Over on the Huffington Post, Hale “Bonddad” Stewart notes how the events of the past week have marked “the death of Republican philosophy.” Below is a summary of the statements the Republican party can no longer claim as part of their core ideology:
We are the party of small government
Under Bush II, discretionary spending has increased from $640 billion to $1.040 trillion dollars. And that doesn’t include our new trillion dollar bailout.
We Support Free Markets
Last week the SEC banned short-selling in financial shares.
We Are the Party of Fiscal Responsibility.
No Republican president has ever balanced a budget.
We are the Party of Personal Responsibility
When companies make really stupid decisions the Federal government bails them out. In fact, when the going gets tough, the Republicans become socialists.
Stewart concludes:
Whenever a Republican talking head says they are for any of the above mentioned things they should be questioned to explain how that statement (I’m for free markets) jibes with banning short selling of an entire sector of the market. Whenever a Republican says he is for smaller government, have him explain the nearly doubling of discretionary spending when the Republicans controlled all branches of government.
Simply put, this week demonstrated how hollow many of the Republican values are. They sound great on paper, but aren’t put into practice when that result might cause financial harm to another Republican.
I hope that fool Surreal Mark reads this one.
Republicans are simply liars and hypocrites. Who wants to vote for that? Oh yeah – the liars and hypocrites in our society. Like attracts like.
Oh yeah, there’s some conservatives in the Congress pushing back against the big kahuna in the Oval Office’s socialist bailout program.
But of course they’re a conveniently small minority. What was that expression again?
Lipstick on a pig?
True, we shouldn’t have bailed out any of these companies.
Then you creeps would have been ranting a different tune.
This mess Democrats go us into and today looking from the outside in is appalling.
Barry the Queen Frank, yesterday in a rant to aarp took no blame on any of this knowing very well that he and others in the far left caused Fannie and Freddie to fail.
So you fools in the cesspool of the Democrat party can say all you want about blaming others, however a higher authority and anyone with a open mind can see the lie of the left.
It isn’t really the philosophy, it’s the practice. The last 8 years have demonstrated in GLARING fashion that you can spout a political ideal to get elected and then do what you want as long as you keep marketing the message as best as possible. When you own the media, when you refuse to answer questions, when you pass out the cash and favors to the donors and faithful, and you keep the populace distracted with non-issues, you do not have to stick to your promises or your ideals.
I hope these events cause everyone who considers themselves a republican to ask themselves if the *actions* of the party match their real interests and values. Forget the words, observe the actions. Rush L should have said “Goldwater is DEAD, his ideas may live on but we’re DOING something about that!”
Please don’t forget two other now demonstrably lost Republic ideals; States Rights & Christian Morals. Do I need to count the ways these have been corrupted or usurped for personal political power and gain by the current administration?
John @2,
Why are you changing the subject? Have I said a bailout of some sort isn’t prudent? All I’m pointing out here, is that when push comes to shove, the Republican, small government, free market, fiscal & personal responsibility rhetoric is empty.
(And come on… nobody’s buy the “Dems are responsible for Fannie & Freddie” bullshit.)
@2 The definition of a “Republican” is someone who fucks up everything he touches and then blames it on the Democrats.
re 2: So, the democrats beat you even though they were out of power?
You are that inept and stupid?
You can’t tell me that if we did nothing and let the market turn to dirt. What would you have said if the market crashed to 3000 or less?
You can’t tell me that if we did nothing and let the market turn to dirt. You would have said nothing that’s fine. What would you have said if the market crashed to 3000 or less?
@2
I don’t think anybody is arguing that it is realistic to not have bailed out this situation. That isn’t the point. The point is, that true republican values of free market rule would have dictated that we shouldn’t bail out anybody and we should take our medicine.
Can you please enumerate the actions of the left that caused this situation? I do not understand this assertion and can find no logical path from documented history to the events of today. Can you list the actions that Barney Frank in particular have either taken or avoided that spurred this on?
What “higher authority”? Who is this authority? What is the lie of the left? I’m not seeing it and I’d really like to understand what you’re saying.
You can call me a fool and assert that I’m living in a cesspool but how does that help you convince me of the error of my ways?
@9
If it wasn’t for Fannie and Freddie giving home loans away to people that couldn’t afford homes none of this mess you guys got us into would of happen.
Hey,
Say what you want about blame game.
I find it amusing how Democrats can take the high road on this issue and not smile.
