Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: No more Republican rich getting richer

Letter by Michael Mackey, Tacoma on Oct. 29, 2010 at 3:33 pm with 108 Comments »
October 30, 2010 6:58 am

Why would anyone want to send another no voting yes man to the Senate to help Mitch McConnell finish destroying the government?

Why return to Republican economics which resulted in losing half of our retirement fund and value of our homes? No thanks!. Privatize Social Security? Who would that benefit? This is change or a return to the same old ideas of the rich getting richer and the middle class gets screwed.

When Carter was in office the deficit was almost a trillion dollars. After twenty years of Reagen,Bush and Bush it’s around fourteen trillion dollars and they blame the Democrats; what a scam!. They borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars, spread it around to their cronies, businesses and corporations and now the middle class and their children and grandchildren have to pay it back, Swell!

No thanks Dino, our votes are going to Patty.

Tags:
,
Leave a comment Comments → 108
  1. Roncella says:

    Michael, Please get some honest, truthful information from some place other than MSNBC, Keith Olbermann, Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow, Mr. Ed, or CNN, Wolf Blitzer, Larry King.

    Hopefully you might be to busy to vote this time around.

  2. bandit101 says:

    Ummm….. 7 trillion under Bush, 13 trillion under Obama. Yeah, just keep voting in those money saving Democrats that do such “WONDERFUL” things for you and your children. Way to go, Skippy! You really need to read something besides what comes out of the Huffington Post and NBC.

    Oh! And, by the way, it has been you boy, Obama, borrowing all those trllions of dollars. Earth to Skippy, earth to Skippy, come in Skippy!

    Sorry for all the sarcasm, but I can’t believe that Michael just laid down all those bogus (Supposed) facts about the defecit. ….. and I keep reading how well enlightened the liberals are. Sheesh!

  3. bandit101 says:

    Oh! And let us not forget Bill Maher!

  4. First_Lefty says:

    Bandit – you know how Bush didn’t have a larger deficit? Don’t report the spending. Call it “security”.

    Sort of reminds me of my ex-wife. If she didn’t talk about spending money, that meant that she didn’t spend it, even though it was no longer in the bank.

    I can see where you’d have a problem with Maher. He hosts a live show and has a balanced panel.

  5. aislander says:

    Do you mean the rich Republicans such as Jay Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Nancy Pelosi, various Kennedys, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and, although I’m sure I’m leaving out MANY deserving Dems, let us not forget George Soros. Seriously, Mackey, Democrat policies punish people who would like to BECOME rich, not those who’ve already made their piles and want to shut the door on any would be newcomers to the club…

  6. silencedogood says:

    And let’s not forget Al Gore, he of the 20-room, 8-bathroom, 10,000-square ft mansion that consumes more energy than 20 average houses; he who promoted “cap and trade” in hopes of making huge profits in carbon credits. Last time I look he was a Democrat.

  7. menopaws says:

    Why are you people so mean-spirited?? Dino Rossi is not my candidate of choice and I agree with this letter……But, I have to say this sincerely–the party of “family values” has spawned a lot of ugliness…….To the writer who called President Obama a “boy”, what bugs you the most? the fact that he is a black man or the fact that he is educated and smarter than you will ever be? Slither back under your rock boy!!! Socialist agenda is little more than code speak for racist anger. And the Republicans know how to make you “boys” dance, don’t they? I’m a Democrat who is tired of all your ugly stuff and feel like fighting back……You want Bush back? I am sure Cheney or Jeb Bush and Halliburton would be happy to run the government for you again!!!!

  8. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Hey Michael – please let the folks know the phone numbers of all the welfare recipients with job openings – I’m sure there are folks out there who will inquire!!!

    I’ll stick with checking with the rich guys!!!

  9. bandit101 says:

    Oooooh, menopaws. We really struck a nerve in you, eh? If you want to know why I referred to Obama as boy, is because I am still waiting for him to act presidential. Up until now he has only been a professional campaign speaker and spender. Oh! And I find it quite insulting that you would call me or any of these other posters in here racists. The only one that brought that up is you. It’s time to quit puting words in people’s mouths.

  10. fanciladi says:

    Why would be return to Republican economics?…well, it would be a return to sanity!

