Another in a series of The Best of Goldy, I reprint for your reading pleasure this Easter Sunday a bit of theological verse I wrote upon the death of Rev. Jerry Falwell: “Falwell That Ends Well (An Ode To The Mortal Majority).”
Reverend Falwell, fond farewell:
Your soul has fled its mortal shell
And flown across the great divide
To savor at your Savior’s side.
Or so you think… um… so you thought,
Well, so, at least, your Bible taught,
While unbelievers who deny
Eternal afterlife, like I,
Think when you’re dead, well, you just die.But if, when I give up the fight,
I’m strangely drawn into the light?
And there your reverent form I see?
Don’t laugh sir, that the joke’s on me,
For since I’ve never claimed nor known
Your Savior Jesus as my own,
If you should meet this faithless Jew
In Heaven or in Hell’s review,
Well, either way… the joke’s on you.
Damned little chance you’ll run into HIM at Jesus’ side.
Rep. Helen Sommers is retiring from the legislature.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....rs23m.html
“Life expectancy rising fastest among rich
“By The New York Times
“WASHINGTON — New government research has found ‘large and growing’ disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the past two decades. …
One of the researchers … said ‘the growing inequalities in life expectancy’ mirrored trends in infant mortality and in death from heart disease and certain cancers. [He] said … federal officials … found ‘widening socioeconomic inequalities in life expectancy’ at birth and at every age level.
“In 1980-82 … people in the most affluent group could expect to live 2.8 years longer than people in the most deprived group …. By 1998-2000, the difference … had increased to 4.5 years … and it continues to grow ….
“Even among people who have insurance, many studies have documented racial disparities.”
Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://www.horsesass.org/?p=4502#comment-760744
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Jerry Falwell was only 64 when God struck him dead, which proves all the money in the world won’t help you if you piss off God.
The Border Patrol is monitoring traffic on I-5 for nuclear materials with radiation detectors so sensitive they pulled a guy over because he was traveling with a cat that had radiation treatment for cancer 3 days earlier.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....nny23.html
When you mix religion and politics, what you get is…politics.
3 Actually, it might raise a question or two, but it doesn’t prove a thing.
2 Now, that is someting to worry about.
Something forgotten by Daddy Love: “I have failed to liberate Iraq, and transform its society into an Islamic society.” — Moqtada al-Sadr, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, March 8, 2008
Looks like Chucky I need Mike Steele’s SSN Schumer got his yyesterday:
CHARLES SCHUMER: It shouldn’t have come to this. Had the administration acted more procatively earlier, particularly about the housing crisis, when many of us were asking them to, we wouldn’t have gotten up to this point. And unfortunately this administration has sort of a Herbert Hoover mentality: don’t do anything. And we’ve learned over 100 years of economic history that smart, measured government involvement, to try and deal with problems in the economy, particularly to prevent innocent people from getting hurt makes a great deal of sense, and yet every time we propose something, particularly on the housing market, which is the bullseye of this crisis, the administration says no.
SCHUMER: The things we’ve proposed, George, are much more modest, but the administration, with its sort of, again, Hoover-like, hands-off, no-government-involvement attitude, has said no.
JON KYL: Well, first, I wondered how long it would take my friend, Chuck Schumer, to blame the Bush administration here. Of course, it wasn’t the Bush administration, as much as it was Democrats in congress, who were pushing the lending institutions to get out there and lend more money, even to unqualified buyers. To minorities, to the poor, to the young, so that everyone could own a home. The Bush administration was somewhat to blame for that, as well. But Democrats in congress were making that push. And as a result, a lot of people took loans who couldn’t qualify. In fact, they didn’t have to qualify. No money down. There was no credit reporting. And a lot of them, frankly, couldn’t afford it. So, let’s don’t blame the Bush administration for this.
And as to Hoover, it’s Senator Schumer and his Democratic colleagues who want to raise taxes, like Hoover did when he refused to allow the Coolidge tax breaks to stay in effect and put in the Smoot-Hawley [a tariff-raising law widely blamed as a cause of the Great Depression]. And they of course, are opposing the free trade agreements that the president’s trying to bring up. Let’s understand that the Bush administration is trying to be pro-active on the tax and trade fronts.
I think the most telling comment was on CBS’ Disgrace the Nation
ROGER SIMON: “Obama really won over his base, he won over the American media. They loved that speech.”
Incorrectnottobright:
“http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/02/08/good-news-for-big-oil-biofuels-cause-pollution/
Incorrectnottobright: Just for you
“http://www. bloggingstocks. com/2008/02/08/ good-news-for-big-oil-biofuels-cause-pollution/
More for you incorrectnottobright:
http://www. nytimes. com/2008/02/08/science/earth/ 08wbiofuels.html?_r=2&ref=science&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Nottobrightmostlyincorrect:
“The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. “So for the next 93 years you’re making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions.”
