"We are dealing with a very difficult problem. Given the dimensions of the problem, I believe we have done a good job. It includes genuine compromises."
Barney Frank, in praise of the financial bailout deal, spouts some abstract political philosophy. I'm glad they've settled it, if they've settled it, and I hope it works.
But is it true that complicated problems require complicated solutions? Is it true that compromises are the mark of a good plan?
September 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
107 comments:
Based on reports about Frank's own role in this credit disaster, isn't this like O.J. Simpson saying he is getting close to finding his wife's killer?
What AJ said.
What Ben and AJ said.
No, but the simple things are always hard. Otherwise we would have done them already.
I always fall back on the sage of Baltimore in times like these: For every difficult problem there is always a solution--neat, simple and wrong.
And my libertarian instincts tell me what is going to happen is very very wrong. The very people that f**ked it up and now solving it--doesnt that give anyone pause? We will not be able to print money fast enough.
I don't think so. I got massively worried when I heard 3 pages turned into 100. Lots of room for bad laws in there.
It sounds like they mostly kept the important part and then added a bunch of crap that will probably hurt more than help or at best break even. (compensation/equity/etc.)
Alexander had a simple solution to the Gordian knot.
It would be satisfying to see the origins to this situation hacked out of political life permanently but that's not going to happen.
You can't solve a problem with the same level of thinking you wre at when you created it..
(Throw in the same people.)
Einstein
The fox is designing a new chicken coop.
The world is full of elegant solutions. One of them is voting the bastards out.
No, no and it's also not true that incompetence and stupidity are the most likely explanations for man-made disasters...at least in Washington. These people are saboteurs busy destroying capitalism and democracy in this country.
Time to tell it like it is.
No and No.
A thousand times no. and a thousand times no.
nonononono!
Since the real problem is the inability of Congress to accurately predict that human behavior will continue as it has for at least millenia, and won't own up to its own bad behavior, this isn't a solution to the real problem.
Term limits on *all* government 'serevice' might help a bit, but that will never happen since the foxes are, indeed, running the hen house.
I think Copernicus had a better solution than Ptolomy
Purchase $700B In Troubled Debt...
Strict Oversight By Congress...
Pay Limits For Executives...
Help For Homeowners...
It's a start...
And, according to Warren Buffet, if we don't, the nation will face "its biggest financial meltdown in American history."
* And by the way, AJ is talking out of his right wing ass...as usual.
Why not provide your evidence relating to Barney Frank's "own role in this credit disaster."
Now we know why grade schools never send students on a class trip to the sausage factory.
Ockham would disagree with that too.
Complicated problems don't require complicated solutions.
But, simple solutions to complicated problems pretty much demand a single, or very small number, of decision makers.
They also often require a bit of ruthlessness of application.
Getting political enemies together during a season of heightened political warfare so that the greatest number of people have very little lasting awareness of what went wrong is complicated, and insists on compromise.
And is the hallmark of American governance since before there was an established American governance.
There are some benefits to a monarchy after all, and quick, simple solutions without comprises are sometimes one of them. Such quick, simple solutions are often why people overthrow kings.
Compromises are not usually better in a reaction to a crisis. A crisis requires a cold eyed focus on the most important issue. Here the issue is the solvency of the financial system--nothing else.
Perhaps the final bill will be different, but Chris Dodd's bill had so many bows to political groups and variant views of "justice" that it lost focus on the main issue.
I believe that some of the provisions designed to "protect the taxpayer" like the warrants for the treasury and the so-called repayment of losses will make it very difficult for banks to raise new capital--which they must do.
I hope I'm wrong, but I predict that the bill will pass, but the rescue will fail.
Good news: the surgeon has operated.
Bad news: the patient died.
"No solution to a problem can be more elegant than the problem itself."
Of course, no one would disagree that the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are significantly more elegant than the problem of taxation without representation.
But, we don't have those kinds of men serving in our present Congress.
Barney Frank puts a human face on this, the clowns in the cockpit phenomenon.
I think it's interesting that these two questions are boring compared to Frank's words.
1) Why didn't Althouse ask questions more aligned with Frank's comments?