  11. “Ummm….. 7 trillion under Bush, 13 trillion under Obama. Yeah, just keep voting in those money saving Democrats that do such “WONDERFUL” things for you and your children. Way to go, Skippy! You really need to read something besides what comes out of the Huffington Post and NBC.”

    Where ever he’s been getting his information, its a lot more accurate than yours. Earth to skippy! Earth to skippy!: GWB increased the national debt from 5.6 trillion to 11 trillion, plus what he kept off the books thats now been added to Obama’s deficit..

  12. “Democrat policies punish people who would like to BECOME rich, not those who’ve already made their piles and want to shut the door on any would be newcomers to the club…”

    Give me a break! So thats why Reagan raised taxes on the poor and middle-class while lowering them on the rich? He lowered the top tax bracket from 50% to 28% while raising the lowest bracket from 11% to 15%, removed Washington state sales tax deductibility, restricted deductibility of IRA’s, removed a favorable capital gains tax, removed credit & consumer loan deductibility, and removed income averaging, all of which harm the middle-class trying to climb the economic ladder. And then there were the GWB tax cuts which also benefited the mostly the wealth, with a few bones thrown to the lower incomes to keep them quiet.

  13. BlaineCGarver says:

    The EU, who the lefties so admire, are marching directly away from the leftist/socialist programs that have nearly bankrupted them. The USA is the only country persuing a solid left future.

  14. bobcat1a says:

    To quote Ronnie, “there you go again” Cirrus, using facts and reason to debate a teapublican. Proven loser. Try ad hominems; they understand that.

  15. Insanity – repeating the same action and expecting different results.

    Like putting the corporate lapdogs back in power to clean up their mess using the same trickle down, out sourcing policies that got us in this mess in the first place.

  16. slasmith says:

    I am tired of people refering to the debt as Obama’s or Bush’s it is the debt of the citizens of the United States and as one of those citizens I would prefer it stop growing and be paid off.

  17. aislander says:

    Don’t you lefties get it? The rich–the really rich–don’t PAY income tax, and never have…

  18. JungleBoy says:

    I have to laugh at the way the Left has been fooled into thinking it’s only big, bad Republicans who are rich. Meanwhile, the 54 millionaires in the Senate, and 237 in the Congress, are laughing at all of us.

  19. redneckbuck says:

    Cutting the current fat ladden system of government is the only way we save our economy. Obama’s spending has only pushed off what has to happen. After the new year the economy will tank. The military is returning and all the temp/holiday jobs will go away. Unemployment will top 12%.

  20. Islander – Dems do and we know that it is not correct. The R’s on the other hand thank the rich pay to much and want to cut their taxes even more.

  21. menopaws says:

    Obama doesn’t need to prove he is the President or “act” like one……..We had 8 years of “macho man” and if that is your idea of how a President should act—just remember that he used his mighty brain to invade a country for oil, ignored the intelligence people who WARNED him about Bin Laden………Like I said, brains don’t seem to be a high priority for people who slam this President and long for the good old days of being lied to on a daily basis by their government. . Serving your country with honor doesn’t mean doing it with a swagger and being a bully. It means doing the hard, unpopular work. I expect my President to be smarter than me–and I felt very superior to Mr. Bush. I don’t want a “good ole boy” as my President or a vapid, opportunistic Barbie doll from Alaska either……..So, yep–I’m a Democrat snob and considering what the Republicans are putting out there as “leaders” these days–it ain’t hard.

  22. redneckbuck says:

    Bring back Bush!

  23. Roncella says:

    Memopaws, Try and get off of your Obama KoolAid.

    You Admire President Obama’s, Bows and Apoligies to Communist Dictators, Socialist World leaders,

    As he Stood with the Mexican President against the brave Arizona Governor and its citizens trying to stop the violence on their border with Mexico

    , Forced obama Care on all Americans,

    Swallowd up the Auto Industries, Banks, spent Trillon’s of dollars with nothing to show for it. He did all this in less than 2 years.

    Now he sits there and lets a joker on a late night comedy show laugh at him and address him as Dude, all for a few possible votes, Yes he’s the leader to be proud of all right.

  24. First_Lefty says:

    “bandit101 says:
    October 29, 2010 at 7:05 pm
    Oooooh, menopaws. We really struck a nerve in you, eh? If you want to know why I referred to Obama as boy, is because I am still waiting for him to act presidential.”

