I've been saying "I miss Bush" for a while. Here, I said it in a post at the end of the year. And at least one commenter said it a year ago:
Patm said...Ha! What a funny context. Patm was responding to this, from me:
I miss Bush. He never said the time for talk was over.
2/10/09 4:26 PM
Barack Obama says:That goes so deliciously well with the top story of the last couple days: Obama wanting to hold a summit with the Republicans over exactly the subject about which — a year ago — the time for talk was over.
We’ve had a good debate, but the time for talking is over.You hear that? Shut up!
Sometimes it's too late, and then, after that, it's morning again....
Posts
281 comments:
1 – 200 of 281 Newer› Newest»"Obama wanting to hold a summit with the Republicans over exactly the subject about which — a year ago — the time for talk was over."
Yes, Obama wants to put Republicans on live TV so he can ask them how they would "reform" health care. That way, Democrats have plenty of video for their ads criticizing Republicans as "health care budget cutters."
He wouldn't let C-SPAN into the Democrat negotiations on health care, but when he wants to have a conversation with Republicans, he wants the cameras in the room to record it all.
As General Ackbar would say: "It's a trap."
Any Republican who appears on a stage with Barack Obama, or anywhere near him, should be booted immediately from the Republican Party.
This is a classic Alinsky strategy of killing someone with their own words. That is all Barack Obama wants to do; he wants to get Republicans into the sinking boat with him so they can help him bail.
Why would Republicans want to help Barack Obama? The man is a socialist who hates America. As Rush Limbuagh has said time and time again, we want him to fail.
And he is failing ... all because of his policies. He's failing because he wants to turn America into East Germany. He and his band of thieves (Geithner, et al) are raping our country and stealing our industries.
Republicans sit down, shut the fuck up and let the patriots in the Tea Party do the important work of sending this fucking prick right back to Chicago on the horse he rode in on.
We'll do the heavy lifting if Republicans can just manage to sit back and enjoy the fruits of our labors without getting in our fucking way.
I would have preferred the pic of Bush when he did a chest-bump with a new graduate of the Air Force Academy. I miss a Commander-in-Chief who loved the troops.
No.
What's the point of looking back when the future is coming at you?
Let me be the first to say no......
Saw him in that Haiti ad with Clinton and said-phew, thank God! The only time I see him is shopping or eating tex mex in Dallas-right where he belongs.
Next time around let's have a conservative straight up, enough with the so-called compassion.
I'm thinking that zombie Reagan wouldn't be so bad now.
"I'm thinking that zombie Reagan wouldn't be so bad now."
We can feed him the brains of the neo-Marxists currrently infesting our government. They certainly aren't using them.
Candidate Obama railed against Bush on a number of issues. President Obama has seen fit to continue a good many of the very policies Candidate Obama railed against.
Incompetence, naivete, OJT, and a heaping helping of leftist manifesto. The country is in the best of hands.
OJT?
master cylinder: Nice try :)
It's not something Bush would say.
The billboard doesn't understand Bush, and if anything puts him down.
MadisonMan said...
What's the point of looking back when the future is coming at you?
Most of the time what's shining in the tunnel is a headlight, MM.
I miss the Bush economy. Unemployment was low.
The Barney Frank/Maxine Waters/Clinton era/ Fannie/Freddie democrat housing bubble hadn't collapsed yet.
My stock portfolio was in much better shape. There was a lot of work out there. And even after the Iraq war, our national debt was in the "billions". After one year of Obama/Pelosi/Rahm/Freidman/ Krugman economic policies - our national debt has shifted rapidly into "Trillions". Now? Life pretty much sucks.
Ah well - maybe I can get a cushy government job and live off the abundance of private sector tax payers.
Meanwhile, we all anxiously wait while the democrats attempt to cram tax-payer funded/government mandated health care "reform" down our throats. It's historic!
That ad is really pretty shocking to watch: you rarely see anything that overtly positive about America. Now displaying the flag makes some people uncomfortable. Or maybe it was already that way by 1980? I was a kid then and not aware of such things.
Uh, no.
"I miss a Commander-in-Chief who loved the troops."
You mean the corpsmen?
Bush can justly be criticized for pushing Obama Lite with his compassionate conservatism and bigger government. On the plus side he was a Patriot and believed in the exceptionalism that is America's heritage and beacon to the world. For all his flaws you could believe that he was the CinC.
Obama might as well be standing atop the Dubai building looking down on the rest of us who, according to him, are confused sheep in need of a shepherd. We can never be good enough for him whether it be our education, hard work, religious beliefs, and misguided reverence for the Constitution that would be better spent on adulation for the "one."
His religion of "humanism" has forced him into a corner and he is going for broke at our expense. He will not go quietly into the good night. It might be a stretch but the recent push for legalized marijuana as a soporific minimizes conversation in areas not directly relevant to it's continued acquisition and use.
wv: 'louta' as in stoner, layabout louta.
Unfortunately, under Bush we had wasteful deficit spending. Now that Obama is POTUS we have wonderful stimulus monetary policies. So, who's not in favor of that?
Now displaying the flag makes some people uncomfortable. Or maybe it was already that way by 1980?
Already that way in 1980, Knox. In fact, I'd say more so.
What part of 60% of the American people do not want the HC paln doesn't Obama and the Democrats understand?
Poll after poll have shown the people, us, the voters and taxpayers, do not want the Democrat bill.
His legacy is getting to be more important than the people. You progressives made history all right. His Story.
Neil Steinberg, a notorious drunk, wife beater, progressive liberal, Obama supporter, and columnist for the Chicago Sun Times claimed to have proudly displayed on MLK day. MLK was a great patriot you see.
yes, yes
Ah well - maybe I can get a cushy government job and live off the abundance of private sector tax payers.
Yeah, if things don't change, that's going to be the new "ambition" -- a lame, dead-end, lifer government job. Talk about zombies.
I know a couple who were both state workers in TN. Their combined pensions are over $100,000--and one of them retired at 48!!! It's bullshit. How is it exactly that they deserve job security, great pay, great benefits, and a plush, guaranteed retirement?
The new caste system is going to be two-tiered: the privileged government worker vs. private sector chumps. At the very bottom, like in Yertle the Turtle, will be the struggling small business owner.
Bush sent our inadequate troops to Iraq (in an unnecessary war), sent them without adequate body armor, and sent them without adequate equipment.
Why?
So hedge fund managers could pay lower tax rates than plumbers and nurses.
Any conservative who longs for the Bush era should take along look in the mirror.
The GOP is coming to the rescue. Privatize both Medicare and Social Security. Take *that* libtards!
knox-where the heck do you live?
Flags fly all over my neighborhood-
[American ones]-lots of us really love America despite what "some People" [whoever they are] think. No one owns patriotism-we all get a shot at it. I love this country and I love this president.
Things have changed since 1980.
lots of us really love America despite what "some People" [whoever they are] think. No one owns patriotism-we all get a shot at it. I love this country and I love this president.
Yes, now that Obama was elected, we can all finally be proud of our country.
Seriously, if you're trying to act as if a hell of a lot of libs aren't embarrassed by displays of patriotism, then you're a liar.
Maybe it's better than it was in 1980, as I said, I was a kid then.
@MadisonMan
OJT?
master cylinder: Nice try :)
???
I live near Wyoming, MN...
It's a red-neck enclave not too far north of the Twin Cities.
I need to reacquaint myself with Yertle the Turtle.
MM, OJT = On the Job Training (I think).
red-neck enclave
Which means, not an urban area. Too funny.
"It's a red-neck enclave not too far north of the Twin Cities."
So there is hope for the FrankenBerries.
Ah. That makes sense (What OJT means). I was thinking Orange Juice? OJ Simpson?
And if what is shining in the tunnel is a headlight, best to face it head-on than to take it up the posterior. Wistfulness for what might have been serves little practical purpose. That applies equally to missing Bush or thinking about Gore as President.
And if what is shining in the tunnel is a headlight, best to face it head-on than to take it up the posterior.
The result is the same. I think some kind of MacGyver response is called for.
I wish Fred won.
I can live with a recession, I've been through a bunch and it's no big deal, just the unstoppable pendulum.
As a young man starting out under Carter, the future looked bleak. I remember the feeling when I couldn't imagine how we would get out from under the yoke of Arabs controlling our energy and the enormous weight of double digit inflation and interest rates. The government was growing and taking more and more and handing it out to the nonproductive, like me at the time. It looked like it could never recover.