2) Would it be more interesting and provocative to ask about Frank's actual comments regarding inelegant problems and solutions.
3) Why bother parsing comments if your questioning is more vapid than the original comments?
"But is it true that complicated problems require complicated solutions?"
In my experience, the opposite is almost always true. Problems can have complicated solutions, and they can have simple solutions; or, as I prefer to call them, elegant solutions.
The elegant solutions are nearly always more sound, more effective, and easier to implement.
"Is it true that compromises are the mark of a good plan?"
Sometimes. Sometimes, the solution lends itself to a compromise between competing imperatives. Sometimes, one imperative is right and the other is wrong. Sometimes, one imperative is significantly less important or meaningless while the other is paramount. In those cases, a compromise is superior to the inferior imperative, but nowhere near as good as addressing the superior imperative.
Boy, that makes choosing the right approach a complicated problem, because one has to consider all sorts of things!
My elegant solution-- use common sense rather than inflexible dogma.
Ann: "But is it true that complicated problems require complicated solutions? Is it true that compromises are the mark of a good plan?"
What's your alternative?
This is obviously one of the most "complicated" financial situations our country has ever faced, so are you implying that there's some kind of quick and magical solution that could or should have been employed?
And what is it you're implying that relates to "compromise" somehow not being advantageous?
One of the biggest complaints Americans have about American politics relates to a lack of compromise.
The Founding Fathers of our country compromised on many extremely "complicated" issues...was that bad?
So when do the rapists in Congress get held to account for lousy oversight and being the beneficiaries of corporate largess?
The foxes are watching the hen house and as usual, getting away with it.
What Ben, AJ, and Dogwood said.
On the other hand, when the patient is having a heart attack that's not the time to tell them to go and run five miles. Even if it might have prevented the heart attack, it's gonna kill them now.
By the way, did OJ ever yet FIND the real killer? I'm quite sure he swore he'd never stop til he did. Maybe the real killer was that guy in Las Vegas OJ robbed at gunpoint?
Is it true that the Democrat party is getting a complete pass for prior economic malfeasance?
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/devastating-dems-refuse-to-reform.html
How much are we agreeing to pay Acorn to promote voter fraud?
How much are we agreeing to pay Acorn to promote voter fraud?
"My elegant solution-- use common sense rather than inflexible dogma."
The problems we face right now far surpass such a simple-minded approach...and from I understand "compromise" and not "inflexible dogma" is one of the key elements to a possible agreement.
You actually think this tentative solution has taken this long, with people like Warren Buffet stepping in (which is unheard of), could have been handled via a basic "common sense" approach?
This is probably the most serious and complicated economic situation the world has ever faced.
"The Founding Fathers of our country compromised on many extremely "complicated" issues...was that bad?"
No.
And in many ways, their compromise was very elegant, and not nearly as complicated as the problems being addressed.
It was not perfect. We've improved it markedly in some ways. However, we also have made a hash of it in other ways. Overall, however, it was a very elegant solution, arrived at compromise because the situation mandated a compromise.
did OJ ever yet FIND the real killer
Yep, every time he uses a mirror to shave.
He just has to work through the psychological denial before he can declare the search successful.
"The problems we face right now far surpass such a simple-minded approach"
Does it?
That is far from clear to me. There is a crisis in liquidity and in the valuation of toxic assets. Provide both to manage the risk in the current state of affairs. Buy time for things to unwind themselves less catastrophically. Evaluate again down the road, but not too far down the road.
Don't try to fix everything at once. Don't try to prevent this from happening again as part of the emergency action. Make objections only in good faith; listen to objections in good faith.
While the specifics of how to provide valuation of the toxic assets and how to inject liquidity into the credit markets may be fairly complicated, the common sense overall approach should not be complicated at all. We should demand it from our politicians.
Probably just a down payment. Bigger problems are ahead.
If politicians had taken action sooner we could have avoided this crisis but then common sense is lacking, arrogance reigns supreme, and there is no incentive to do the right thing since averting a crisis will go unrecognized and not result in votes.
The Founding Fathers of our country compromised on many extremely "complicated" issues...was that bad?
In the short run, no. In the long run, yes. Slavery for instance.