    The most presidential thing he has done is ignored the childish racial taunts of the Right Wing.

    Racism is ignorance.

  25. First_Lefty says:

    “As he Stood with the Mexican President against the brave Arizona Governor”

    You must mean the LYING Arizona Governor. There were no headless bodies and no murders tracked to illegal aliens.

    A true patriot will choose truth over blind partisanship any day

  26. ” losing half of our retirement fund ”

    And that happened after Nancy and Harry took over.

  27. First_Lefty says:

    “thewho says:
    October 30, 2010 at 9:26 am
    ” losing half of our retirement fund ”

    And that happened after Nancy and Harry took over.”

    What happened? How about specifics? Oh, I forgot…. specifics don’t work for Conservatives.

  28. Sumner401 says:

    Those are great questions Michael, notice those that are going to vote for the destruction of nation, can’t answer them.
    They can only attack you and, laughingly, try to claim the are going to ‘help’ you.

    The rightwing is bankrupt and their agenda is why we are in the mess we are in, even they know it. They just don’t have the stones to admit it.

  29. Sumner401 says:

    Why would be return to Republican economics?…well, it would be a return to sanity!

    OK, you will have to explain that.
    Considering that republican economic policy is why we are in trouble, why would it be a ‘return to sanity’ to screw things up even more?

    The definition of insanity is to keep doing something and hope for a different result.
    We have tried the rightwing economics for 30 years…..it doesn’t work.

  30. JB, I too wonder why no one pauses to think about how politicians leave home as regular folks and return after unlimited terms in office as millionaires, and I’m certainly not speaking of one side over the other.

    I say we might have to go to term limits, which is too bad because one would hope that time would season these people in a positive way when all it seems to do is corrupt most of them.

    “Jay Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Nancy Pelosi, various Kennedys, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and, although I’m sure I’m leaving out MANY deserving Dems, let us not forget George Soros” … Al Gore, John Edwards, etc.

    menopaws…I am so disappointed that you have fallen into the soup re the racism accusation. Do not believe for a minute that the lion’s share of folks opposing Obama politics does so because he is half African American. It simply is not true. Would that a reasonable black candidate had surfaced so you could see this clearly, but as it is, the dems have simply used the president’s heritage as a weapon; it’s a ruse.

    It is his agenda, his ideology, his methodology, and his arrogance that I dislike, and I don’t care if he’s covered in polka dots.

  31. fanciladi says:

    Sumner401, I don’t have to explain anything…it’s obvious this BO Administration is insanity in high gear!

  32. menopaws says:

    Yep–did strike a nerve. We Democrats usually sit and take all the crap that the right wing spews out…….they are very good at diverting attention away from the corporate lobbyists stuffing money into their pockets…….Sending the “peasants” off on a rant about “Obama-care” or immigration allows them to believe they have a voice…….Naive and stupid. Wall Street made up their mind when financial reform was passed to shove money at the Tea Party to take control of Congress…….And, bailing out the auto industry kept people working–unemployment would have been even worse……But, hey, don’t let facts slow you down……..don’t let the fact that Americans bought houses they couldn’t afford, ran up credit card debt and now. like the big babies they truly are, must blame the government for their own GREEDY failures……..Keep dancing–Wall Street is waiting to pop open the champagne on Tuesday night…….

  33. redneckbuck says:

    ahh for the good old days of bush and 4.5% unemployment.

  34. Roncella says:

    Menopaws I hate to bust your bubble, but Wall Street has given more to Obama and the Dems. then to Republicans by a long shot. Sorry to dissapoint you.

  35. redneckbuck says:

    Anyone that says that the Dems did not destroy the housing market by forcing banks to lend to morons that can’t make payments is a fool.

  36. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Just one little question for the naive leftists – How is all that “hope” & “change” working for the country??

  37. A ” no – voting yes man” to the Senate (as in “present”) – Barry Hussein

  38. silencedogood says:

    For the TRUTh about the Arizona beheading:

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=12001420

  39. Specifically, my 457 was giving an excellent return after Bush cut taxes and I didn’t start losing money until about a year after he became a lame duck, same with my home value.
    I have now been as specific as the letter writer.

