just look at the first 3 graphs and realize how dramatic this one act was in creating the incredible surge in home ownership and the subsequent price bubble that was created.

Here's a few more shorter incidents that give proof to the collapse of the housing and subsequent illiquidity crisis being a decades long endeavor, not something anyone "inherited". Barrack Husseins continuous implication of inheriting all these problems is cowardice and incompetence.

While leading the CFTC in 1998 Brooksley Born fought for regulations of CDS’s and CDO’s, she was summarily ignored and ridiculed by Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and Arthur Levitt. After Congress exempted the contracts from oversight in 1998 and again in 2000 the market grew from about $1 trillion dollar to $68.4 trillion in less than 2 years. The rest is history.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall by Clinton fully opened the door to abuse. With the subsequent resistance of further regulations by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when OFHEO demanded it in 2003 and 2004, the script for the greatest economic collapse was in place.

The famous words of Maxine Water (BTW, will she ever be tried for her ethics violations?), “we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines”.

This was only surpassed by Barney Franks incompetent statement, “I don’t see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems”.

Today Americans have been raped of over 40% of their wealth. The most amazing part of all this is that there was government malfeasance for decades and despite regulations and deregulations no one has been found responsible. The initial feel-good Community Reinvestment Act began a 30 year bubble that will be analyzed over and over by economists and other authorities. Yes, the same people who denied its existence and never saw the bubble growing will now decide what happened.

Good luck with that wet-dream.

Piggy, you can paint yourself with whatever lipstick you like, your indoctrinated talking points are wrong.

DB Akron "The last Rasmussen count puts republicans just a shade higher than democrats in identification, gallup is similar and current actual registrations seem to be following this. Where you are getting the republicans are losing scores is polling companies totally random polls to determine this mix or setting their polling mix to what they THINK the mix should be."

Exactly right. Some of the polls that have come out recently have been laughable. For example, NBC/WSJ came out with a highly promoted poll of Registered Voters that had Obama ahead by 6% (49% to 43%), but when you look at the polling details, they had 35% Democrats vs only 23% Republicans - that's a 12% polling error (conveniently in favor of Obama). If they adjusted for the 12% under-representation of Republicans in their poll, I estimate that it would actually show Romney with a 4% lead.
Another prime example is a recent poll by NPR (hardly non-partisan) that under-represented Republicans by 7% (36% Democrat vs 29% Republican) which gave a 2% lead to Obama. Again, if the correct split by party was made, it would have shown Romney ahead by about 3%, which would then be in agreement with Rasmussen.
The 'usual' Liberal media outlets are going to extraordinary lengths to mask Obama's dismal prospects.

I thought not! :)

Hey roy, there you go casting pearls again? I voted your posts up anyway.

Hi Mark O Pierce,

I think it's poor form to call democrats, no matter how wrong they are on a wide range of issues, Adolph Hitler and the brown shirts. In fact, it's poor to describe anyone but for Hitler and his brown shirts this way.

Hey TrillyTrilly,

I think that, yes, on balance conservatives want far less government, but is not, in the abstract, anti-government. I don't know why you think conservatives oppose women, but if thinking that birth control should not be "free" is anti-woman, then we have reached a point of lunacy that leads this nation no where positive. I'm not sure the other group you list, I think you mean homosexuals, transgenders (whatever that really means I don't know), bisexuals, and lesbians (yay for lesbians with webcams, yanno?). But yes, I suppose I do think that extending the range of normalcy to any and every group just so I am not inconveinenced about having to think critically is wrong. My bad.

Look, it's far simpler than you pretend. I want our government to follow the constitution. It's really that basic. And I know that today all liberals are crowing about how the ACA, for instance, is constitutional, except that their entire rationale for it in the first place was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So you simply adapt. Who cares that you rejected, previously, the argument that was successful, and instead presented an argument that failed. What matters to you is that you got government more power.

Here is the rub, believe it or not. I can think of many areas in which governmental action is required in order to better society. But my suspicion is that there is no area of life in which you think the government should not control outcomes. Mr. Obama spoke of this, wrongly of course, when he mentioned that he simply wanted to be Lincolnian in scope. That is, that the government should do only those things it can do better than individuals. Two problems. First, Lincoln not only never wrote or said this, but he didn't govern this way, and he specifically said he opposed government without limit. Second, there is nothing that Mr. Obama doesn't think the government can do better than you, or me. Which means there is nothing the government cannot do, or SHOULD NOT do. Writing posititvely, he means that the government should be able to do everything. What stops him? Well, after the ACA ruling I think just a vote by the people. Which is Reason #1 why I will be voting against Mr. Obama.