It did and big time. It took a complete change of direction That was Reagan.
Although I've lived and prospered through many recession since then, I'm quite concerned about today's dilemma. We need a drastic change of direction again and I'm not sure we are up to it. Too many of our people are dependent on the current unsustainable system. They will fight to cling to it like a sinking ship. We will see what we are made of this time.
I liked Bush, but he was not suited to deal with this problem. Compassion can backfire when dealing with addicts, and addicts are what we are.
I miss President Paul.
bagoh
The answer is ... we're not up to it.
Really.
Very well put bagoh20. I, too, have seen several recessions, including the early 80s, and I know recoveries follow the decline. What worries me this time, what appeears to be different this time, is the huge amount of debt we are poised to take on. Unprecedented debt. Debt at a time when the Social security bomb is about to go off. This needs to be stopped, or we are totally screwed. Recovery is not inevitable.
I think there are enough of us to vote for the surgery we need even though a very similar number want to take the herbal remedy that's painless, but does nothing.
The question is will we do it soon enough. Once the tumor gets very clearly fatal to all, it will be inoperable. We have some convincing work to do and fast.
I vioted for him twice, and both times it was because I felt he was the least worst choice. I would have voted for him again over Kerry. I would have voted for the Gore of 2000 over him if I had the chance again (but the Gore of 2000, not the Gore of today who I think is nuts).
So no, I do not miss him. The people of this country, namely the GOP, will someoday look day and wonder why they did not elect John McCain in 2000.
Bagoh
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. My thought, as soon as specific cuts and taxes are proposed, you will lose your votes to get meaningful work done.
Think about the senior citizens who showed up at town hall meetings when their medicare was threatened. It helped to put off health care unreform, but won't help to solve the underlying problems you and Mike cite.
I think some kind of MacGyver response is called for.
Luckily, I have a tube of toothpaste, some industrial-strength dental floss and nail scissors. That's enough to get out of any jam!
It helped to put off health care unreform, but won't help to solve the underlying problems you and Mike cite.
I agree, but I'll also point out that not taking on new debt, as the health care plan would have, is at least a start.
Luckily, I have a tube of toothpaste, some industrial-strength dental floss and nail scissors. That's enough to get out of any jam!
I feel better, now.
Palin or anyone else who is running now or in the 2012 elections would be smart to just co-opt Reagan's morning in America theme. AND co-opt Obama's hope and change theme.
The Obama logo turned out to be a setting sun rather than a rising sun.
The opposition, whoever it is, should stress that we CAN bring "Morning Back To America". The sun can rise again on our country. We can reverse the damage. Hope and a new dawning CAN happen if we get back to the fundamentals.
Overt patriotism and pride in our country will resonate with people who are tired of being told we are bad, inadequate, evil when we know we are no such thing. Small town values instead of inner city, urban elitism.
Stress the individual in business, in private life and in sacrifice to Country. BIG Government isn't the answer. Freedom to choose our lives without onerous government oversight. FREEDOM.
The voters will flock to this message. Ronald Reagan will be smiling.
I'd prefer a billboard that say's "FUCK OBAMA", but that one is fine, too.
I wish Fred had won too.
As for this billboard:
"Miss me yet?"
I do. I so do.
Pretty much miss him, and the present incumbent is making me miss having a grown-up in the White House more and more all the time.
@Florida, two questions.
First, did you ever make good on your bet concerning Scott Brown? (You might recall that I took you up on your willingness to bet that Brown would poll no more than 35% and suggested that if you lose you pay $50 into the Brown campaign.)
Second, I think you've drunk too much Democrat Kool-Aid. That is, I think you've bought into the "all Republicans are stupid" meme, along with folks like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and our own AlphaLiberal (trust me, he's a beta if ever one was) and garage mahal.
My response is on a different thread. There's a risk, but also an opportunity -- to rebrand the Republicans as the party for grown-ups. (Actually, that always was our brand, but the MSM have been doing their best for years to make acting grown-up seem like a bad thing.) At any rate, I'm even more upbeat about Republican participation after reading the formal response from Boehner and Cantor.
Be funny as hell if the "Miss Me Yet?" thing became a phenomenon, appearing on bumper stickers, pins, etc.
And yah, I miss him. His quiet, simple, dignity, very humble, his willingness to admit that his cowboy moments (bring it on!) had been a mistake.
@bagoh20 and Original, I've live through a lot of recessions, too, but what strikes me the most about this one is that the federal government doesn't seem to be trying very hard to end it.
Two hypotheses suggest themselves (and others, which are pretty much a linear combination of these two). The first is that the leadership -- Obama, Pelosi, and Reid -- are so economically illiterate, and so unwilling to listen to their own economic advisors, that they are making things worse and not better.
The other hypothesis is that they really don't care very much about the people who are hurting, and view the recession as more of an opportunity to enrich big contributors than to help the unemployed. There is a lot in the "stimulus bill" to support this hypothesis.
@Big Mike
The other hypothesis is that they really don't care very much about the people who are hurting, and view the recession as more of an opportunity to enrich big contributors than to help the unemployed. There is a lot in the "stimulus bill" to support this hypothesis.
...but that would be abjectly evil. It can't be true because the left doesn't believe evil exists...
That is, I think you've bought into the "all Republicans are stupid" meme, along with folks like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and our own AlphaLiberal (trust me, he's a beta if ever one was) and garage mahal.
I don't think dumb is the right word. Just plain nuts.
@ Big Mike
I think both corollaries are true.
1. They are ignorant of economics. None of them having ever really had to work for a living, create jobs, balance a personal budget.
2. They don't give a shit about the people and the suffering of the ordinary citizen, because this is classic....never let a good crisis go to waste.
I believe that they are intentionally creating and prolonging the recession and really don't care if we slide into another Great Depression, since this will only help them consolidate and retain power. Just like FDR.
I think the Democrats know damn well this is unsustainable, but there is nothing they can do about it with their world view. It's just not what they do. Cutting and telling people "no" is as alien as manual labor.
The current Repubs are not much better, but there are some out there and the rest are at least able to go along with the flow if it starts.
Bumper stickers
Coffee cups
I don't think dumb is the right word. Just plain nuts.
I love this one or two sentence, non-expansive kick you're on, garage. You should write bills for the Democratic congress.
"I miss Bush. He never said the time for talk was over."
I (kinda) made that same point to Beth last night. It's a liberal affectation, and very unAmerican, shutting down debate.
Definitely not The Macho Response.
What's the point of looking back when the future is coming at you?
Well MM with our crushing deficit and Spender in Chief on steroids, I for one might want to remember better times since we're on course for becoming the Weimar Republic writ large.
I don't think dumb is the right word. Just plain nuts.
One difference between a grown-up and an adolescent is that the grown-up considers the possibility that he or she might be wrong.
Funny, but here, well, not so much.
No no, a thousand times no!!!
Vicki from Pasadena
Florida, as usual fanatical wild ass accusations with no substance. Listening to Rush too much pickles your brain.
If the Republicans appear on stage with Obama it just shows that they are willing to work to get their agenda out. Good for them.
Take a chill pill
Vicki from Pasadena
I missed him his last year in office when our economy started tanking and he took forever to notice it. But what the heck, why work when you're a lame duck? I should write that on my hand so I don't forget it.
knox -
Yes, it was actually THAT BAD in 1980.
In 1980, the very same people who are arguing that we should enact ObamaCare were the very same people who were saying that capitalism had failed and that the USSR had proven the superiority of communism.
That's what made Reagan so remarkable and why he is such a hero to those who remember his time in office.
Reagan took the conventional liberal orthodoxy that it was just a matter of time before we would inevitably lose to the USSR and stood it on its head. He said NO, America is a fundamentally better place than that. That capitalism is fundamentally better system than communism. That democracy is better than totalitarianism.
It almost sounds silly today to have to argue those things, but that was where the country was under Carter.
In the intervening years, these very same folks have continued to hold those same beliefs. They just recognized that you couldn't SAY THEM OUT LOUD. The drubbing that Carter, Mondale and Dukakis all took taught these wannabe-Marxists that you had to be better at hiding your true agenda from the American public or you would get destroyed at the ballot box.
Obama made the mistake of taking the mask off. He put outright Communists in positions of power. He exalts the public sector over the private sector. He is the anti-Reagan. Everything is wrong with America - we have done wrong to everyone.
There's a reason that there is a huge spike in Reagan-nostalgia these days. It's because we have Jimmy Carter's evil-twin in the White House, and the country needs another Reaganesque politician to remind Americans that everything the Democrats are doing today has been tried before with disastrous results.
