Althouse: "Under President Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty than ever before."

January 17, 2015

"Under President Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty than ever before."

Mitt Romney makes income inequality his issue in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Necessary rebranding for Mr. 47%.

140 comments:

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Can it get any better than this?; 1/17/15, 2:31 PM
Mark said...: It's nice of him to notice, but is he running as a Republican or Democrat?; 1/17/15, 2:38 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: "The economy recovered (opposite to my prediction), but the wrong people benefited, rich people like me."

That message should fire up the base.; 1/17/15, 2:39 PM
n.n said...: So, that's where the trillion dollar deficits went. It's no wonder that Obama needed to increase taxes to compensate for his liberal fiscal and crony policies.; 1/17/15, 2:41 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Lost my vote right there.; 1/17/15, 2:41 PM
Owen said...: Hopeless. He is a good, smart, decent, generous man; who has done a lot of good in his life. But he just doesn't get it. Or the country just doesn't get him. Either way, hopeless.

His entering the race is not going to help anybody except the Dems. They branded him early in his last run, and he never got over it; indeed, he never seemed to understand how they had branded him. I doubt he has figured it out since then; and for the public the branding is by now unalterable.

Short version: fork, toast.; 1/17/15, 2:42 PM
n.n said...: Did the economy recover before or after deduction of trillion dollar deficits and other redistributive schemes? The benefits of DRAT (Displace, Replace, Abort, and Tax) policy are illusory.; 1/17/15, 2:45 PM
campy said...: What a maroon.; 1/17/15, 2:47 PM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Any reasonable man knows that Romney has been Dan Quayled already, and one cannot come back from that, no matter what.

And the idiot vote will never come to feel that he 'cares about people like me', so he's toast and any money or time spent imagining otherwise, is wasted.; 1/17/15, 2:52 PM
Tank said...: Go away. Take Jeb and Chris with you.; 1/17/15, 2:55 PM
jr565 said...: The economomy has BARELY recovered AReasonableMan, and median income is down 5% for the middle class, but rich people are doing better.

Romney could easily make the case that he is for pro growth economic policies to grow the middle class's salaries, and that Obamanomics does exactly what its done.; 1/17/15, 2:56 PM
jr565 said...: Why shouldn't he highlight that income inequality has gotten worse under Obama's policies since its true. And since its the dems that have been harping on it for ever.
Obamanomics produces more income inequality.
Now what he woudl say is he's trying to grow the middle class. And will do so by pro growth policies.
Adressing the same issue but saying that repubs have a better answer for it.; 1/17/15, 2:58 PM
jr565 said...: That should in fact be the issue republicans should be pushing. Obanaomics hurts the middle class and the poor. If their salaries have gone down, well then that's because of Obama's policies. You want salaries to go back up, you unleash the free market and watch.
He's coopting the vernacular, but is not providing the same remedy.
Now, if he then turns around and says "lets do the same as obama" then he'd lose me a voter. But just pointing that out is not in and of itself a deal breaker to me.

Because under obama the middle classes median salary did go down. Shouldn't Obama get pegged for that statistic? And shouldn't repubs then suggest that their policies would lead to higher salaries, since pro growth policies do that?; 1/17/15, 3:03 PM
Rusty said...: Free Community College!; 1/17/15, 3:06 PM
jr565 said...: What Romney could say is Redistribution actually siphons money from the middle class and gives it to the poor. So of course the richer have gotten richer and inequality has gotten worse. Because all the dems have are poilcies that spread the wealth but none that grow it; 1/17/15, 3:09 PM
bleh said...: ARM, the economy has recovered. It always does, although this time it has been frustratingly slow and weak.

Please demonstrate the link between the recovery and Obama's policies. Be specific.

Did Obama help anthing, or did he just throw numerous wrenches in the machinery and deprive people of wealth in the process?; 1/17/15, 3:10 PM
Lyle Smith said...: I like Mitt, but ugh.; 1/17/15, 3:16 PM
Big Mike said...: ARM is so dumb that he doesn't get that Democrats have been running against income inequality while pushing policies that increase income inequality. The Wall Streeters get it -- folks that smart ignore what is said, and look at what is done. ARM on the other hand ignores what has happened and actually believes what is said.

Or pretends to believe it.

George Soros loves you, ARM.; 1/17/15, 3:22 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Romney is pissing me off with his vanity run. He had his shot, and failed. I just won't vote for him now under any circumstances. I don't care if Joseph Smith peeps through the clouds and hands Mitt the nomination on a golden platter, I'm not gonna pull the lever for him, no matter who the Dems run.

And don't get me started on Jeb or Kristie Kreme.; 1/17/15, 3:53 PM
Fandor said...: Let me put this more succinctly for Governor Romney by quoting a liberal democrat saint, Robert F. Kennedy.

He said when throwing his hat in the presidential ring in 1968, "I'm not running for president to challenge any man, but to propose new policies."

If you listen to the entire speech, you'll hear Romney challenging the wide breadth of the liberal canon since the "Great Society."

Mitt said (paraphrasing) "LBJ declared a war on poverty as president. In the sixty years since, poverty is still with us. LBJ's heart was in the right place but his policies were wrong. The didn't work but have been continued by democrats to this day. We need a new direction in the post-Obama era."

I say the message is shrewd, and timely.; 1/17/15, 3:57 PM
Hagar said...: The income disparity have been getting worse because of the Obama administration's policy of artificially inflating the DOW with "printed" money. Understandable since these people are all creatures of Wall Street and get the vapors at the thought of another 1929 crash. But that is what they have been, and are, setting us up for.

So, yes, "the rich" have been getting richer, since they have money in the stockmarket - with their - our should I say our - 401 k's if nothing else - but this may well evaporate in short order any day a butterfly flaps its wings in the right place and the house of cards collapses (metaphor alert!).; 1/17/15, 4:05 PM
Hagar said...: And the "rich man" theme? When they are going to run Hillary! against him?

Cognitive dissonance much?; 1/17/15, 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: I like Romney and he is right on with this message. I don't really care about income inequality, because I don't think its the governments job to make these things equal. Instead, its the job of the government to give equal opportunity. The more it tries to make results equal, the worse things get, for everyone.

However, I'm still jot going to vote for Romney in the primary. He had his shot.; 1/17/15, 4:09 PM
SteveR said...: Geniuses like ARM make no logical sense and get their person elected because we got a lot of butt hurt folks who don't mind losing if that's what it takes to feel good about themselves.

Somewhere between "single issue" and the non existent ideal candidate are a lot of candidates who would be orders of magnitude better than HRC.; 1/17/15, 4:12 PM
Aussie Pundit said...: Income inequality is a phantom of the left. It only matters if you think the rich have too much income and that some of it should be taken away from them and given to the poor.

Income inequality is not the same thing as poverty.