Jim Spence, You can blame Clinton all you want but it wasn't Bill that passed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 allowing adjustable-rate mortgages. The savings and loans crises kind of parallels the Housing bubble with the fact that banks and financial institutions were allowed to make risky loans and it goes back to ARM's. It is not just Phil Gramm and Bill Clinton to blame ( a bipartisan effort) but a more relaxed and risky way of lending going back to 1980 with the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act allowing similar banks to merge and set any interest rate. The financial industry has been feeding money into the lobbying efforts to gain favor to deregulate using both political parties. Moreover, many high risk loans were made not just through government mandated loans but through private loans.

Killers must start out as collapsers - they are so blissfully ignorant they simply snuff the other opinion.

Rich,

The tea party is anti-government and would love to turn the clock back before Madison finally agreed with Hamilton to create a national bank. Right now anti-government sentiment is very popular and the tea party knows how to use it. Conservatives don't oppose women as long as we conform to their rules they set in the doctors offices across many states. I don't know where you have been living but places like Indiana, Virginia, Kansas,etc. the first thing republicans did when they got into office it take on abortion, birth control and attack planned parenthood.

Concerning the gay marriage issue it is all about liberty. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Just because one has a religious belief does not mean a neighbor has to follow it. This is my point. But religious conservatism is evasive through politics to push their will on those who have different beliefs religious or not.

You say through your words that I want government to have more power. That is not what I want. It gets spun into the word power but it has more to do with taking care of those in our country through laws and if we don't like it then we vote someone with a different vision. Privatizing social security, killing medicare and medicaid would harm the lives of many Americans to the point we would see many hoovervilles. I am not totally pessimistic about government as you. It is our differences and the ability to compromise when we disagree that makes our country great. The problem we have now is government is bought by corporations and until we have true campaign finance laws it won't change.

Lastly, your description of Obama and his vision of America is your words and opinion and not his. Yes he believes that government can make our lives better. I believe this. A government by the people for the people is a good formula. A republic based on democratic principles in a secular way is a formula for freedom but with limits. If we don't like those limits(laws) we change them through the vote. Obama comes from the middle class and cares about the middle class and I will vote for one of my own before I give a vote to a silver spoon fed person who does not know what it is like to be middle class. Romney is out of touch with those who are suffering.

The mistake is assuming that Obama's Democrats are not enthusiastic. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the misinformation, distortions, and outright lies have mounted the "quiet anger" has grown. If the GOP hadn't used these tactics, Obama may have lost it on his own. Just as the Tea Party showed anger, in 2010, watch out for the "welfare mom's" anger in 2012.

Roy Wilson

35% Democrats vs only 23% Republicans

NBC/NYT change their pollster because they where giving Romney +1 point ahead Obama. LOL

Roadkill

The mistake is assuming that Obama's Democrats are not enthusiastic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hope and change is vanish transparency is way too dark, economy is stuck in the mod, and foward is going backward. Keep dreaming it is free.

Roadkill, Your "Obama may have lost it on his own" comment is a real distortion. He has faced since being elected a Senate who's republican core is hellbent on filibustering almost everything Obama agrees too. Since 2010 the GOP led house is not wanting to compromise either. You can thank the Tea Party for holding other GOP members hostage and creating a more divisive government. It has been the job of the GOP to make Obama a one term president even at the cost of the American economy mostly because a sour economy gets more republicans elected even though they are largely responsible for straying onto a new path when Bush took office. We seen how that turned out. Waky Waky! Your "welfare mom" statement is so distasteful and distorted. I would like to know how you came up with this one. It is not welfare moms you need to worry about. It is independents in swing states and they are good at researching the facts. Most are moderates.

Hi TrillyTrilly,

You know what is funny? Those actually are Obama's words. He said it just like I portrayed him to have said it. And we still wonder, those of us who worry about unlimited federal power, just what is it that people like you think the federal government should not be able to control.

You know what else is funny? Up above you wrote about various regulatory laws relative to the financial systems in this country, each of which aletered the regulations banks had to deal with, but none of which deregulated banks. And yet, despite the government tweaking over many decades all sorts of regulations, the biggest coming in 1980 as you wrote, they continue to get it wrong. That is, the bubbles keep getting inflated. But what is your solution if not more government?