One difference between a grown-up and an adolescent is that the grown-up considers the possibility that he or she might be wrong.
Just read this thread.
garage -
"Just read this thread."
I agree. Here we are having the very same discussions that we had 30 years ago because Leftists still refuse to admit that government control doesn't work.
Grow up.
Garage is projecting again (10:56).
The Reagan-Bush ad should have been run by a conservative or tea party group during the Super Bowl -- with the addition of an updated caption. I'd bet they could have raised the money over the internet.
I think what makes the billboard so effective is the choice of photo. I mean, it's a fairly ridiculous picture. But it captures both the smirk that irritated people who didn't like him and a gleeful, vindicating "Ha ha, suckers!" for the folks who did like him or are at least particularly disappointed in Obama.
A good job provoking emotional reactions from multiple points on the political spectrum.
I just turned on Limbaugh, to get my instructions.
I agree. Here we are having the very same discussions that we had 30 years ago because Leftists still refuse to admit that government control doesn't work.
Grow up.
The problems we're having now started with Reagan policies. We just lived through 8 yrs of little or no regulations, and even the rich lost their ass under Bush. To recap, the economy fucking crumbled under Republican control. Seriously, what does that tell you?
Garage,
"The economy fucking crumbled under Republican control. Seriously, what does that tell you?"
8 years of liberals acting as obstructionists to their own country in wartime - only to vote in another 4 years of more shit we don't need or want - can be hard on the country's economy?
That's what The Macho Response got out of it anyway.
"Little or no regulations"? What was Sarbanes-Oxley, chopped liver?
I miss the Dubya that was willing to go after the bad guys and carry the war (not overseas contingency operations) to them. I miss the Dubya who tried to do right by the troops.
I don't miss the Dubya economy, built on too much spending - although Barry's deficit in one year is greater than his in eight - and having to deal with all the problems Willie swept under the rug - dot com, Enron, subprime mortgages.
save_the_rustbelt said...
Bush sent our inadequate troops to Iraq (in an unnecessary war), sent them without adequate body armor, and sent them without adequate equipment.
Our troops and equipment were more than equal to the task; the problem was they had people like Teddy Kennedy, the Dick from Illinois, Pelosi Galore, and Abscam Murtha (and you, no doubt) stabbing them in the back. As for unnecessary, the Iraq campaign destroyed Al Qaeda politically and materially.
WV "unbamis" The people who have woken up in the last year.
Why do we have to choose between Obama and Bush? That's like choosing between getting kicked in the head and kicked in the crotch. I'll let you decide who is which.
"We just lived through 8 yrs of little or no regulations"
Oh, The incredible blindness.
Bush - Clinton - Clinton - Bush - Bush. None were fiscal conservatives. All centrists with a soft spot for avoiding tough choices. We are reaping 20 years of gradual progressive movement including the biggest screw up of all: forcing and guaranteeing bad loans. That's the root cause of all this and it was straight-up, top-down regulation.
The congress needs regulated, not the people. Of course, that was the purpose of the constitution. That little law they spend all day trying to get around and usually succeeding.
The problems we're having now started with Reagan policies.
LMAO!
Oh garage you're even funnier when you try to be serious.
Oh we had regulations on the books to prevent what happened garage. They were just ignored. Then we added new ones like SOX.
But garage wants to go back to the good old days when Dem control meant stagflation. Well don't worry cause with Bambi you're gonna get it and in spades.
We just lived through 8 yrs of little or no regulations,
If this were true, I'd be on your side. But it appears to be little more than a leftie rallying cry. The causes are complicated and I am still trying to understand them, but it is clear to me that the problem was not too little regulation. The problems appear to be lax oversight (not the same thing as too little regulation, more like not using the regs you got), ridiculous loan provisions (greatly aided by political arm twisting) and too easy money (I'm looking at you, Fed).
save_the_rustbelt: Bush sent our inadequate troops to Iraq (in an unnecessary war), sent them without adequate body armor, and sent them without adequate equipment.
Oh god. Where to start? I'm just going to be nice and say that you really shouldn't comment on stuff you know nothing about.
"I missed him his last year in office when our economy started tanking and he took forever to notice it. But what the heck, why work when you're a lame duck? I should write that on my hand so I don't forget it."
Maybe what you should write is that the Dems took over congress the last two years of Bush, that's what you keep forgetting.
Our problems are a direct result of congressional actions. Bush did little to stop them, but you would have been against it anyway.
Garage: The economy fucking crumbled under Republican control. Seriously, what does that tell you
It tells me that you don't understand Economics. And that you think cycles are microwavable events.
Its like blaming Bush for 9-11 without having a clue re the events of the Clinton administration that enabled the attack.
Tits loves her daddies.
Hi Tits!
Our problems are a direct result of congressional actions. Bush did little to stop them, but you would have been against it anyway.
Is that also true now that Obama is in office?
You don't need to regulate banks from making bad loans if they know they will not be bailed out or have the option of claiming they were forced to.
This is not simply a case of lazy, lax enforcement. The cops were told to stand down by their bosses: The Congress. It was purposeful and those guys are still calling the shots.
@MM
Our problems are a direct result of congressional actions. Bush did little to stop them, but you would have been against it anyway.
Is that also true now that Obama is in office?
The unbelievable and unprecedented actions of the Democratic-controlled Congress under what they perceived to be cart-blanch from the WH led directly to the formation of the Tea Party movement.
How's that working out for the Democracts heading into 2010's elections?
To continue the train theme: Either you say the President is in the Engine, leading, or he's in the caboose, following. My Presidents -- all of them -- are not in the caboose.
Like it or not, I blame them when things go wrong, and give them credit when things improve.
To continue the train theme: Either you say the President is in the Engine, leading, or he's in the caboose, following.
Good analogy, but one more apt, I think, would be the administrator of a day-care center for preschoolers.
Is that also true now that Obama is in office?
If they pass his budget, yes.
You don't need to regulate banks from making bad loans if they know they will not be bailed out or have the option of claiming they were forced to.
Yep.
Either you say the President is in the Engine, leading, or he's in the caboose, following. My Presidents -- all of them -- are not in the caboose.
Like it or not, I blame them when things go wrong, and give them credit when things improve.
Agree. They are the Deciders, after all. : )
This is not simply a case of lazy, lax enforcement. The cops were told to stand down by their bosses: The Congress.
Yes, yes, yes. It is a convenient oversimplification--and untruth--to claim that it was an unregulated free market that caused this situation.
The scariest result of all this to me is not even the tanking economy. It's the unholy alliance between the "Too Big to Fails" and Big Government. The notion that you can be rewarded with taxpayer money for bad business practices... truly frightening.
Speaking of chopped liver, I had the weirdest dream. I was imagining what would go good with it, how to make a paté incorporating oats holding together inexpensive chicken liver and forming it into meatballs instead of a bread pan shape, breading it and deep-frying it for a crunchy exterior. Okay, here's the weird part: in the dream I was contriving it served in pop-up card form with tiny dee-fried chopped liver meatballs arranged in rows inside a card so that when opened a paper tool was presented to grab the chopped liver paté meatball and dip it in the tzatziki in a pocket in the center of the two rows of meatballs. Then I woke up and thought, "That's a good idea, but why a card? That part is so impractical it's stupid. Just make the meatballs and sauce and be done with it." And now I won't get the idea of deep-fried breaded chopped chicken liver with oats out of my mind until I actually do the part that seems practical.
The cops were told to stand down by their bosses: The Congress
Same thing happened in the 80's with the Savings and Loan industry, with similar results.
Hell no I don't miss Bush, in fact every time I see him it puts the relatively minor disappointment I have in Obama's first year in perspective. I shudder to think of the state of the economy if Bush was still in power. Would he understand that cutting government spending during a severe recession can turn it quickly into a full scale depression? What policies would he have undertaken that would have turned a -6.4% GDP into a + 5.7 GDP in 9 months as has happened under Obama? More tax cuts? He already passed the largest tax cuts in history and we ended up losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month during the last months of his presidency, at cost of $2.8 trillion if the tax cuts aren't allowed to expire. And you think Obama's deficits are too big? Bush is lucky he didn't have to deal with the mess he handed to Obama - so are we.
Fen wrote: "Garage: The economy fucking crumbled under Republican control. Seriously, what does that tell you?"
It tells me that you don't understand Economics. And that you think cycles are microwavable events.