You can have a situation where all strands of society are getting wealthier (or at least not getting any worse) and yet left wing advocates complain that income inequality increases. In fact this situation happens quite routinely.; 1/17/15, 4:19 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: A Republican definition of a successful economic record if ever there was one.; 1/17/15, 4:19 PM
Jon Burack said...: Romney's error is thinking he can just co-opt Democratic populist rhetoric and attach it to a conservative agenda. But by adopting the Democrats' populist rhetoric, what he is in fact doing is entrapping himself in expectations he will carry out a Democratic liberal agenda. Like many here, he will throw out throwaway lines about "encouraging growth," "unleashing the free market," etc. All that will do is unleash the attack dogs to say, see, he really only means to help the rich and is just hiding behind all the nice Democratic rhetoric. I believe he is trapped by his 47% absurdity, which he never recognized as absurd. It did him in and, unless he decides not to run (I predict that), it will do him in again.; 1/17/15, 4:20 PM
mccullough said...: He finally figured out there's a lot of voters whose income rate is between 20% and 90%. He should tell the other Republicans.; 1/17/15, 4:20 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Income inequality only needs to be ignored if you hate opportunity, because all studies show that the most opportunity exists in the societies with the least income inequality.; 1/17/15, 4:22 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Mitt said (paraphrasing) "LBJ declared a war on poverty as president. In the sixty years since, poverty is still with us. LBJ's heart was in the right place but his policies were wrong. The didn't work but have been continued by democrats to this day. We need a new direction in the post-Obama era."

I say the message is shrewd, and timely.

Yes! Because no one remembers what shift in policies led to 2008! No one! It never happened, the Contract with America, welfare reform, repealing Glass-Steagall! Never happened! We had policies as progressive in 2007 as we did in 1968! Yes, that's the message! The 1980s, 1990s and 2000s never happened, politically speaking!; 1/17/15, 4:25 PM
n.n said...: He needs to focus on Obama's 2% or perhaps 1%. He also needs to embrace the liberal narratives, including: money grows on trees, babies are delivered by storks, individuals are interchangeable within diversity classes, laws of supply and demand are negotiable, regime changes are best done without warning, but that won't help him without the relevant endorsements.; 1/17/15, 4:31 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Romney is, of course, correct here. Dem policies have made things worse, esp. for the middle class, caught between, and funding the takers on the bottom and the top. Who can forget Obama and the Dems so blatantly running for reelection in 2012 by appealing to the greed of the takers on the bottom by promising more free stuff? That was, from the first, their electoral strategy - bribe those on the bottom with stuff funded by the middle class.

The part of their strategy though that wasn't trumpeted nearly as openly was their crony capitalism. You really had to either watch the money, or be in the closed fund raisers to see or hear this side. Except that some of their leaders, notably Nancy Pelosi, weren't smart enough to keep their mouths' shut about this side of their strategy. They were selling political favors for campaign contributions on a land rush basis. No surprise that the banks harmed by Dodd-Frank were the intermediate sized ones, and the ones that triggered the financial collapse came away even stronger - because the biggest ones were the biggest Dem contributors.

Pelosi though gave away the game, when she described her party's response to the recession. The first part of it was that they had bought onto discredited Keynesian stimulus to spend our way out of the recession. The second part was her suggesting that the important thing was that money be spent, and it really didn't matter how. Which, really meant, that they knew up front that much of the money would be creamed off by their political cronies. Some, like Obama, might have been economically illiterate enough not to realize this. But many more were not. So, we have this article a day or so ago: Senator’s husband stands to profit big from government deal, which chronicles how Sen. Feinstein's husband is getting rich from selling excess federal buildings. Not sure if it was her husband, or the other CA Senator's husband who was the prime contractor for the CA bullet train from nowhere to nowhere. The point is that politicians are corrupt, and the Dem politicians are the most corrupt, and most likely to personally benefit from their public "service".; 1/17/15, 4:35 PM
n.n said...: Income inequality does matter, but only when it is sufficient to distort local economics. This is why welfare and Obamacare, for instance, are so critical to maintaining peace in Democrat-controlled districts, especially with high-density, diverse populations. It's also why Democrats are pro-abortion on principle, and support other aspects of DRAT (Displace, Replace, Abort, and Tax) policy in order to neutralize effective resistance.; 1/17/15, 4:36 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Income inequality does matter, but only when it is sufficient to distort local economics.

Nonsense. You neglected to read Wilkinson.

The rest of your comment devolves into even worse and more rambling nonsense, and with the expected touch of paranoid conspiracy thrown in, to boot.; 1/17/15, 4:43 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: What Romney said is true. Close to one half of voters (not counting fraud) benefit hugely from Government redistribution programs, and thus will vote to maintain the programs.

What Romney said is true. Distribution of wealth has become more polarized under Obama.

Both conditions are due to Liberal/Progressive programs.

Romney was crucified for the 47% comment by the very Liberal/Progressives who caused the condition.

Romney will be crucified for the wealth polarization comment by the very Liberal/Progressives who caused the condition.; 1/17/15, 4:49 PM
Dad/Geoff said...: I survey the front runners and have the same sinking feeling I had about this time last campaign? This is it?; 1/17/15, 4:56 PM
Hagar said...: At the present time, the only other option for a candidate competent to be president is Jeb, and he is family bound to his brother's policies on education, etc.

I think all you guys dumping on Mitt must be secretly hoping for Hillary!.; 1/17/15, 4:57 PM
Michael K said...: ""The economy recovered (opposite to my prediction), but the wrong people benefited, rich people like me."

Interesting. I didn't know he ran a hedge fund like most of the Obama supporters in New York City. They are doing very well on QE by the Fed. By the time of the coming crash they will be in Tuscany living large.

I thought Romney ran some very successful startups that employ thousands of people. Thanks for the correction, ARM.; 1/17/15, 4:59 PM
Michael K said...: "the idiot vote will never come to feel that he 'cares about people like me'"

Yup, and ARM demonstrates that. Along with rhythm and balls.

Yes! Because no one remembers what shift in policies led to 2008! No one! It never happened, the Contract with America, welfare reform, repealing Glass-Steagall! Never happened! We had policies as progressive in 2007 as we did in 1968! Yes, that's the message! The 1980s, 1990s and 2000s never happened, politically speaking!

I can't figure out what he is trying to say but it sounds a bit like Obama, and of course Dodd and Frank.; 1/17/15, 5:04 PM
Be said...: As much as I love Mitt, hate this GOP lineup of "usual suspects" from 2012. It's like a Very Special Family Feud Reunion, or something.

Am not a fan of Cruz, and am really disappointed to hear Cousin Rand sounding an awful lot like "Crazy Uncle Ron."