    “Why return to Republican economics which resulted in losing half of our retirement fund and value of our homes?”

    “How about specifics? Oh, I forgot….” lefty used the double standard.

  40. redneckbuck, forcing banks to lend to morons should be called ‘economic affirmative action’ , it was part of the “spread it around” idiocy.

  41. menopaws says:

    I keep forgetting—Wall Street did all those deriatives as an “act of charity”…….And, one last thing–most of those mortgages and trendy spending was done during the BUSH years, when regulators in Congress were calling for more oversight and were ignored, made fun of by all those right wing genuises who you worship…..the wars were done OFF the books, so when we elected an honest man who included it in our debt–then, the Republicans blamed him for bills they ran up…….Neat trick……PT. Barnhum was right—suckers born every minute………So, let’s be clear–most of the heavy debt load was caused by Democrats???? How about lazy, stupid voters who bought the mortgages, and continue to whine about the deficit they helped make happen…………..John Stewart is my new hero—Vote for sanity…….Let Karl Rove and Dick Armey go work at Burger King and send their Wall Street clients to the back of the bus……..Yeah, Republicans worship “personal responsibility” unless it involves them stepping up to the plate and admitting their own mistakes…….when in doubt, blame the Democrats, the immigrants, the Muslims, the homosexuals………Never own up to anything…..Real examples of courage and integrity there…….Never met a lobbyist who can’t buy them.

  42. Sumner401 says:

    Sumner401, I don’t have to explain anything…it’s obvious this BO Administration is insanity in high gear!

    In other words you can’t explain anything because you are simply parroting what you hear 500 times a day on hate radio and the other propaganda network.
    Nice.

  43. Sumner401 says:

    I am so disappointed that you have fallen into the soup re the racism accusation.

    Quite often sozo a racist really is a racist. And quite a few of them post here on a regular basis.

  44. Sumner401 says:

    I hate to bust your bubble, but Wall Street has given more to Obama and the Dems. then to Republicans by a long shot. Sorry to dissapoint you.

    Got any real facts to back that up roncella or are you just making things up again?

  45. Sumner401 says:

    Anyone that thinks that the Dems did not destroy the housing market by forcing banks to lend to morons that can’t make payments is a fool.
    No bank was forced to make any loan by anyone.

  46. Sumner401 says:

    How is all that “hope” & “change” working for the country??

    A lot better than the 30 years of trickle down, big spending, war starting, china borrowing, job off shoring, redistributing wealth up the ladder, lying economy destroying that your party has done.
    Thanks for asking.

  47. klthompson says:

    These comments just support the old adage that “you can’t win a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent”

  48. “Anyone that thinks that the Dems did not destroy the housing market by forcing banks to lend to morons that can’t make payments is a fool.”

    A skunk always smells his own hole first.

    Your statement is a common misconception by those who’s news sources are propaganda radio and Fox. The real estate loans were given to “morons”, as you say, because greedy lenders relaxed standards, and encouraged and aided fraudulant applicants so they could profit from loan fees, and from selling the loans to brokers who eventually turned them into derivitives.

  49. aislander says: “Don’t you lefties get it? The rich–the really rich–don’t PAY income tax, and never have…”

    Is something wrong with this picture?

    The difference then, is that the right thinks its okay for the rich not to pay taxes, whereas the left believes they should pay their fair share. And when the left seeks redress of this injustice, they are called socialistic, envious, and accused of stifling business and jobs.

  50. the3rdpigshouse says:

    I’ll type real slow for the benfit of the anti-American leftists on this site. When you manufacture a product you sell it for a price that includes making a profit. Part of that profit consists of monies to pay taxes! Who do you think pays corporate taxes???!! DUUUH!

  51. bobcat1a says:

    For those of you who insist on defending the republicans handling of the national budget and still have an open mind:
    http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

  52. aislander says:

    Sumner writes: “No bank was forced to make any loan by anyone.”

    That was a lie the first time you posted it, and it’s still a lie…

  53. bobcat1a says:

    For those of you still deluding yourself that Obama caused the unemployment problem:
    http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate

  54. bobcat1a says:

    redneckbuck
    Unemployment when Bush left office was 8.5% See previous post for proof.

  55. No one force AIG to ensure financial “products” of repackaged debt resold over and over again and…..no one forced anyone to create “derivatives”.

