My Photo

December 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Agenda21 in Prop31's clothing (Addended) | Main | Democratic Convention in another universe (updated 6sep12) »

02 September 2012


Paul Emery


When the Mittster says he will put us on a path to a balanced budget doesn't he mean that until we reach that goal we'll be borrowing money and adding tho the national debt? His earliest dpvultion as to when the budget will be balanced is 2020 What other options are there but to borrow money? . Will you have the same response to him that you did Obama when he increases the national deby?
Here's a pretty good look at Romneys options. this is a summary of a piece by Sahil Kapur

"Parsing his domestic cuts with his deficit-raising policies on health care, taxes and the military — all of which are central to his case against a second term for Obama — it’s unclear that Romney would be able to make strides toward a balanced budget during his presidency. If the Republican nominee enacts the budget policies he has specified, the federal deficit is likely to surge, not diminish, while he’s in office."

Russ Steele

Empty chair, with an empty suit, how realistically charming. I predict we will see many more characterizations of the empty chair. Here is one:

George Rebane

PaulE 624pm - If you're arguing for Obama taxing us out of Depression2, I'm not your man for a debate. As I've said for some years now, there is no painless way out. We have to cut spending massively without losing our ability to generate wealth and project power in the world. Is our electorate wise enough to bite the bullet, or will they succumb to the bullshit that it can all be done with just taxing the 'rich'? My money is on the latter 60-40.

Also see the link above to the corrupting influence of entitlements.

billy T

Dr. Rebane: thank you. I have played that Som Sabadell video over and over again for the last hour. I shall play it again. Thank you. Sincerely, Billy T


I am one of the few who believe solutions exist (see below) BUT will never be attained due to politics as usual. Empty suit = too kind.

1- Stop (hell even just slow down) the military industrial complex. Drastically decrease (or close) bases abroad, stop unconstitutional wars, etc.
2- Make drastic cuts to medicare (coverage and reimbursements) for future generations... encourage private health care (cash for service)... identify medicare as health welfare. Offer the choice for those younger than 45 to fund a "Great" or "Fair" or "Minimum" medicare program and outline what each provides.
3- Make it illegal to run for FED/State office if at any time during your term you and your colleagues failed to balance the budget.
4-Lock in SS taxes at today's rates. Use actuaries to increase the retirement age into the future. IF you means test, then you muse allow for an opt-out of the taxation.
5-Back the US Dollar (even if only a portion) to gold/silver.
6- Make public sector pension plans illegal effective immediately.
7- education, one word: Vouchers.

billy T

Its hard for me to say this, but concerning the deficit and future budgets it looks like a choice of bigger government and big government. When all the pomp and circumstance is over and either Obama or Romney put their hand on the Bible in January to get sworn in, the budget problems will remain for a long time. You walk 20 miles into the woods, you walk 20 miles out. On this specific topic I agree with Paul E.

We must start now to set the tone and mechanisms to reduce the rate of increase of growing government and expenditures, start now to set in place education reform and start now to deal with entitlement reform to save the safety net for our future elderly citizens. The Social Security Supplemental Insurance was created to be a supplemental income. Supplemental only. Now days it is the sole source of livelihood for too many. Mend it, don't end it.

I recall the angry opposition to drilling in ANWR. The argument then was it will not solve the gas shortage and not one drop of oil will even flow for 10 years. Well my friends, it has been over ten years since then and we are still 10 years away from one drop of oil heading south.

I am voting for the Romney ticket (surprise, surprise) because I believe we have a better chance to tackle some of these problems and get the ball rolling. Obamacare must be redone to be true health insurance reform. A pro-jobs environment must be recreated as a rising tide lifts all boats.

Yes, government builds the roads and bridges which employers and employees alike use. A given. It is also a given that that is why we pay taxes. Government is our servant and they must built our roads and bridges and secure our freedoms and safety. That is what we pay them to do. So, government, shut up and quit whining. Do your job. Your job is to protect our God given rights so the individuals can peruse whatever crazy ideas the individuals can dream up and lawfully do or not do.