So help me figure out your position. When the private sector errs, the government must step in to regulate it. And when the government errs, the government must do more. And then, after doing more, and failing, the government must do even more. Why is it not better to accept as a fact of life that people will make bad choices from time to time, and that absent government protections, insurance, and bailouts, people who make bad choices will pay a price for them? And that because people will incur the risk for their own decisions, they will more likely assume less risk, meaning bubbles will be smaller and less damaging, knowing that all pop sooner or later. We see, for instance, several massive governmentally induced bubbles yet to pop.

College loans/costs are one. The ACA is one. So is the only option, in your mind, even more government in order to save us from too much government? What if I could, say with health care, identify for you a fairly simple solution which would achieve each of Mr. Obama's ostensible goals (none of which will be achieved by the ACA)? Would you be willing to reject Mr. Obama and go with a better idea? Or is this more a partisan exercise?

TrillyTrilly

it wasn't Bill that passed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 allowing adjustable-rate mortgages.

Allowing adjustable rate mortgages had nothing to do with the housing collapse. They were used effectively for 13 years before the housing bubble began to grow in the mid to late 90’s. If you look at the graph in the article I linked to in the National Homeownership Strategy (NHS) above, from 1982 until 1995 the homeownership rate was about 63.8%. After the NHS it skyrocketed to 67.5% in the 4^th quarter of 2000 and over 69% in the 1^st quarter of 2004. The trigger was squeezed and the bubble began. The Garn-St. Germain Act allowed banks to compete with money market mutual funds and allegedly loosened restrictions on issuing mortgages leading to the subprime evolution. In fact it was the poorly designed and bad regulations that created abusive incentives. It should have given banks the ability to compete and clarify the role of the FDIC. What it did instead was fail to define the role of government in cases of institutional failure. From that the government guaranteed assistance to the “too big to fail” institutions that convoluted the risk assessment process that helps market efficiency. This implied promise to rescue was much more damaging than loose lending practices. Its association with the S&L Crisis was again based on the fact that government guaranteed rescues and allowed high-risk taking. Once again, as I stated in my post above, we should have learned from the 70’s and 80’s “crises” and made the banks responsible for their risk taking. Instead we bailed them out then and we did the same thing in 2008. Today as in the past they are laughing at us as they got theirs and we got stuck with the bill and a loss of 40% of our net worth as honest taxpaying citizens.

Yes, the collapse of the banks would have been a bigger shock, but obviously this is the only solution when banks keep creating new and more sophisticated financial and investment vehicles that avoid the existing regulations. Again, we take the word of the “economists” that we needed to save the banks to keep the economy from going off some mythical cliff. Based on what? When did we ever let the banks fail and then allow stable free market driven principles to correct the economy? Never. So what do the economists base their opinions on? Economic models? The same economic models that never saw the impending collapse of housing and the subsequent illiquidity of the banks? I’d have to argue that their models are less than accurate

a more relaxed and risky way of lending going back to 1980 with the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act allowing similar banks to merge and set any interest rate.

This Act repealed “Regulation Q ceilings” which limited the amount of interest consumers could earn from savings and checking. It also allowed different financial institutions to get overnight loans from the Fed. Since allowing banks to pay interest to consumers encourages savings, this part of the deregulation can’t be blamed in any sensible way for our current problems. It can be argued, however, that more institutions borrowing money partially allowed for the housing bubble. That money was being borrowed from the government, hardly the definition of a deregulation. Besides, this doesn’t even begin to explain the fact that we have had multiple recessions and bubbles since then.

So, as I keep asking ad nauseum, how many more regulations, reregulations and deregulations do we have to create before we realize that the financial industries will just keep hiring the best minds to find new and sneakier ways to make more money? They have been bailed out twice and the economists keep demanding that if they are allowed to collapse we will go through some catastrophic event. Yes, at their expense. That’s what the banks are afraid of. We have been indoctrinated with the belief that the banks and other financial institutions can privatize their profits but if they collapse the losses must be socialized. If we would have let the S&L culprits that collapsed in the 70’s and 80’s paid the ultimate penalty, extinction, I doubt they would have been so cavalier to continue their risk-taking that led to the collapse in 2008. So when it happened again this time, what did we do? We bailed them out again. Less than 3 years later Jamie Dimon and J.P. Morgan risks $9 billion on a new “risky experiment”. Fortunately it is their own money but you and I both now the next time we may not be so lucky.