Walker throws his hat in, and I might even consider volunteering for the campaign. Don't want to take your Governor away from you. Everything I read about him gives the impression of a good, sound, decent Leader, though.; 1/17/15, 5:08 PM
sinz52 said...: This is going to be the Republican equivalent of "John Kerry, reporting for duty!" in 2004.

The militaristic trappings of the Dem convention couldn't make up for the candidate and his supporters.

And the same thing is true with Romney.

Nobody is going to believe that a wealthy venture capitalist who made money rescuing companies through layoffs cares about inequality.; 1/17/15, 5:15 PM
sinz52 said...: Michael K:

Romney didn't start companies as much as he turned around failing companies by "getting rid of the dead wood."

And the "dead wood" continues to follow him around like the Flying Dutchman, reminding the press and the voters when Romney laid them off.; 1/17/15, 5:17 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Has anyone noticed how little Obama refers to the poor? Everything, but everything, is "the rich" vs. "the middle class." The very existence of anyone at all below said middle class is a closely guarded secret.

This is new, or newish. LBJ certainly talked about the poor, all the time. Carter did. Reagan did. Even Clinton gave them the occasional mention. Obama does not, because he doesn't want the "middle class" (very broadly self-defined) thinking about the poor; he wants them thinking about "the 1%." Or (as Paul Krugman rephrased that, on observing that he was likely a member of said class himself), the 0.1%.; 1/17/15, 5:18 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Romney was crucified for the 47% comment by the very Liberal/Progressives who caused the condition.

Lol. The extent of Republican self-delusion at its best. Romney was "crucified" for that as it showed him to be the out-of-touch bubble-boy that he is. He leaves all charity to his church, and finds the unwashed masses beneath him to be, well, beneath him. To posit that it takes a liberal conspiracy of media power to make him look bad for that is astounding. He knew how badly it exposed who he was. I remember how shaky he was being interviewed just days later. He knew his goose was cooked. Because only a cretin would justify that, and Romney - whatever his faults - was no idiot. He knew what it was about the way he thought that he couldn't get away with revealing.; 1/17/15, 5:18 PM
LA_Bob said...: You know, Romney might have made a really good vice-president, especially in more "normal" times without the financial crisis of 2008 and the charisma of Barack Obama. Heck, he might even have pulled the race out for McCain in 2008, although I tend to doubt it, given the magnitude of the economic collapse. Still, there's so much about him that is credible, professional, and thoughtful.

And had a McCain / Romney ticket won, Romney would have had (ideally) eight years to study the presidency up close. It would have made him a better candidate and, if successful, a better president.

On the other hand, Obama losing in 2008 virtually guarantees Obama wins in 2012. The economy would still have been awful, and a lot of people would have said, "Gosh, I sure wish we'd have given Barack Obama a chance!" And then four years of Obama with an improving economy to get him another four years.

The real upside is that it would have completely eliminated Hillary from contention, ever. She'd be way too old in 2020.; 1/17/15, 5:19 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I can't figure out what he is trying to say but it sounds a bit like Obama, and of course Dodd and Frank.

Well, once you take your fingers out of your ear, and your thumb out of your butt, you might realize that it means it's going to be a lot harder to fool people into forgetting that Republican policies were in fact implemented and affecting our economy in the years 1980 - 2006.; 1/17/15, 5:21 PM
Chuck said...: Romney's right. Period.

He's right, and he's right in every way, large and small.

He's right to observe, correctly, that the Democrats' favorite new issue is the one that cuts against them under any fair analysis. He's right, insofar as the great run-up in the Dow is due to national fiscal and (particularly) monetary policy under this president. And the run-up in the Dow, with companies hoarding cash instead of investing in plant, equipment and personnel, is due to national economic policy.

And just to hammer this point a little harder: Romney was of course right about the 47%. There really are 47% of the public that will always vote against any Republican. Why is it such apostasy to say that in private, as Mitt did?

Mitt's been right all along. He was just right, HE WAS PRESCIENT when he penned the NYT Op-Ed that the Times' editorial page editors headlined, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." He wasn't just right about all of that; less than a year later, the Obama Car Czar was taking GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy. Quite apart from the auto industry, and over the bitterest of Democrat objections, Michigan's Republican governor led the city of Detroit (which has been run by Democrats for 50 years) through bankruptcy. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," indeed. Bankruptcy was the savior of the city of Detroit. It shed a billion dollars' worth of debt.

Mitt Romney is, without doubt, the best president we never got, in the lifetime(s) of everyone reading this blog.; 1/17/15, 5:24 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Hagar,

At the present time, the only other option for a candidate competent to be president is Jeb, and he is family bound to his brother's policies on education, etc.

You think? The only reason for Jeb Bush's name to be there at all is that he's Jeb Bush. The same danged weary circle round the family tree. Enough, already.

Romney is, in fact, the real deal. Perry is decent. Walker is the seriously real deal, better than Romney. Huckabee, Santorum, feh. Christie, also feh. Rubio, sorta-kinda-maybe. Anyone left?

So: Walker for me. It will be very interesting how his "didn't-even-graduate-college" story gets spun, at a time when Obama is proposing giving every kid the first two years absolutely FREE! like a video game. The right spin might make the case that college doesn't determine destiny.

I'd take Romney, but reluctantly, as backup.; 1/17/15, 5:28 PM
rhhardin said...: It's a stupid move. Inequality doesn't matter - equality isn't an economically good thing.

So Romney is going with the cult mottos instead of explaining the truth.

How can you vote for a guy who lies to you.

The should think of that.; 1/17/15, 5:32 PM
Chuck said...: Mitt Romney, if you are not aware, got rich on his own. What his father gave him was discipline, a work ethic and an education. (Yes, a private prep school education through 12th grade. Just like the sons and daughters of all of the liberal Democrat elite of Washington DC and New York.)

Mitt Romney got no great inheritance from his father (who as the president of American Motors and Governor of Michigan).

Compare Mitt's wealth (all made before he entered public service) to the Clintons' wealth (all made by capitalizing on public service, and sometimes in some very dubious ways).

I am astonished by the Republican Romney-bashing we are seeing now. We really should have worked harder to get him elected in '12.; 1/17/15, 5:33 PM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Chuck said...

Mitt Romney got no great inheritance from his father (who as the president of American Motors and Governor of Michigan).

Compare Mitt's wealth (all made before he entered public service) to the Clintons' wealth (all made by capitalizing on public service, and sometimes in some very dubious ways).

I am astonished by the Republican Romney-bashing we are seeing now.

Best never to be astonished. Stick with saddened.

We're beyond astonishment. A is A. The ignorant parts of the American electorate are not reachable by logic and reason.

If we're to take back power from the Progressives, and save this Republic, part of our message must be to trick the gullible ourselves. If we don't, we leave the playing field to the Libs, and they are masters at trickery.

And we need to start by running a candidate that is not so easily demonized as Romney.; 1/17/15, 5:46 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Great and how will Mitt fix it? By lowering taxes thereby letting people keep more of their own money so they can ave and invest more?