I am voting for Romney because of one line he said. He said Obama believes government creates jobs.

Steven Frisch

In the end, if Mr. Romney is elected, he will need to raise the debt ceiling, or face American financial ruin.

I think the essence of Paul's question is "Do you think Democrats will block increasing the debt ceiling and hold it hostage? Do we think that conservatives will block the increase and demand draconian cuts to avoid needing to?"

I think the answer is NO. But we will see, if Mr. Romney is elected (which I doubt).

billy T

Finally agree with Mr. Frisch today. Mark your calenders. The fiscal cliff must be avoided no matter what. A must, IMHO. Hopefully it will be in the lame duck, but doubtful. Obama has bet all his political capital on not extending the tax breaks across the board, so he won't do an about face after hammering the rich relentlessly. His entire reelection campaign hinges on sticking it to the man.

Maybe with Obama gone, the fiscal cliff will be avoided. Maybe the Republicans will blink in a lame duck. This is truly playing with fire. Never trust a demolition expert who is missing fingers.

The deficit will increase no matter who is charge. With Romney at the helm and tax cuts, it will rise. With Obama at the helm, it will balloon. Businesses need a stable environment with a degree of certainty to start investing. Consumers need to feel optimistic to start spending. Businesses waiting on consumers to start spending and consumers waiting for businesses to start hiring. Another game of who blinks first.

Our Congress has let the American people down. Forget blaming, just fix the mo-fro. The House has passed about 20% (63) of its bills this year that do nothing but rename post offices.

In a bit of irony right now, I am watching Obama on the stump. He does not like being blamed for the jobs mess, not one little bit. He is whining the Republicans say its all Obama's fault. You point one finger forward, you got 3 pointing back.

Where is Bob Dole when we need him? Where is any leadership? Heck, I will settle for a Scoop Jackson.

Steven Frisch

Both the debt ceiling and the sequester will be dealt with in the lame duck session, the solution coming from the Senate--with Obama bending on the renewal of the Bush tax cuts to raise the threshold, a $2-$3 trillion deficit reduction plan over the next 4 years, and the debt ceiling raised enough to cover about 2 years of operations.


The government, via the budgeting process, controls the creation of jobs that will be needed to solve these 7,980 problems:


As one who notes BillyT just made remark about demolition experts and missing fingers, I think the Bob Dole comment is in rather odd taste.

George Rebane

StevenF 146pm - do you have a feel for how deep or long will the "bend" be on the renewal of the Bush tax cuts? The natural concern is that if it's for another short interval, like the last time, businesses will still have problems with assessing risk and creating jobs, like the last time.

TomK 207pm - from your mouth to Obama's ear. The government's ability to create wealth producing (sustainable GDP increasing) jobs is almost nil. But it can create a clear path and stable environment that invites the appropriate risk taking to create such jobs. However, at least half of the electorate either don't know or don't believe that.


Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is now asking, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Seems to me that at least he is....


So thegovernment bidding out for 60 fighter aircraft is not the government creating jobs (: George Rebane | 03 September 2012 at 02:17 PM)? You've got to be kidding?


If you can't protect products, and you can';t ship products, you are out of business.

George Rebane

TomK 216pm - Really now!? please give it a rest.

Besides billyT may have erred in his conclusion. Henry Ford refused to fire Breech, Edsel's boss and Ford VP, after the car's failure. Ol' Henry said he wasn't about to have Chrysler or GM benefit from the schooling Breech got at Ford's expense. For the same reason, a demolition with missing fingers may be just the guy you want to defuse the next IED. Hard to tell.


The government and the taxpayer "built that" not private industry. Private industry would not have "built that" without the government paying for it.