The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change has said that the world has to reverse the increase of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to avert disastrous environment consequences.
In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States’s most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies. “We write to call your attention to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will actually exacerbate global warming,” the letter said. “
Goldy, David and other 16%ers, one of your own was attacked in Brooklyn:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S.....2FShowFull
Where did the libtard MSM put the story?
Oh wait Goldy, a Murdoch newspaper covered it:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03.....102740.htm
Interesting…
8 Pud
Moqtada al-Sadr stands to do very well in the elections, if and when they ever hold them. Moqtada himself is studying to become an ayatollah, which will greatly increase his influence.
http://www.economist.com/Print erFriendly.cfm?story_id=106979 82
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02 /28/world/middleeast/28baghda d.html
Hey Clueless Idiot: You can buy the latest in toys for your “daughter” (in your mind).
Only now has it been highlighted after “women said, ‘Excuse me!’ Morgan says the attacks on Clinton have ranged from trivialization to outright venom. “The Hillary Clinton nutcracker doll being sold in airports. They would not dare do that with a Stepin Fetchit doll in the image of Senator Obama. And they shouldn’t do that and there would be national outrage, and there should be national outrage.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....8032400084
All you leftist 16%ers need to do is read something more than Kurse, Morons, etc. and you’ll see the light. Motel 6 light left on by Tom Bodett.
Daddy Love: Interestingly the dates on your articles are 10 days before his comment I posted.
Isn’t it your side always crying chronology, chronology? YES!
What we need to do is tightly regulate the financial services industry. If they don’t like it, let ’em go under without federal bailouts.
18
No.
More from the WaPo article:
“Alice Thomas, who is black, is thinking about the question, talking about the campaign, about Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. About the recent comments by Geraldine Ferraro and the exhortations of some feminist leaders.
A law professor at Howard University’s School of Law, Thomas lives in Northwest Washington, in an upper-middle-class, racially mixed neighborhood with grand houses and big trees that blow with the sway of affluence. Most of the prominent white feminists are affluent, too. But their language, their mission, says Thomas, do not resonate.
“I never felt a kinship with white feminists. There never was a time when I felt something familiar when I heard Gloria Steinem,” she says. “I always thought these same women went home and slept with those men who were discriminating against me. I wanted to say, ‘Could you talk to him on the pillow tonight?’ ” ”
Amen sista! Gloria Steinem? Oh yeah quiet on Bill Clinton.
The articles I posted were contemporaneous with the veto of the elections law by a Shi’ite government that does not want to see Moqtada’s power increase (and also does not want to see what happens in an election in which the Sunnis decide to participate).
18 Pud
You aren’t quoting the Asharq Al Awsat article, you’re quoting the WSJ propganda piece written by Dan Senor. I found it most interesting both for its trumpeting of the administration line and for its near-total disengagement from any kind of objective reality.
Here is a serious question about universal health care in the USA. What I am talking about here is basic, but including preventive care. No frills (cosmetic surgery, vanity procedures, etc.):
Should anybody in the USA not have the right to “basic” universal health care?
Should poor people and unemployed be left to “go it alone”? Children of poor people and unemployed? Pregnant mothers who happen to be poor people and/or unemployed? Who should be in, who would you like left out?
Who should the government mete out medical care for and who not?
Daddy Love: You need memory pills dude. Just last week when I posted the poll where 20% of donkey whites and 14% of greater and 65 year old donkey white said they’d vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination, Nottobrightstillincorrect used the chronology argument said I had to go back 40 years for donkey racism. I thnk posted the second poll which corroborated the first.
Daddy Love: Search this blog… I posted the full article. You just skip over my posts and then look foolish when I remind you I posted them…
What’s it matter what Puddy thinks? He hasn’t got the stones to back up his words so he’s just a little bitch.
Now – as for Bush family friend – Osama bin Laden – I see he’s still walking around free as a bird – threatening the USA – while a little country like Iraq gets all of our attention.
If the Bush regime were in ANY way serious about national security, they’d go get bin Laden – but we know that being a family friend, Bush won’t pull the trigger because like all republicans – he’s a coward and a liar.
Moqtada’s cease-fire is breaking down under attacks from the US-backed Shi’ite security forces…
http://ap.google.com/article/A.....wD8VI2SP81
When they say a “genuinely national government,” they mean one dominated by the Sadrists and probably run by Moqtada. I stand by my prediction that he will be the last man standing over there.
ByeByeGOP, I see you are s c a r e d to show up tomorrow. What happened, did you microscopic testicles draw back up into your body?
Bitch!
Pud, I know what article you’re quoting, and I think it’s full of shit, just as I said.
All the wingnuts are posting the same silly out-of-context quote….
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....50147.html
So I’m posting the stuff I’m posting because, if you actually know what’s happening over there, your favorite little quote seems even sillier.