    None of those activities had anything to do with capitalism – nothing was manufactured, no jobs created, just virtual three card monty. It was speculation pure and simple.

    Guess what…..both Parties are guilty for letting them do it.

  56. aislander….if your claim is, indeed true, then it should be easy for you to prove it. Yet you don’t…..why?

  57. And for those who’ve been claiming that the real unemployment rate is actually 17% or more at present, if you apply those standards to the unemployment rate under Bush in 2008, it was actually 15%+, and tanking at the rate of 800,000 per month.

    How did that catastrophe get righted in only a matter of months?

  58. aislander says:

    We’ve gone through the whole Community Reinvestment Act, anti-redlining jihad, Acorn extortion thing, Fannie’s and Freddie’s underwriting and purchase of bad paper, but you guys say it didn’t happen, so what are you going to do?

  59. Redneck – figures lie and liars figure. Bush lied.

    3Pig – better than lie baby lie.

    Thewho – the root cause of you losses is that Bush removed the restraints on Wall Street, which then proceeded on a wild and risky, but profitable, spree which ended in October 2010 when their cash and credit ran out.

    Cirrus – a skunk (like the right) never smells its own stench.

    3Pig – certainly not the un-American Companies who have sent US jobs overseas.

  60. bobcat1a , unemployment was about 5% until after the democrats took control. See your October 30, 2010 at 8:07 pm post for proof :)

  61. RONALDUS MAGNUS is spelled “Reagan”. Don’t worry, you can blame the school system and social decay just like I do.

  62. Sumner401 says:

    That was a lie the first time you posted it, and it’s still a lie…

    No it isn’t a lie, but then coming from you…..I’m not worried about what you consider the truth as you have more than demonstrated you haven’t a clue about the truth. (fascism is socialism LOL!!)

    Just in case though can you please prove to me and the rest of us just how a bank, any bank was ‘forced’ into making bad loans?
    Thanks.

  63. Sumner401 says:

    Guess what…..both Parties are guilty for letting them do it.

    To a point, but it was the republicans that repealed the Glass-steagle act, which served the nation very well for over 70 years.
    It was that one single act of malfeasance that brought down the economy.

  64. Sumner401 says:

    so what are you going to do?

    Keep asking you brain dead foxbots to PROVE that it did.
    Thats what.
    Up til now NONE of you can, so what does that tell you ailander?
    At some point even you has to admit that you might be wrong and your blind partisanship is getting in the way.
    Can you do that much at least?

  65. Sumner401 says:

    unemployment was about 5% until after the democrats took control.

    And what exactly did the Democrats DO to cause the unemployment rate to rise?
    Or hadn’t you thought to ask you talk radio drug addict pundit that question?
    Just being in the majority isn’t enough….you do understand that don’t you?

  66. The desperation above is profound.

    What did they do? Took the house and senate.

  67. aislander says:

    I can understand why Sumner is so invested in his version of the subprime crisis–that is that deregulation during the Bush admin was the cause of it, because the cure would be more regulation. However, the NY Times reported in 1999 (pre-Bush, obviously) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton admin to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers, obviously entailing an increase in risky loans. We all know (and have probably seen film of it) that Acorn was agitating for the same thing in the lobbies of various banks. Creating the risky paper was step one. Creating a market for it was another step, and Fannie and Freddie did exactly that…

  68. And, it started in the Carter administration. Another democrat if I remember correctly…..

  69. aislander – fascinating….now explain derivatives and insurance on derivatives.

  70. aislander says:

    And, since Sumner is so smitten with the Glass-Steagal Act, and has asked conservatives to prove that the CRA and Fannie and Freddie (and Barney and Chris) were instrumental in creating the sub-prime crisis, I would like to ask him (?) to explain how the Glass-Steagal Act would have had any effect on it, and what the original purpose of the act was. Hint: since it was to protect commercial banks from risk, and commercial banks were only tangentially affected by the sub-prime mess, one has to question whether it was even relevant to the debacle. Glass-Steagal created FDIC, and FDIC still exists, so how much of Glass-Steagal was actually repealed?

  71. the3rdpigshouse says:

    I am still waiting for the phone number of one of our welfare recipients – I’m seeking employment!! Being as all the anti-American leftists that inhabit this site believe the rich are evil and should not be allowed to exist, I know they won’t be hiring!!