George Rebane

TomK 223pm - Again, your reading habits precede your reasoning (please reread my 217pm). But if the jobs building those fighters are really the solution to our unemployment problem, then declare total victory and order 6,000 more fighters, or better yet, fund high speed rail projects in every state in the union, or ... .

All the government needs to do is to borrow or print more of that faith-based stuff. Or better yet, tax the crap out of the corporations and the middle class (remember, that's where the money is even before you take everything from the 'rich'), and then see how the employment picture improves.

Re your 228pm, what's the "that" that all those taxpayers and government built?


Re your 228pm, what's the "that" that all those taxpayers and government built?

The national infrastructure, no taxpayers paying for private enterprise to build stuff, nothing gets built, see the last four years.


I suppose from your point of view, waiting for private industry to decide that the national infrastructure needs repair is the way to go. Even government is rather shortsighted about such things. I guess when San Francisco takes the next really Big One we should just declare it off limits to rebuilding?

Paul Emery

So George, why did Bush Jr's tax cuts produce such few jobs? This chart shows Bush Jr as the worst job creator in modern times

umbers listed from 1941 and onward are BLS data[2] of jobs (in thousands), and are shown from the year beginning and ending each presidential term. The monthly statistics are quoted from January, as U.S. presidents take office at the end of that month, and from September (bold), as this is the last month of the federal fiscal year[3]. That is, the election in November will cause a president to take office at the end of January and begin the process of passing a federal budget which takes effect in the October following the election year.
U.S. president Party Term years Start jobs
(Jan) Start jobs
(Sept) End jobs
(Jan) End jobs
(Sept) Created
(Jan) Created
(Sept) Ave annual increase
(Jan) Ave annual increase
Harding/Coolidge R 1921–1925 25,000 ** 29,500 ** +4,500 ** +4.23% **
Calvin Coolidge R 1925–1929 29,500 ** 32,100 ** +2,600 ** +2.13% **
Herbert Hoover R 1929–1933 32,100 ** 25,700 ** -6,400 ** -5.41% **
Franklin Roosevelt D 1933–1937 25,700 ** 31,200 ** +5,500 ** +4.97% **
Franklin Roosevelt D 1937–1941 31,200 ** 34,480 37,836 +3,280 ** +2.53% **
Franklin Roosevelt D 1941–1945 34,480 37,836 41,903 38,500 +7,423 +664 +5.00% +0.44%
Roosevelt/Truman D 1945–1949 41,903 38,500 44,675 43,784 +2,772 +5,284 +1.61% +3.27%
Harry Truman D 1949–1953 44,675 43,784 50,145 50,365 +5,470 +6,581 +2.93% +3.56%
Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957 50,145 50,365 52,888 52,932 +2,743 +2,567 +1.34% +1.25%
Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961 52,888 52,932 53,683 54,387 +795 +1,455 +0.37% +0.68%
Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965 53,683 54,387 59,583 61,490 +5,900 +7,103 +2.64% +3.12%
Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969 59,583 61,490 69,438 70,918 +9,855 +9,428 +3.90% +3.63%
Richard Nixon R 1969–1973 69,438 70,918 75,620 77,281 +6,182 +6,363 +2.16% +2.17%
Nixon/Ford R 1973–1977 75,620 77,281 80,692 83,532 +5,072 +6,251 +1.64% +1.96%
Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 80,692 83,532 91,031 91,471 +10,339 +7,939 +3.06% +2.30%
Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 91,031 91,471 96,353 98,023 +5,322 +6,552 +1.43% +1.75%
Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 96,353 98,023 107,133 108,326 +10,780 +10,303 +2.69% +2.53%
George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 107,133 108,326 109,726 111,358 +2,593 +3,032 +0.60% +0.69%
Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 109,725 111,360 121,233 123,418 +11,507 +12,060 +2.52% +2.60%
Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 121,231 123,418 132,466 131,524 +11,233 +8,106 +2.24% +1.60%
George W. Bush R 2001–2005 132,466 131,524 132,453 134,240 -13 +2,716 -0.00% +0.51%
George W. Bush R 2005–2009 132,453 134,240 133,561 129,734 +1,108 -4,506 +0.21% -0.84%

Paul Emery

Oh yes Obama

Barack Obama D 2009–2013 133,561 129,734 132,461
(January 2012) 133,088
(through June 2012) -1,152
(January 2012) +3,354
(through June 2012) -0.28%
(January 2012) +0.84%
(through June

George Rebane

PaulE 329pm - Were job creation only a function of a president's calendar term, you might have a point with that grim array of numbers. But it isn't.