It also tells us that Garage was in a coma from '06-'08 while the collapse began under a Dem controlled Congress.
The caboose is now a FRED. The President, alas, is not.
Compassionate, enlightened liberals who voted for Al Franken 6 times will vandalize this sign by the end of the week.
MadisonMan said...
No. What's the point of looking back when the future is coming at you?
I couldn't agree more.
ricpic said...
Next time around let's have a conservative straight up, enough with the so-called compassion.
Okay. Jeb Bush 2012. Twice the straight up conservative, with half the compassiony aftertaste.
Matt -
It's hard to address the vast array of ignorant thoughts you expressed in your last posts, but here's a couple of thoughts:
- Read a little history about how damaging FDR's vast expansion of government during the Great Depression actually was. When you put yourself a little knowledge about the actual effects of public spending crowding out private investment, then you can come back and do something other than regurgitate the ahistorical nonsense you've been spoonfed.
- Trying to blame tax cuts for the economic mess created by the federal government's demands for banks to loan money to people who obviously weren't qualified to borrow it is not just ignorant, it's ignorance on stilts.
- Citing that 5.7% growth shows just how little you understand about what feeds GDP numbers. Most of the growth occurred as companies stocked up for Christmas during October and November - then wholesale inventories were slashed during December. It was a temporary bump which is reversing itself. And you're working off obviously overstated preliminary numbers which will inevitably be revised downward as were the obviously incorrect claims that 3rd quarter growth of 3.5% which mysteriously dropped to 1.5% a couple of months later.
- This recession has already gone on longer than previous recessions, and if you don't think that has anything to do with the economic uncertainty introduced by Democratic threats to regulate and tax businesses to death through ObamaCare, Cap'n'Tax, etc., then you really should ignore the comment box on any topic involving economics because you would just embarrass yourself with anything you would write on the subject.
The one thing I do admire about Bush is that he has retreated. I think it would be easy to react to vitriol from his opponents, and to his credit, he just sits on his hands, so to speak.
It's the old line: How can we miss you if you don't go away? Bush has gone away.
You had better be careful expressing admiration of Reagan's leadership, Althouse. The Rightist commenters here might start calling you a Che-style leader-worshiper.
That poster of W makes me think of him as a Gremlin. Don't get him wet or his stupido-folksism will multiply. And if you feed him after midnight, he'll turn into something nasty and green and take over your town's movie theater.
Back to the Reagan video:
When morning in America does come again, it'll be with a hangover from the baby boom generation. Boomers make crappy leaders; Obama just moves the crappy leadership in a whole new crappy direction. Give me a good ole-fashioned Margaret Thatcher!
I miss the Iron Lady.
She should be made King of America again.
Yay Tories!
Boomers make crappy leaders
...and herein is the genesis of pretty much everything we're arguing about in this thread. Sure, it's a generalization worth of having been posted by garage mahal, but, in this singular case, it's true.
Take a parental group of penny-pinching, overbearing zealotry that won WWII, sprinkle in societal affluence at a level the world has never witnessed before, and give it a dash of entitlement mentality and you've got what we're now saddled with.
JRH said: "You had better be careful expressing admiration of Reagan's leadership, Althouse. The Rightist commenters here might start calling you a Che-style leader-worshiper."
You do realize that the biggest problem with "Che-style-leader-worshipers" is that Che's leadership involved totalitarianism and killing lots of people, right?
cutting government spending
Has that ever happened, since the end of WWII? And what part of $700 billion for TARP was a cut?
Even those horrible Reagan budget "cuts" were real increases.
You don't need to regulate banks from making bad loans if they know they will not be bailed out or have the option of claiming they were forced to.
Not one bank was forced to make a bad loan. Where did you get such rubbish?
Althouse's line says it all: Sometimes it's too late, and then, after that, it's morning again...
and, yes, i miss Bush. A lot.
The notion that you can be rewarded with taxpayer money for bad business practices... truly frightening.
But not surprising. I mean I laughed my muscular buttocks off when Obama was OUTRAGED over Wall Street bonuses. How DARE they give themselves bonuses after the taxpayer bailed them out.
Um...its called welfare Obama. I mean WTF did you think was going to happen? This is why I don't believe in welfare, corporate or social because all it does is encourage poor behavior. Whether you're a corporate suit or a welfare queen, handouts do nothing but ensure future poor behavior.
In short, why do the right thing when Uncle Sugar will be there to save me? It's called human nature.
Sarah Palin does not have confidence enough in the teabaggers being relevant enough to do anything but assimilate into the Republican Party.
Even she is astute enough to want to distance herself from the "Patriots" (one code phrase for advocates of armed violence).
" Matt said...
Hell no I don't miss Bush, in fact every time I see him it puts the relatively minor disappointment I have in Obama's first year in perspective. I shudder to think of the state of the economy if Bush was still in power. Would he understand that cutting government spending during a severe recession can turn it quickly into a full scale depression? What policies would he have undertaken that would have turned a -6.4% GDP into a + 5.7 GDP in 9 months as has happened under Obama? More tax cuts? He already passed the largest tax cuts in history and we ended up losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month during the last months of his presidency, at cost of $2.8 trillion if the tax cuts aren't allowed to expire. And you think Obama's deficits are too big? Bush is lucky he didn't have to deal with the mess he handed to Obama - so are we.
2/9/10 12:14 PM"
Dude what is that stuff you are drinking? It sounds like the most wondrous wish fulfillment drug of choice ever discovered. I bet if I took a swig I would see pink flying elephants and dancing cows!
Actually Bush was not exactly a conservative, unlike his brother Jeb. Now it takes a great deal of gall to blame Bush for Obama wasting more money in on year than Bush wasted in eight. Obumbler has spent his entire administration to date blaming Bush for everything except when called on why he is doing this or that his defense is Bush did it as well. Hilary Clinton was right in one respect about Obumbler, he was not ready to govern on day one, still isn't and will never be. That Sarah Palin is vastly more competent to be president than the current fool demonstrates just how stupid politically the democratic party has become.
As has been noted before when something cannot go on, it won't. The democratic circus will come to an end in 2012 and the medicine to cure the country from it's destructive policies will be painful indeed however necessary and needed.
Garage...Actually a Bank faced with competing with other banks for profitable business would never have stayed in business without making the good loans back then that have gone bad now as a result of the World's capital savings quit begging to invest here and creat a price bubble. The only way to avoid the disaster was for a bank to stop lending and wait seven years for the collapse.
"Boomers make crappy leaders"
Amen. Looking at Clinton,Bush,Obama during the Haiti press conference, I couldn't help thinking "is this the best we can do?" Throw Pelosi, McConnell and Reid in the mix and it's cause for despair...
I'm sure if some GOP proposed legislation that required a minimum of 15%-20% down on any purchase of real estate our liberal friends would be screaming bloody murder that such restrictions would be unfair to the 'working poor' and dare I say, racist?
Prove me wrong girls.
The only way to avoid the disaster was for a bank to stop lending and wait seven years for the collapse.
Not true. There are thousands of banks that have continued to lend are in great shape financially and needed not a penny from the Feds.
"
garage mahal said...
You don't need to regulate banks from making bad loans if they know they will not be bailed out or have the option of claiming they were forced to.
Not one bank was forced to make a bad loan. Where did you get such rubbish?
2/9/10 12:51 PM"
Redlinning is illegal. If it were not, then almost all the junk home loans would have never been made. Then again if democrats had never created a Fanny and Freddy with the full face faith and credit of the US to back them no one would had the stones to lend to such debtors.
Republicans are not exactly angels in this disaster, they didn't mind making money out of the situation but it was the democrats that put all the elements in play that led to this debacle. Their's is the lion's share of the fault.
(One of the many Joe's it seems)
Boomers make terrible leaders...tell that to our military, I'm sure Schwartzkopf and Barry McCaffrey will be interested to hear this.
Boomers make terrible leaders, looking at Obama, Clinton, and Bush...have you looked at the British and French leaders from 1919-39?
Being a Boomer or not really has NOTHING to do with your ability to lead or your inability to do so.
but it was the democrats that put all the elements in play that led to this debacle.
...and bold-faced lied both to the media (ie we the people) and in committee (ie our elected reps) claiming that there was no pending crisis.
When I heard in 2007 that they were going to "open up the bank window" and give selected banks up to $500B, I knew we were in deep shit.