Sorry Mitt that will go over well with the MSM who will applaud you for joining the BS brigade about income inequality while they lambaste you for coming up with a solution they abhor.; 1/17/15, 5:47 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Mitt Romney got no great inheritance from his father (who as the president of American Motors and Governor of Michigan).

And no influence or easy access to political/business connections either!; 1/17/15, 5:49 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Great and how will Mitt fix it? By lowering taxes thereby letting people keep more of their own money so they can ave and invest more?

That's a great idea. Too bad it's never been tried before.; 1/17/15, 5:50 PM
chickelit said...: Romney's message is spot on, but he needs leavening with a little populist streak of the sort Sarah Palin brought to the stage,; 1/17/15, 5:53 PM
chickelit said...: rhhardin said...It's a stupid move. Inequality doesn't matter - equality isn't an economically good thing.

I think he's playing the hypocrisy angle against Obama quite well. Hyperbole? Maybe. But he's fundamentally right.; 1/17/15, 5:56 PM
Original Mike said...: The rich will always get richer. The problems arise when government tries to "fix" that. It always ends up hurting the rest of us.; 1/17/15, 5:56 PM
chickelit said...: Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
Romney is, in fact, the real deal. Perry is decent. Walker is the seriously real deal, better than Romney. Huckabee, Santorum, feh. Christie, also feh. Rubio, sorta-kinda-maybe. Anyone left? <- This!; 1/17/15, 5:57 PM
Alex said...: He's lost his mind. The GOP is all about protecting the wealthy from all consequences.; 1/17/15, 6:00 PM
Michael K said...: "Romney didn't start companies as much as he turned around failing companies by "getting rid of the dead wood."

So, he didm;t start Staples ?

Some people, who don't like Romney, think so.

Romney/Bain didn’t really create jobs with Staples, they put small office and stationery retailers and other already-existing competitors out of businesses and moved the workers from those outlets into jobs at Staples that pay very little. In other words, they didn’t create 100,000 jobs, they lowered 100,000 people’s wages.

Romney made his money opertating on a playing field of business rules that let him and Bain and Wal-Mart and the rest do what they do. They were all able to tilt that playing field in their favor using the wealth and power they already had, and they tilted it in ways that gain them more wealth and power.

So, if you hate WalMart and want the old days of mom and pop stores back, he's not your guy.; 1/17/15, 6:03 PM
Michael K said...: "Mitt Romney is, without doubt, the best president we never got, in the lifetime(s) of everyone reading this blog."

Absolutely. There are good possibilities now that weren't there in 2008. Jindal has a great resume but his speaking skills were weak. He is giving a tough speech on Islam today in London. We'll see how he does.

I like Walker but he has had little national experience.

Cruz and Paul are first term Senators and you know how that has worked out.

Keep an eye on Joni Ernst. I think she has a future. The lefties are already going after her. They think so, too.; 1/17/15, 6:09 PM
PB said...: The sound bites convince the voters, but socialism always fails and impoverishes all - except the political class who lives in luxury.; 1/17/15, 6:22 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Mitt Romney got no great inheritance from his father (who as the president of American Motors and Governor of Michigan).

And, he gave that money away. Which shouldn't be surprising, given how much he continues to give away, even ignoring his tithing to the LDS church.; 1/17/15, 6:25 PM
Fandor said...: Romney outlined three principles for the Republicans to run on.

1) Make the world a safer place, through strength and conservative values.
2) Create opportunity for all Americans.
3) Lift all Americans out of poverty.

Under each heading, a wide net can be cast. The Governor made brief remarks about each point. (Watch the speech online or on c-span tonight)

Mr. Romney includes the 47% in points 2 & 3, not promising more charity, but rather opportunity, through expansion of our economic infrastructure by shrinking government, less regulation, tax reform ect.; 1/17/15, 6:27 PM
Steven said...: Here's one easy way to tell a comment is made by an automated partisan chatbot instead of a thinking human being: it blames the global economic crisis on something completely irrelevant that happened in the 1990s, like Seinfeld going off the air, the death of Kurt Cobain, the repeal of Glass-Stegall, or Hurricane Andrew.; 1/17/15, 6:28 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: He's lost his mind. The GOP is all about protecting the wealthy from all consequences.

Maybe at one time - but now you have your parties reversed. Not surprising that the rich tend to vote Democratic these days - knowing which side their bread is buttered on. Republican demographics are primarily from maybe $40k to a bit over $100k, and the rest tend to vote Democratic, and the richer they are, the more likely they are to vote for Democrats.; 1/17/15, 6:28 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: And no influence or easy access to political/business connections either!

Sure, maybe a little bit. Not as much as GW Bush, or even the Kennedys, Clintons, etc. Those who worked with him at Bain, etc. tell the story that he was one of the brightest in the room, and then worked harder than anyone else. And surrounded himself with people just like him - who were very smart and worked very hard.

Which, of course, makes him the anti-Obama, who slid by on his charm and race, and, second (or lower) tier himself, hired second raters who sucked up to him, and were the most fervent ideologues. And, could be used to satisfy different political constituencies, regardless of merit. In short, neither Obama, nor most of his appointees, would ever have been hired by Romney.; 1/17/15, 6:35 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Have to wonder if the putative Romney/Bush/Christie candidacies aren't just some fiendishly clever GOP rope-a-dope. All three of these guys have to realize that they don't have a hope in Hell of winning a national election so what's the real plan here? Float some no-hopers so as to elevate the base's excitement when you trot your dark horse out? I realize the GOP isn't clever or organized enough to pull something like that off, but, Jesus, what is this shit about?; 1/17/15, 6:37 PM
Barry Dauphin said...: Romney stays in long enough to hurt Christie.; 1/17/15, 6:39 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Which, of course, makes him the anti-Obama, who slid by on his charm and race, and, second (or lower) tier himself, hired second raters who sucked up to him, and were the most fervent ideologues. And, could be used to satisfy different political constituencies, regardless of merit. In short, neither Obama, nor most of his appointees, would ever have been hired by Romney.

Which must really sting given that Obama won a few million more votes than Romney. But then, voters are different from a bunch of back-room swindlers looking to nothing other than cleverer and cleverer ways of outsourcing and offshoring America. That was Romney's spe-she-al-i-tee! Very bright and hard-working at it.; 1/17/15, 6:42 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Yes, our amazingly recovered economy with the lowest workforce participation since Carter.