And were I to draw an influence factors diagram of how tax, regulatory, fiscal, monetary policies in effect, policy time delays, control of concurrent Congress, and concurrent geo-political situations, then everyone would roll their eyes. It's much better to have simple relations like the one you show above. Hallelujah, how clear it all is!

TomK 250pm - Private industry can only point to what infrastructure development/maintenance it needs to conduct business. The infrastructure is really the business of governments - federal, state, county, and municipal. But governments get into so much more costly enterprises, like the supply of goodies and wealth redistribution, that there's not much left over for infrastructure. Fixing a road or a bridge in a timely manner is an invisible benefit and doesn't buy many votes, but stuffing a check into their shorts, now you're talking. It was ever thus.

Todd Juvinall

Bush unemplyment rate down to 4.5%, full employment. Maybe you can't "create" jobs when there is full employment.

Steven Frisch

Since job creation is a function of the calendar Bush actually comes out better than he would. The country lost 300-700,000 jobs a month in January, February, March and April, May and June of 2009.

January 2009 – 741,000 jobs lost
February 2009 – 681,000 jobs lost
March 2009 – 652,000 jobs lost
April 2009 – 519,000 jobs lost
May 2009 – 303,000 jobs lost
June 2009 – 463,000 jobs lost

Paul Emery


The figures are from the BLS surveys and are the same source that the Repubs use to cite Obama's job growth problems.

It is estimated that tax cuts to the 1% has cost nearly a trillion dollars and there is absolutely no evidence that they created jobs. Add a couple trillion for the cost of Bush's wars and another couple trill for tarp and assorted bailouts on his watch and you get a pretty good picture why we are where we are today.

Russ Steele


You are good at finding number, please explain these:

Paul Emery

I will be the last one to defend Obama's job creation policies. He largely carried on Bush's programs and bailouts for BAnksters. I am just trying to put things in historical perspective.

billy T

Well fellas, at least a demo expert with missing fingers has a hard time flipping y'all off. I agree with Dr. Rebane's 2:35 and 3:47 comments. Hate to rehash the "you did not build it" comment coupled with job creation.

I have stated on this forum that if Obamacare was going to balance the budget (as promoted at the time), then why not cover every man woman and child in the Western Hemisphere and have a surplus. Problem solved.
Brother Tom, of course government hires people. There is something like a half million people employed in the Justice Department alone. Government taxes you and hires workers. Without you and me and Paul and other dumb working stiffs, no paycheck for the public servants. Opps, Uncle Sam can print both paychecks and money. The WPA hired people for a limited period of time. Like the Stimulus money that hired a few dudes to repave Broad St in Nevada City for 6 hours. It is not 100% this or that EVER in life. There are always small exceptions so quit making a mountain out of ass pimple.
About jobs, I have conceded that Reagen had a larger manufacturing base to deal with back in the day.
Clinton had three things going for him in his 2nd term. A tech bubble beginning to crank up, a balanced budget, and a Fed that could lower interest rates. Rates weren't always zero. Remember Carters 10-14%?
The economy for Clinton was coming out of a recession before Clinton lifted one finger (save a cig tax)and his policies were even passed. Under Obama, we were backing off the edge of the cliff by January 2009. His "job creating/job saving" stimulus did not kick in until June 2009 as things were turning around. I believe Obama's policies stalled the economy. Recession is over, but it sure don't feel way.
Each President faces new and UNIQUE challenges. Play with historical stats until the cows come home. I support Romeny because he has leadership qualities. He is the kind of type that will roll up his sleeves and pour over actuary reports with a fine tooth comb. We can do better. Obama's understanding of the real world is in lala land. It ain't even personal anymore.

billy T

Re: Dr Rebane's 2:26. "Besides billyT may have erred in his conclusion."

