BAILOUT: Yes or No?

[GeneralHankerchief]

Let's reform it Fight Club style. Problem solved.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

It's hard to say for me. I mean I didn't read (I don't know if it's available?...much less would I understand it all?) the plan the senators voted against. It seems bailing them out would not be the best idea, especially because 700 billion is just an estimate, of what it's worth. Whether the taxpayers will receive that much is not really known. Now this might mean the government would own more, which might not be such a horrible thing (but with who is currently in office, perhaps it is...).

Maybe the hindsight bias is making say this, but I would be in favor of a bill that would NOT give any amount of money to the companies, but would put restrictions on loans, mortgages, etc. It's more strict, but this devolution in these categories is obviously not working out.

My 2

[Crazed Rabbit]

Kush:
http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080929.htm
He argues buying the bad assets does nothing to lower liabilities. He proposes a streamlined bankruptcy process as well, among other things.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi....n_is_wrong.pdf
An essay from the one thing I like about Chicago, their school of economics, on the need for a streamlined bankruptcy process.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/ar...ncial_c_1.html
Lists many problems with the plan.

I am really, insanely happy that the first version (the one that 'Republican holdouts' prevented, I suppose), did not get passed:

Thanks to the House GOP's intervention, the Paulson plan is also better than it would have been. Republicans helped to eliminate the Barney Frank-Chris Dodd slush fund for liberal housing lobbies; a plank to let judges shield deadbeat homeowners from bankruptcy laws; and a ploy to stack bank boards with union members.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264821035984089.html

CR

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Kush:
http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080929.htm
He argues buying the bad assets does nothing to lower liabilities. He proposes a streamlined bankruptcy process as well, among other things.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi....n_is_wrong.pdf
An essay from the one thing I like about Chicago, their school of economics, on the need for a streamlined bankruptcy process.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/ar...ncial_c_1.html
Lists many problems with the plan.

I am really, insanely happy that the first version (the one that 'Republican holdouts' prevented, I suppose), did not get passed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264821035984089.html

CR

Was helpful. Thanks.

EDIT: But I think this is true only in a perfect world. The corruption in these companies is changing these balance sheets and A bill (maybe not this one) would benefit by changing this (hopefully). I'm not sure what I want here......

[HoreTore]

Thanks to the House GOP's intervention, the Paulson plan is also better than it would have been. Republicans helped to eliminate the Barney Frank-Chris Dodd slush fund for liberal housing lobbies; a plank to let judges shield deadbeat homeowners from bankruptcy laws; and a ploy to stack bank boards with union members.

That's got to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever read.

Thanks for the laugh, CR

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm currently of the opinion that we're basically screwed either way. We can print 700 billion dollars and have all the problems associated with that, just to get the credit machine running again- the same one that got us into this mess in the first place. Wealthy corrupt businesses will get big fat bailouts from their wealthy corrupt patrons in congress and maybe the unsustainable system can trundle on for a few more years. What's solved then? If we don't do anything we're probably heading for a serious recession. Both options stink, but right now I lean towards letting "nature" run its course.

This is exactly how I have felt, as well. In EITHER scenario, the party that gets screwed is the taxpayer, working and middle class. And maybe some dumb rich people who aren't rich enough to be major CEO's and own corps, but rich enough to have tied tons of money into Wall Street. The people directly responsible for this pyramid scheme? They had their golden parachutes pre-packaged. ANd they KNEW this was coming down; look at how many retired as CEO just months before this came down the pipeline. Look at how whatcha call it... Indy Mac and others were saying they were "just fine" right up until the day it was announced they were entering Federal conservatorship. Liars, the bunch of them.

I think the reason the fear tactic isn't working on us (the normal peon folk) is because the fact that we're in an economic downturn is NOT NEWS TO US LIKE IT APPEARS TO BE TO RICH PEOPLE AND INVESTORS. How long has gas been over $3 a gallon? How long have house values been going down? But, when it hits Wall Street--- then it's a crisis? The American people are stupid, but they weren't stupid enough to panic and start fleeing the theater no matter how many times Bush yelled "FIRE! FIRE!!!"