Daddy Love: The Asharq Al Awsat Article, did you read it yet?
25 Pud
I don’t believe your poll is scientific, and even if it were an accurate representation no one has said they would vote that way from racist sentiment, so you fail to prove what you assert.
Daddy Love: Have you noticed the liberal MSM isn’t posting much on Iraq lately?
Did you read (again recently posted by Puddy here but ignored by 16%ers) where one of the heads of CNN News said the surge working is not good news to report…
31 pUD
You didn’t post a link to the Asharq Al Awsat article, you posted a link to Dan Senor’s opinion piece in the right-wing Wall Street Journal, as I said.
Daddy Love@32: My poll? It was Pew Research Daddy Love.
Gosh you are as dense as spent uranium…
33 Pud
Yeah, tell the guys who fired 20 mortar rounds into the Green Zone how well the surgve is working.
36
Again, my comment about you not proving your assertion stands.
Daddy Love Oh yes I posted the link because I knew a 16%er like you would get their lace panties all twisted. Keep searching…
Matt Lauer Today show:
MATT LAUER: Let’s talk about political reality. Right now as we stand, with the delegate count, the popular vote count, the state-by-state count. Do you see any scenario under which Senator Clinton could win this nomination where it will not appear to large numbers of Democrats as if the nomination were stolen?
Daddy Love: Just because you are too dense to process the Pew Poll doesn’t mean it’s not a real poll.
38 Pud
You posted a link to Dan Senor’s article, not to the source.
Daddy Love: Here is your favorite newspaper.
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/e.....?section=1
Enjoy
Daddy Love: I want you to enjoy the reading…
40 Pud
I have read the Pew poll and my comment stands. No one said they would vote for McCain instead of Obama because of race, so your assertion is baseless.
Also, polls this far in advance of the election, before any Dem candidate is seriously challenging MccCain, are pretty well worthless to predict an actual outcome.
43 Pud
Do you ever test your stuff? That link is useless, and search on the site is broken.
Daddy Love, Of course they removed the link. If you choose to react when I posted it…
Butt being a 16%er you look foolish… wait… when have you not looked foolish…
Daddy Love: http://people-press.org/report.....ageID=1254
You’ve got to be kidding…
“One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party’s choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.”
No now that I think about it you are not kidding… Facts and the liberal mind are diametrically opposed particles…
Daddy Love: I liked how you skipped over the CNN News dude’s comments about the Surge and how it working is not news…
Typical, Typical…
Puddy’s quoting sources to claim that:
“Of course, it wasn’t the Bush administration, as much as it was Democrats in congress, who were pushing the lending institutions to get out there and lend more money, even to unqualified buyers.”
What rubbish. While Democrats have generally been in favor of home ownership for all Americans, that doesn’t mean that the lending standards of banks should be compromised without adequate protections. That’s the job which the Bush administration, and the Republican Congress up until last year, failed miserably.
Or does Puddy want to call for the VA to end it’s zero-down home loans, denying veterans a chance at home ownership?????
And Puddy knows that he can’t fairly quote a single Democratic Congressperson to make his point. That’s why he’s quoting a Republican spokesman who is uttering a Republican talking point, without any proof, trying to pass the blame for the current economic crisis back onto the Democrats.
By the way, Rove & his minions blamed the first six years of Republican incompetence on the Clinton administration, now he’s trying to blame the current failures on the Democratic Congress – even though the Republicans have used filibusters in the Senate (actual or promised) or Bush’s veto pen to keep any Democratic initiatives from making it into law. You see, Puddy and his Republican puppet-masters think voters are stupid, and they won’t see through this. Voters should remember this when they go to the polls – that Republicans are counting on them being stupid, that’s the only hope they have of winning this year.
Back to the thread which Daddy Love hijacked above…
I never liked Falwell no matter how many times Your Clueless Idiot tried to attach me to him. I don’t like Pat Robertson or James Dobson, but Your Clueless Idiot tries to use guilt by association. That’s why he’s Your Clueless Idiot. So on that judgment day expressly discussed in Thessolonians he’ll meet his reward…
rhp6033: It was a Sunday morning talk show and Chucky I Got Mike Steele’s SSN Schumer had plenty of time to refute the claim.
Gosh rhp6033, this must be a trend, dense as spent uranium Monday? Did the egg coloring chemicals attack your brain too?
Where was Rove in the Sunday talk show conversation rhp6033?