@9
It has been well documented on this blog the failures of the Democrat party on Freddie and Fannie. You chose not to read it or believe fine.
Can you please enumerate the actions of the left that caused this situation? I do not understand this assertion and can find no logical path from documented history to the events of today. Can you list the actions that Barney Frank in particular have either taken or avoided that spurred this on?
“In October 1992, a brief debate unfolded on the floor of the House of Representatives over a bill to create a new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On one side stood Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican concerned that Congress was “hamstringing” this new regulator at the behest of the companies.
“He warned that the two companies were changing ‘from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few.’
“On the other side stood Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who said the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans.
“Congress chose to create a weak regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. The agency was required to get its budget approved by Congress, while agencies that regulated banks set their own budgets. That gave congressional allies an easy way to exert pressure.”
How Washington Failed to Rein In Fannie, Freddie
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....id=topnews
Democrats and Republicans were knee deep in this.
John McCain in a speech in Iowa on Sept 18:
“Senator Obama talks a tough game on the financial markets but the facts tell a different story. He took more money from Fannie and Freddie than any Senator but the Democratic chairman of the committee that regulates them. He put Fannie Mae’s CEO who helped create this disaster in charge of finding his Vice President. Fannie’s former General Counsel is a senior advisor to his campaign. Whose side do you think he is on? When I pushed legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Obama was silent. He didn’t lift a hand to avert this crisis. While the leaders of Fannie and Freddie were lining the pockets of his campaign, they were sowing the seeds of the financial crisis we see today and enriching themselves with millions of dollars in payments.”
McCain’s proposed legislation (Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005):
http://www.govtrack.us/congres.....entm0m0m0m
The top three lawmakers who received Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, 1989-2008:
Christopher Dodd $165,400
Barack Obama $126,349
John Kerry $111,000
Obama’s initial selection to head up his VP selection committee: James Johnson, chairman and chief executive officer of Fannie Mae, 1991 to 1998 (until his connection with Fannie created a PR embarrassment).
@ 12
And others have pointed out that your causal argument is the equivalent of saying that the explosion was caused by the collapse of a couple of the buildings that got blown up.
This crisis is, and none of the wingnuts have even attempted to argue against this point, an abject failure of Republican philosophy.
@15
All interesting points. Lunch on east side or near UW sometime for more in-depth discussion?
Gregoire increased spending 33% and you want
to snarfle her garfog. Goldy, you actually
whined while you were protecting her saying
it was because of growth and it was perfectly
acceptable. Gas has doubled too, houses
almost doubled for a while. Our whole Govt
has sold us down the road. Its too late to
point fingers, my fingers are getting tired.
John… the Republicans have controlled Congress for 12 of the past 13 and half years, and the White House since January 2001… and you’re blaming all this on the Democrats? Really? Republicans were powerless to impose adequate regulation?
For years economists warned about the fundamentals of the housing bubble, and the Bush administration did nothing, because the illusion of a healthy economy was predicated on it. But you know… all this is beside the point, which is that your conservative Republican free market/small government ideology has been proven to be an illusion too.
Between the Iraq war and this Wall Street bailout alone, Bush will leave office having imposed at least two to three trillion dollars of debt on future generations. Thanks a fucking lot.
@ 14
FYI, here’s a summary of that bill. It’s effect was the exact opposite of what McCain said it would do, which is probably why wingnuts keep posting links to McCain’s comments but assiduously avoid posting a link to what the bill actually would have done.
@ 16
All interesting points.
Thank you.
Lunch on east side or near UW sometime for more in-depth discussion?
Is there some reason we can’t carry it on here?
Mark @17,
Changing the topic again? What’s the matter? Reality got your tongue?
Explain how Republicans have acted consistently with their professed Republican values. Come on… try. Betcha can’t.
Is there some reason we can’t carry it on here?
Discussion far more interesting. DL or lunch near UW or east side? Very flexible.
Perhaps it’s worth exploring the causal chain a bit. Where are are all the financial losses coming from? If your answer is “bad loans,” you’d be wrong. We’re talking about collateralized loans.
So, what’s the origin of the losses?
Okay so let’s follow this through.
Dude who was the CEO of a failed company a decade ago is associated with a political campaign. That is equal to all democrats causing a banking failure. Looks bad, no question, but can you really blame the philosophy of buying derivative baskets of questionable risk loans to someone who left the company before these instruments were in wide use?