Thank you Dr. Rebane. That is the most classy way anyone has ever told me I am off track. I do admire your use of words and style. Wish I had the ability to gently correct someone without them getting all butt hurt. Smooth move. That is why it is always beneficial to a have a doc in the house. Tanks. Tanks a rocket :)


Unless you are voting outside of California, Romney vote is a Nader vote. Why not write in someone who holds values much closer to your own In my case that would be Mike Tyson DeGrasse.


Bush II inherited the dot com bomb recession, suffered the two worst Speakers of my lifetime (Hastert and Pelosi), and 9/11 hit just as the economy was showing some life.

Paul Emery

Poor little Georgie. He took the little recession and turned it into the biggest since the great D. Now that took some real special talents.
They sure kept him out of camera site last week. He was as welcome as a turd in a hot tub. I'm assuming that's appropriate language on his blog, it's been used before by our host.

Oh yes Hastert. Now there was a real porkster or porkstar if you prefer. He was a master of gulping up Government handouts till he ran the Repub ship ashore and quit the house. Thanks for the memory Gregory.

billy T

'He was as welcome as a turd in a hot tub.' Now you are speaking my language. People were pissed to the max at W in 08. I knew a massage lady that told me people were coming in so upset that she barred them from talking politics just to calm them down for a relaxing massage. Yep, people were angrier than a mad hornet at Bush. That was 08. Obama came along with his hope message. He carried Dems, young, women, all minorities and even a bunch of Republicans. Now it is 2012. People are not angry, just disappointed. Some feel betrayed, others feel saddened, discouraged if you will. I get it. People are fickle and have short attention spans. Looking back is more comfortable than looking ahead.

I even agree that green energy is not the devil's brew. Looking over the horizon, I can see solar panels all over everybody's rooftops down the line. Probably good for the country and environment in the long run, like dams and flood control are good protections against natural disasters and drought years.

But we are in a bit of a global downturn that keeps that sinking feeling in your gut alive and well. Folks are concerned with their dwindling savings and how to crack the monthly mortgage nut, not to mention paying for Junior's college bill and little Suzie's wedding.

It is not wise to parade Bush out on display. No argument there. It is not wise to let Jimmy Carter out his cage either this week. Even the Hollywood A-Listers are being kept at bay this week. Don't look good to have out President surrounded by hip and cool actor type jet setters. Don't sit well with the blue collar types.

I feel like a broken record when I say we need someone to get in there, get his hands dirty, get close to the stink and fix the mess. We need a new Sheriff in town.

Obama would be ok in times of peace and prosperity. He is a land of milk and honey type of guy. He could spout inspirational speeches all day long and dream up large schemes to turn back the rising oceans and pluck Mc Scrooge's feathers. But these are not the good times. No time to sing "Roll out the barrels." We need a John Wayne to clean up Dodge, not some James Joyce.


Sorry Paul, to get to the Great Recession required another Clinton innovation... federally sponsored subprime mortgages with oversight by Senator Dodd (D-Countrywide) and Barney frank.

What a shame Democrats couldn't nominate better candidates than Gore and Kerry.

Ryan Mount

There was a mild "boom" between 2003-2007, but we doubled down on a series of bad spending decisions, notably housing (as Greg notes), energy and some commodities. But mostly is was housing.

But what was driving this beside wreck less policies of politicians we elected. The [very bad] behavior is a result of incentives that the government provided. The government generously poured, but the banks and joe-schmoe under-qualified mortgage customer drank deeply.