There isn't a single provision added to the bill after the original Paulson-Bernake proposal that does anything to make the original proposal work any better as a solution to the crisis. It's all pure logrolling cruft.
Michael said...
Why not provide your evidence relating to Barney Frank's "own role in this credit disaster."
Mike pitches one fast and outside, the Sarge swings and hits, going, going, gone. They don't get any easier.
From 5 Years ago, that charter member of the VWRC, the NYT with an article called:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago....
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' ...
At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past. ...
'The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.'' ...
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
"The problems we face right now far surpass such a simple-minded approach"
EnigmatiCore said..."Does it? That is far from clear to me."
That's not hard to believe.
Maybe you can explain it all to the economists and investors like Buffet who apparently Do believe this is an extremely complicated situation.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here? Are you implying all of these people are just making things more complicated and serious than necessary??
I think the science of economics is about where the science of medicine was at the turn of the nineteenth century. It can handle blunt trauma with efficacy and some success. For acute and chronic illnesses it can only offer a bedside manner and symptomatic relief....Perhaps the bailout will get us through the immediate trauma, but booms and busts, however modulated, will continue to be endemic to capitalism. Capitalism and democracy muddle through. They are never elegant....I can't help but think of the LTCM hedge fund. It was directed by two Nobel Prize winners and staffed by whiz kids who could do algorithms in their head faster than the computer models. This single hedge fund leveraged enough risk to bring down the entire world economy....We go to these experts the way 19th century people went to physicians. What are the alternatives?
drill: Dates would be nice...you, know to put things into context?
And by the way, there are many who do not think this is a "liquidity" problem.
And the Frank's quote...FIVE YEARS AGO.
Michael, perhaps you might want to consider trying less hard at being condescending, especially when exhibiting difficulty in reading comprehension and retention.
"Maybe you can explain it all to the economists and investors like Buffet who apparently Do believe this is an extremely complicated situation."
I believe that the situation is complicated. Not once did I say, or infer, anything different.
What I said was that complicated situations do not necessarily require complicated solutions.
The plan has to do two things- alleviate the short-term crunch in credit and to provide some means of valuing the assets that have become toxic.
Things that expand the plan beyond doing those two simply explained objectives are needless complications.
Are you implying all of these people are just making things more complicated [. . .] than necessary??
Who's implying? I'm out-and-out saying it. The 3-page plan presented a week ago did absolutely everything to address the crisis that the current plan does. Everything added on since then is complicating cruft that does nothing to address the actual problem.
"And the Frank's quote...FIVE YEARS AGO"
The Frank? Nice.
Yes, five years ago is quite exculpatory, for this problem has not been brewing for a long time. It just came on, completely out of the blue, without any cause that can be traced back further than a month or two ago.
Either that, or it has been brewing for quite a while, and the Frank was blind to it (as were many in both parties). But that his blindness was shared does not make him less blind, nor does it mean we should trust his vision now.
People can spin this situation anyway they want (attacking any individual they want), but the fact that we do have some kind of compromise is hopefully good for America.
And, oh...let's not forget that the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the White House for the past six and a half to seven and a half years.
Most here would be screaming to high heaven about "mismanagement" if the Democrats had been in the positions...and you know it.
"Most here would be screaming to high heaven about "mismanagement" if the Democrats had been in the positions...and you know it"
I am pretty pissed about the mismanagement. But it does not make me all that happy with Democrats.
I look to see who pushed the policies that got us in this mess, and who resisted calls for reform that might have prevented it, and who was being backed by the executives who made out like bandits while steering towards the iceberg, and I see a lot of Democrats.
Republicans could have, if they wanted, jammed it in over Democrat opposition (well, except for if the Democrats filibustered) but they didn't try enough to find out if they would filibuster. And that pisses me off at the GOP.
So there is blame to go around, here. Although more if it goes left this time. More important, though, than placing blame is learning the lessons of the past. If the Democrats want to keep pushing the type of programs that created this mess, then we as voters have no choice but to stop electing Democrats.
Steven, I think you need to get your ass to Washington immediately.
And be sure to call Buffet on the way, I'm sure he and his financial team would enjoy getting your input.
Duh.