@Joe
Boomers make terrible leaders, looking at Obama, Clinton, and Bush...have you looked at the British and French leaders from 1919-39
You are absolutely the first person I have every seen trying to put lipstick on the Boomer pig by comparing American Boomers to their European contemporaries.
No starker apples to oranges exists short of comparing actual apples and oranges.
No starker apples to oranges exists short of comparing actual apples and oranges.
I'm sorry your logic eluded me. I point out at least TWO Boomer Leaders, as proof of the fact Boomers make good leaders and then point out two nations that suffered a dearth of leadership at a critical point in their histories, to demonstrate failure to produce "leaders" (a nebulous term you might want to define better) has NOTHING to do with being born and reared 1946-64.
Please explain your complaint a bit better to me.
@Joe
Whoops...just re-read your comment (and my reposting of it, lol) and caught the actual years. -1 for reading comprehension.
Now, though, I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make.
(one of the multiplicity)
Scott, then see above....
@Garage:
So the banks that weren't too big to fail, didn't fail? Then it sounds like the solution is for the banks to never get too big to fail.
It occurs to me that with Obama's mishandling of healthcare reform, and Bush's failed attempt at Social Security reform, that if there were adults in both parties that wanted to get something done, and be able to claim victory over, they could have compromised and gotten something done on both of these things.
Want to get Republicans on board? Then do something about Social Security in this law. It's a demographic time bomb as well. In the end, the reason the Dems are trying to do healthcare reform is "bending the cost curve" for the government. They don't really care if businesses or individuals wind up paying more for health care in the long run, as long as they can do something about the fact that health care costs for the government will crowd out other social spending.
But this is a non-starter. Before Bush tried to do Soc. Security reform, everyone knew that Soc. Security was on an unsustainable trajectory. But as soon as Bush brought up partial privatization, suddenly, Dems responded that there was no need for it: Soc. Security was fine, there's no need to change anything! You can't trust the Republicans on this, they'll throw grandma out of her house into the snow!
If even this were true, which it isn't, it still doesn't come anywhere near the massive losses the big banks incurred. Funny you mention Fannie and Freddie, they ran flawlessly for decades until they were privatized. It must be a pleasing thought though that the poor and minorities are solely to blame for the trillions these banks lost.
Soc. Security was fine, there's no need to change anything! You can't trust the Republicans on this, they'll throw grandma out of her house into the snow!
Soc. Sec will be fine. Simply take the cap off the FICA and oila, problem solved.
The Democratic motto is there no no problem in the world that can't be solved with the proper application of higher taxes.
InstaPundit, Althouse, and all the hardcore anti-Obama bloggers are heavily pushing this notion that people across America miss George W. Bush even as we still suffer under the severe harm he did to our country. Now one billboard some right-winger out up is supposedly "proof" that America misses Bush.
Meanwhile, Althouse dismissed the recent poll revealing how extremist the right-wingers are getting. Althouse's favorite web star, Matt Drudge, has a link on his web site to Alex Jones' web site Prison Planet.
That web site pushes all the right-wing conspiracy theories, as well as 9/11 Trutherism. The story the Drudge Report links to at Prison Planet is not a crazy story, but Drudge could've chosen any number of other sites to link to the same thing. Instead, he chooses to promote that crazy web site.
However much people don't care for some of what Obama is doing, the right-wing will not beat him in the next election if they continue to go this crazy route. I even saw a right wing blogger on the Joy Behar show last night screaming at Ronald Reagan's son and claiming she knew his father more than he did! She did this because Ron Reagan Jr. noted that Ronald Reagan would have thought Sarah Palin was a joke.
Anyway, I don't know how anyone could miss the president who put America's economy on the brink of collapse. Maybe tenured law professors have been too walled off from the severity of the economic problems that resulted from 8 years of an incompetent administration.
Funny you mention Fannie and Freddie, they ran flawlessly for decades until they were privatized.
Shorter garage:
Only the State can do it better.
In this case, the state did do it better.
It must be a pleasing thought though that the poor and minorities are solely to blame for the trillions these banks lost.
Garage, would you support legislation that required the borrower to have a minimum of 10% down for the purchase of a home?
Yes or No?
shorter garage - LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE all the time.
(one of a plethora)
Garage Fannie and Freddie WEREN'T "Privatized" under Bush were they? Nothing changed about them under Bush, so you're saying that Clinton and before him Bush 41 made a change? I'm confused....
And so now the "state" will do a better job than the state did before? Because Fannie and Freddie were NOT private entities, as evidenced by the money, Federal poured, into them and the fact that their management and boards were larded with lawyers who had served their political masters well.
This thread, too, reminds me of the talk I had with Beth the other day:
The reason y'all can't agree on shit is because you refuse to nail anything down as a starting point, so each side is able to continually spout bullshit, willy-nilly, with no way (or no one) to say what's true, or point out who's screaming foolishness.
Now I know that Bush, McCain, and the Republicans warned us about the mortgage crisis - long before it happened - so maybe y'all might want to start there when you attempt to assign blame.
Reality:
Government always increases, whether Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton, Dubya, Obama.
But garage would have us believe that somehow Reagan shrunk government and reduce the regulation pile. Cite? He don't need NO stinkin' cite!!!
Cracke - what's the point? Beth, garage are shit-slinging monkeys with the froth coming out of their mouths. Your seriously think we can debate with them?
Boomers make crappy leaders
That may be, but nothing I've seen from any generation following ours suggests that the quality of leadership will improve after we exit the stage.
Wait! Maybe we don't have to miss W:
"But I think that the most important thing for the public to understand is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush Administration handled them all through 9/11."
Garage Fannie and Freddie WEREN'T "Privatized" under Bush were they?
Oh no. They were privatized by none other than Mr. Great Society himself.
Yes garage, a Democrat.
Then there is This
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.[10] Because of the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans.
@Big Mike
That may be, but nothing I've seen from any generation following ours suggests that the quality of leadership will improve after we exit the stage.
If that's true, it's because Boomers make crappy parents too.
@Meade, I agree. Jeb Bush, all the way! If you go back to old threads, I've been saying that for months now.
(Of course most of the time with tongue planted firmly in cheek, but I think the Republicans will put up a current or former governor in 2012.)
Meanwhile, Althouse dismissed the recent poll revealing how extremist the right-wingers are getting. Althouse's favorite web star, Matt Drudge, has a link on his web site to Alex Jones' web site Prison Planet.
That web site pushes all the right-wing conspiracy theories, as well as 9/11 Trutherism. The story the Drudge Report links to at Prison Planet is not a crazy story, but Drudge could've chosen any number of other sites to link to the same thing. Instead, he chooses to promote that crazy web site.
I've googled around and found that Rush Limbaugh was promoting the Alex Jones Prison Planet web site, as well, in November '09.
I didn't actually believe Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs that the GOP Sarah Palin base were starting to get into 9/11 Truther nutcase Alex Jones, even though LGF pointed out that Fox News Channel's Judge Napalo(sp?)tano was a frequent guest on the Alex Jones Show.
But It is rather disturbing that the Drudge Report is sending hundreds of thousands of links to an Alex Jones web site, when he could link to the same news story from other sites.
I guess that DailyKos poll last week had a point to make. The GOP Sarah Palin base is getting rather extremist as they go out of their minds trying to take down Barack Obama.
" garage mahal said...
If even this were true, which it isn't, it still doesn't come anywhere near the massive losses the big banks incurred. Funny you mention Fannie and Freddie, they ran flawlessly for decades until they were privatized. It must be a pleasing thought though that the poor and minorities are solely to blame for the trillions these banks lost.
2/9/10 1:31 PM"
They were privatized by LBJ. Not a republican. Madoff's Ponzi scheme ran flawlessly for decades as well. A scam however long it runs it runs is still a scam. No one but no one would have ever bought the Freddie/Fanny paper without the the full backing of the US government. Banks are not charities, they are in business to lend other people's money to people who can actually repay the loans. When regulators and Congress essentially force banks to lend to those who never would qualify on their own, which is exactly what the democrats have done, it's their fault, not that of the bankers. I'm sure back in 2003 through 2007 you would have quite fine if Congress held the bank regulators feet to their fire and disallowed no doc loans, no downpayment loans, no income verification loans and loans more than twice the purported annual income. I do remember the Bush Administration making some efforts to stop this in 2005 and the democrats calling the Bush Administration alarmists over this. True Bush could have been and should have been firmer about this but then again the democrats could have raised the issue themselves and done something about it. Somehow you must have missed that part of the story.