When will we finally learn that true free-market principles with minimal regulations are what we need? If you want to make it even more “compelling”, demand that any failure will allow the investors to put liens, freeze personal accounts or other restrictions on the personal wealth holdings of the management involved. I bet that will make everyone dramatically reduce their willingness to take risks.

Draconian? Yes, because obviously you nor I nor anyone else can watch everything our criminal cabal of government and financial institutions keep doing despite tens of thousands of pages of regulations.

Jim -

I agree with your post and have spent many conversations trying to explain those same ideas to people who shrug their shoulders and say something along the lines of, "What can we do. We can't let the banks fail."

The banks don't have to be turned to rubble. The money doesn't have to disappear from the accounts in the bank. The ownership of the bank would just be transferred. In this day and age, the depositors wouldn't have to be inconvenienced. The government would take over the running of the bank temporarily, in receivership, and sell it back into a different set of private hands as soon as practical. Depositors would not be harmed, but the shareholders would lose their investments entirely. A few instances like that and management teams at all banks would tighten up their practices significantly, which would make more draconian regulation of negligible benefit. It's not the people that were bailed out, only the bank investors, who gladly took money at zero percent interest and used it to earn interest income on government securities rather than grease the wheels of the economy, which was the (tragically) inexplicit logic behind providing the funds in the first place.

Either private benefits and private risks, or public benefits for public risks. No mixing and matching.

We spent some time reading through here .. and ... regrettably, it would appear that McCarthyism is not dead, at all ... not by a long shot.

I pray to God daily that we are spared that fate. Gone home for a 5 week break is Congress and the House with n jobs, bill, no tax solution, No compromises and 35+ Bills with the Keystone Pipeline added as an amendment by republicans who just don't and won't compromise. To the Guillotine with them and their rich millionaire and billionaire friends that have bought the party and put us in this mess of no movement and no compromise!

Yeah, because Part I has been so awesome!

I know, Da Noid. We went from no recovery to a decent recovery, from no GDP growth to GDP growth, from gridlock to Congressional action.

If Part I has been so awesome, I cannot wait for Part II.

Oh, wait, I think I got it mixed up.

Andres - HaHa, You thought there was a recovery? Perhaps you should take a look a the budget deficits for the past 4 years.

4 years spent maxing out our credit cards for the sake of "keeping up appearances".

**Andres - HaHa, You thought there was a recovery? Perhaps you should take a look a the budget deficits for the past 4 years.

4 years spent maxing out our credit cards for the sake of "keeping up appearances".**

but it was okay from 2000-2008??

Eric....don't confuse the sheeple with the facts..

It all comes down to the swing states. Those states are more diverse.

So far, Obama is winning in the swing states.

Eric -- again..don't confuse the sheeple. They have no clue what its about

Republican plan from day one, first screw up the economy, which happened under their watch employing their policies, as a ruse to gutting unions and government. Cut Social Security and Medicare, and increase defense spending, while cutting taxes only for the 1%. Deficts don't matter and they sure as hell don't care about debt, never have.

This is how they used 9/11, Al Qaeda attacks us, so we attack Iraq. See how that works, they desperately need an enemy to justify a continuation of the military/industrial welfare Fascist economy. Now they will cut any and all banking regulations and double down on the failed polices and finish selling government to the highest bidders.

Finally blame their screwed up mess on the black Democrat who inherited this steaming pile from the Republicks. We need to drown Grover Norquist in a bathtub as someone else posted.

Pat -

Apparently, your anti paranoia meds have worn off.

Let me get this straight - 9/11 was part of a grand republican plan to blame Obama for the economy, because he is black, and somehow Norquist has been involved all that time, so he needs to be drowned.

Did I get that right?

You do win the "Oh god, you get to vote" award for the day though, so you should be happy. As always, it goes to the least fact driven, most paranoia and hysteria driven, and least logical poster I can find on any given thread.

Congratulations - you have demonstrated the open minded ness and dedication to fairness that liberals claim to embrace very well indeed

pjam09

Andres - HaHa, You thought there was a recovery? Perhaps you should take a look a the budget deficits for the past 4 years.

4 years spent maxing out our credit cards for the sake of "keeping up appearances".