Complez problems usually draw in many parties with different values, priorities, and objectives - which by "simple" group dynamics - necessitates complex solutions and compromise.
Unless we are talking a CEO with full Board backing or the unchallenged Dictator of the nation. And even they have other-nation allies or outside bankers, shareholders to limit their ability to impose personal decisions.
Think WWII, where even unconditional surrender involved a year of negotiation and complex solutions and compromises amongst allies.
Or 9/11, where obvious simple solutions existed (no Muslim allowed to fly again) but were precluded by pesky Constitutions and such to the more complex, confused solutions.
The financial crisis is at the start very complex - using tools and instruments that shape institutional structures that few American laymen or leaders have the training and skill to understand. And those structures spread out to involve government, law, other countries, industries outside finance in a complex web.
Since the public doesn't understand the mechanisms, they aren't concerned until a crisis erupts. And if the people aren't concerned in our very troubled Constitutional system, neither are the leaders - who then can focus on Iraq and abortion. Think of how many times this came up as a concern in 30! 30! Presidential primary debates and "town hall" settings.
Zero.
A sidenote - all the Libertarian "heroes" of the Kelo Decision except one family were house-flippers and real estate speculators taking advantage of subprime loans while talking about their 3rd, 4th or 5th
"beloved sacred home" being ripped away from them.
"...stop electing Democrats..."
GFL.
The Republicans (with a strong assist from Bush & Cheney) have all by destroyed their party over the past 8 years.
Why do you think so many are tucking their tails between their legs and getting out of Dodge?
Obama will win and the Democrats will overwhelmingly control the House and Senate...so get used to it...or, hey...why not move?
EnigmatiCore said..."Yes, five years ago is quite exculpatory, for this problem has not been brewing for a long time."
Yeah, I also seem to remember a massive surplus when G.W. rolled into town.
Funny how you and other wingnuts just can't bring themselves to recollect that...
*And don't forget: We're STILL spending 10 BILLION a MONTH in Iraq.
I notice that since Mikey's leftist shit's "compromise" has successfully raped the taxpayer he's all sweetness and light. First the lefty fucks you up the ass. Then he's the picture of benevolence.
Most here would be screaming to high heaven about "mismanagement" if the Democrats had been in the positions...and you know it.
The reality is that a lot of people on both sides of the political aisle made a series of decisions starting as early as 1989 that have brought us to where we are today.
No serious observer of the situation can deny that Barney Frank has been one of the most determined opponents of any reform of Freddie or Fannie Mae for the last 10 to 12 years.
Even today, Frank is the most vocal cheerleader for Fannie Mae, in spite of its role in helping to create the current crisis.
As the Democrats have proven, just because you have the majority in Congress is no guarantee that the majority party is capable of passing legislation.
Such difficulty is due to House and Senate rules, and the obvious fact that not all Democrats or all Republicans may support legislation being pushed by the party leadership, so without bipartisan support, the proposed legislation is dead.
Republicans also contributed to the crisis by not being more persistent in their efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie, and by the SEC waiving limits on leverage for five of the largest investment banks in the country, three of which no longer exist.
At the end of the day, one must choose between playing the blame game, which everyone can play to no satisfactory conclusion.
Or, we can look at the series of policy decisions that were made by Democrats and Republicans to get us here and then reverse those decisions as part of reform and bailout efforts.
Pick your poison.
EnigmatiCore said..."What I said was that complicated situations do not necessarily require complicated solutions."
So, in your personal experience in life, you feel...
..."complicated situations do not necessarily require complicated solutions"??
First of all, throwing in the term; "not necessarily" opens the door to literally any kind of specific situation, problem or solution so it muddles your point, making it so ambiguous it's impossible to assign it any real value to the topic at hand.
In this case, it appears the "experts" who deal with the American economy feel this bailout is..."necessary."
If you don't agree, write a letter, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you and Steven.
Drill Sgt., I nominate you for a Pulitzer in Investigative Journalism. I guess the legacy media hasn't caught on to that newfangled Google thing yet.
Or they are complete liars.
Well with Obama pulling away in the polls, hopefully that will keep Baghdad Mike, UWS and Alpha away! Always look for the upside!