Seems to me that underpinning all of this is a shitty monetary policy. People lost faith in the dollar and moved capital to the aforementioned. (I got to say "aforementioned"). Suppose Mikey would have something more to say about this.

It's hard not to be extra cynical about Clinton or any other jackass. Perhaps they knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and were just trying to keep the Titanic up for a couple of more years until their Presidential libraries were built.


Not to worry about blue collar types, the unemployed middle classers are all learning to mow lawns and pound nails, and soon they'll all be in the same Holy Submarine, with air pumped in by the Dems, or left to die by the Repubs, who still follow the dictum: "Capitalism says built it where the total cost to the company is the lowest, and the total cost to the country be damned."

Who set up the banks to go creative/destructive?

"The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report that explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.[3]

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[4]

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[5][6][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[8][9][10][note 2]

When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).[note 3]

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[9][12] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[13][note 4] and by the House 362-57.[14][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[15]"

Todd Juvinall

BillyT, I just love your writing! You are sooo funny and actually you say much more cogent things than most of us could ever come up with. You need to write a Dave Barry type column man.

Hastert. I am as disappointed in him as the left. He was a porker and I actually sent mail asking him to stop, but to no avail. He was like the friendly uncle who came over for dinner and stole the silverware and no one expected him to do that. But the silverware was missing. He is as to blame for the bloating as anyone else.

Regarding Bush and the obsession the liberals have for him. They hate his guts then cry that he was not at the convention. Why is that? I saw him and his dad in a real nice video during the convention and they showed support for Romney. Hell, I did not hear any boooos or slams from the press. I am seeing Clint get the liberal treatment now that he came out for Romney and against Obama. The comedy shows are now jabbing him. Of course if he had come our for Obama, they would be singing his praises. So predictable.

I remember sitting on my couch that Tuesday morning and watching planes crash into the Towers and the Pentagon and everything changed in an instant for our country and the world. The economy was starting to accelerate and things were getting better and then the scumbag Muslim murderers killed my fellow citizens en- masse. The stock market lost a trillion dollars in value in one day. Yeah that Bush, it was all his fault the left says as they sat back and carped endlessly as the brave men and women went over and kicked Taliban ass in a few days. Still to this day the left just can't get their heads on right to support our country's defense.

What is truly interesting about the Iraq War is the end results. The left jabbed Bush about his refusal to do "nation building" and then when he did, they jabbed him for doing it! Then there is the so-called "Arab Spring" which to me is the result of the Iraq war end game where the Arab street saw freedom from totalitarian leaders and governance and the Liberals are all for that. What it says to me is the liberals are simply never happy with anything unless it is their idea and even then not so much.

Steven Frisch

Tom has it precisely right. Both Republicans and Democrats were responsible for the regulatory environment that led to the banking crises, with banks being in the front row cheering them on. To define this as a 'partisan' issue is sheer revisionism.

Ryan Mount

> Who set up the banks to go creative/destructive?

Yes Doug. What you present here is twice-told copy. We wanted all of this, because we voted for them. No one was complaining when they installed new kitchens on that second mortgage, were they? Or complaining when they got their first with ghost income? It's always after the fact when people figure it out. (well, there were some loud and notable voices before the implosion, but no one listened to them. Peter Schiff was one of them who pounded his fists over and over again only to be branded a quack. How could he be right, some said? I have a new RV bought with my second mortgage!)

Now we're stuck in quite a circular conundrum. One way to ensure that the working classes get out from under their debt (and start saving) would to let interest rates rise. But we can't do that, because everyone who has money, including public funds, has it jammed way up Wall Street's butt and not in conservative investments like a bank account. Allowing rates to raise would murder said investments. So in effect, we want people to stay down and out. That includes you and me.


It isn't 'revisionist' to note the program to push subprime mortgages was a Clinton innovation to help the disadvantaged get in on the housing boom, nor is it revisionist to note the Government Sponsored Entities Fannie and Freddie remain, as always, Democratic Party sacred cows.