Grasping for ByeByeGOP’s miniscule dick again?
rhp6033: Do you remember the nomination of Roland Arnall was delayed because his company was charging higher fees to help people who couldn’t qualify for conventional home loans qualify. Do you remember your donkey party went apoplectic over this. Well it looks like it was correct to charge those higher fees because of all the people walking away from those loans now…
http://www.boston.com/business.....m_in_mass/
52: Gee, Puddy, Republican false claims come so often and with so little behind them that it’s virtually impossible to have enough time to refute all of them, especially on a network TV show. If you attempt to do so, you just allow the Republicans to sidetrack the show – which is their whole point. Some of the more obvious false claims, you usually just have to let them ride, and count on anybody with a grain of sense to see them for what they are.
By the way, don’t miss the Frontline series on PBS tonight and tomorrow night, about the Iraq war.
http://www.heraldnet.com/artic.....l.thriller
Tonight’s episode will start with 9/11, including how Rumsfield’s first response – his comments made on the night of 9/11, while rescue workers were still putting out the fires and searching for survivers and bodies in the Pentagon – was “”Part of our response maybe should be attacking Iraq. It’s an opportunity.”
51 – They’re holier than thou kind of people and so are you.
And no, I didn’t watch the news talk shows this Sunday. I doubt that many people did, on Easter Sunday.
Nice deflection rhp6033. We’re talking about Kyl and Schumer and you post something else totally away from the conversation…
Wow, and you 16%ers accuse us on the right of that!!!
Clueless_Idiot@56 arrives and again adds nothing to the conversation.
You’d think after so many people think of you as a Clueless Idiot you’d elevate your conversation.
Wait a minute… you are a Clueless Idiot… Good bye!
Good for you rhp6033. Did you not watch any TV the whole day?
Stupes! Such venom in this thread.
It’s understandable. You’re losing.
You’ve been reduced to supporting a guy for Prez whose voting record is MORE PROGRESSIVE than
Ted Kennedy
and
(gasp! jump under the bed! unbelievable!)
HILLARY CLINTON!!!
As Pooper would say:
Sure sucks to be you!
Hey, I don’t recall associating YOU with those people although they were certainly in the Chimp White House camp that you seemed to think walked on water.
But there is something you have in common with those people and I simply pointed it out.
You attacked me for using guilt by association – you are guilty of looking askance at Republican fuckups and corruption, once in while making some noises in the other direction while all the time name-calling and dragging in right wing bullshit from Newswhacks, Wingnut Daily, the Moonie Times and the rest.
It’s a long time till Nov Stupes and yes, we’re going to rub it in a bit.
Bill Clinton was god for godless secular fundamentalists of the Left. We of the right-on Right couldn’t, for example, ponder the hermeneutics of the probable rape of Juanita Broaddrick by Bible-waving Bill without throwing you progressive fundies into dark nights of the soul. Say a discouraging word about your Boy and you’d start throwing anathemas, imprecations, and feces.
Well, children, god is dead. If Election 2008 accomplishes nothing else, it for sure has pounded a stake through your god’s black heart, particularly when he started doing racist rants against a particular black senator.
Falwell was so 2001. He was dead years before he died. Nobody paid attention to him except the Jayson Blair Times and the LA Times and the Seattle Times, that had nothing better to do while committing slow suicide.
But god Bill was the living breathing geist of the zeit. We’ve watched his death in real time, and it’s been real amusing. No wonder you try to change the subject to irrelavancy.
C’mon, secular fundamentalists, defend the indefensible. Or has God Bill’s moldering stench taken your breath and stupid words away, leaving only gasping, gagging, wailing, and gnashing of teeth?
Again, our resident Terrorist is posting Republican talking points on Economics, thereby showing his ignorance.
Let’s see. Kyl wants to loop Democrats into the set of folks who should share the blame for the current financial crisis, and the only point that the Terrorist can muster in favor is the fact that Schumer didn’t refute the claim! This is beyond precious.
For those whose clue phones are actually getting a signal: the current financial crisis was precipitated by people defaulting on sub-prime loans. The loans that have gone into default over the past 12 months were taken out at least five years ago. Exactly what, pray tell, did Democrats in Congress have to do with loans taken out at least five years ago? And, exactly how much weight ought we give to the fact that Schumer chose not to spend an ounce of energy refuting a claim that is so patently false?
But, wait. It gets even better. The Terrorist’s quote includes a parenthetical thought about the cause of the Great Depression (Smoot-Hawley). Not too long ago, the Terrorist was touting Milton Friedman because Friedman received a Nobel prize in Economics. For what did Friedman win a Nobel prize? He showed how the Great Depression was caused by a drastic reduction in the money supply (which resulted from bank failures, which, in turn, led to a run on banks).
Of course, both our resident Terrorist and his source are completely clueless, so such thoughts never occur to him. He’s quite content to wallow in such inconsistencies, because, well, it’s convenient. That, and he’s just too stupid to know better.
Terrorist, this is what happens when you let other people do your thinking for you. You can’t say that I haven’t warned you about the consequences of trying to find facts in the opinions of others.
@64 You know, I really hate to appear dense, but… WTF?