One of the neat ideas I've heard (this is pure pipedream, I'm sure, but I still love it) is get all these CEO's and execs under RICO laws, and repossess their property up to an equivalent value of what they got out of all of this racketeering. Won't happen, but I am mad for the idea.

To me this is not an issue of "I'm just stubbornly against the bailout because I'm mad at Wall Street fat cats." To me that ship has sailed; they made their money on this pyramid scheme and they're not going to be the ones losing a house (their ONLY house, to boot) over this, or struggling to make ends meet. That falls to us, the peons.

There isn't a pretty solution. I think we get screwed in this either way.

I am really, insanely happy that the first version (the one that 'Republican holdouts' prevented, I suppose), did not get passed:

Quote:
Thanks to the House GOP's intervention, the Paulson plan is also better than it would have been. Republicans helped to eliminate the Barney Frank-Chris Dodd slush fund for liberal housing lobbies; a plank to let judges shield deadbeat homeowners from bankruptcy laws; and a ploy to stack bank boards with union members.

CR I am really confused, a page back weren't you blasting the Democrats for not overwhelmingly voting lockstep to get this bailout passed? I can't even keep track of whether you are for or against the bailout that failed today. I am against it, because of insufficient accountability and the fact that it basically made Paulson into Finance Czar with no oversight of how he choose to dole out the money. Also, while you are busy applauding your little GOP minority for squashing this bill, let's not overlook that the head of the GOP (the President) and the heir apparent (McCain) both pushed for it in unchanged fashion. I agree with others that this partisan crap isn't helping but if you're going to take partisan snipes let's place blame where it's warranted.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's got to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever read.

Thanks for the laugh, CR

Do you know what they're talking about?

I suppose not, so I'll spell it out for you:
One of the things prevented was a huge amount of money being given to ACORN ( Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ), which intimidated banks as much as they could into giving out subprime loans:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264821035984089.html

In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans.

IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.

Koga - I was criticizing the dems not because I wanted the bill to be passed, but because they have the numbers to get it passed, and they are blaming the GOP - it is their fault and not the GOP's that it failed.

CR

[seireikhaan]

Koga - I was criticizing the dems not because I wanted the bill to be passed, but because they have the numbers to get it passed, and they are blaming the GOP - it is their fault and not the GOP's that it failed.

CR

Which is a pity- they should be congratulating those Dems that voted it down. The news media, regardless of orientation, is acting as though the world is going to explode. I have major doubts that the downturn will be as bad as the '29 depression. Not to mention that things will eventually get straightened out, and will be better for it in the long run. Point is- things will get pretty bad, but they will get better.

EDIT: Tuff is right about the last part, both deserve "blame" as far as the bill not passing. I missed that bit.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Koga - I was criticizing the dems not because I wanted the bill to be passed, but because they have the numbers to get it passed, and they are blaming the GOP - it is their fault and not the GOP's that it failed.

CR

I'm sorry CR, but both the Republicans and Democrats failed in this endeavor. The Democrats failed after the Republicans failed - but you can't say that the Republicans didn't fail.

I'm not sure that sucess would have been a good thing anyway, but the dual failure is pretty obvious.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm sorry CR, but both the Republicans and Democrats failed in this endeavor. The Democrats failed after the Republicans failed - but you can't say that the Republicans didn't fail.

I'm not sure that sucess would have been a good thing anyway, but the dual failure is pretty obvious.

My feeling as well. I'm glad this incarnation didn't pass, and I don't think going "ha ha the Republicans blocked this one" and then "ha ha the Democrats failed to pass that one" is very informative or helpful at this point. By a 9:1 margin public calls to Congressional offices are saying no, no, no to both parties. So expecting a partisan lockstep vote either way by either side is totally unrealistic. Pelosi couldn't get all the Dems to vote yes but Bush and McCain combined could only get 1 out of 3 Republicans to vote yes. So um... let's call that one a draw. ;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

My feeling as well. I'm glad this incarnation didn't pass, and I don't think going "ha ha the Republicans blocked this one" and then "ha ha the Democrats failed to pass that one" is very informative or helpful at this point. By a 9:1 margin public calls to Congressional offices are saying no, no, no to both parties. So expecting a partisan lockstep vote either way by either side is totally unrealistic. Pelosi couldn't get all the Dems to vote yes but Bush and McCain combined could only get 1 out of 3 Republicans to vote yes. So um... let's call that one a draw. ;)

You've got to admit that her speech was insanely incendiary. I don't believe that it caused the house Republicans to vote no, but it certainly didn't inspire them with the bi-partisan sentiment necessary to get the bill through.

