Steve Benson for October 18, 2009

…. and it’s a hoax on the American people.

^ Today, the party of Lincoln would be comprised of moderate Reps and Dems and it would care about governance at least as much as about winning elections.

It is a shame but it deserves to crash after the last eight years.

Actually, the hot updraft of socialism has rejuvenated the conservative movement as nothing else possibly could.

And you lefties are a big help - keep up the absurdities.

This more closely resembles the BozOTUS Administration.

Mr. Fennec, Agreed.

” … I’d welcome the old Republican party back with open arms, …”

Is that the party Reagan or Nixon?

The real Republican party is the party of Eisenhower. He was the last R that actually balanced a budget.

It’s a funny thing. I don’t talk politics with parishioners, but they talk it to me! And the older Republicans have said very much the same about looking for the party Eisenhower. Some have left and become Democrats, some stay in the party, grit their teeth and vote, but more have simply stopped taking part in politics and feel alone. One was even the region’s Republican Party leader way back when. It is a party that has wandered far from its roots. Whether it will ever go back, I have no clue.

Of course, JFK, Scoop Jackson, MLK, etc would stare with amazement and shock at today’s Democratic party. Remember proudly going into Vietnam, ask not…, judge each individual on merits. The Democrats have pulled sharply to the left, the Republicans have pulled to the right. What’s in it for me was not the cry of either party 2 generations ago.

“The Democrats have pulled sharply to the left, the Republicans have pulled to the right. ”

While the first part of the sentence is correct, the second is patently wrong.

The fact is that one of the main reasons that Bush and the Republicans of the last congress have had problems with its constituents is that they became semi-democrats. Hence the large deficits.

If and when the party reinstates the core principles of Reaganism, it will also reclaim the leadership role in America.

Best “Ballon Boy” cartoon yet.

pete:

The Dub’ya terms went badly because the neocon whackjobs used the 911 attack as an excuse to try to remake the world in an image of their liking. D@mn the blood and treasure this enterprise cost.

And then again that economic deregulation championed since the ‘80’s kept the GOP (and all of us) dead on the path toward the cliff, too.

This just crossed the wire:

“Barack Obama will hold a huge Democratic fund-raiser on Tuesday night at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in New York City, but not all invitees—at $30,400 a pop—will be attending, reports the New York Times. In the wake of the news that many of the country’s big financial firms increased chief executive benefits and perks in 2008 at the same time that they received millions in government bailout funding, such a fundraiser would have controversial implications for certain attendees. While the finance industry will be amply represented at the event (approximately one third of the 200 attendees work in finance) only six of the large bailout recipients like Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and Citigroup will attend, specifically to avoid any accusations that they profited from federal bailout money and are now funneling funds back into the White House to say “thank you.”

Read it at The New York Times

” … economic deregulation championed since the ‘80’s kept the GOP (and all of us) dead on the path toward the cliff …”

That is a patent nonsense!

The financial crises was caused in part by Community Reinvestment Act >> that REGULATED financial institutions into giving loans with little or no regard of creditworthiness of borrowers.

It was also created by Democrats not willing to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which continued making and purchasing the potential junk loans.

And the trifecta of the perfect storm was the advent of whiz kids on WallsStreet, that invented a bunch of derivatives which were outside of regulations, that took the bad loans as a basis and leveridgid the hell out of them, selling them all over the world.

The forth culprit, about which we don’t hear much, are the rating agencies, that rated the derivatives as 3a, while all they were is junk.

These are the actual facts!!!

Clearly, there were many more elements to the crises but one more glaring one, is the deregulation of ‘short selling’ of securities, which, for some unknown reasons was unanimously approved by Congress and signed by Clinton.

That made no sense, and it still is in place, albeit a bit revised.

That allowed speculators to “sell into submission” most of the large financial institutions.

petergrt, I agree with you about short selling, and day trading and similar forms of legalized gambling side bets … short selling was deregulated under Clinton?

@ Petergrt :Community Reinvestment Act made sure no banks discriminated against low income communities, thus eliminating redlining. The notion that a twenty five year old law would come to destroy our housing market years later is ridiculous. If anything War Bush relaxed those laws allowing for Sub Prime lending.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

That oped piece has been proven to be Democrat gibberish, as it has been very well rebutted - right on the website.