63,64 – We don’t take orders from fascist nutjobs like you.
Ahhh Delusional Don Joe: I ad to find this article I read years ago about Greenspan, quoted here recently by the 16%er HorsesASSHoles.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q.....#038;gl=us
@61 “Such venom in this thread.”
I agree, let’s change the subject.
I repeat:
Here is a serious question about universal health care in the USA. What I am talking about here is basic, but including preventive care. No frills (cosmetic surgery, vanity procedures, etc.):
Should anybody in the USA not have the right to “basic” universal health care?
Should poor people and unemployed be left to “go it alone”? Children of poor people and unemployed? Pregnant mothers who happen to be poor people and/or unemployed? Who should be in, who would you like left out?
Who should the government mete out medical care for and who not?
I need somebody to talk to me on this.
Thanks
Places Puddy might be during the next Drinking Liberally…
1) Hiding under his wife’s skirt – (since I won’t be there to fuck her.)
2) Hanging out behind the bowling alley in Port Orchard giving blowjobs to sailors so he can pretend he’s helping the military effort
3) Attending a meeting of the Concerned Arabs for America
4) Visiting with his parole officer regarding his most recent sex offense
5) Down on his knees praying that nobody on this board ever finds out his true identity
Places Puddy WON’T be during the next Drinking Liberally…
1) He WON’T be anywhere near the DL site for fear he’d be held accountable for the treason, slander, lies and other bullshit he spews here every day after he gets off his job at prison work release
2) He WON’T be at a military recruiting station signing up to go fight in Iraq since that’s for someone else to do
3) He WON’T be working since all he does is post here at HA
The Terrorist sez:
I ad to find this article I read years ago about Greenspan
Oh, my, but that is funny. I nail his ass to the wall, repeating my warning about his penchant for trying to find facts in other people’s opinions, and his response is, get this, a link to yet another opinion article!
GBS: Looks like your bitch ByeByeGOP AKA NotBrightStillStupid AKA Left Turdball is shucking and jiving…trying not to meet Tuesday…
Figgers. A lefty blowhard would run like a chicken…
Delusional Don Joe: Did Greenspan ask people to go to ARMS in 2003?
Did Greenspan ask people to go to ARMS in 2003?
Yes. Why are you bringing up this completely irrelevant factoid? Are you claiming that tons of people who couldn’t even tell you who Greenspan was at the time took out adjustable rate mortgages because Greenspan told them to?
And, what, pray tell, does this have to do with the spat between Kyl and Schumer and Kyl’s obviously impaired grasp on reality?
Delusional Don Joe: I had to find this data point cuz I remembered it and I needed to start the search.
I remember the Roland Arnall hearings. In it they mentioned the Greenspan comment. Did you or Jamie remember this? I doubt it.
Here you economic genius, search “Greenspan suggest ARMs 2003 2004”
Look at all the “punditry” idiot.
I have to go for a while as a server arrived from the carrier not working and I need to triage it immediately.
@74 Typical example of Republican inability to connect actions to consequences.
@74 Puddy, the shorthand answer to your question is yes.
Damn Delusional Don Joe, it has everything to the Kyl/Schumer argument. I guess you too are dense!
Donkey wanted low interest loans to poor & middle class to help with home ownership. The Fed was at a low interest level. Greenspan wanted to recycle capital with refinancing. So he suggests ARMs. But who is going to carry those ARMs? Who is going to provide the capital? This is where the donkey took Roland Arnall to task. He charged a higher rate fee for people who had shaky credit, your Donkey party cried fowl.
Damn so easy to put together.
I wonder how many members of the so-called (and misnamed) “Moral Majority” ever thought about the morality of low-interest-rate policies that punish senior citizens who must live on interest income (because their company’s pension plan went belly-up) and punish savers for being thrifty.
With interest rates below the inflation rate, why would any rational person save money instead of spending it, and why would any rational person NOT borrow as much money as he can to buy assets that are appreciating much faster than the interest he owes on the loans?
And when it all comes crashing down, who are the first people to run to government for a bailout, and who are the first people to cut interest rates further to save their own asses?
Thanks Pelletizer. Now go review who said what from what party in 2004 & 2004. I’ll be back late in the afternoon.
GBS: You need to bitch slap ByeByeGOP, else his BULLSHITTIUM will be BYEBYE ASShole tomorrw around High Noon when he’s a no show.
China saves and re-invests half of their GDP; India 30%; America, less than zero. Thanks to the idiotic economic policies of the Ayn Randers, we’re now eating our seed corn. Before long, we’ll all have to borrow money just to eat; and the smiling Chinese will be happy to lend it to us at pawnshop interest rates.
Greenspan was a Reagan appointee, so WTF did you expect?
Terrorist @ 76
I had to find this data point cuz I remembered it and I needed to start the search.