There is a crisis in liquidity and in the valuation of toxic assets. Provide both to manage the risk in the current state of affairs.
The problem is that in the current environment the only way to provide these is for government to step in - and that raises all sorts of issues in terms of free markets, moral hazards, taxpayer funding private sector bailouts through deficits, etc.
The economic solution - allow Treasury to buy up the toxic assets for orderly disposition down the road is simple. But getting the funding and authorization to do this is a political problem - and given the issues above that's a hell of a lot more complicated given the players involved and the political climate. Throw in private agendas at play and it becomes even more complex. Unfortunately government and economics aren't easily separated in this day and age.
doggwood says: "The reality is that a lot of people on both sides of the political aisle made a series of decisions starting as early as 1989 that have brought us to where we are today."
Of course, and we can also go back to Reagan's trickle down theory of economics that hasn't exactly worked out that great, too.
But it's hard to argue against the fact that Clinton was President for eight years, left a hefty surplus and you never hear squat about it.
But you hear plenty of bitching and whining about him personally, and literally never hear a peep about how the current administration has turned the entire country upside down. (And I'll bet most here would vote for Bush AGAIN...right now.)
Are are YOU also saying that YOU wouldn't be screaming to high heaven about the Democrats had they been in charge over the past years?
And what about the Republicans, who held a good majority in the House and Senate during this period of time?
Why aren't we hearing anything here about them fro the conservatives here?
"First of all, throwing in the term; "not necessarily" opens the door to literally any kind of specific situation, problem or solution so it muddles your point"
Are you, therefore arguing that the Frank's statement, that "no solution to a problem can be more elegant than the problem itself" is not falsifiable, because it's negative (that there can be a solution that is more elegant than the problem, which can be reworded as "complicated situations do not necessarily require complicated solutions") "muddles the point?"
No, the Frank was talking out of his ass because he wants the solution to be convoluted, as it gives him more room to maneuver to continue the exact policies that helped create this mess in the first place.
The comparison of Barney Frank to O.J. is not appropriate. Better would a comparison to Ken Lay.
Remember how we had Ken Lay help to resolve the Enron debacle?
Didn'think so.
Someone needs to go to jail for this fiasco. We haven't even started talking about that.
EnigmatiCore, Again, I suggest you forward all of this invaluable insight you and Steven have...to all interested parties in Washington.
I'm sure Barney Franks, Buffet, Paulson...and even Bush, if he actually even knows this is going on.
America needs your help.
Michael said...
drill: Dates would be nice...you, know to put things into context?
what part of 5 years ago isn't clear? OK
Here is the start of the article to help your reading skills:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003
5 years ago, and again 3 years ago and again 2 years ago, Bush, and then McCain tried to improve oversight of the GSE's. the last time 2006, it was opposed by EVERY DEM on the Senate banking committee. Basicly all of the Dems in the Senate plus enough GOP on the take killed the bill
Americans seem to have forgotten how to identify and ostracize true pariahs. Especially in Washington. Is everyone coated in Teflon when they arrive at the seat of political power?
Those that screw up and get caught don't seem to pay for their mistakes.
Paul Wolfowitz got a cushy job at the World Bank.
George Tenet got the Freedom Medal.
Alan Greenspan is still a highly respected former Fed chief whose opinion is always sought out. Did he have no idea this crisis was developing and did he just keep his mouth shut? No pillow talk with Andrea? Did she keep quiet too?
People like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd keep getting re-elected.
How about our media? None got wind of this months and months ago? If not, what good are they?
How about our pundits? Always focused on the candidate's stategies and campaign coffers but rarely ask hard questions (unless you are Sarah Palin). Why does someone like William Kristol still have a job?
Nice job Brownie! is another example of this Beltway malaise.
McCain was right, the American economy and its people are fundamentally strong. It is the leaches and liars and screw-ups and incompetents in Washington that have screwed up this country.
Our Capitol's miscreants have been quietly bankrupting us for the last 20-30 years. It appears McCain will pay the price for it.
AJ said...Alan Greenspan is still a highly respected former Fed chief whose opinion is always sought out. Did he have no idea this crisis was developing and did he just keep his mouth shut?