My favorite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/cron/

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/houseof_cardsS6MsT275m3Ybbsm3TdxIxN

subprime loans was a small piece of the meltdown … when Wall St. decided to create $30 of leveraged debt in the form of mortgage derivatives for every $1 worth of mortgages, ensured the end result. Add to that the practices of the ratings agencies, as petergrt points out, and Wall St. created the bullet, loaded the gun and put pressure on the trigger. The housing bubble finally bursting, as all knew it would eventually, was only the tiniest bit of pressure needed to send the bullet flying. Problem is the bullet is hitting almost everyone except those who created the bullet and loaded the gun … they got bailouts and new bonuses.

believecommonsense:

Well said.

I will however reserve judgment on the matters of bonuses.

Clearly, no bonuses shall go to anyone that was involved with the derivative schemes. In fact, many should be in jail.

However, these are very large organizations that have many businesses, most of which had absolutly nothing to do with the derivative schemes.

In fact, many traders, brokers and such, are paid a nominal salary, with the bonus being tied to their performance in their particular field.

I know that it is easy to get angry at the prospect that some ‘bail out’ money maybe used to pay bonuses, but the reality is that for many it is their salary, and in accordance with their employment contracts.

These contracts cannot be terminated or modified, other than by a bankruptcy court, or by a mutual agreement. They are constitutionally protected.

The politicians that keep harping about them are being dishonest, as they are trying to score some cheap political points.

Democrats pulled hard to the left? When?

I know where to find Republicans in Congress who want to dismantle Social Security, go back to the gold standard, ban abortion in every instance, reinstate prayer in school, remove all legal barriers to anyone buying a gun, and send our troops to invade any country we don’t care for. Those are hard-right positions, bordering on wing-nuttery.

Which congressional Democrats support liberal positions that are even half that extreme? Can you name one who is working to legalize drugs? How about just marijuana? Who’s pushing a bill to restore welfare benefits to pre-Clinton levels? Which Democratic congressperson actually supports racial reparations? Did anybody notice that Democrats started the health-reform process by ruling out a single-payer plan altogether?

In Congress these days, you’ve got moderates and extreme conservatives. Republicans are so far to the right, they consider the cap-and-trade plan (a market-based solution they came up with) to be ‘liberal fascism’. “Both parties are basically the same” is the most bogus talking point out there today.

“Clearly, there were many more elements to the crises but one more glaring one, is the deregulation of ‘short selling’ of securities, which, for some unknown reasons was unanimously approved by Congress and signed by Clinton.”

You said it yourself, deregulation. Many of the financial gurus in Clinton’s term, especially Greenspan and Rubin, apparently were of the “t regulation bad, free market good” school.

From a political perspective, I found it more surprising that Clinton would go through with it. Then again, I always thought Clinton run a rather centrist (if not right-wing) financial policy, actually. Historically, he kept relatively low taxes* (especially after 1997), he wasn’t much for regulation, even had a balanced budget every now and then…

*: as in, when you look at it out of the Reagan/Bush Jr framework.

fennec, I’m with you. Unfortunately, as evidenced by some of the postings here, a GOP with substance will not likely be seen in our lifetimes.

Hmm, contracts to protect stock traders who BILKED the car companies should be protected, but union workers who had contracts and BUILT the cars, and the companies, should all get the shaft in bankruptcies??

The failures were complex, and 99% the responsibility of “neocon” phony economic theory and deregulation, but hey, why blame those responsible? “Macroeconomics” is the study of how idiots can mentor morons, and make a fortune in the process.

here’s an investigative piece on Moody’s role in the meltdown: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/77244.html

and copperdome, very good comment! very true. claims of democrats pulling far left are nonsense, as you explain very well. It’s another case of the rabid right taking a fact, turning it on its head and shouting the resulting lie.

Mooddy’s Mark Zandi is one of the chief architects of the 787B boondoggle ‘stimulus’. Isn’t that nice?

With respect to the current Democrat party, you might wont to read some of JFK peaches - they sound as if they were written by today’s Republicans.

That’s funny. Thanks.

Someone kept JFK’s peaches?

yeah, but they’re so withered they can’t be read, like ET said.

My grammy could’ve preserved ‘em.