Garage: "they ran flawlessly for decades until they were privatized" The agencies never ran flawlessly but they ran with fewer flaws when they were providing loans to thoroughly vetted borrowers who had a means of repayment. Their "privatization" could hardly be called that since they became, in essence, a Government agency with private pay levels or from a bureaucrat's point of view the best of both worlds.
As to their being "thousands" of banks that continue to lend and who are not experiencing any difficulties I presume you are talking about the banks on Jupiter. There are no U.S. banks that have been immune to the current credit crisis. None.
If that's true, it's because Boomers make crappy parents too.
And the folks that object the loudest to any changes in Medicare or Social Security, the Boomers parents! So I guess the grand-parents were bad parents, too...
I'm extremely leery of making a generational claim about competence or incompetence....I don't think Boomers are any more or less leaders than any other generation, plus this thread ignores Gates, Jobs and Wozniak, plus the many who transformed the US economy. So two questions:
1) Aren't hey "Boomers" or
2) Aren't they leaders?
Thansk, Scott. We Boomers just don't get much love. [sigh]
Loafingoaf:
I couldn't agree more about the severe damage done to our country by GWB. We are having a party at my house to which you are invited to celebrate the closing of Gitmo and the restoration of human rights, dignity and the U.S. Constitution. I can't remember whether it is next week or the week after but its coming up pretty soon. We have some "Blood for Oil" and "Bush Lied" paper plates. It is going to take years and years to get over GWB. Perhaps forever.
The GOP Sarah Palin base is getting rather extremist as they go out of their minds trying to take down Barack Obama.
@Loafing, you and garage can hate Republicans in general and Sarah Palin in particular all you want. But the source of Barack Obama's troubles is Barack Obama and no one else.
By the way, your handle. You wouldn't be from the Slacker generation, would you?
@Big Mike...and any other resident boomer...
Full disclosure: I'm not rational on this subject. Honestly. My parents are boomers and I love them dearly. However, the weren't in the college-educated, public/private leadership roles that we're really talking about.
To distill it down, as far as the crap we're dealing with today, in the aggregate, I believe the Boomers net an aggregate negative rather than positive for the country as a whole.
I believe the Boomers net an aggregate negative rather than positive for the country as a whole.
Compared to the alternative?
I mean, it's not like there were parallel experiments running or anything. Who knows what kind of deep doodoo the country would be in (maybe) if the Boomers weren't around.
Which brings us full circle: Why wring your hands about what might have been, or how things used to be?
This a direct result of government trying to override the market with good intentions (buying votes). You can go to youtube and watch congressmen (Barney Frank) berate regulators in hearings for wanting to reel this in years before it was too late. Barney won, just like Obama won. Guess who lost?
Essentially, the taxpayers were forced to make bad loans because "everyone should own their home". Now many can't pay because everyone can't own their home. In other words you can't get around the market forever. It will eventually exert it's power every time.
This is the main difference between the wise and unwise in our modern world.
Michael: Closing Gitmo is not one of my pet issues or obsessions. But if you wanna talk War on Terrorism, the biggest broken promise was from Bush, when he said we'd smoke out Usama bin Laden and capture or kill him. Instead he let bin Laden escape from the battle of Tora Bora and diverted us into Iraq.
LoafingOaf - if you think capturing/not capturing Bin Laden means anything in the larger "war of civilizations" you are really dumb. Now of course Bush was dumb to hype Usama up so big, that just played right into the liberals hands.
(Joe, the one who is a very late born Boomer)
I believe the Boomers net an aggregate negative rather than positive for the country as a whole.
Really so those Medals of Honour won by Boomers in Vietnam, mean nothing? The Boomers who built the US economy into THE most dynamic, versatile, rich, and productive economies, thru the multiple Oil Shocks, the Civil Rights Movement and the Feminist Movement, integrating millions of previously un-employed or under-employed womyn and Blacks, all the while making the US the economic engine of the world, creating the High-Tech/Information Economy we now live in, they were a net negative?
You might want to step back from your belief...I realize that you're not "rational" on this, but you might want to re-think your antipathy, just a little.
And this is from someone who really doesn’t “like” Boomers, either….but you know once you move past the stereotypes and jokes, and start looking at the US from the 1970’s on…the Boomers didn’t do bad, or wholly bad.
You can buy the bumper sticker at Cafe Press. Had one on my truck for 2 months now. I also have a really cool Miss Me Yet? T shirt that causes my oldest daughter to barf when she comes to visit. It's the little things that makes life worthwhile.
LoafingOaf: So you believe that Osama B. the man of a video a week in the pre-9-11 days, the man who has resorted to 100% radio silence is still alive? You believe the caves of Tora Bora bull? You make me laugh out loud. Let OBL escape indeed. OBL was long ago atomized and exits as a handy tool of this and the last administration to permit our friends in the religion of peace to think we are hapless. Which comments like yours reinforce. Tora Bora. HA.
MM
I don't pine for something that could have been, necessarily, but I do bemoan the fact that we have pretty much squandered everything the Boomers were given. We used to have among the best public education. We used to have among the best manufacturing and innovation. We used to do a lot of things a lot better than just about everyone else. We had such an amazing strategic lead on everyone else that it really shocks me to my gamer core to think we pissed it all away in just about every sector.
Oh, we still make a mean 3D flik and our music industry is second to none, but...bread and circuses.
Just to put the icing on the cake, the Boomers are responsible for PC. Not all Boomers, but it came out of your generation. The worst we've foisted upon the world thus far is the Macarena :)
Big Mike: You thought Obama was a failed president the day after he took office. So far, I think it's a mixed bag and I don't know how good a prez he'll prove to be or not be. But in order for the GOP to defeat Obama in an election they need to first nominate a good candidate to run against him. Since all you guys are pushing Sarah Palin, and Sarah Palin doesn't even know the difference between North and South Korea, I kinda doubt the GOP is gonna come up with someone good.
It's sorta like how the Democrats thought it was a given they would beat Bush in 2004, but then they chose to run Kerry against him.
LoafingOaf - stop saying "all you guys". Some of us have different opinions, jerk.
@Scott, we need to divide the question.
First, it's a fact that MSM outlets like the NYT and Washington Post have been on a "blame the Boomers" kick for well over a decade. A few years ago I noted a snide remark in a Post article hammering seventy year old Baby Boomers. Since the first Boomer was born in January 1946, even today the oldest Boomer is just 64.
I've been assuming that this is part of a long-term liberal strategy to deny Social Security and Medicare benefits to us Boomers. Only I've been paying the maximum Social Security contribution annually since very shortly after I left graduate school, which I'm pretty certain is over $250K in straight dollars and way more than that inflation-adjusted. Politicians had best understand that although I don't expect to get all of that back, I certainly expect to get a lot of it back.
But I digress.
Second point, is that you mistake the Ivy-educated for the rest of us college educated. Those folks have strange ideas, including Bush (undergraduate degree from Yale, Harvard MBA). Most of the rest of us have lived all our lives in the real world, and don't much care for what the NYT's David Brooks famously called "the educated class."
(Like he could pass a test in differential equations.)
There is one thing that we love about Bush!
Without that you have nothing.
the biggest broken promise was from Bush, when he said we'd smoke out Usama bin Laden and capture or kill him. Instead he let bin Laden escape from the battle of Tora Bora and diverted us into Iraq.
That’s about silly…so Bush is responsible for Usama avoiding being killed. Geez, do you blame the USAAF, the RAF, the US Army, and the British Army for failing to kill Hitler, too? I mean it’s an interactive process, we want him/Hitler/Usama dead, but he/Hitler/Usama wish to remain UNDEAD, so why can’t we give credit to Usama for his successful efforts to remain undead?
And if we had killed Usama at Tora Bora, so what? Do you think AQ or the Taliban would have folded up shop? Please move past the “talking points”.
And Bush let him escape, really was it LIHOP or MIHOP? Geeeeez, dude/dudette move on past the conspiracies or move on over to Jones’ “Prison Planet” with that silly stuff.
"That may be, but nothing I've seen from any generation following ours suggests that the quality of leadership will improve after we exit the stage."
The cream of experienced military leadership has between 14-24 years of experience, which puts today's military essentially under the operational control of Generation X.
There are Boomers in the very senior ranks and Gen Y types as junior officers and NCOs, but operational decision at battalion and brigade levels (where the boots are on the ground) is dominated by the group I described.
Instead he let bin Laden escape from the battle of Tora Bora and diverted us into Iraq.