I've seen video of Greenspan testifying in front of Dodd and Shumer about how the GSE's were a problem and unless treated were going to cause a great risk to the financial systems?
do I need to find it?
Here's an "elegant" appraisal of the situation:
“Like every American I’m speaking with, we are ill about this. We’re saying, ‘Hey, why bail out Fanny and Freddie and not me?’
But ultimately, what the bailout does is, help those that are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy to help, uhhh, it’s gotta be all about job creation too.
Also, too, shoring up our economy and putting Fannie and Freddie back on the right track, and so health care reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending…’cause Barack Obama, ya know, has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans, also, having a dollar value meal at restaurants.
That’s gonna help. But 1 in 5 jobs being created today under the umbrella of job creation. That, you know. Also…..”
*For a ten year old.
“The Founding Fathers of our country compromised on many extremely "complicated" issues...was that bad?”
Yes, it was horrible. The principal they compromised on was slavery which almost led to the destruction of our country.
Some things are right and some things are wrong.
You are one dumb motherfucker.
Jim Gust - WOW...and yet another wingnut joins the fray!
Comparing Barney Franks to O.J. Simpson or Ken Lay.
How about George W. Bush to Hitler?
Does that play?
Dr Dre's Underpants - So, you think our Founding Fathers were pretty inept, huh?
And I love how you pick out one single element of the Founding Father's "compromise" to make your point.
You get dumber by the day.
Dr Dre...I forgot to ask:
Are you currently wearing the underpants?
And if so...why?
Off topic, but again...interesting information from a Republican "expert."
Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.
Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks."
*And remember...one heartbeat from the Presidency...
Sgt:
No of course not I believe you 100% at all times.
I dont need a link bacause I am not Michael so I don't assign work to you.
I picked that out you dumb fuck because that almost destroyed our country. You can bet that there is something in what they came up with that will be just as bad. It just takes one big fuck up to destroy everything. Sort of like the one your mamma made when she didn't use the coat hanger like your daddy begged her to do.
baghdad mike: your guy is apparently winning big, are you here just to rub it in?
I picked that out you dumb fuck because that almost destroyed our country. You can bet that there is something in what they came up with that will be just as bad. It just takes one big fuck up to destroy everything. Sort of like the one your mamma made when she didn't use the coat hanger like your daddy begged her to do.
Why is Fake Titus here again?
Victoria: how is your mood today? I just can't take it anymore with Obama running away with it.
Dr Dre's Underpants said..."Sort of like the one your mamma made when she didn't use the coat hanger like your daddy begged her to do."
I see you're a register Republican.
Very classy.
AJ Lynch said..."I dont need a link..."
You mean, as long as you already believe it.
Michael, I have a better idea. You go fug yourself.
Why people put up with your bullcrap, I have no idea.
No Michael that is incorrect.
When a very liberal commenter (for example Madison man) writes a comment, the regulars here have faith in his sources though some disagree with his viewpoint.
So Michael, we know Madison Man and he is a lib like you. But you are no Madison Man.
MichaelTroll will continue his TrollBot activities because that's his programming. He's sort of like a Trolling Terminator, he absolutely WILL NOT stop until we are dead.
BTW, this MichaelTroll is perfect proof that Ann needs to add a banning capability or something. Is Ann aware that this troll is turning people away?
Why aren't we hearing anything here about them fro the conservatives here?
Generally speaking, conservatives have been disappointed with the fiscal behavior of the Republican Congress and President for several years.
The GOP got off to a good start in '94 by reclaiming Congress and then forcing through welfare reform.
They also exerted a great deal of fiscal restraint that helped create those Clinton surpluses, although you never seem to give them even an ounce of credit for their role in that.
Of course, defense cuts as a result of the Cold War's demise also played a big part.
Then, probably around 2002-03, the GOP Congress began wandering off the fiscal reservation in a big way, ultimately resulting in the GOP's well-deserved loss of Congress in 2006.
Since we've been disappointed in our own party for so long, I don't know exactly what you want us to say here. Do you want us unleashing emotional rants about how bad they are/were?
Sorry, we did that in 2006 and are now waiting for the party's leadership to find its way out of the fiscal desert.