Banking deregulation was just the topping on the subprime moose turd pie a la mode.

That Republicans and Democrats were both feeding at the trough doesn't change the ownership of that particular trough. Barney Frank, ever the watercarrier, was even touting investing in Fannie just a couple months before the crash... something about their problems being behind them and were then a good investment going forward.

Some of us didn't ride the escalator and bought homes we could comfortably afford on the income we had.


Ryan and Rebane, thanks for highlighting the fact that our economy is a dynamic system. Bush gave us tax cuts and negated them by forcing us all to drink Keynesian Kool-aid. Both monetary and fiscal policy under Bush were bad for America.

The economy needs what is has always needed: certainty. Obama could have provided certainty (and jobs and tax revenue) but instead he shoved nationalized healthcare down our throats with more keynesian Kool-aid to wash it down.

As an entrepreneur I sit idle until I know what the rules of the game will be.


The Federal Reserve has created more problems in the last decade (including today) than any other 'arm' of the government.

Take it from my coffee mug: "End The FED!"


Mikey, while I never was a Bush supporter, it must seem like it to the Bush bashers because they forget the macroeconomics behind the Bush years. $1.4 TRILLION of US stock market value was destroyed in ONE WEEK, along with 3 MILLION square meters of NY office space destroyed or damaged, and the country shaken to its core by commandeered airliners flown into the WTC towers.

Thanks for nothing to Bush I for getting our troops into the Middle East in the first place and not finishing the job, and thanks for nothing to Bill Clinton for letting the problems fester for 8 years.

Clinton's legacy is burnished by the simpleminded who forget it was Gingrich that balanced the budget and forced the welfare work reforms, and that it was the Internet and the NASDAQ that drove the economy to the point where a doggie sock puppet on TV selling 50# sacks of dog food delivered to your door seemed like an investment grade opportunity.


Well put Gregory. Well put.

Thank you Keynesians:

$16 trillion will be surpassed today! Hip Hip!

billy T

Ah, a topic that warms the cockles of me weary heart. Banking and financial institutions. Subprime slime and the push since Carter to make home ownership a right. Community organizers and politicians threatening banks and lenders to keep the taps open. Ryan is spot on. We loved it when the housing market was swelling up like the Wizard's balloon leaving OZ. We were insulated from the nastiness of the real world as is Bubble Boy rolling down the street. But, then it popped.

I submit for your consideration an new entity to blame. The blame list is long, but there is room for one more: Government Regulators.

Fanny and Freddie together have over 300 full time regulators overseeing the books. Every report they submitted to Barnie's Finance Committee up to the crash said everything is honky-dory. Guess 300 green visor dudes is not enough.

The recent spanking of Jamie Dimon's JP Morgan Chase by the House revealed to me one overlooked item. Dimon said he had about 150 government regulators in the JP Morgan Chase building. Dimon provided them office space at Chase's cost and they hovered over the bank's every move. Still, the regulators right in the Bank's own building with access to the books could not detect the trading scheme in Europe that cost JP Chase 2-8 billion.

Shoot, "the smartest man in Washington when it comes to finance" Jon Corzine (former senator, former governor, and former Ceo of Goldman Sacks) could not even find 20 bucks of the missing 800 million of his MF Global Fund. Regulators can't find it either.

Putting faith in government regulators and prosecution to right things makes me more nervous than a prostitute in church.

On a related under reported item, The Justice Department announced it was dropping all charges and investigations against Goldman Sacks for their part in the meltdown. This announcement came out late Friday before the 3 day weekend. No government worker in Washington is around at 5:01 pm, lol. Also, last Friday at closing time, the Justice Department dropped all charges against Sheriff Joe. 4 years of giving Sheriff Joe an anal exam produced no stink. Let the Convention begin!

billy T

Another unrelated item for your consideration. Make of it what you will:

The comments to this entry are closed.