In other words, you can’t come up with a way to wiggle yourself out of this predicament, so I’m supposed to go wandering through pages and pages of other people’s opinions in order to connect the dots that you can’t. Fine. Let’s play this little game, starting, and ending, with Andrew Leonard from Salon:
Now, the $64K question, of course is, what enabled the Wall Street money people to start the “Indianapolis Exotic Mortgage 500”? The answer, of course, is the Republican policy of deregulating the financial industry–the very same policy that gave us the S&L crisis in the 80’s.
As if to underscore this point:
In other words, Greenspan’s comments about adjustable rate mortgages don’t mean shit.
But, think you for playing.
From today’s New Yorker:
“You might, then, see the Fed’s willingness to help investment banks as evidence of their indispensability. But what it really underscores is how badly Wall Street has managed its business in recent years. Because investment banks’ trades and investments are typically very highly leveraged — Bear Stearns, for instance, had borrowed $30 for every dollar of its own — the banks need to be exceptionally good at managing risk, and they need to insure that people trust them enough to lend them huge sums of money against very little collateral.
You’d expect, then, that Wall Street firms would be especially rigorous about balancing risk against reward, and about earning and keeping the trust of customers, clients, and lenders. Instead, most of these firms have taken on spectacular amounts of risk without acknowledging the scale of their bets to the outside world, or even, it now seems, to themselves. That’s why, since the bursting of the housing bubble, we have seen tens of billions of dollars in surprise write-downs and complete paralysis in the credit markets.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23748717/
Of course, the Republican mantra has always been, and continues to be, that the government should not get involved in the regulation or oversight of private business, unless the business is a really big one, in which case it should save the business from the natural consequence of it’s own risk-taking. Paying for risks is something they prefer to see done by the little guy.
“Mission Accomplished”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23778895
And that’s just the 4000 the lying fucks will admit to.
mmmmmmmmmm
I guess I will try to break into the sewer at another time…
Donkey wanted low interest loans to poor & middle class to help with home ownership.
Nothing proposed by the Democrats required lenders to assume a higher risk. In fact, if you’d read the comments from the Newsbuster’s post that you quoted (without attribution), you’d have found a link to a Reuters article showing how banks operating under the Community Reinvestment Act actually had lower foreclosure rates.
But, hey, don’t let an actually relevant fact impede your departure from reality. Go ahead. Jump right off the cliff:
The Fed was at a low interest level. Greenspan wanted to recycle capital with refinancing. So he suggests ARMs.
For the record, who appointed Greenspan?
But who is going to carry those ARMs? Who is going to provide the capital? This is where the donkey took Roland Arnall to task. He charged a higher rate fee for people who had shaky credit, your Donkey party cried fowl.
Now, this is precious. Ameriquest enters into a $325 MM settlement for, among other things, predatory lending and falsifying loan applications, and you want to blame Democrats for it?
Keep this up, and I’ll not just kick your ass. I’ll shove my foot so far up your ass you’ll think you’ve given birth.
Puddy and GBS.
Sorry, but I won’t be able to attend tomorrow. Please take pictures.
Puddy. You’ve implied in a number of places that Democrats that would vote for Senator McCain if Senator Obama wins the nomination are voting solely on the basis of race.
In a few cases, you’re probably right, but it has been noted by any number of folks that Senators Clinton and McCain are both viewed as considerably to the right of Senator Obama.
Personally, I think that this view is wrong, but that is the perception among many, and it seems entirely plausible that some conservative Democrats may feel more comfortable with Senator McCain. Racism isn’t the only reason, especially among older Democrats, why someone might be tempted to switch.
Of course, I also think that this is more than offset by the tremendous influx of young folks who are excited by the idea of having someone to vote for, rather than just having to pick the lesser of two evils.
One of the reasons I’m an Obama supporter is that I recognize that it is just as important that a President be able to inspire as to govern. I think Senator Clinton would probably do just as good a job governing as Senator Obama.
Her policies would be acceptable, and despite some of her rhetoric, she’s proven that she can reach across the aisle and work with reasonable Republicans. She seems to have learned from her earlier mistakes. If she somehow pulls out a lead in the popular vote and the convention nominates her, I could vote for her.
(Without that lead, there is virtually no chance of her getting the nomination. Even we aren’t that self-destructive.)
But Senator Obama has me looking forward to voting. I like his policies, but I also think that he could inspire people while reading from a phone book.
And yes, that is important. We seem to forget that leadership is much more than simply managing.
On the positive side (in fairness):
After several weeks of emergency transfusions, including the Fed taking extraordinary measures to prop up the economy including multiple rate cuts (two in one week!), massive infusions of Fed cash directly into a wall street investment firm (a first!), encouraging a fire-sale of American mortgage-backed securities, the DJIA has apparantly stopped it’s free fall (for now) and is up again today, to 12,585.60.