Do you want us to rant and rave and say everything is Bush's fault? That would be a childish oversimplification of how our government actually works, so we're not going to play that game.
Besides, it does nothing to identify the actual policy decisions that caused the problem, thus giving us the info we need to undo those policies in an attempt to fix the problem.
At the end of the day, it seems you are more interested in self-flagellation than in a grownup conversation of how we got here and how do we prevent it from happening again.
Or put another way, you prefer the blame game.
AJ,
here is a Greenspan qupte from May 19 2005: (via CNNmoneyline)
"The strong belief of investors in the implicit government backing of the GSEs does not by itself create problems of safety and soundness for the GSEs but it does create systemic risks for the U.S. financial system as the GSEs become very large," he said.
Over the past few years Greenspan has moved from some gentle nudging of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to Thursday's outright criticism. In particular, he singled out Fannie's and Freddie's giant portfolios of mortgage-backed securities as being too risky to back up the mortgage finance system in the event of a crisis, and argued that only ultra-safe, ultra-conservative U.S. Treasury bonds would do the trick.
"Indeed, only such highly liquid portfolios would be consistent with (government-sponsored enterprises') mission of providing primary mortgage market liquidity during a crisis, particularly a financial crisis," Greenspan said.
The outcome of this debate has important implications for consumers. In the short-term, if Congress reins in Fannie and Freddie by putting stricter limits on the size of the portfolios they can build, the amount of mortgage financing they can issue, and the kinds of securities they can hold in, this could -- all else being equal -- mean their cost of borrowing would rise and the cost of home mortgage loans could go up, resulting higher mortgage rates for home buyers.
In the longer run, if such a move were to make Fannie's and Freddie's investment base less risky, it could mean that the U.S. financial system would be able to weather storms such as a recession or a big pullback in the housing market without any kind of meltdown.
But is it true that complicated problems require complicated solutions?
No.
The idea that its Barney Franks playing a major role in crafting our deliverence should cause central bankers in China sleepless nights. At least Dodd looks like he's got half a brain, at least before noon and the cocktails. Barney inspires the question "what village is missing this idiot?". I wonder how the markets are going to react this week as it sinks in that Obama and the dems really are set to grab the reins of power here.
AJ,
here is a great video that has Snow, Greenspan and MCain talking 3-5 years ago about the problem and Shumer and Frank saying "what problem?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo
Barney Frank is spouting nonsense. It's worse than circular logic.
How are we to measure a problem's complexity?
Obviously, a problem is only as complex as its best solution.
All other solutions are less elegant than the best solution, and therefore, the vast majority of solutions are more complicated than the problem itself.
For example, adding a slush fund provision to the bill to benefit ACORN's vote fraud would be completely unnecessary and would have increased the complexity of the bill.
Of course you can come up with a solution that is more complicated than a problem, because you can always come up with a more complicated solution.
Thanks Sgt.
Interesting and topical group of participants huh!
Pelosi is on TV now. She claims she has protected the taxpayer in this bill. She seems to be blaming this almost entirely on executive compensation and golden parachutes! And she will create jobs for us! How many jobs has she created before this?
LOL and we get closer and closer to the Soviet Pravda system.
Nancy almost forgot to give credit to Rep. Emanuel who has experience in the financial markets (He worked on Wall Street for 12-15 months after he left the Clinton Administartion and before he ran for Congress). In that brief time, Emanual made more than $10 million when he was there!
Woohoo- I am feeling better already!
I bet they won't ask for more money from the taxpayers for another 3-4 months!!
Someone needs to go to jail for this fiasco. We haven't even started talking about that.
What do you think this bailout is? It is a cover up. Yeah, people should go to jail. But the criminals are the ones "solving the problem".
Simple solution to this problem:
Bush should have threatened a DOJ investigation. The bailout would have been passed last week at around five- ten pages long.
You read the insanity here, the never ending sucking up to all that is conservative...and you wonder why Obama is leading in the polls, why the Democrats are leading in damn ear ever congressional poll...and why the Republicans are in deep shit??
Look up the word; "denial."
Who blew his political capital after 2004 election in pushing Congress to reform Social Security?