The day I see bin Laden's sour puss on a video next to that other Islamoloser that's always mouthing off then I'll believe he escaped and isn't a brown stain somewhere.
No one but no one would have ever bought the Freddie/Fanny paper without the the full backing of the US government. Banks are not charities, they are in business to lend other people's money to people who can actually repay the loans. When regulators and Congress essentially force banks to lend to those who never would qualify on their own, which is exactly what the democrats have done, it's their fault, not that of the bankers.
This is just crazy talk. Nobody forced anybody to lend to anybody. Fannie and Freddie don't lend money to poor people, minorities, or anyone else. They purchase from private lenders who underwrite them. I lived in south Florida from 2003-2006 during the heyday of flipping houses, it was completely crazy. No credit, no doc loans.....Fannie and Freddie have problems for sure, but they never held more than 30% of all the subprimes because of the fact they were held to higher lending standards than the unregulated players in the private sector.
The only way to avoid the disaster was for a bank to stop lending and wait seven years for the collapse
Which is what the smart banks are trying to do right now.
Why would I want to lend to you at 5% return, when I know for certain that in a few years I will be forced to pay out to demand depositors at least 3 to 5 basis points higher.
I get 5% from you and I pay out 8% for depositors.
In addition the money that I lend to you today at a dollar for dollar basis will be paid back in devalued dollars. A dollar today will buy $1.00 of goods. A dollar in 5 years will likely buy .50 of the same goods. In other words the future value of the money is less than the current value.
So not only am I (the bank) lending to you at cheap rates. I am going to be getting back devalued money in the future AND will be paying out higher rates on my liabilities.
Its a lose lose lose for the Banks. Is it any wonder they don't want to lend? They can see the handwriting on the wall and the future bank failures if they are forced to go the way that the RETARDS in Congress and the IDIOT in the White House want to force.
Hey Trooper, now that was the Boomers' fault.
This is just crazy talk. Nobody forced anybody to lend to anybody
Don't keep repeating this lie. I was a commercial and retail lender and the CRA rules literally forced Banks to make loans that they would not have otherwise made.
I was FORCED to approve loans that I would NEVER had approved because the Bank would not be able to expand or grow branches if we didn't meet our CRA guidelines and quotas
In fact I quit being a lender and began my current career for the very reason that I was being told to make BAD loans which would then go against my loan portfolio score and prevent my promotions and bonuses.
So don't fucking tell me that no one was forced.
You are telling a complete lie.!!
Fannie and Freddie have problems for sure, but they never held more than 30% of all the subprimes because of the fact they were held to higher lending standards than the unregulated players in the private sector.
garage I'll try again. Do you support legislation that requires borrowers to put down at least 10% toward the purchase of a home.
Its a real easy question.
Joe,
"The Boomers who built the US economy into THE most dynamic, versatile, rich, and productive economies"
They didn't build the U.S. economy into that, that was the position it was in when the WWII generation handed it off to them.
garage mahal said...
No one but no one would have ever bought the Freddie/Fanny paper without the the full backing of the US government. Banks are not charities, they are in business to lend other people's money to people who can actually repay the loans. When regulators and Congress essentially force banks to lend to those who never would qualify on their own, which is exactly what the democrats have done, it's their fault, not that of the bankers.
This is just crazy talk. Nobody forced anybody to lend to anybody. Fannie and Freddie don't lend money to poor people, minorities, or anyone else. They purchase from private lenders who underwrite them.
Not only a lie, but one that's at the heart of the banking/real estate mess. The whole purpose of Willie's addition to the CRA was to be able to force banks to make those bad loans. The power of the feds to coerce was the object of the exercise. I hope all the conservatives, independents, and moderates who miss Willie consider this.
PS If you're going to tell a whopper, try to make up one a little less obvious.
Garage: "This is just crazy talk. Nobody forced anybody to lend to anybody."
Well, the Community Reinvestment Act was pretty crazy but it did have what some people would call requirements to lend to "subprime" borrowers. But, heh, that was just a Federal Law.
The whole purpose of Willie's addition to the CRA was to be able to force banks to make those bad loans.
I provided a link proving that very point but for some, truth can really sting.
LoafingOaf -
I even saw a right wing blogger on the Joy Behar show last night screaming at Ronald Reagan's son and claiming she knew his father more than he did!
My dog knew Ronald Reagan better than Ron Reagan does.
He and his father had absolutely ZERO relationship. His only relationship with President Reagan was sharing his name. Behar tried to make a BS claim about Reagan's ideology and Ron Reagan claimed he knew something which he obviously didn't.
If not for trading on his family name, no one would even know who he was.
What is it with you Leftists who only want to tell half the truth and leave out the part that puts the complete lie to the part you DID tell?
Take your dishonest BS somewhere else.
Garage, The congress prevented the regulators from enforcing and promised the banks protection for those "crazy" loans. This is what changed the game. Banks did not do this before.
I agree regulation is needed, but it would need to be regulation preventing government interference. The rest was already there.
In garage's world the CRA doesn't exist. People like Barney Frank who took the lead in shooting down Bush's attempt to reform Fannie and Freddie before it was too late because he claimed - right up until the very end - that there wasn't a problem and no need to reform the institution.
garage's world is very different from the one the rest of us live in, and no, I'm not sure that even he knows what color the sky is in that world either....
You thought Obama was a failed president the day after he took office.
Umm, where do you get that? I didn't have much hope for Obama when he took office, particularly having researched his mixed results as a community organizer (see this article for a very even-handed treatment of his years organizing Altgeld Gardens), his failure leading the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and his overall background as a Chicago politican. But this time last year I had hopes that I had underestimated him. But today I realize that if anything I overestimated him. Speaking on the Charlie Rose Show, Nancy Pelosi made it plain back before the 2008 election that she expected to be able to roll Obama, and I'd say that she certainly has.
Since all you guys are pushing Sarah Palin ...
Not all of us. Most of us that like her mostly like the way she gets under the Democrats' skins. I grant you that there are some who see her as the GOP standard bearer in 2012, but I'm not among them. As long as Democrats and their lackeys in the MSM are railing against Palin or Cheney or Limbaugh, they aren't railing against people who are viable candidates in 2012.
Michael:
I guess i'm being a loafing oaf quoting Wikipedia, but I think this is an accurate summary of the best info we have: According to The Washington Post, the US government concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the Battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan in late 2001, and according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge, failure by the US to commit US ground troops to hunt him led to his escape and was the gravest failure by the US in the war against al Qaeda. Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border.
The Washington Post also reported that the CIA unit composed of their special operations paramilitary forces dedicated to capturing Osama was shut down in late 2005.
Way to go, George W. Bush! I can see why the right-wingers think you were such a terrific commander in the war on terrorism! I dunno, I would've thought America would have made it the highest priority to capture or kill the people who planned the 9/11 attack. Apparently the Bush administration had other fish to fry, though. Bin Laden knocked down our Twin Towers, socked our Pentagon, and killed thousands of civilians; the U.S. military had bin Laden pinned down at Tora Bora; then we let him go. A shocking failure.
And this is how the hunt for bin Laden was going when the baton was handed to Obama (also from Wiki):
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in December 2009 that officials have had no reliable information on Bin Laden's whereabouts for "years". One week later, general Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said in December 2009 that al-Qaeda will not be defeated unless its leader, Osama Bin Laden, is captured or killed. Testifying to the U.S. Congress, he said Bin Laden had become an "iconic figure, whose survival emboldens al-Qaeda as a franchising organization across the world", and that Obama's deployment of 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan meant that success would be possible. "I don't think that we can finally defeat al-Qaeda until he's captured or killed", McChrystal said of Bin Laden. Killing or capturing Bin Laden would not spell the end of al-Qaeda, but the movement could not be eradicated while he remained at large.
Needless to say, if we capture or kill bin Laden under President Obama's command, the right-wingers would be quite upset. But, I guess that's unlikely, as Bush allowed bin Laden to so thoroughly escape that we may never figure out his whereabouts again. And if he's dead, we'll never know it, and al Qaeda can still keep releasing audio tapes claiming they're from bin Laden. That is a terrible blow in the war on terrorism.
@Jim, one minor correction. It's my understanding that Barney Frank still claims that there is no particular need to reform Fannie and Freddie.
Way to go, George W. Bush! I can see why the right-wingers think you were such a terrific commander in the war on terrorism!
Helluva lot better than Blowjob Bill was. I mean he had plenty of opportunities but I guess a couple hundred dead in embassy bombings and the USS Cole wasn't enough for him to pull the trigger.
