April 19, 2010

Tea Partiers.

DSC08992

DSC08979

DSC08997
Posted by Ann Althouse at 10:41 AM
Tags: ,

221 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 221 of 221
former law student said...

It has always happened to some extent. It has never, in American history, happened to the extent it is now. A trillion dollars in a single year, taken from the productive members of a society to reward society's leeches?

At least Obama's SEC is suing those society's leeches. Maybe they'll disgorge the trillion.

4/20/10, 1:25 PM
Original Mike said...

"And why did we have to resort to TARP? Because the Gramm-led Congress rammed through non-regulation of toxic assets as a rider to the budget bill in December, 2000. Credit default swaps grew like a tumor during the Bush administration."

Some timely reading material, FLS. While TARP sucked, and we can rightly express outrage that it was ever needed (if it even was), apparently it's been paid back. What's not paid back? $400,000,000,000 for Fannie and Fredie. And why was that necessary? Read the article. It's short. We'll be here when you come back.

4/20/10, 1:25 PM
Original Mike said...

FLS?

4/20/10, 1:59 PM
Caroline said...

Come on, we all know Bush singlehandedly destroyed the economy with his deficits, and Obama will singlehandedly fix it with his bigger deficits. As for Congress- it's just a floor show- they don't really do anything.

So the TPers are just stupid to be protesting and threatening to vote out the Congressional bastards in Nov. Those Wall Street backed congress critters had nothing to do with the crash. Zero. It was all Bush's fault. And now he's gone so everything will be fine. Shut up already!

(It is easier to be lefty. Just suspend logic and ignore reality.)

4/20/10, 2:37 PM
former law student said...

Read the article. It's short.

Perhaps to abide with Truth-in-Labeling laws, the article is clearly marked "Opinion."

GSE reform was ripe for passage in 2005 -- HR 1461 passed the House with 76% of the vote, including all but the most liberal Dems and a handful of Republicans. The bill was sent to the Senate's Banking committee in October, 2005, where it languished and died.


As a senator, he was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Sens. Chris Dodd and John Kerry.

As as senator who was coincidentally running for President. Even Carly Fiorina will only spend a fraction of Presidential campaign money for her Senate race.

4/20/10, 3:06 PM
Revenant said...

At least Obama's SEC is suing those society's leeches.

Obama's SEC is suing the UAW, the SEIU, and underwater homeowners?

Do you have a link? :)

4/20/10, 3:10 PM
Revenant said...

As as senator who was coincidentally running for President.

If they gave Obama money simply because he was a "senator who was running for President", why didn't John McCain get the same amount?

4/20/10, 3:12 PM
Original Mike said...

FLS - The article seems to say it passed the senate banking committee in 2005.

But maybe it passed only because they knew it wouldn't pass the full Senate. Is that what you're saying? Frankly, I do not know and I do not care. More importantly, I. Do. Not. Care. about counting coupe in your stupid Dems-versus-Repubs game. A pox on both their houses. The problem is the government has no business in the mortgage market. It leads to disaster, as anybody with half a brain has had demonstrated to them. Disaster when run by Democrats and disaster when run by Republicans.

4/20/10, 3:25 PM
Original Mike said...

As as senator who was coincidentally running for President.

How in the world does that absolve him of this mess? Please explain.

4/20/10, 3:27 PM
former law student said...

If they gave Obama money simply because he was a "senator who was running for President", why didn't John McCain get the same amount?

Revenant is no Vulcan, that's for sure.

*deep breath* Let's try again:
Presidential candidates receive more contributions than do candidates for lesser offices. With me so far? This explains why Obama received the most from this particular source than did Senators who were not running for President.

New question: why did Obama receive more money from this particular source than did McCain even though both Obama and McCain were both Senators and Presidential candidates?

Two reasons: One, despite the rich strain of Compassionate Conservatism in the GOP, most people who want to see their brother housed are Democrats. The mission of Fannie and Freddie thus attracts Democrats, who seek to elect fellow Dems. But McCain had enough fans who worked for Fannie and Freddie to get roughly 30% of that Obama got from those same groups.

The other reason is that McCain opted to accept public campaign funding for the general election. This effectively limited the private donations he could accept.

4/20/10, 3:37 PM
former law student said...

The problem is the government has no business in the mortgage market. It leads to disaster

So Fannie Mae was a ticking time bomb set in 1938 that blew up 70 years later? Few human institutions survive anything like 70 years.

4/20/10, 3:41 PM
Original Mike said...

At the risk of prolonging this diversion from what really matters, this is really rich:

"The other reason is that McCain opted to accept public campaign funding for the general election."

You think we don't remember the facts surrounding the campaign?

4/20/10, 3:43 PM
Original Mike said...

FLS - Now that we know it's a bomb, diffuse it for Christs's sake! But instead, we're packing it with Corbomite.

4/20/10, 3:46 PM
Revenant said...

Presidential candidates receive more contributions than do candidates for lesser offices. With me so far?