  72. aislander, all you are going to get is another drive by comment stating the republicans caused it, they are responsible for 80% of the debt, and they lie.

  73. Instead of asking Summner to explain how the Glass-Steagal Act had any effect on the subprime crisis, ask reputable economists. Economist Paul Krugman for instance, calls Republican Phil Gramm “the father of the financial crisis” do to his sponsorship of the repeal of Glass-Steagal Act.

    Aislander notes that ” the NY Times reported in 1999 (pre-Bush, obviously) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton admin to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers,”

    But it was GWB who took things a step farther. It was President Bush who proposed legislation to provide down payment money to low income people so they could buy homes “The American Dream Fund”, provided tax credits for building single-family homes in distressed areas,, provided funds to educate first time homebuyers.

    And here’s what the NY Times said of GWB. “He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.”

  74. aislander says:

    You can’t blame the debacle ALL on George Bush, just as you can’t blame it ALL on Carter (who started the ball rolling) or Clinton, who was President when parts of Glass-Steagal were repealed. You CAN blame it, however on progressives of both parties. But still, I’d like to know exactly HOW the repeal of Glass-Steagal, which had nothing to do with investment banks, precipitated the financial crisis. And let’s do cite REPUTABLE economists–not Paul Krugman…

  75. aislander says:

    By the way, the Pelosi-Reid Congress put Fannie and Freddie in the business of buying mortgage-backed securities and derivatives, which allowed the investment banks to overextend without an apparent downside…

  76. Ok, here’s some more reputable economists: Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have all criticized the Act as creating the fincancial crisis or contributing a great deal to it.

    Economist William Bernstein, in his book “Four Pillars Of Investing”, had this to say about the Glass-Steagall Act” “The Glass-Steagall Act separated commercial and investment banking. This last statute has recently been repealed. Sooner or later, we will likely painfully relearn the reasons for its passage almost seven decades ago.”

    Prior to the repeal of Glass-Steagal, bankers who offered real estate loans were required to carry those loans on their books so it was they who was at risk so were cautious in appraising their applicants ability to repay. When the Glass-Steagall act was repealed, banks suddenly had the ability to package their mortgages up and sell them off to investors so the risk of the loan became the investors problem, as opposed to the banks. The banks began offering loans to anybody and everybody who could draw a breath because they made their money on loan fees and selling packages of loans to investors, as opposed to earning a profit from the interest.

    A second aspect of repealing Glass-Steagal is that investment banks and commercial banks were allowed to become one entity, and with their deposits insured by FDIC , it meant that the government became responsible for bailing out the banks that collapsed because of securities losses. So once again, the banks responsibility shifted away from themselves, but this time, to the taxpayer.

  77. Aislander said: referring to the financial/real-estate debacle, “You CAN blame it, however on progressives of both parties.” and, that it was Carter who got the ball rolling.

    Not true. Deregulation is the primary culprit, and it didn’t start with repealing Glass-Steagal. It started in the 1980’s under the notorious deregulator, Ronald Reagan. In 1982 the passage of the St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, deregulated S&L’s who then began making risky loans which resulted in a bundle of S&L mergers and bankruptcies. In 1980 there were around 4600 S&L’s, but by 1988 their numbers had dwindled to around 3000. Perhaps you remember 1989, whenIPresident Bush(1) bailed out the S&L’s, which cost the taxpayer about 600 billion dollars.

  78. aislander says:

    The S&L crisis began with changes in the tax laws in the ’80s, drastically affecting real estate investments. Unintended consequences and all that. You guys certainly want to keep the ground shifting underfoot…

  79. aislander says:

    The banks certainly weren’t blameless, and I have nothing against their having exposure to the risks of making loans, giving them an incentive to ensure their soundness. Laws on the books regarding fraud and selling in bad faith would have sufficed to control such things, but the federal government magnified the problem by insisting that the bad loans be made in the first place and then using Fannie and Freddie to provide a perceived risk-free way to move the poor-quality paper. The best way to deal with this is with transparency and basic laws of a civil society, rather than a complex regulatory structure open to political manipulation. If banks want to bundle mortgages and create derivatives, potential buyers should be aware of the risks and price the items accordingly…

  80. aislander says:

    As for competing authority figures, economists are ALWAYS divided on questions such as these and I give them the credence they deserve, which is served with a grain of salt…

  81. Islander – the S&L crisis in the ’80’s was caused by deregulation which allowed S&L’s to move in to new, more risky areas of lending, and to reduce their reserves (the percent of their holdings held as ready cash). Too many high risk investments failed and the S&L lacked the needed funds to make interest payments and meet operational expenses.