When your kids graduate this year, let me know how the whole jobs thing works out.; 1/17/15, 6:47 PM
Mark said...: Mitt "Please go away now!" Romney says something that is infinitely obvious to everyone and his supporters think this is reason to vote for him over everyone else.; 1/17/15, 6:48 PM
Fandor said...: Tuesday, January 13

Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus (With Romney)
Gravis Marketing
Romney 21, Bush 14, Walker 10, Huckabee 9, Carson , Paul 8, Cruz 7, Ryan 5, Christie 5, Perry

Romney +7

Hmm. And Romney hasn't even announced yet.; 1/17/15, 6:48 PM
Hagar said...: Well, I won't be around to see how all this works out, but I almost hope that you guys get what you want - good and hard!; 1/17/15, 7:02 PM
Johanna Lapp said...: It's a shame that Romney's magical little world has to share the land with the America real people live in. But if he's going to mix with the Gentiles, here are subjects Romney needs to STFU about:
Why middle class should envy the rich.
Why middle class should sneer at the poor.
Why working poor should resent welfare poor
Cigars
Scotch
Coffee
Strip clubs
Unwed mothers
Mutual aid societies
The planet Kobol
How Mormons are just "Christians Plus"
How Jews are "Gentiles" now that Mormons are God's Chosen People
The Nephites' Bronze Age civilization
Broadway's "Book of Mormon"; 1/17/15, 7:04 PM
rehajm said...: Great and how will Mitt fix it? By lowering taxes thereby letting people keep more of their own money so they can ave and invest more?

Eliminating tax expenditures gives you room to lower rates. Romney will dig Simpson Bowles out of the trash can under the presidents desk and use it as a framework. Given his druthers Mitt would eliminate many/most of the expenditures and use the room to get rid of of the corporate rate and lower personal rates. You can't get the socialists to go along but it could be sold to citizens once they see how it benefits them.

Dynamic scoring will help, too.; 1/17/15, 7:08 PM
chickelit said...: All I can add is "no third term turd blossoms."; 1/17/15, 7:12 PM
chickelit said...: The Left thinks that Karl Rove was evil and I must add that Valerie Jarrett has been an unmitigated disaster for Obama -- her advice is probably the biggest reason he is so despised on the Right.

So who ever emerges in the primaries -- we need to keep a close watch on who they appoint to lead from behind the scenes.; 1/17/15, 7:16 PM
Ambrose said...: Obama is going to propose tax cuts in the SOTU; Rommney is ranting about income equality. I feel like Alice in the rabbit hole; 1/17/15, 7:25 PM
Hagar said...: Bruce Hayden makes a good point. Either Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush would be supported by the mainstream of the party, i.e., they would have people who knew how the government works come to work for them.
The rest of the crowd mentioned so far, not so much. It would be like the Obama administration, amateur hour all around, and though they might be better intentioned than the current crew, the United States Government will not be well served with amateurs in the top positions.; 1/17/15, 7:56 PM
Achilles said...: Rhythm and Balls said...
I can't figure out what he is trying to say but it sounds a bit like Obama, and of course Dodd and Frank.

"Well, once you take your fingers out of your ear, and your thumb out of your butt, you might realize that it means it's going to be a lot harder to fool people into forgetting that Republican policies were in fact implemented and affecting our economy in the years 1980 - 2006."

Impossible to carry on a conversation with someone who is this stupid and simultaneously disingenuous. Even the libs at NPR knew that it was fanny and freddy that caused the crash in 2008. That was all Clinton/Gorelick/Reins/Johnson and government meddling in the mortgage markets.; 1/17/15, 8:26 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Rhythm and Balls,

But then, voters are different from a bunch of back-room swindlers looking to nothing other than cleverer and cleverer ways of outsourcing and offshoring America. That was Romney's spe-she-al-i-tee! Very bright and hard-working at it.

It seems to me that the sole difference between outsourcing/offshoring and illegal immigration is that in the latter case we just bring the workforce here. If what you are buying is cheap labor, I don't know how it's specially more virtuous to buy it at the roadside pickup point, rather than in Bangalore.; 1/17/15, 8:33 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Achilles said...
Even the libs at NPR knew that it was fanny and freddy that caused the crash in 2008. That was all Clinton/Gorelick/Reins/Johnson and government meddling in the mortgage markets.

Look at the data. The housing bubble was the Bush economy.; 1/17/15, 8:35 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Of course, in Bangalore (and China, and Vietnam, and Taiwan, and Japan, and South Korea) we're talking poor people, sure, but de facto whites in the US, however dusky they may be in reality. Not like Mexican immigrants in the US, who may look exactly like the white "natives," but bear exotic surnames. Except for the odd "sport" like George Zimmerman.; 1/17/15, 8:39 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Random, OT question: Bill DeBlasio has a son by a Black woman. Barack Obama is the son of a Black man and a white woman. Is there any reason at all that DeBlasio's son should be described as "biracial" when Obama is not?; 1/17/15, 8:42 PM
Anonymous said...: People who complain about both inequality and offshoring are actually fine with inequality, so long as the poor people are wogs.; 1/17/15, 8:43 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Impossible to carry on a conversation with someone who is this stupid and simultaneously disingenuous. Even the libs at NPR knew that it was fanny and freddy that caused the crash in 2008. That was all Clinton/Gorelick/Reins/Johnson and government meddling in the mortgage markets.

Impossible to carry on a conversation with someone stupid and disingenuous enough to believe that the bubble economy and slow recovery had a single cause.

Impossible to carry on a conversation with someone stupid and disingenuous enough to believe that Republicans had no role in any part of their happy bubble economy, or were powerless to stop it when they were in power.

But of course, we don't have to have conversations with people that stupid and disingenuous. After all, non-partisans, independents, and non-Republicans vote, too. While those cheerleading the moral immaculacy of Team Republican can talk to themselves in the corner. As usual.; 1/17/15, 9:01 PM
Michael K said...: "In short, neither Obama, nor most of his appointees, would ever have been hired by Romney."

Romney got himself in trouble saying he liked to fire people. What he meant was that you should be able to fire people, like politicians. It was an awkward moment for him.

Of course, everyone fired was a job opening for someone else who could do the job but it wasn't well said.; 1/17/15, 9:04 PM
Michael K said...: "it's going to be a lot harder to fool people into forgetting that Republican policies were in fact implemented and affecting our economy in the years 1980 - 2006."

I never picked you for a liar. Thanks for the heads up.; 1/17/15, 9:05 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: The candidate who proposes BIG changes and can challenge and inspire the collective mindset can win the Repub nomination and the general election.

That eliminates Romney and Jeb and many others.; 1/17/15, 9:10 PM
Carl said...: Romney! Who cares if he was right about this and that? He's insufficiently angry. We need a candidate who's going to promise to round up everyone who doesn't think like me and have them shot. That's the way to build a majority!

Plus he's boring. We know him well already. All his proposals are milquetoaste, business as usual RINO squish. Notice he's not promising to make the Democratic Party illegal, or have Nancy Pelosi imprisoned, or replace Obamacare with a system of witchdoctors and crystal healing? These are bad times, comrades. That last thing we need is someone predictable, cautious, and thoughtful. It's time for bold leadership. We need someone completely unknown proposing things that have never been tried, anywhere. That's the only thing that will give people confidence in the future.