[Koga No Goshi]

You've got to admit that her speech was insanely incendiary. I don't believe that it caused the house Republicans to vote no, but it certainly didn't inspire them with the bi-partisan sentiment necessary to get the bill through.

If you dont' believe it influenced the Republican vote then it is totally irrelevant. It is the excuse I'm hearing floating around on the airwaves a lot for why so many Republicans voted no. It doesn't say much if Republicans sincerely believe the country needs this, to give a spite vote because they don't like Pelosi. I don't think she's the best thing since sliced bread but I think we should be getting our panties into a twist less over what she can or can't do considering that Bush and McCain together apparently can do even less than she can.

[Azi Tohak]

FYI Gentlemen: Working in Saudi my TV news source is BBC World News. I really like them, but last night while I was watching the vote, the anchor blamed Republicans for the failure. She didn't even mention that 40% of the Dems voted no. Not once.

I wonder if this is because Bush has given all Republicans a bad name or if BBC World News wants a Democrat president for the USA.

At any rate, back on topic: I still know so little about all of this I don't even know which way I would have voted. Personally, I am inclined to think that the market can (eventually) sort itself out. We've been due for another recession anyway. Yuck.

I do think it is interesting to speculate on the future. Will the USA still be a superpower? Is it still a superpower? The country has been brought low not by wars (even if they are costly) but by some greedy bastards on Wall Street.

Azi

[Koga No Goshi]

FYI Gentlemen: Working in Saudi my TV news source is BBC World News. I really like them, but last night while I was watching the vote, the anchor blamed Republicans for the failure. She didn't even mention that 40% of the Dems voted no. Not once.

I wonder if this is because Bush has given all Republicans a bad name or if BBC World News wants a Democrat president for the USA.

The vote was:

Dems Reps
Yes 140 65
No 95 133


Rep no votes nearly equalled the Dem yes votes, even though they're the minority party.

So how does it constitute a foreign conspiracy to influence our Presidential outcome by saying the Reps were primarily responsible for stopping the bill? They were. People are getting hypersensitive and tossing around the term blame. You guys should be proud the Reps stopped it, the bill in its current form is crap.

[Ice]

Kush:
http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080929.htm
He argues buying the bad assets does nothing to lower liabilities. He proposes a streamlined bankruptcy process as well, among other things.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi....n_is_wrong.pdf
An essay from the one thing I like about Chicago, their school of economics, on the need for a streamlined bankruptcy process.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/ar...ncial_c_1.html
Lists many problems with the plan.

I am really, insanely happy that the first version (the one that 'Republican holdouts' prevented, I suppose), did not get passed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264821035984089.html

CR

Thanks, CR. I'll get back to you tommorow or when I have some free time. My brain is fried, and I don't want you to think I'm blowing you off.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I realise that this is not really the time to be talking about solutions longer-term, but you might be interested in this analysis of the Santander Bank, a Spanish business that is quietly growing on the back of the British government's panic.

Not only has Santander weathered the storm, it has spectacularly benefited from it, announcing 9bn euros profit this year, a staggering 19.3 per cent improvement on last year.

Two reasons, really: first the Spanish banking system is very strictly regulated, largely as a result of a devastating crisis that shook the country's banking industry in the 1970s, and sent many regional and family banks to the wall. The Bank of Spain imposes iron controls in assuming high-risk assets, and insists that ordinary customers be protected from their vagaries. Second, Santander concentrates on retail banking – the unsexy stuff of high-street branches, current accounts and savings deposits – rather than investment banking, or anything fancier. The bank reckons its business is therefore largely immune from market swings.

In other words, a really conservative bank. You know, conservative in the real sense of the word.

[Koga No Goshi]

I realise that this is not really the time to be talking about solutions longer-term, but you might be interested in this analysis of the Santander Bank, a Spanish business that is quietly growing on the back of the British government's panic.