    If this sounds familiar, and it should, substitute Wall Street/Investment Banks for S&L, and Bush regime for the ’80’s. Glass-Steagal was one of the regulations that got changed.

  82. aislander says:

    The S&Ls failed because their investments were suddenly rendered less valuable–by government fiat. What had been an adequate margin of safety no longer was…

  83. Tomorrow is November 2nd! I if the commie-libs are routed, get ready to be called every improper name in the book. Just remember that the libs are the best there is at projection.

  84. chile74 says:

    aislander – you are right on. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill in 1999 was signed by Clinton. Clinton could have vetoed the bill but negotiated with the Republicans to strenghthen the CRA. The CRA did force banks to make loans to low income folks and minorities with poor credit. Bush’s “Dream Act” provided very little money compared to the big picture. It was a non-factor. Bush tried to reregulate the housing industry 5 times (according to Rove – I thought 3) but was stopped by the Democrats who were taking big bucks from F and F – like Obama and Dodd. I would only fault Bush for allowing loans like “interest only loans” – Rove’s comment on that was that those loans were supposed to be for people with great credit but the banks gave them to people who had poor credit – imprudent lending – I agree.

  85. beerBoy says:

    Oftentimes overlooked in the financial crisis: how America was changed in one generation from a two hundred year project that made it the most powerful manufacturing/exporting nation in the world into the most pathetic consuming/importing nation – starting with Reagan, supercharged by Clinton/Gingrich, and prodded along by all the ensuing idiots.

    “Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why”
    by Ian Fletcher
    http://www.truth-out.org/free-trade-doesn%E2%80%99t-work-what-should-replace-it-and-why64691

  86. beerBoy says:

    Again – your attempt to place partisan blame ignores reality – the mortgage/derivatives crisis was made possible by deregulations going back to Reagan and worsened by subsequent Administrations.

    Sub-prime loans became possible through deregulation during the Reagan Administration.

  87. chile74 says:

    Michael – the rich get richer because they have more money to invest and they work hard. You and others are just buying into the Dems class warfare. Read “The Millionaire Next Door”. The vast majority of millionaires were middle class guys who opened a business and worked hard. No one handed them anything. Stop whining about getting screwed.

    The National Debt was 8 trillion when the Dems took control of Congress in 2007. It is now over 13 trillion – in 6 years! If you want to start at 2010 with Obama – it was 10 trillion and he added over 3 trillion – in 2 years!

  88. ” Nobel Prize-winning ” Really?

    We found out what a joke that is in ’09.

  89. Roncella says:

    Chile 74, Your coments are right on. Great P:ost !

  90. fbergford says:

    If we are talking about the bad republican corruption…look no further than Everett, you will find a company called MOXIE MEDIA!!!!! Oops, my bad, they are not republican but DEMOCRAT! They only pretended to be republican and hid behind 40 different PAC’s! Wow, I am curious to know how sumner, xring, and firstlefty, and any other liberal out there would like to explain how this corruption infiltrated your precious political party.

  91. aislander says:

    Thanks, chile74; I was starting to feel a little lonely here, under attack by a swarm of Africanized liberals (a reference to bees, not Presidents…) who don’t stop attacking until one is far removed from the hive…

  92. FreeAmerica says:

    aislander says:
    November 1, 2010 at 12:07 am
    The S&Ls failed because their investments were suddenly rendered less valuable–by government fiat. What had been an adequate margin of safety no longer was…
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Exactly why “mark to market accounting” played such a huge role in the collapse.
    Assets valued above market to entice investors is fraud…why did the culprits get bailed instead of jailed?

  93. Sumner401 says:

    I’m still waiting for ailander to explain just how the CRA forced banks to makes loans, good or bad.
    Lots on nonsense from him, lots of running and waaaaay too much subject changing but, nothing of substance yet.