Plus, he lost. He had his chance. Seriously, the election won't be fun at all unless it has that WWF/mixed martial arts combat drama. We need scandals, revelations, debates, accusations -- the only thing better would be if the President declares martial law and armed revolt breaks out. I mean, ratings would soar and there'd finally be something worth twittering about. #DefeatTyranny #CommitteeOnPublicSafety #CaesarYes #CaesarNo.

All this crap about politics being the art of the possible, or choosing the lesser weevil -- and what do bugs have to do with it anyway? Bah! I don't know about the rest of you, but I long for Christ Militant to present himself on the tube -- on CNN and Fox, by golly! -- and sweep this mob of chattering feckless fools out of the way, simply command truth, justice and harmony throughout the land, put all the slackers and wreckers to death, restore the republic. Yay!; 1/17/15, 9:31 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: It takes a real shit-for-brains to pretend that Republican economic policies were never implemented between 1980 and 2006. But go ahead and call it a lie, anyway.

Call the spherical earth model a lie, too.

And evolution.

Anything else today that you'd like to call a lie?; 1/17/15, 9:51 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: A few months ago I thought Paul Ryan would end up as the Repub nominee, based on the theory that the Repubs always choose the least imaginative option. Little did I imagine that Romney might be a available, or even Jeb Bush. At this rate, all the Dems will have to do is prop up Hillary and push her across the finish line. She could have early stage Alzheimer's, like Reagan, and still win.; 1/17/15, 10:00 PM
Mark said...: For I believe the first time I agree with ARM. If the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate either Jeb or Mitt, any Democrat with a pulse will win in '16.

Croton Mark's Rule: If the race is effectively between two Democrats, the one with the (D) after their name wins.; 1/17/15, 10:22 PM
traditionalguy said...: Elizabeth Warren is now a male a Mormon...wait I am confused.; 1/17/15, 10:23 PM
chickelit said...: Michelle Dulak Thomson noted It seems to me that the sole difference between outsourcing/offshoring and illegal immigration is that in the latter case we just bring the workforce here. If what you are buying is cheap labor, I don't know how it's specially more virtuous to buy it at the roadside pickup point, rather than in Bangalore.

Except the that the Indian Indians never had a shot at citizenship and thus directly affecting Americans, while immigrants did. I think R&B likes that aspect and supports it: the wholesale dismantling of the old, white, anglo, racist America. At least that's the vibe he gave off a couple years ago. Perhaps he's changed.; 1/17/15, 10:31 PM
buwaya said...: He (Romney) is right.
The only businesses the powers that be want to permit are those that are tied in to the corporatist system.
Any business that is outside of that system, which is mainly any that make real things, are to be choked to death by regulation.
Part of the reason for this, outside of direct benefits of corporatism, is to crush the US middle class. They are in the way.
It is a deliberate and malicious conspiracy.; 1/17/15, 10:43 PM
Gahrie said...: John Bolton for president; 1/17/15, 10:45 PM
Original Mike said...: "Look at the data. The housing bubble was the Bush economy."

You know what really jumps out at me?

No Comments.; 1/17/15, 10:51 PM
Achilles said...: AReasonableMan said...
Achilles said...
Even the libs at NPR knew that it was fanny and freddy that caused the crash in 2008. That was all Clinton/Gorelick/Reins/Johnson and government meddling in the mortgage markets.

"Look at the data. The housing bubble was the Bush economy."

All of the policies involved were signed by Clinton. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall act. Clinton is the one that signed the deregulation of the accounting regulations. Clinton gave Freddy and Fanny implicit government guarantees on the loans they made allowing them to loan money without risk inevitably leading to those two companies owning 99+% of mortgages in 2008 as well as today.

These mortgages were the first domino that fell. The "Mortgage backed securities" banks were using to hedge risk were only available to banks because Glass Steagall was no longer law. The government backed agencies have never been much for accounting anyways.; 1/18/15, 12:28 AM
Achilles said...: Rhythm and Balls said...

"Impossible to carry on a conversation with someone stupid and disingenuous enough to believe that the bubble economy and slow recovery had a single cause.

Impossible to carry on a conversation with someone stupid and disingenuous enough to believe that Republicans had no role in any part of their happy bubble economy, or were powerless to stop it when they were in power.

But of course, we don't have to have conversations with people that stupid and disingenuous. After all, non-partisans, independents, and non-Republicans vote, too. While those cheerleading the moral immaculacy of Team Republican can talk to themselves in the corner. As usual."

Note not one single republican policy mentioned. I don't think R&B understands how this whole discussion thing works. As usual.

Note how I posted actual actions signed by Clinton in the above post that led to the 2008 crash and you just say stuff like a jackass.; 1/18/15, 12:33 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Clinton's Statement on Signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
November 12, 1999. This is the act that repaled Glass-Steagall act.
"Removal of barriers to competition will enhance the stability of our financial services system."
Of course the Left still worships Clinton.

Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry. America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act.
Beginning with the introduction of an Administration-sponsored bill in 1997, my Administration has worked vigorously to produce financial services legislation that would not only spur greater competition, but also protect the rights of consumers and guarantee that expanded financial services firms would meet the needs of America's underserved communities. Passage of this legislation by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Congress suggests that we have met that goal.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy. The Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries.

Removal of barriers to competition will enhance the stability of our financial services system. Financial services firms will be able to diversify their product offerings and thus their sources of revenue. They will also be better equipped to compete in global financial markets.; 1/18/15, 1:11 AM
Mick said...: Under putative President Obama their is no United States. It was ended by the installation of an illegal non natural born Citizen who was born British of a British subject Kenyan father (and is probably still British). Barack Obama Sr. was "an improper ascendant" (See Federalist 68), and Hussein Obama was born with the improper influence of a foreign father (and he told you so in Dreams FROM MY FATHER).
There is no "law" or "Constitution" when the executor of the laws is an illegal entity. It's right in front of your face.
What can "law" students at Wisconsin be learning if their "professor" voted for an illegal non natural born Usurper for POTUS?
The Ivory Tower of Academia allowed this to happen. They and the media are the useful idiots.
Now non natural born candidates are lining up on the Republican side (Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, Jindal were all born of foreign parentage), proving that all in Congress know they have committed treason, and now cover for it, giving Obama and his banking Cartel handlers anything they want.; 1/18/15, 6:30 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Original Mike said...
You know what really jumps out at me?

Nothing sensible in the way of an argument, apparently.; 1/18/15, 7:09 AM
Rusty said...: Look at the data. The housing bubble was the Bush economy.