Secondly, Barney Frank argued for weaker regulation on these companies that would be funded separately from other financial sector regulation. Shame on Barney. He was arguing for lower regulation with tight congressional reigns on the regulating agency. Sounds more like a republican ideal doesn’t it. Well, Barney blew it by setting this restriction. What would really be interesting however is, what the budget for the regulators have been over the last 8 years. Since Barney couldn’t set the budget for the regulator for at least 6 of the last 8 years, perhaps it’s a stretch to blame the entire fiasco on democrats.
As a democrat, I’m not happy about all this either. I don’t like the smell of impropriety and I don’t like corporate money in politics, AT ALL. I also think it’s a *real* stretch to hard link actions from a floor debate in 1992 and a single appointment to an overall system failure. These things may have set wheels in motion, but they didn’t *keep* the wheels moving. It’s easier to believe that the actions of the regulators and their funders over the last 8 years had a more direct impact.
Speaking of corporate money in politics…. Most republicans I know are totally bent about the fact that democrats took money that could be linked to special interests that failed and hurt all of us. If you’re really upset about this, can we agree that having corporate money in politics is a bad thing? Maybe we could agree that we should remove private and corporate contributions to political campaigns?
I remember when wingnuts used to tout a record percentage of home ownership under the “wise stewardship” of the Chimpanzee.
What happened in the last week is that we finally dug all the way to the bottom of the pile of manure.
Guess what? There ain’t no pony!
@18
You had to be smiling when you typed this.
“John… the Republicans have controlled Congress for 12 of the past 13 and half years, and the White House since January 2001… and you’re blaming all this on the Democrats? Really? Republicans were powerless to impose adequate regulation?”
If this was true, then we would have been pumping oil from Alaska today.
@ 24
I also think it’s a *real* stretch to hard link actions from a floor debate in 1992 and a single appointment to an overall system failure.
Anyone willing to explore the causal chain I began with the comment @ 23 will easily see that events that occurred 15 years ago cannot possibly be involved in the present crisis.
@ 27
You had to be smiling when you typed this.
No. What has me laughing uproariously is the way in which you are assiduously avoiding the issue of Republican philosophy.
FYI, here’s a summary of that bill. It’s effect was the exact opposite of what McCain said it would do, which is probably why wingnuts keep posting links to McCain’s comments but assiduously avoid posting a link to what the bill actually would have done.
————-
Then others at the time should have proposed alternative, improved legislation. Where were Schumer, Dodd . . . Obama on this? What Fannie/Freddie legislation did they propose?
Let’s stop giving passes.
27 – Sorry loser. If your ugly party could win vote after vote on national security, they certainly could have won it on a forthright attempt to forestall a housing crisis.
And the oil from Alaska issue? No we wouldn’t have been pumping it by now and a few Republicans didn’t think it was worth it.
One of them being your candidate John S. McSame.
@ 30
Then others at the time should have proposed alternative, improved legislation.
Go back and follow the link @ 14, and you’ll see that the bill was “Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.”
Looks like that’s exactly what happened to the bill.
And you’re still avoiding the ideology question.
Hey, Demnuts,
Did it rain today and is it overcast?
Demnut ,no it’s sunny and 90 degress.
Wingnut central has sent the D team to troll this blog.
Or the F Troop. Remember that show?
Go back and follow the link @ 14, and you’ll see that the bill was “Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.”
Looks like that’s exactly what happened to the bill.
———————
What was the amendment, who supported it? No details. Where were Schumer, Dodd . . . Obama on legislation to improve regulation of the GSEs at such a critical time? Let’s get some answers.
@27
Time to take your meds!
@ 35
Where were Schumer, Dodd . . . Obama on legislation to improve regulation of the GSEs at such a critical time?
First of all, as I’ve already pointed out, GSE’s were not the cause of the problem. If you want to get after this question, be my guest, but you’re not exploring the fundamental causes. To do that, I’d suggest you start by answering my question @ 23.
Second, I’m not sure where you can go with the answer in terms of the ideological/philosophical questions. Are you now prepared to blame Democrats because they failed to adequately counter the Republican drive to deregulate the financial industry?
Here’s a list a of the new “new Deal” so far anyway:
– Bear Stearns
– Economic Stimulus progam
– Housing Bailout Program
– Fannie & Freddie
– AIG
– No Short selling rules
– Fed liquidity programs (Term Lending facility, Term Auction facility)
– Money Market fund insurance program
– Special Loans for GM & Ford
– New RTC type program
Uhh.. These are all Republican Chimp White House programs. And the trolls are trying to blame this all on the Dems?