LoafingOaf: Wikipedia, eh? Well wikipeidia this: Tell me one person who has given up being a television star for being a radio star. OBL is dead as a door nail except to you and the other rubes who believe the crappy tapes of "OBL". So, he can get his extra secret tapes to Al J but he can't get a video? He can get the use of a tape recorder but not of a video camera? Rube. Once upon a time lefties had a bit of skepticism toward what the Govt. told them, but other than truthers no so much now.
Well, the Community Reinvestment Act was pretty crazy but it did have what some people would call requirements to lend to "subprime" borrowers. But, heh, that was just a Federal Law.
No, it didn't require any bank to make a loan they deemed unsafe. Only commercial banks and thrifts are subject to the CRA to begin with. Non bank lenders like the now bankrupt New Century Financial Corp and Ameriquest that underwrote most of these loans were not regulated by the federal government, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors.
They didn't build the U.S. economy into that, that was the position it was in when the WWII generation handed it off to them.
Uh NO, they inherited a MANUFACTURING economy, that had few womyn, few Blacks, and very low energy costs, and integrated millions of folks their parents NEVER expected to be working into the economy, whilst facing a QUADRUPLING of energy costs, yielding an incredibly productive economy, on only 30% more energy usage, and REFORMED THE BASIS OF THE ECONMY, from “metal bashing”-in the words of the Economist, to service and information-based value added….in short the economy they made was NOTHING like their parents. In fact, a large percentage of the jobs most in demand in 2010, DIDN’T EXIST in 2000! The economy of the Boomers is expanding, versatile, flexible and productive. The Boomers carried the Civil Rights Movement and Feminist Movement into fruition, in an economic manner.
Oaf, How exactly would anything be different if we killed Bin Laden. The fact that we can't tell if he's dead or alive proves it has no effect on anything. BTW, how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to get this one ghost knowing that after you lose those lives you still might find him dead or not find him anyway. Good logical thinking.
Michael: You need to read better. Bin Laden very well may be dead now, and those audio tapes may very well be fake. (OTOH, the audio tapes may be real, and he isn't doing video because video is more likely to give clues as to one's whereabouts.) But we have no way of knowing, because we let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora and then we let the trail go cold in the hunt for him.
Again: Testifying to the U.S. Congress, General McChrystal] said Bin Laden had become an "iconic figure, whose survival emboldens al-Qaeda as a franchising organization across the world."
It doesn't matter if you believe he's dead. You can't prove it. Right wingers claimed he was probably killed at Tora Bora and that proved false.
It matters what the people who are sympathetic and/or potential recruit to al Qaeda think happened to him. They believe bin Laden eluded the mighty U.S. military, is alive and well, and is still planning atacks. They believe bin Laden was able to escape the Great Satan's armed forces because Allah was with him.
bagoh20: Oaf, How exactly would anything be different if we killed Bin Laden. The fact that we can't tell if he's dead or alive proves it has no effect on anything. BTW, how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to get this one ghost knowing that after you lose those lives you still might find him dead or not find him anyway. Good logical thinking.
My point was, we HAD Obama pinned down at the battle of Tora Bora. We should've gotten him then, but the people in charge let him escape into Pakistan. Then our attention was diverted elsewhere.
I think it matters a lot, for the reasons General McChrystal stated. See my post above.
If you think it's so goddamn important to "get Bin Laden", why aren't you shaking your fist at Barack Obama for not making it a priority? Instead you blame Bush, which is just a waste of time.
In reality you don't care about OBL at all, do you? He's just a convenient stick to bash Bush with.
OTOH, the audio tapes may be real, and he isn't doing video because video is more likely to give clues as to one's whereabouts.
Funny. It's not stopping his number two guy from putting them out now is it.
The Billboard Company needs to sneak out at night and put Jeb Bush's face over W's face.
@Loafing, not everybody agrees that bin Laden was even in the White Mountains during the Battle of Tora Bora. The Wikipedia article on the Battle of Tora Bora indicates that nobody knows for sure, but suggests that bin Laden may well have slipped out and into Pakistan in advance the final push. People I've talked to who had inside knowledge suggest that Tommy Franks should have established a blocking force between Tora Bora and Pakistan, but if you go to Google Maps you can quickly see that the terrain is extremely moutainous, so a blocking force may have been infeasible.
At any rate, if you're going to blame George Bush for the failure to capture bin Laden in Tora Bora, then you must equally blame FDR for the Kasserine Pass, the loss of Wake Island, Operation Market Garden, and the strategic failure that sent American and allied troops through the Normandy hedgerow country. Not to mention blaming Lincoln for Burnside's fixation on the bridge over Antietam Creek that now bears his name, Meade's unwillingness to attack Lee after the failure of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg, and numerous and sundry failed attempts by Grant and Sherman to capture or kill Nathan Bedford Forrest.
No, it didn't require any bank to make a loan they deemed unsafe.
Isn't loaning money to poor people by definition kind of unsafe?
garage, do you think borrowers should be required to put down at least 10% of the mortgage?
Hoosier,
You should know by know getting garage to answer a direct question is like trying to get Mike Tyson into MENSA.
@garage, you're splitting hairs. The CRA didn't explicitly require people to make bad loans, it just beat the living crap out of them if they didn't.
Is there a point where you realize that you're on the wrong side of an argument and slink off to lick your wounds?
You should know by know getting garage to answer a direct question is like trying to get Mike Tyson into MENSA.
Oh I know but its fun anyway.
I lived in south Florida from 2003-2006 during the heyday of flipping houses, it was completely crazy. No credit, no doc loans.....
garage hates poor people! and minorities!
Hey, this is fun!
Big Mike: Not all of us. Most of us that like her mostly like the way she gets under the Democrats' skins. I grant you that there are some who see her as the GOP standard bearer in 2012, but I'm not among them. As long as Democrats and their lackeys in the MSM are railing against Palin or Cheney or Limbaugh, they aren't railing against people who are viable candidates in 2012.
In 2010, the Republicans will probably make gains and put Obama's worst tendencies in check.
By 2012, the economy will likely be much improved. If the economy is still a train wreck in 2012, I'll probably dismiss both major parties and be a third party voter for the rest of my life. But I'm assuming that things will improve based on everything I've been taught my whole life about America's economic system.
I find it unlikely that the GOP will find a stellar candidate who can win a national election when the Sarah Palin wing of the party has gone so crazy. It's looking unlikely that the GOP will be able to find a candidate that even their own party will be able to unite around.
It's easy to sit around throwing attacks at Obama when you're out of power. But eventually the GOP will have to settle on their man or woman for the job, and that person will be gone over with a fine toothed comb and have to endure attacks from the other side. Again, look what happened to the Democrats when they picked John Kerry in 2004.
@garage, you're splitting hairs. The CRA didn't explicitly require people to make bad loans, it just beat the living crap out of them if they didn't.
How so? With a fist? How? Can you provide just one concrete example? There should be hundreds of thousands if you are right.
Is there a point where you realize that you're on the wrong side of an argument and slink off to lick your wounds?
Sorry, I just obliterated the argument, why would I slink off? The "argument" was preposterous to begin with. That suddenly in 2001 a bunch of poor people decided to buy houses and forced banks into lending to them, and brought down our entire financial system as a result? That some good shit you're smoking.
Seriously, garage, I don't understand your argument.
The banks that gave bad loans are bad... but the government policies (CRA) that encouraged the bad loans are blameless?
knox
Those condos that were being flipped in FL weren't being flipped by poor people. That I can assure you.
@LoafingOaf
Again, look what happened to the Democrats when they picked John Kerry in 2004.
Yeah, but again...look at John Kerry.
If you think it's so goddamn important to "get Bin Laden", why aren't you shaking your fist at Barack Obama for not making it a priority?
Obama has made it a priority. He sent more troops to Afghanistan and has focused more on Pakistan. When Obama said he'd do that in the campaign (during the Democratic Party debates), you guys attacked him. Then the Bush White House's own assessment declared Bush's Pakistan policy a failure and Bush started making some of the changes in Pakistan policy that Obama was suggesting on the campaign trail!
Unfortunately, by the time Obama took office, the trail to hunt down bin Laden had been cold for years. Our best shot was Tora Bora, and the people in charge at the time let our nation (and the world) down. (They also let us down when they incompetently planned the Iraq invasion -- the big endeavor that had divered us from the hunt for bin Laden.)
Post a Comment