Not only has Santander weathered the storm, it has spectacularly benefited from it, announcing 9bn euros profit this year, a staggering 19.3 per cent improvement on last year.

Two reasons, really: first the Spanish banking system is very strictly regulated, largely as a result of a devastating crisis that shook the country's banking industry in the 1970s, and sent many regional and family banks to the wall. The Bank of Spain imposes iron controls in assuming high-risk assets, and insists that ordinary customers be protected from their vagaries. Second, Santander concentrates on retail banking – the unsexy stuff of high-street branches, current accounts and savings deposits – rather than investment banking, or anything fancier. The bank reckons its business is therefore largely immune from market swings.

In other words, a really conservative bank. You know, conservative in the real sense of the word.

A lot of very conservative banks that operate in the U.S. are doing just fine. The Japanese banks, for instance, here on the West Coast, are doing okay, such as Union Bank of California. (There are several others, the names just elude me at the moment.) One of the prime reasons of course is that they really only gave loans on relatively "strict" guidelines, you had to basically have A credit to get an A loan. (Sort of a novel concept in today's context.) But, six months ago, a year ago... people were saying "screw you guys, you're not competitive, you're offering me 3%? PFFT" and took their money to the risky subprime mortgage & re-fi based savings/CD/banks. (I heard this all the time, working in an accounting office.)

It brings a quote to mind. After I read this, I never forgot it. It's so eminently relevant to so much of what's going on in America today, from economics to foreign policy.

Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I talked to a stock broker and former loan officer on the phone for 2 hours last night (family friend). This guy is a real genius. Anyway, I have a lot better understanding of where a lot of this came from, but long story short a bill should be passed because it's the only thing we really can do at this point. We have to make sure we watch over them like hawks though, and I would agree with him, some people need to be arrested.

[Lemur]

A great point:

If things are indeed as bad as the proponents say, and if they are the responsible, sober voices of wisdom that they pretend to be, the truly irresponsible thing was to wait up until the last weeks before the recess, rush out a terrible plan, demand immediate adoption of this terrible plan (which they were happy to admit in public was a terrible plan) and then not even correctly gauge the level of support for the legislation before bringing it to a vote. Calling the question when there likely wasn’t enough support (as opponents of the bill had said yesterday!), if you believe what these people claim to believe, was an act of brazen recklessness. If they are wrong about the consequences of not adopting this plan, they are merely politically incompetent.

[Mangudai]

Kush:
http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080929.htm
He argues buying the bad assets does nothing to lower liabilities. He proposes a streamlined bankruptcy process as well, among other things.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi....n_is_wrong.pdf
An essay from the one thing I like about Chicago, their school of economics, on the need for a streamlined bankruptcy process.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/ar...ncial_c_1.html
Lists many problems with the plan.

I am really, insanely happy that the first version (the one that 'Republican holdouts' prevented, I suppose), did not get passed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264821035984089.html

CR

Good stuff there.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I realise that this is not really the time to be talking about solutions longer-term, but you might be interested in this analysis of the Santander Bank, a Spanish business that is quietly growing on the back of the British government's panic.

Not only has Santander weathered the storm, it has spectacularly benefited from it, announcing 9bn euros profit this year, a staggering 19.3 per cent improvement on last year.

Two reasons, really: first the Spanish banking system is very strictly regulated, largely as a result of a devastating crisis that shook the country's banking industry in the 1970s, and sent many regional and family banks to the wall. The Bank of Spain imposes iron controls in assuming high-risk assets, and insists that ordinary customers be protected from their vagaries. Second, Santander concentrates on retail banking – the unsexy stuff of high-street branches, current accounts and savings deposits – rather than investment banking, or anything fancier. The bank reckons its business is therefore largely immune from market swings.

In other words, a really conservative bank. You know, conservative in the real sense of the word.

Indeed. De-regulation in the late 1990s allowed new avenues for making profits in America. Those who used those opportunities wisely are doing fine.

But our problem is beyond mere capitalistic greed - the government and special interest groups pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accept sub prime loans and the government didn't put the standard regulations on Fannie and Freddie.

I'm hearing the Democrat leadership is going to reinstall the liberal provisions of the bill to get more demos on board, including a huge amount of money for ACORN, the special interest group that pushed for giving sub prime loans to poor minorities.