Perhaps that's because we have a president currently who isn't a lying POS and keeping 2 wars off the books...you think?

notalkingpoints - I see you jump right on the standard Republican Axiom...if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger:

Republican plan from day one, first screw up the economy, which happened under their watch employing their policies, as a ruse to gutting unions and government. Cut Social Security and Medicare, and increase defense spending, while cutting taxes only for the 1%. Deficts don't matter and they sure as hell don't care about debt, never have.

Dick Cheney declared this in 2002. Go ahead and spin that one.

This is how they used 9/11, Al Qaeda attacks us, so we attack Iraq. See how that works, they desperately need an enemy to justify a continuation of the military/industrial welfare Fascist economy. Now they will cut any and all banking regulations and double down on the failed polices and finish selling government to the highest bidders.

""He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade. if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

You can ridicule all you want but we all see what you've got; typical shoot the messenger...doublespeak.

Is it better to have a Black friend who want everyone to pay their fair share.

or

Is it better to have a white enemy.

By the way I'm white if you must know.

This is the problem for the conservatives going forward - The conservative movement will be a minority movement but will try to control the rest of us. = White Supremacy

I'm white by the way.

This is also the problem males in the United States is currently at 48%. The last time I checked 48% is will never win any election. So if the white male hates black, Muslims, Hispanics and Women you will never win an election but you may win small towns and districts made up of mostly white males.

Good luck with that thinking face it you are a dying bread. Weather i like it or not the United States color is changing. Anyone who preaches hate will be preaching to three people at a time. The majority of us normal non-racist white men will leave you in the dust where you came from.

If a joe smuck like me looks at these numbers I'm sure everyone in congress looks at them three times a day, trying to figure out how do they hold on to power. One way is to divide and conquer the other is racial tension. reverting back to the non-voting blacks and any other color hay days.

Fed Up --

Considering those states that pay more in taxes than they receive from the government are, for the most part, Democratic (CT, MN, CA, DE, NY, NJ, MA, WA, OR—the hardworking taxpayers) and those states that receive $1.5 or more from the federal government for every $1 they send in taxes are, for the most part, Republican (MI, AL, LA, SD, KY, WV—the "lazy parasitical deadbeats"), and coincidentally those who pay more in taxes are calling for tax increases and those who pay less in taxes want to pay even less, then I assume you're talking about Democrats and Republicans, respectively.

Otherwise, you're being either naive or disingenuous.

Here's the inside scoop, if you didn't get that: those out-of-touch Hollywood stars, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Massachusetts professors, or Connecticut WASPs that seem to be so detached from reality that they think it might just be good for the country to have things like universal healthcare? They pay far, far, faaaaaar more in taxes than the uber-patriotic, good old guys in Alabama and Mississippi who think it's OK to have 50 million uninsured They work harder and receive less from the government. That's a statistical fact. So don't come lecturing us on how Democrats are deadbeats and Republicans are the big-shoulder Atlases that carry this country.

Funny, those of you who think that people don't need help are just not looking. I hope your child never has a disability or a disease that you can't pay for and you actually need assistance. Morons.

Yeah!

Stinkin lazy parasitical deadbeats.

I pay 33% taxes on those stinkin red states which produce nothing but ignorance and poverty.

Go take your country back to poverty and the medieval ages or whatever.

Just don't take my country with you!

courtesy of the fool obama...

ah yes, because modern history began on Jan, 20th, 2009...

See this for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A

The country was divided before it was a country. People identified with their states so the only way to unite was to agree to stay out of each other's business to a certain extent. Its called state's rights. Now the fed govt has gotten arrogant enough to think they can directly rule everybody's lives by having a slim and shifting majority force their will on all the rest. We've forgotten what a republic means.

Pjam: Citation needed.

Why do those states need farm subsidies btw? Can't they get off the Gov't teat?

ed

Farmers don't need subsidies and can be abolished when the government stops telling the farmer what to plant and how much to plant.

Another example of government intrusion into private lives.

Farmers can regulate what is needed through data on their own to meet the needs of the country more efficiently and cost effectively than the government.

They don't need subsidies, eh?

Lot of farmers disagree with you, especially those getting pummelled by the worldwide drought.

www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-02/house-republicans-seek-drought-relief-while-delaying-farm-bill

Oh, lookie there. It's the REPUBLICAN congressman seeking to send 383 Million taxpayer dollars to these farms who are facing foreclosure.

Surprise surprise surprise.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Tea Party.