How about Bill Clinton? That makes more sense.
Second, I’m not sure where you can go with the answer in terms of the ideological/philosophical questions. Are you now prepared to blame Democrats because they failed to adequately counter the Republican drive to deregulate the financial industry?
——————-
If McCain’s proposed legislation wasn’t up to snuff as you say, yes. If you can spot the weakness in it then certainly Schumer, Dodd . . . Obama could at the time. But they proposed no alternative as far as can be seen. Nothing, when it was clear at the time the regulatory oversight was weak.
These people are being given passes.
@ 39
These people are being given passes.
In other words, you are going to blame Democrats for failing to adequately keep Republicans in check.
Seriously, you’re barking in the wrong direction. No legislation passed in 2005 or later would have stemmed the tide of the current crisis. Go back to my question at 23. Follow the causal chain.
In other words, you are going to blame Democrats for failing to adequately keep Republicans in check.
———————–
Wrong. I see culprits in both parties – I’m not willing to give passes to either party. Here’s what Arianna Huffington of Huffinton Post wrote:
He (Obama) needs to start by making sure that the economic advisers he turns to extend beyond those he had on a conference call on Monday — Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Laura Tyson, and Paul Volcker. It’s great to include graybeards who have been through crises before, but he needs to go beyond the two Treasury Secretaries who were complicit in the 1990s deregulation orgy that has led to so many of the problems we are now seeing. **** And he needs to make it clear that the Clinton-era Democrats who put the interests of Wall Street ahead of the interests of Main Street are not going to be the primary voices he listens to.*****
I agree. Here are some of the Democrats who voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that overwhelmingly became the law of the land in 1999:
Joe Biden
Christopher Dodd
John Edwards
Diane Feinstein
Edward Kennedy
Patrick Leahy
Carl Levin
Chuck Schumer
@31
Do you feel good being on the wrong side of issues all the time?
Democrats have been proven wrong time after time, the American public has taken noticed.
Why isn’t biden/obama leading the Republicans by 20 points(Real Poll) with all that has happen to our country and as Dems says Americans and the world hates Republicans.
Cause the Democrats stand for nothing and for the last 2 years did nothing the polls show your congress has approval of 9% lower than President Bush.
Democrats couldn’t win a majority of votes from the public as community organizers.
Your party is in shambles and even democrats with an open mind can see this.
Don’t worry about McCain and Palin worry about biden and obama they need your support and backing on issues like what do they stand for TODAY?
http://michellemalkin.com/
This story is hilarious, a GOP convention delegate, a “less taxes and more war” advocate, who wants to bomb Iran and take their oil, was drugged and robbed by a prostitute during the convention. LMFAO!!!
http://www.twincities.com/colu.....xheadlines
@42 “Your party is in shambles”
Oh, the irony!
@ 41
I’m not willing to give passes to either party.
But, you’re identifying particular people to blame. Not that you’re entirely wrong, but, if you want to blame entire political parties, then you have to address the ideological issues.
You seem unwilling to look at the fundamental causes of the current crisis. Why?
@44
Too funny.
@41: That is the wrong vote. I already linked to the party line vote in 1999: All of the democrats voted against it – McCain voted for it. Phil Gramm wrote the bill.
Get your facts straight. It was a republican bill sponsored buy McCain leading economic advisor (before he opened his big mouth and called the US a nation of whiners because the economy was just fine).
But, you’re identifying particular people to blame. Not that you’re entirely wrong.
—————-
Then we agree.
@41: That is the wrong vote. I already linked to the party line vote in 1999: All of the democrats voted against it – McCain voted for it. Phil Gramm wrote the bill.
———————
These are the facts:
The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[2]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill only after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns.[3] The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.....Bliley_Act
What became the law of the land was supported by both parties overwhelmingly.
@ 49
Then we agree.
Not entirely. You have yet to address the real issue. I will concede your point so long as you are willing to concede that this entire crisis has been a failure of Republican ideology. If you aren’t willing to concede that point, then all you’re interested in doing is muddying the waters.
Put a stake in the heart of the ideology that got us here, or stop wasting everyone’s time with a smokescreen.
Once again, Barry Ritholtz makes the point starkly clear.