Yes it did. And the Bush administration contacted the Banking Committee and other heads of congress ten times and told them what they were doing wasn't sustainable.
But congress was in the hands of the democrats.; 1/18/15, 7:44 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: Immigration, it's a double win! I drives down wages for low skilled workers while increasing profits for the 1%!

Printing tons of money, it's a double win! You get to give away lots of money you don't have to try to make up for the destruction of the value of low skill work by oversupply though immigration while at the same time benefiting Wall Street with huge gobs of inflation on stock prices and the fees to banker cronies that all of that borrowing generates.; 1/18/15, 7:58 AM
jr565 said...: Rhythm and Blues wrote:
"That's a great idea. Too bad it's never been tried before."
So has war on poverty weatlh redistribution. How has that worked out?; 1/18/15, 8:02 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: "it's going to be a lot harder to fool people into forgetting that Republican policies were in fact implemented and affecting our economy in the years 1980 - 2006."

Anybody who buys the idea that things were worse in 2010, for example, after the crash, than they were in 2009 was simply not yet aware of the economy in 1979.

I was. I remember during that era being told that there was an eight week wait for an *interview* for a job at MacDonalds.

If you asked the average poor person today to live like the average middle class person in those days they would scream at the injustice.; 1/18/15, 8:05 AM
Phil 314 said...: I voted for him last time and I'd be inclined to vote for him again.

Competence and experience are valuable traits for an executive position (neither of which the present occupant possessed in 2008, let alone 2015)

PS Sen. Cruz has little of both also; 1/18/15, 8:12 AM
Phil 314 said...: Wow, it took a Romney post to bring Rhythm and Balls and Mick.; 1/18/15, 8:14 AM
Original Mike said...: "Nothing sensible in the way of an argument, apparently."

You've been schooled on this topic already.; 1/18/15, 8:17 AM
jr565 said...: Fandor wrote:
Mr. Romney includes the 47% in points 2 & 3, not promising more charity, but rather opportunity, through expansion of our economic infrastructure by shrinking government, less regulation, tax reform ect.

Yeah, Again I don't get why conservatives are getting mad at Romney over this. It's called coopting the oppositions message.
Phrase it a different way. If you think income inequality is a bad thing, then measure how it grew under Obama. It got worse. Rich got richer and poor got poorer.
Even using terms the democrats favor, Obamanomics has been a failure.; 1/18/15, 8:23 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Original Mike said...
You've been schooled on this topic already.

Two-time Bush voter syndrome - so delusional on the war and the economy that it borders on mental illness. You guys need an intervention. Just because you voted for him doesn't meant he wasn't a monumental fuck-up.; 1/18/15, 8:30 AM
Original Mike said...: ARM accuses others of mental illness. You're obsession with your little graph certainly isn't healthy.; 1/18/15, 8:38 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Original Mike said...
You're obsession with your little graph

That 'little graph' explains, in large part, the largest economic recession since the Great Depression. Wipe out people's major source of equity and they don't spend any more.

To be fair, this was just a problem for the 'little people', not the people Bush and Greenspan were actually looking out for.; 1/18/15, 8:55 AM
Original Mike said...: A graph, in isolation, explains nothing. I sure hope you're not a teacher.

I'm going to quote ken in tx from the last post in which you were beating this dead horse, and then leave you alone with your obsession:

"The mother of the Great Recession was Janet Reno. Back in the 90s she threatened Bank of America, and others, with legal action if they did not start making more loans to minorities. At that time Forbes published a study that showed that that the default rates for whites and minorities were identical. That meant the banks were applying the same standards to everyone. If they had been holding minorities to a higher standard, minorities would have had a lower default rate. Never-the-less, the banks caved and lowered the standards for everybody, but whined to congress because they could not sell these loans on the secondary market. In stepped Barney Frank, the Banking Queen, and his lover at Fanny May. They rewrote the rules to allow these iffy loans to be bought by Fanny May and others that followed her lead. This started the pump that inflated the bubble. We all know when it burst. Forbes actually predicted it. They just missed the timing by a few years."; 1/18/15, 9:10 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Original Mike said...
"The mother of the Great Recession was Janet Reno.

That's the kind of sensible quantitative analysis one might expect on a law blog.

IT'S JANET RENO'S FAULT.; 1/18/15, 9:14 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: Somebody said "Bush"? It's like saying Beetlejuice three times, it summons forth the monomaniac.; 1/18/15, 9:22 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: Per ARM, the whole cause and effect of the crash of 2008 was self contained within the Bush administration.

This is the kind of 'thinking' that monomaniacs indulge.; 1/18/15, 9:24 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Clinton was a financial industry lackey who also enacted welfare reform after famously "triangulating" per the advice of his advisor, famous Republican prostitute client, Dick Morris, and anyone who doesn't know that needs to take their dick out of their ass and stop pretending I need to enumerate every Republican foible to know that they occurred. Non-partisans remember. If I had to remind Republicans about the details of their every fuck-up, I'd never be able to leave the thread. Which is why I don't come here that much anymore anyway. Y'all have no long-term memory and are so selective in your condemnations it's not worth it. But it's nice to see your passive acceptance of Romney's and the RNC's new liberal talking points. Other than that, I'll be back the next time this boring political party spokespiece decides to update the world on its new directions. Until then, there are people with minds of their own worth reading and commenting on.; 1/18/15, 9:57 AM
cubanbob said...: AReasonableMan said...
Achilles said...
Even the libs at NPR knew that it was fanny and freddy that caused the crash in 2008. That was all Clinton/Gorelick/Reins/Johnson and government meddling in the mortgage markets.

Look at the data. The housing bubble was the Bush economy.

1/17/15, 8:35 PM

The kettle was set on the stove top by the Democrats and it boiled over on Bush's watch. Housing bubbles and stock market bubbles are the side effect of Democrat policies geared at making ever expanding government borrowing and spending possible. These bubbles take time to build up and it's regrettable for the Republicans these bubbles reach their bursting point during their Administrations while the culprits get away with murder.; 1/18/15, 10:43 AM
Mick said...: "PS Sen. Cruz has little of both also"

Cruz is not an eligible natural born citizen, since he was born in Canada to a US Citizen mother and Cuban Citizen father--- he was naturalized at birth by birth to a US citizen.

"Naturalized at birth" is not natural born, neither is "born an American citizen"--- which is what Obama calls himself.

McCain was NATURALIZED AT BIRTH by US Code 8 S. 1403 (Citizenship of children born to US Citizens in the PCZ).

Rubio and Jindal were NATURALIZED AT BIRTH due to birth to US legal resident aliens (Wong Kim Ark @693)

Just so you know, at least Romney is eligible since he is at least 35 years old, at least 14 years resident, and he was born in Detroit to US Citizen parents. However anyone who labels themselves a "R" or ""D is a fool since neither one gives a damn about them, they only serve the Banking Cartel masters.