The federal government in the person of Obama has trampled on states' rights. Every time Oblameo signs an executive order, he has trampled on something that has traditionally belonged to the jurisdiction of the states. The only order he will sign that doesn't trample on states' rights will be the order proclaiming himself king.

Government subsidizes them for several reasons, one being to keep the crop numbers down thus keeping the price up. Leave it to our government to look out for us!

Dem4

You can thank the Bill Ayers and George Soros agenda that stared during the Clinton era for the country divide which is part of the scheme.

Both have publicly announced their agenda and how they were going to implement it by using the media and getting officials elected to office.

The agenda is to dismantle our constitution, dismantle our capital free market society, and dismantle our American way of Life and replace it with a-

SOCIALIST,COMMUNIST,and MARXIST SOCIETY.

What? Is that the latest spew from Rush Limbaugh? Geez....you people have no shame.

pjam09

Andres - You really don't understand population size or farm subsidies do you?

Poor people overwhelmingly vote Democrat because they are selling their votes to be payed back with taxpayer funded "handouts"... what state they are in does not matter.

Oh yes Pajamas, it matters a great deal. You claim the disparity between Red and Blue states some how has something to do with farm subsidies? You sir are delusional at best. You now have all those nice neo-conservative governors in your Red states spouting off about not taking federal expanded healthcare aid for the poor in their states, right? We'll see how well that works out for them. Remember all that federal aid that went to Texas and was suppose to provide employment for infrastructure but the Governor used it for state budget debt, the rest of us haven't forgotten what he did with OUR federal tax dollars. Let's see how all that works out this time. I see torches and pitchforks in your future.

john-1960608

Dem4

You can thank the Bill Ayers and George Soros agenda that stared during the Clinton era for the country divide which is part of the scheme.

Both have publicly announced their agenda and how they were going to implement it by using the media and getting officials elected to office.

The agenda is to dismantle our constitution, dismantle our capital free market society, and dismantle our American way of Life and replace it with a-

SOCIALIST,COMMUNIST,and MARXIST SOCIETY.

John, does your doctor know your off your medication? If you aren't going to show us the proof, which of course you're not...please take the pills.

Kudos to my fellow liberals here. Don't back down. Till election day, ZERO TOLERANCE ON LIES. If we stick to this we can still elect a Democratic majority in both houses.

WE'RE WISE TO THE LIES!!

Things well suck even more than now,by election time people well vote for anybody but Obama.

People vote with their wallets,theyre empty now! I explained to my kids about all the people out there living in denial. The only way i see Obama staying in power is when the riots are so bad that martial law is in effect and elections are stopped.

Write in Ron Paul,the only honest decent one running,do this if you value your freedom and your country.

LMFAO......the other guy did it, it's all the other guys fault.........unless it makes me look good then I will try to take credit.

Divided we fall, that's all you need to know.

@AndresTM You tore Dem4Freedom a New AZZ Hole

Now Dem4Freedom wipe your new azz hole it's leaking sh!t

@Ol_Doc - So the Republicans counter attached is Sheldon Adelson the Zillionaire Yeah.

We are hip to your stupid lies and will never back down.

This is a lib site fools go back to fox Lies and repeat them to your children so they can be stupid too.

Tell your Great White Hope FlipOmney to show his F-N tax returns, for God sake his own father show 12 years of his tax returns. OOOPPS unles FlipOmney has something to hide.

Yes He's Hiding the fact that he will go straight to jail if the taxes returns were made public.

Tired of the lies? It went all the way to the Supreme Court to figure out that Obama lied all the way about his health care law! It was his intent and purpose to get what he wanted. Now, everybody hales it as a victory for Obama! All right, I get it. Lying is Obama's stock and trade and his supporters think that is just fine! When he lies you out of your Constitutional rights you will probably think that is okay too!

As for red and blue states, just check out the ones with the highest illegal populations and you will find the ones on the brink of bankruptcy! Obama sees no reason to control the boarder because the majority of the people sneaking across our boarder are coming for government handouts. In return they will vote Democratic in the election they are not allowed to vote in! Now you know the reason why the Democrats do no want voter Id's!

As for higher taxes on the rich? I guess I'd be in favor. Why not? The top 7% pay 70% of all taxes paid! Why not make it 100% percent? Of course that will not work! Every time the government gets more money they find more ways to spend so that they need and ever increasing amount! Let's just take all the money from everyone! Making us all equal! Then, when there is no more money to take away from us everyone will find the true value that our government hold us in! Those of us who know how to work will continue to do so! Those of you who have lived off government handouts are in trouble! With no more money and total control over the government there will be no value in you what so ever! You can try rioting in the streets but it will be too late! Those who taught you that method will be the one out there gunning you down! As soon as they no longer need your vote, your fate is sealed!