McCain on healthcare? My friends, it should be like the banking system! I kid you not.
http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf
I will concede your point so long as you are willing to concede that this entire crisis has been a failure of Republican ideology.
——————-
Couldn’t agree more regarding Republican ideology on a whole range of issues that go far beyond banking and housing. They should be tossed out of office for the damage they’ve caused to this country here and abroad. And that’s really not near enough.
The problem lies with the fact that certain
people signed up for loans that they couldn’t
afford when the payments changed. I would bet
most of these geniuses were democrat voters, in
fact, I guarantee it. My only problem is that
these loans are for the most part still secured
by the property, so wont the lenders get their
money back when the houses sell to new owners.
I also understand that real estate has come down in value but still they should recoup most
of their money. Something smells.
@ 55
Close, but no cigar, largely because you’re starting with a false premise:
The problem lies with the fact that certain
people signed up for loans that they couldn’t
afford when the payments changed.
Lenders have never been required to underwrite high-risk loans. They chose to do so out of their own volition. The question is, why?
John at 27:
What do you mean if this true? It is true.
Denial won’t cut it. Goldy stated a fact that you don’t care for. Poor baby.
@10: John is so stupid he doesn’t even know that Fannie and Freddie don’t write the loans they buy them from the mortgage lenders. He also doesn’t know that the law that let’s banks resell their loans was written by Phil Gramm and passed on a party line vote.
Of course, the deregulation crowd (eg. republicans) wanted deregulation. They just don’t want to pay when rampant capitalism goes bad. Hence all the conservatives angry about the bailout when they caused it.
We’ve been through this before – I already showed that McCain’s top advisors lobbied for banks and Fannie and Freddie. the contributions mean nothing as gthey are from individuakls and Obama does not take PAC money – so much for that sorry argument.
As far as the “bill” in 2005 – it never got far, never was pushed by the republican majority and it basically did little but change the authority from HUD to an independent board. Big deal – it did not address the key problems of home loan selling. It was mostly a deregulatory bill couhced as a regulatory bill. Big deal. this is Puddy again trying to muddy the republican mess waters and trying to blame it on democrats. Republicans wrote the bad legislation, republicans voted for the deregualtion and democrats voted against it.
@55: the problem is not that people wanted to own homes and stretch themselves – the problem is the financial markets collapsed because companies allowed them to do it. they did that because after the republicans changed the laws – the mortgage companies could turn around and package groups of loans and resell them to another company. then other companies could take out bets on these loans as high interest returners. All in all, a ponzi scheme the unregulated banks could now gamble on for the highest interest rates.
It never used to work that way. It used to be a lender carried the mortgage and if the person defaulted – they were out the money – but noooo, republicans thought there was too much regulation – so they changed the rules.
The Death of Republican Philosophy
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
2008 Wait and See
Rossi
Reichert
McCain \ Palin
The Death of Republican Philosophy?
Not hardly
But it will be the Death of Socialism
Enough Enough Enough taxation
But it will be the Death of Socialism
And a trillion dollars of bailouts for Wall Street is what?
Capitalism?
@58
If Fannie and Freddie where run by two respectable people this wouldn’t have happen.
Your saying they had no choice in excepting good or bad paper just send in the paper and where good to go?
This is typical of Democrats trying to run a business there not qualified to be in.
If we lose this year, hopefully the money jar will be empty.
@58 He also doesn’t know that the law that let’s banks resell their loans was written by Phil Gramm and passed on a party line vote.
Presumably you’re not referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act because that act was supported strongly by both parties as clearly described @50.
@ 63
Please explain the connection between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG.
@ 65
Cnr is, indeed, talking about Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and is correct with respect to the original vote in the Senate before it was reconciled with the House version. The revised version of the bill that received broad, bipartisan support included provisions strengthening the Community Reinvestment Act. The provisions that led to the current crisis, however, were not particularly popular among Democrats.
More importantly, regardless of who voted for or against GLBA, it reflects Republican philosophy and ideology.
@67 The provisions that led to the current crisis, however, were not particularly popular among Democrats.
Then they should have voted against it unless these issues were addressed. They didn’t. That was their choice.
They have responsibility even more so than the Republicans because the bill didn’t fit into their ideology. They were the firewall that failed us.
@ 69
Then they should have voted against it unless these issues were addressed.
It’s called “compromise”. That’s one of the problems with a political system that’s dominated by political parties. If you want optimal solutions to problems, then you need to figure out a way to get rid of political parties.