One should be a "Constitutionalist" and a seeker of Truth., i.e an Independent thinker.; 1/18/15, 11:13 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: The Great Bush Recession had two primary causes, the housing bubble and a massive increase in personal debt. Both of these factors accelerated and peaked during the Bush administration.

This graph captures the enormity of the debt bubble.

These two factors are interrelated, the housing bubble allowed people to take out second mortgages, which they promptly blew on home renovations, cars and boats, thereby racking up unsustainable personal debt.

A bubble, be it in housing, equity or tulips, always benefits someone, typically incumbent politicians.; 1/18/15, 1:43 PM
Paco Wové said...: "Wow, it took a Romney post to bring Rhythm and Balls and Mick."

I think you could substitute in comments from one of Althouse's presidential politics posts from 2008 or 2012 here, and no one would be the wiser.; 1/18/15, 1:47 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: You've never been very wise about anything anyway, Paco.; 1/18/15, 4:20 PM
jr565 said...: ARM,
The bubble started in the 90[s under clinton and the demo:

https://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/

It didn't pop until Bush, but lets not pretend like the seeds weren't planted in the 90s. Back in 2002 it wa the repubs talking bout reigning in fannie and Freddie and dems to a man saying it would be racist hard on the poor if we did anything to curb the excesses.

So they don't now get to stand on their high horses.; 1/18/15, 5:26 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: The denial is strong on this thread.; 1/18/15, 7:10 PM
Unknown said...: ---He leaves all charity to his church, and finds the unwashed masses beneath him to be, well, beneath him.--

Nasty and lying is no way to go through life.

http://nypost.com/2012/09/22/romney-the-giver/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindurgy/2012/05/17/an-inside-look-at-the-millions-mitt-romney-has-given-away/; 1/18/15, 7:15 PM
Unknown said...: --And the Bush administration contacted the Banking Committee and other heads of congress ten times and told them what they were doing wasn't sustainable.---

It was seventeen times.

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/09/bush_called_for.php

And who can forget Barney Frank laughing at him and other Democrats calling him racist for wanting safeguards?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d37_1309899260; 1/18/15, 7:20 PM
Unknown said...: Don’t you wish we had a President who was interested in the welfare of the middle class in stead of all his rich donors? Obama is nothing by Wall Streets puppet.; 1/18/15, 7:25 PM
Rusty said...: Unknown said...
--And the Bush administration contacted the Banking Committee and other heads of congress ten times and told them what they were doing wasn't sustainable.---

It was seventeen times.

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/09/bush_called_for.php

And who can forget Barney Frank laughing at him and other Democrats calling him racist for wanting safeguards?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d37_1309899260

That is in direct contravention of ARMs fantasy.; 1/18/15, 8:05 PM
Achilles said...: Rhythm and Balls said...
Clinton was a financial industry lackey who also enacted welfare reform after famously "triangulating" per the advice of his advisor, famous Republican prostitute client, Dick Morris, and anyone who doesn't know that needs to take their dick out of their ass and stop pretending I need to enumerate every Republican foible to know that they occurred. Non-partisans remember. If I had to remind Republicans about the details of their every fuck-up, I'd never be able to leave the thread. Which is why I don't come here that much anymore anyway. Y'all have no long-term memory and are so selective in your condemnations it's not worth it. But it's nice to see your passive acceptance of Romney's and the RNC's new liberal talking points. Other than that, I'll be back the next time this boring political party spokespiece decides to update the world on its new directions. Until then, there are people with minds of their own worth reading and commenting on."

You don't post actual policy because you can't. All you have is ignorant babbling and preying on ignorance.; 1/18/15, 8:49 PM
Achilles said...: AReasonableMan said...
Original Mike said...
You're obsession with your little graph

"That 'little graph' explains, in large part, the largest economic recession since the Great Depression. Wipe out people's major source of equity and they don't spend any more.

To be fair, this was just a problem for the 'little people', not the people Bush and Greenspan were actually looking out for."

I have cited on here specific Clinton policy that led to the 2008 recession. You posted a graph with no context or critical thought.

You don't play the game because you can't. There is no there there. The 2008 recession was created by government meddling. The free market would have done a better job.; 1/18/15, 8:52 PM
Achilles said...: AReasonableMan said...
"The denial is strong on this thread."

Irony.; 1/18/15, 8:53 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Achilles said...
I have cited on here specific Clinton policy that led to the 2008 recession. You posted a graph with no context or critical thought.

Economics is about numbers, not partisan fairy stories. And, the numbers speak for themselves. Clearly the housing bubble and the spike in personal debt occurred during the Bush administration. No fairy story is going to change that. The numbers were freely available to the administration, they choose to ignore them, like you.; 1/19/15, 6:12 AM
Hyphenated American said...: "Well, once you take your fingers out of your ear, and your thumb out of your butt, you might realize that it means it's going to be a lot harder to fool people into forgetting that Republican policies were in fact implemented and affecting our economy in the years 1980 - 2006. "

Liberals want to go back to the stagflation years of the Carter administration. Right?; 1/19/15, 10:52 AM
Hyphenated American said...: "Economics is about numbers, not partisan fairy stories. And, the numbers speak for themselves. Clearly the housing bubble and the spike in personal debt occurred during the Bush administration. No fairy story is going to change that. The numbers were freely available to the administration, they choose to ignore them, like you."

Two numbers. Unemployment was worse during Carter recession in 1981-82.
Second number - it was president Bush who tried to slow down the housing bubble, and that the Dems in Congress did not let him.

Reality is conservative.; 1/19/15, 10:54 AM
chickelit said...: Liberals want to go back to the stagflation years of the Carter administration. Right?

"Stagflation" sounds like a libertine "Stag Party" which is what liberals evolved into before being so rudely interrupted.; 1/19/15, 2:25 PM
Achilles said...: AReasonableMan said...

"Economics is about numbers, not partisan fairy stories. And, the numbers speak for themselves. Clearly the housing bubble and the spike in personal debt occurred during the Bush administration. No fairy story is going to change that. The numbers were freely available to the administration, they choose to ignore them, like you."

They contacted the banking committee 17 times to try to change it. It takes time for the policies to take effect. But it was those policies. Do I blame republicans for not changing things when they had the chance? Yes. But it was still big government and cronyism that caused the problem. Those crony policies started under Clinton and it was Clinton staffers that made hundreds of millions off it and the democrats just stalled Bush's half hearted attempts to stop it.

In the end it just shows we need less government involvement and less government in general. It just makes cronies in both parties rich.; 1/19/15, 3:35 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Hyphenated American said...
Second number - it was president Bush who tried to slow down the housing bubble

This is neither a number, nor a fact. He was the president of the US, not the local chamber of commerce. If he had no other power he had the power of the bully pulpit. Unfortunately for your argument he used it to to expound upon the 'ownership society' not the real estate bubble.; 1/19/15, 8:43 PM