Sally, Bless you ... trying to heard this bunch ... good grief!

... HERD .. we meant to say herd ... although it is also difficult .. hearing ...

typical, I didnt see much of a reason to ban him/her. There has been much worse from the left, heres some examples: "Now Dem4Freedom wipe your new azz hole it's leaking sh!t" no ban, "John, does your doctor know your off your medication?" no ban, "You sir are a typical lying republican" no ban, I could go on but it would make no differance. Would'nt you say any of these fall into this catagory: Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.. just saying whats good for the goose......

President Obama has not scared me anymore than I was scared the 8 years before when George had 4000+ of our troops KILLED IN A B.S. war and now that they are home, they are killing themselves because we aren't helping them. You are a fool. I am scared of the right conservatives trying to tell me what I can and can't do with my body. What is wrong with you?

Patty-It's divided because folks like you have promised not to work with people of color and funny names, not because the of anything the President has done.

Bill Clinton was able to work with the Dems and Republicans

ah yes, and those ridiculously wasteful investigations and impeachment proceedings over a BJ, that was just "working together" and "finding common ground," amirite?!?

Republicans work for decades to sully the word "liberal" and curtail the name of a major political party (from DemocratIC to DemocRAT), but once again, history started on jan. 20th, 2009 and it's all Obama's fault...

Patty, yes it's Pres. Obama that caused the great divide. It's got nothing to do with being stuck with the most obstructionist Congress in US History.

Wasn't it Bohener who said he got 98% of what he wanted with the Debt Ceiling deal? The Sequester? The same one he's now trying to blame on Democrats (They MADE us sign it!).

If the number of educated people in this country started going substantially up, the GOP (at least it's current incarnation) would vanish. Guess that's why they're so down on Education...

Diverdown1 - you should check out the Afghanistan numbers on Bush's watch compared to Obama's watch. Deaths on his watch have now passed Bush's. He is catching up...

Gee Morgs it might have to do with Bush taking his eye off the ball and switching the military efforts toward Iraq, duh!

Harl60 - Nice try. I am not supporting Bush but O had 4 years to fix this F' up. Time for someone else to give it a shot.

No it's going to take a lot longer than 4 years to fix this, we gave the Republicans 8 years to F things up. Anybody that thought or thinks the problems can be resolved in 4 years is crazy. It took a couple of decades to put us in the economic mess we're in. This is not like batting practise where it someone else's turn. Nice try...

Patty-Virginia Beach

Both of you are soooooo right!

This country is terribly divided!

WHY

The Rock Star-in-Chief has caused this divide!

He has caused HATE and Scares Women, Seniors, Hispanics, Gays, he Constantly LIES!!!!!

He is sooooooooo DESPERATE to get re-elected so he can continue to Party & Travel that he will do and say ANYTHING!

--------------------------------------

Bill Clinton was able to work with the Dems and Republicans.......NoBama continues to play the Blame Game!

NoBama has accomplished NOTHING in 4 years!

BS
Clinton was never personally attacked the way Obama has been. No president in US history has been so disrespected by the "loyal opposition". The first week in office Obama invited the Republic leadership to the White House to discuss non-partisanship. During the same week, Mitch McConnell stated that the Republicans Number One priority was to insure Obama was a one term president, not jobs, defeating Obama. No party in American history has treated a new president that badly. No other president in American history has had his citizenship questioned and been hounded to prove his qualification to be president with his birth certificate. Tell me, what is different about President Obama? To question his loyalty and his citizenship, and only his, there must be something different about Obama. Something different than any other president.
You know, I spent 20 years defending this country but sadly, it might be best for all concerned to split blue and red at this point.

?

Paty? really? your saying we where not divided 5 years ago? ten years ago? etc. REALLY? what rock have you been hiding under. Even your conservitive friends see you as stupid for that comment lol

I would love to split.

Give me the Tree huggers, intellectuals and the OWS. You can keep the the hedge fund managers, the polulters like koch industries and Vulture Capitalist like Romney.

We'll have to split the Military because in ten years when you've destroyed your enviorment, decimated your finances we'll need them to protect us from attack.