Obviously. The point I was making is that saying he was running for President doesn't explain why he topped the list. His candidacy, combined with the fact that he supports their agenda, explains his high place on the list.

You can euphemistically describe the Fannie/Freddie agenda as "people who want to see their brother housed". But a more accurate description of their business is that they encourage lenders to make riskier loans to worse credit risks, by agreeing to assume the risk. This is exactly what caused the housing bubble, its ensuing collapse, and the bailout that followed. In essence, what you're saying is that campaign contributors felt it Obama was more likely to support the behavior than caused the bubble than McCain was.

Probably the best reform measure that could come out of this fiasco would be for the government to shut down Fannie and Freddie altogether.

4/20/10, 4:32 PM
Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
4/20/10, 4:33 PM
Original Mike said...

"One, despite the rich strain of Compassionate Conservatism in the GOP, most people who want to see their brother housed are Democrats."

Because the only two conditions are "owning" a home and being out on the street? What a crock.

Renting makes lots of sense for lots of people. I rented until I was 40 years old, because it made more sense for me. I was not "unhoused" in any way. When the time was right and I could afford it, I bought a house. Your "high-minded" ideas about helping your fellow man by "helping" them obtain an unaffordable mortgage is the real root cause of this disaster. Ask the people who are underwater on their mortgages if they appreciate your "help".

4/20/10, 4:41 PM
Revenant said...

So Fannie Mae was a ticking time bomb set in 1938 that blew up 70 years later?

It was a potential time bomb, like any other quasi-governmental enterprise. The fuse was lit by the government's pressure on lenders to take on more high-risk subprime loans to lower-income borrowers.

Few human institutions survive anything like 70 years.

That's an odd claim to make. There are countless corporations and government institutions that are older than that.

4/20/10, 4:44 PM
former law student said...

That's an odd claim to make. There are countless corporations and government institutions that are older than that.

Consider the companies that make up the DJIA -- the bluest of blue chips, the best financed and best established of industrial companies. Which of these companies from 1940 are around today, 70 years later? Out of 31 companies, only 13 did not go belly up or become acquired.

Allied Can
Allied Chemical
American Smelting and Refining*

ATT
American Copper
American Tobacco
Bethlehem Steel
Chrysler
Corn Products Refining*
Dupont*
Eastman Kodak*
General Electric*
General Foods
General Motors
Goodyear*
International Harvester
International Nickel
Johns-Manville
Loew's*
National Distillers*
National Steel
Procter & Gamble*
Sears
Chevron*
Exxon*
Texaco
Union Carbide
United Aircraft*
US Steel*
Westinghouse Electric
Woolworths

4/20/10, 6:35 PM
Revenant said...

Which of these companies from 1940 are around today, 70 years later? Out of 31 companies, only 13 did not go belly up or become acquired.

You're ignoring the fact that those other 18 companies were all founded well before 1940. So even though they're not around today, they still (with one exception) lasted more than 70 years:

Allied Can: 85 years
Allied Chemical: 65 years
ATT: 97 years
American Tobacco: 96 years
Bethlehem Steel: 146 years
Chrysler: 73 years
General Foods: 90 years
General Motors: 101 years
International Harvester: 84 years
International Nickel: 103 years
Johns-Manville: 81 years
National Steel: 74 years
Sears: 111 years
Texaco: 90 years
Union Carbide: 84 years
Westinghouse Electric: 89 years
Woolworths: 118 years

I would also note that the actual Fannie Mae corporation only lasted as an independent corporation for 40 years, from 1968 to 2008. From 1938 to 1968 it was a government program.

4/20/10, 8:49 PM
Beth said...

never mind that Obama won and is now spending even more money than the GOP. No one should complain cause they weren't complaing loud enough 4 years ago, they just voted or stayed home and let the opposition take over.

Never said that. I said the current spending isn't, and hasn't been, the only economic problem and didn't just rise up from nothing in 2008. And I have no problem with TPers complaining, but I do scoff at their self-righteousness, and their hypocrisy, and their image of themselves as noble patriots. My scoffing doesn't take away from their right to gather and celebrate themselves in any way.

4/20/10, 8:49 PM
Revenant said...

I do scoff at their self-righteousness, and their hypocrisy, and their image of themselves as noble patriots.

You haven't demonstrated any hypocrisy on their part, and the whole patriotism angle is largely a response to the Democrats' attempts to paint them as violently unhinged racist traitors.

As for "self-righteous"... is it self-righteous to want the government to stop taking your money and giving it to other people who haven't done a damned thing to deserve it? Keep in mind that the tea party movement is mostly drawn from the upper three income quintiles. Those are the quintiles which (a) carry 98% of the income tax burden and (b) voted against Obama. Obama won by attracting an enormous share of the lower two income quintiles -- the people who leech off the taxes paid by the rest of us.

This is also why it isn't "hypocrisy" for us to have been less annoyed at the government spending our money on stuff we like. It's our money being spent. :)

4/21/10, 12:33 AM
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 221 of 221   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)