They have responsibility even more so than the Republicans because the bill didn’t fit into their ideology. They were the firewall that failed us.
Um. The bill was passed in 1999.
The provisions that led to the current crisis, however, were not particularly popular among Democrats.
“I take a back seat to no one in my commitment to the preeminent power of America’s markets.”
“I am proud to have had Tom’s and the Chamber’s support on some of the most important pieces of legislation with which I have been associated. Laws like the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act; the Y2K litigation reform act; the Class Action Fairness Act; the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which has helped bring our financial services sector into the 21st century; and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which in the aftermath of 9/11 has played a crucial role in keeping our economy strong.”
Christopher Dodd, Democratic Chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, March 14, 2007 speech to U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3779/print
The provisions that led to the current crisis, however, were not particularly popular among Democrats.
“So what you see here, I think, is the most
important recent example of our efforts here in Washington to maximize the possibilities of the new information age global economy, while preserving our responsibilities to protect ordinary
citizens and to build one nation here. And
there will always be competing interests. You heard Senator Gramm characterize this bill as a victory for freedom and free markets. And Congressman LaFalce characterized this bill as a victory for consumer protection. And both of them are right. And I have always believed that one required the other.”
Bill Clinton, Remarks on Signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Nov. 12, 1999
http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.g.....2_2080.pdf
@ 70 and 71
Well, that certainly explains the party-line vote on the original bill in the Senate. Got any more anecdotal evidence that’s contradicted by the aggregate?
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: trying to figure out whom to blame is pretty much a waste of time. Regardless of who voted for or against Gramm-Leach-Bliley, regardless of the rhetoric you can quote from people on both sides of the aisle, the key provisions of Gramm-Leach-Bliley that have led to the current crisis are part and parcel of Republican ideology.
This is a point that no one seems willing to contest. Since you’ve now joined the fray, are you willing to contest this point? If not, then let’s sweep the Republican ideology into the dustbin of history where it belongs.
the key provisions of Gramm-Leach-Bliley that have led to the current crisis are part and parcel of Republican ideology.
That were not contested by Dodd as recently as March of 2007 – it’s one of his “most important pieces of legislation” . . . and that Bill Clinton characterized as a “victory for consumer protection.”
If there were reservations on the parts that failed people weren’t speaking out, at least that I’ve seen.
Somewhere up above there was a passage on the complicity of Clinton Democrats in this fiscal debacle by none other than Arianna Huffington. She got it right. Failure of Republican ideology with plenty of help from across the aisle.
@ 73
Failure of Republican ideology with plenty of help from across the aisle.
Thank you. So, now, can we sweep the ideology away where it belongs?
Thank you. So, now, can we sweep the ideology away where it belongs?
Absolutely: I’m a Jim McDermott democrat (who voted against the final bill!).
MCCAIN-PALIN AND THE NEXT GREAT DEPRESSION
I am not a young man, but never in my lifetime have I seen anything as reminiscent of Hoover’s Great Depression as America today–banks failing and hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their homes. For the first time in my lifetime, people are worried about whether the money they have in the bank is safe.
This nation cannot afford four more years of Republican rule. And there’s one big reason.
Forget personalities, inexperience. racism, sexism, and war hero talk. It’s the ideas that the candidates and the parties cherish that really matter.
The same ideas that produced the Hoover Depression are alive and well in today’s Republican party–no taxes for the rich, subsidies for big corporations, no government regulation by the federal government, and the supremacy of states rights.
Change the name from Hoover to McCain to Palin on the economy, and the answers they give are interchangeable.
I’ve shortened my comments here because I know I’m blogging, but if you want to see more on this subject, go to a great website I found with the url http://www.howtotalkback.
I personally heard Rush Limbaugh say that it was his goal to undo everything that FDR did.
Now it’s no secret that nobody has more influence over Republican thought than Rush. And it’s no secret what Rush believes: government is bad and federal regulation is a plague.
But I wonder if Rush realizes that the FDIC–a program of the federal government put in place by FDR–is the main thing right now that’s keeping America from an economic collapse.
One of my friends asked me why I wasn’t voting Republican. “Don’t you want to keep more of your money?”
My answer? If Republicans continue to rule, and they follow the Hoover, McCain, Palin script, AND THE BANKS FAIL, neither she nor I will have any money to keep.
What we need is a President who sounds like FDR, not a Hoover sound-alike.
–Will C. Justice