Of course, in order to equal the gain in the DJIA during the Clinton presidency (+225.37%), the DJIA would have to close at 34,585.60 by Jan. 2009.
Seems quite the debate going on here as to who’s “fault” it is for the economic disaster we are in.
My question…the banking industry was de-regulated in the 80’s by Reagan right?
Why hasn’t it been changed all these years? Fot that fact, why didn’t Clinton change this when he held office for 8 years? Why did Bush Sr not change this in his 4 years?
Of course, we could set ourselves on a more reasonable (diminished) expectation of an average of 10% per year growth in the DJIA over the eight years of the Bush presidency. In order to achieve that, the DJIA will only have to reach 19,057.66 by Jan. 20, 2009!
Hannah @ 91: Of Clinton’s eight years in office, the Republicans held control of the Congress for six of them (1994 ~ 2006 in total). The first two years were spent on the health-care reform efforts (failed) and the economic recovery from the Reagan/Bush I rescession. For the next six years, there was no way Clinton was going to get legislation from the Republican Congress which increased regulation over any business, especially investment or banking.
Besides, what we are seeing now is not so much deregulation, as it is the lack of effective oversight, control, and remedial action in advance of a catastrophe. It’s a repeat of the FEMA disaster, where the Bush administration essentially aboloshes federal agencies in all but name only by defunding them and ignoring their mandated responsibilities.
What SHOULD have been done, around 2004, was the government should have been pro-active in the face of rapidly rising housing prices and enacting regulations to reduce the risk of these very risky loan vehicles (zero-down ARMS with balloon payments two years down the road, with no income documentation requirements). They should have done so not only to protect the borrowers, but also to dampen hyper-inflation in the housing market and to protect the American taxpayer and the economy as a whole.
That’s the job of good government, but it’s not always popular, and that wasn’t what they wanted to do.
But Bush & Co. chose to do nothing, which kept the lenders and the real-estate agents very happy. Instead, Bush & Co. ignored the looming problem, concentrating instead on trying to salvage the deteriorating situation in Iraq (i.e., insisting that things are going well, these are only a few “dead enders” after all), trying to manage Katrina as a PR problem only, and spending an enourmous amount of time and effort in trying to ensure a “permanant Republican majority” through the K-street project, redistricting, politically-inspired prosecutions, etc.
@ 91
Before I answer your questions, I should note that Congress is responsible for passing banking regulations, and Congress is responsible for repealing those same laws. The question isn’t who was president, but which party controlled Congress at any given time.
Also, I should note that the issue isn’t so much a question of whom we should blame. Rather the issue centers on the efficacy of various Economic philosophies. Deregulation, while often endorsed by Democrats, particularly those influenced by the Democratic Leadership Council, is most distinctly a linchpin of Republican philosophy.
Why hasn’t it been changed all these years?
In 1989, a Democratically-controlled Congress passed the Financial Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act. These regulations were largely directed at the savings & loan industry, but it there were other effects. If you want the details, you can do a web search.
Fot that fact, why didn’t Clinton change this when he held office for 8 years? Why did Bush Sr not change this in his 4 years?
Perhaps the most significant step in the direction of deregulation wasGramm-Leach-Bliley Act, passed in 1999 by a Republican-controlled Congress. Some folks might be quick to point out that GLBA passed with 90 votes, but, again, in so far as it relates to the question of which is the better philosophy, GLBA is straight out of the Republican rule book. It’s worth noting that many Democrats in 1999 were heavily influenced by DLC ideas.
@94- thanks for the info!!!!
So was it Reagan who passed de-regulation as all the claims I have read here for weeks?
@94 I have to say, I appreciate the more even handed approach you took with describing economic legislation. Generally HA tends to be “Dems all good/Reps all bad”. I think that kind of thing results in knee-jerk reactions on both sides. Nice to see that someone (else) at least tries to be objective on occasion…
@ 95
Again, Congress passes legislation, not Presidents. For a reasonable summary of deregulation while Reagan was President see:
http://www.socialstudieshelp.c.....lation.htm
@97-Thanks Don Joe! So considering Congress was Dem controlled from 1955-1995 all this talk of Reagan fault is indeed incorrect? I am quite confused, still learning though, with the help with views and historical links via the internet. But I have been reading and hearing for the past year or so the whole reason the banks were de-regulated is a republican faulted mess.
John:
I’ll be posting that address tomorrow for all interested parties who wish to attend and munch Mexican food with me and Puddy.
There may be a score to settle — we’ll see.
ByeByeGOP; I’m assuming you’re going to show. Yeah?
Puddbud always rolls with PacMan. Even though Puddybud knows I show on my own.
@ 98
First, the 97’th Congress was split. Democrats had a majority in the House, but the Republicans controlled the Senate.