Bush!!!
The Dems told him to go shove it up his ass.
In 2003 Bush pushed for reform of Fannie and Freddie. The Dems on the committe who had the votes to block any reform told him to go shove it up his ass.
However, the beauty of the Democrats is never taking responsibility for anything and embracing bipartisanship only as a means to avoid responsibility.
I am firmly convinced that, like the Republicans, the Democrats will be unable to function in DC with a solid majority.
When there's nowhere to hide these parties are dysfunctional.
No solution to a problem can be more elegant than the problem itself.
I've always found penicillin to be more elegant than syphilis. YMMV.
However, the beauty of the Democrats is never taking responsibility for anything and embracing bipartisanship only as a means to avoid responsibility.
The sad thing is that people fall for their bovine excrement. They are all running for cover now. Someone should investigate the lobbying efforts of the National Real Estate Association; they are as much to blame for this mess as anyone.
Remember that this is the same Barney Frank who is so on top of his game and so brilliant that he had "no idea" that his gay lover was running a prostitution ring out of the home they shared.
Ummhmm...yeah, same guy...
reality is voters keep returning this idiot into House. So we get what we deserve. McCain missed an enormous opportunity to really turn this around and rail against Congress and Wall Street. The House Repubs did the country a huge favor. Still I'd like to see Nancy come up way short of 100 repub votes on this. I think Congress and White House are all missing the venom on this from those who have actually paid their bills.
Is it true that the Democrat party is getting a complete pass for prior economic malfeasance?
YES
How much are we agreeing to pay Acorn to promote voter fraud?
As many billion dollars as they want; especially to lend to subprime borrowers.
This is probably the most serious and complicated economic situation the world has ever faced.
You are as full of shit as David Axelrod, your paymaster.
Yeah, I also seem to remember a massive surplus when G.W. rolled into town.
You mean the phony surplus due to voodoo accounting? The surplus that never really existed at all? The big lie?
Also, too, shoring up our economy and putting Fannie and Freddie back on the right track,…
The best thing to do is to eliminate them over the next few years. Get them out. Period.
How about George W. Bush to Hitler?
How many Jews did George Bush Kill?
This is an excellent graphic putting things in perspective for those of us who cannot fathom $700 bln. Note how it dwarfs the Iraq conflict expenditures.
(Hat tip to Rob Dawg.)
dre,
If the Founders hadn't compromised about slavery, there wouldn't have been a country to almost fall apart.
bob said: The House Repubs did the country a huge favor. Still I'd like to see Nancy come up way short of 100 repub votes on this.
Agree, and I'm still proud of my congressman's stance against it because this bill is destined to be one of those historic "I was for it before I was against it bills"
To quote the Economist this week:
Although the economic risk is that the plan fails, the political risk is that the plan succeeds. Voters will scarcely notice a depression that never happened. But even as they lose their houses and their jobs, they will see Wall Street again making millions.
If this bill indeed fails to "change" the root cause of this mess, voters will need to blame someone.
It may be too late for November, but voters will punish an Obama administration by returning a mid-term Congress to demolish the Dodd-Frank alliance once and for all.
Michael: You actually think this tentative solution has taken this long, with people like Warren Buffet stepping in (which is unheard of), could have been handled via a basic "common sense" approach?
A common sense approach wouldn't have included threatening lenders with redlining if they didn't issue loans to people with bad credit.
A common sense approach wouldn't have been to issue no money down, stated income, adjustable rate mortgages to people with bad credit.
A common sense approach wouldn't funnel tons of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of ACORN, aka Voter Fraud Incorporated.
A common sense approach wouldn't have the very people who should have been overseeing the banking system, yet took campaign contributions and sweetheart loans, drafting the solution. I guarantee their solution won't call for their own ouster and prosecution.
The bail out plan is pathetic.
It's an attempt by power brokers to preserve the status quo. Unfortunately for them, their own take-the-money-and-run attitude is what got us all into this mess, and until they face up to that, it only gets worse.
Go ahead, blame it all on Barney Frank or the man in the moon.
The pain is coming, the pain will get you.
When you're ready to get real, the recovery can begin.
Not until then.
Post a Comment