    So how about ailander, you going to make up some more really interesting stuff and claim it as fact or are you going to finally back up one of your many fanciful claims?

    I really hope you at least try and get a elementary grasp of the the glass-steagle act and the implications of it’s repeal. You won’t look nearly as foolish if you do.

  94. MarksonofDarwin says:

    I really hate trolls.
    Where’s AmandaDaniels when we need them?

    To ai, bB, and Chile….thanks! Even though it’s complicated, I was able to follow what you were saying even though some aren’t even trying.

  95. aislander says:

    The New York Times reported that the Clinton admin was pressuring banks to make loans to minorities and low-income people UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT. Sheesh…

  96. aislander says:

    I was thinking the same thing re AmandaDaniel, MoD, but that also reminds of Patty, so…

  97. MarksonofDarwin says:

    I agree ai, good tradeoff I suppose!

  98. MarksonofDarwin says:

    What is an internet Troll?:

    “There are a number of different types of trolls. In the most classic case, a troll harasses an Internet community for a few weeks, posting contradictory opinions or statements on bulletin boards in an attempt to stimulate a response. Internet trolls are differentiated from people who genuinely wish to present a different viewpoint by their attitudes and aggressiveness; their goal is not to discuss a situation, but to frustrate the members of a discussion board. They often use fallacious arguments or attack the users of a site when they attempt to defend themselves from the troll’s activities.

    In some cases, a troll becomes a recurring figure who is well known by long-term members of a bulletin board. The individuals often tell newcomers to the community to ignore the troll, who may use various tactics to get a rise from newbies. In more serious cases, an Internet troll may try to drive a wedge through a community, often with the assistance of sock puppet accounts. A sock puppet is a fake identity which is used by someone who does not want to post under his or her regular name; some trolls have multitudes of sock puppets to make their side of an argument look like it has a large number of supporters.”

    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-internet-troll.htm

  99. aislander says:

    Sometimes the troll will provide an opening for a line of commentary that I don’t want to open myself, and when that happens, I’ll respond since gives me an opportunity to say something I otherwise wouldn’t be able to…

  100. aislander says: “The S&Ls failed because their investments were suddenly rendered less valuable–by government fiat”

    What fiat was that? And their own wild get rich schemes had nothing to do with their failures.

  101. Get “rich off” forced loans to peeps that were only qualifiied becuase of government intervention (economic affirmative action) ???

    That is most definately an unpleasantly eccentic assertion.

  102. aislander says:

    Changing the tax structure in 1986 had a profound effect on the value of real estate investments. And, yes, that was a government fiat…

  103. FA – “Exactly why “mark to market accounting” played such a huge role in the collapse. Assets valued above market to entice investors is fraud…why did the culprits get bailed instead of jailed?”

    Had to look up ‘mark to market accounting’ but it sure fits what S&Ls were doing. As to why they were bailed out instead of jailed – I going to go with the same people in congress who deregulated the S&Ls were behind the bailout, and blocked any meaningful investigation and punishment.

    And that pretty well describes the Wall Street and Housing Market boondoggles.

  104. aislander says:

    er…xring…the imposition of mark-to-market accounting was a reform imposed by the government that was supposed to increase transparency, not a stratagem used by nefarious bankers to screw the public. Although it DID end up screwing the public when it helped cause the bottom to fall out. Unintended consequences: they always happen when the government overreaches…

  105. beerBoy says:

    Is anyone minding the store at the Federal Reserve?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ

  106. Sumner401 says:

    Seriously asilander, where is your proof that banks were ‘forced’ into making loans?
    Your entire CRA rant depends on that, without it you and your spoon fed theory fall flat.
    So where is your proof. An Op-Ed claiming Clinton (Clinton did it!) put ‘pressure’ on banks?? Come on man, just think about how you would react if I had said bush the failure was ‘putting pressure…….

    Step and back up your wild claims man, or just admit you’ve got nothing.
    The CRA had NOTHING to do with the mortgage melt down, no matter how badly you need it too.

  107. Sumner401 says:

    The S&L failure was yet another example of de-regulation not working…..yet the far right keeps thinking ‘next time it will work…for sure!’

  108. When you hear Freddie and Fannie, think Pelosi, Reid and Barney Frank!

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0