Second, the Garn-St. Germain Act was a Reagan initiative.
So, if the central question is about which philosophy is more effective at promoting our welfare, do you think the Garn-St. Germain Act and its consequences are more reflective of conservative values or progressive values?
@101 – Considering the Garn-St. Germain Act was sponsered by both dems and reps, my answer to “do you think the Garn-St. Germain Act and its consequences are more reflective of conservative values or progressive values?” BOTH
“Think when your (sic! sic! sic!) dead …”
The time has come
La Goldstein said
To speak of appalling things
Of Pauling, pimps, and paranoids
And pineal happenings
Of why some chicks are hot to trot
And whether pigs can swing
“(M)onitoring traffic on I-5 for nuclear materials …”
About damn time. If the failed Bush administration succeeded in this and other protective measures that we paranoids have desired since about 0930 9/12/2001, then Bush-Cheney deserve Four More Years.
@ 102
Considering the Garn-St. Germain Act was sponsered by both dems and reps, my answer to “do you think the Garn-St. Germain Act and its consequences are more reflective of conservative values or progressive values?” BOTH
So, you’re the passenger in a car, and you’re giving directions. As you approach an intersection, the driver asks if we should turn left or turn right, and your answer is “Both!”
“Neither” might work as an answer, but not “both.”
@106 – Good point! So if I were to take the Garn-St Germain act, since it was a dem controlled congress at the time, I would say it was a Progressive Value Approach…they took Reagans idea and ran with it so to speak.
@ 107
since it was a dem controlled congress at the time,
As I noted above, the 97th Congress was split. Republicans controlled the Senate.
I would say it was a Progressive Value Approach
Does that mean you think it impossible for there to be conservative Democrats? Interesting.
they took Reagans idea and ran with it so to speak.
Now we’re getting into the twilight zone.
GBS: back on-line now corrupted hard drive. Sending back to mfger.
Don Joe, you’re great and wonderful…
#1: Everyone knows I use as Clueless Idiot writes right-wing whackjob sites. So I post as I please.
I posted the info since this site used Greenspan to diss Bernacke. Interesting how time rolls on…
GBS: You can’t trust Donkey to play fair…
Rujax! show up tomorrow you might get a freebie after all…
Looks like some donkey could do some time in the pokey.
http://www.wwj.com/pages/18698.....Id=1762338
John, I look at polls all the time. I post the polls as they are published. I can help it if some of the simpletons has issues with polls.
Looks like ByeByeGOPs uncle is running for Congress:
http://www.wwj.com/Kevorkian-for-Congress/1876687
@108 – Found the layout of the bill…looks like it passed the house with flying colors but actually was held up by the Senate for a period of time before they finally convinced the senate to pass it after a few changes:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d097:22:./temp/~bde6vE:@@@S|/bss/d097query.html|
And yes I believe there are “conservative” dems just as there are “liberal” reps
What I am saying is we can’t have it both ways, blame Reagan for the mess but not the Congress (by far dem controlled), and now blame the president and the Congress (prior to 2006) for this current economic mess.
What I am saying is we can’t have it both ways, blame Reagan for the mess but not the Congress (by far dem controlled), and now blame the president and the Congress (prior to 2006) for this current economic mess.
First, and foremost, if you’ve been paying any attention at all, you’ll notice that I’ve placed the blame on policies not specific people. Frankly, I think blaming individual people is almost a complete waste of time.
Second, that doesn’t change the fact that, as rhp and Schumer pointed out, the current Administration could have taken steps to ameliorate the current crisis. They chose not to, and that decision is a reflection of long-standing Republican policies. I will reiterate, however, that the real question is one of policy, not people.
Lastly, the real question here is whether or not we want to elect as President someone who shows every sign of perpetuating these same failed policies or are we going to choose to do something different. However you want to slice this, McCain is not going to bring viable answers to the table.
Better yet, on the local front, not only is important for this country that we find and promote Democrats, but we find and promote progressive Democrats who, nevertheless, understand how markets are supposed to work and how they do work. Candidates like Darcy Burner epitomize exactly the kind of person we want in Congress.
I posted the info since this site used Greenspan to diss Bernacke.
I believe I’ve pointed you to http://bigpicture.typepad.com/ before. Make it a regular haunt. You will note that, far more often than not, Barry posts analyses rather than opinions. Had you followed my advice on that score, you’d have found ample ammunition against both Bernanke and Greenspan. You’ll also find some good insights in the comments threads as well.
@115 – I agree it is a policy issue, I wasn’t saying you specifically play he politic side card, but most here do. And yes, Bush AND the congress (especially this past year when the writing was on the wall we were heading into an economic collapse) should have done something to stop it. This bailout, so to speak, should have happened sooner (since they were gonna do it anyway) and it may have staved off the brunt of a recession.
“the” political” card ….sorry typos tonight!