CR

[HoreTore]

How about raising wages to make poor people afford a house instead of playing with the loan market?

[Koga No Goshi]

Indeed. De-regulation in the late 1990s allowed new avenues for making profits in America. Those who used those opportunities wisely are doing fine.

But our problem is beyond mere capitalistic greed - the government and special interest groups pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accept sub prime loans and the government didn't put the standard regulations on Fannie and Freddie.

I'm hearing the Democrat leadership is going to reinstall the liberal provisions of the bill to get more demos on board, including a huge amount of money for ACORN, the special interest group that pushed for giving sub prime loans to poor minorities.

CR

Seriously, stop with the reinventing history. If you want to turn this into a pure partisan matter (and of course, from your perspective, it is all and only the Democrats) then let's get into the ownership society. Whose deal is that? Bush. You guys are still complaining to this day about the New Deal, when your party has given us such wonderful things as the ownership society, the idea that you can have whatever you want, with a joke tax cut, on a subprime loan, a credit card, or by taking a part time minimum wage job or going to night school. This is the guy who told us to go shopping after 9/11.

"We're creating... an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property. - President George W. Bush, October 2004."

Any finger you want to point at the Dems, three more are pointing back at you. The fact that we were even in a housing bubble is in large part because of heavily (not exclusively, but dominantly) Republican policies of deregulation, tax incentives for outsourcing, and the gutting of many major domestic industries. The last big cash cow was the housing market, and people's ability to pull big credit out of a house to pay for things their jobs didn't afford them but the economy depended on people buying (no matter how much we want to lecture about individual responsibility.) The fact that subprime loans were popping up like Starbucks was the result of deregulation of the financial markets, not regulation. The fact that they were not checking credit scores or income was deregulation. This was private failure enabled by pro-business, deregulation policies. This was not private victimhood brought on by too much regulation.

And, if you want to make this all about homeownership regulations regarding Freddie and Fannie, and blame it on the Dems... well, you guys controlled all three branches for nearly 8 years. But you were too busy with your ownership society.

I love how the defense of Republicans today, especially the McCain campaign, is "well we've been talking about the need for reform in the housing market for awhile now." Yeah, well, you did nothing with 7 and change years in control of government about it, so we know what your words were worth, right?

[Spino]

You've got to admit that her speech was insanely incendiary. I don't believe that it caused the house Republicans to vote no, but it certainly didn't inspire them with the bi-partisan sentiment necessary to get the bill through.

I can understand why she said those things... She's probably still bitter about the fact that nobody bought her recent book.

Nothing makes an egomaniac more bitter and resentful than when they're being blatantly ignored.

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #28,245

http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Powe...2794427&sr=8-2

[Koga No Goshi]

Nothing makes an egomaniac more bitter and resentful than when they're being blatantly ignored.
http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Powe...2794427&sr=8-2

Certainly explains McCain, and Bush too for that matter. Spino, is there any political opinion you have that doesn't boil down to, some half-baked psychological deconstruction which seems exclusively reserved for people not on your side of the aisle? Someone listens to too much Michael Savage.

[Mangudai]

then let's get into the ownership society. Whose deal is that?

It's both parties. The "ownership society" has been promoted by both parties.

1994 changes in regulation of employee stock options were a major cause of the 2002 downturn. We had incentives in place to inflate stock prices rather than actual earnings. Dems favored generous employee stock options, to give workers a share of their company. Republicans liked the idea too in 1994, they finally fixed it.

According to US generally accepted accounting principles in effect before June 2005, stock options granted to employees did not need to be recognized as an expense on the income statement when granted, although the cost was disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. This allows a potentially large form of employee compensation to not show up as an expense in the current year, and therefore, currently overstate income. Many assert that over-reporting of income by methods such as this by American corporations was one contributing factor in the Stock Market Downturn of 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_stock_option



http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Who was pushing home ownership beyond any rational limits?

[Koga No Goshi]

It's both parties. The "ownership society" has been promoted by both parties.

1994 changes in regulation of employee stock options were a major cause of the 2002 downturn. We had incentives in place to inflate stock prices rather than actual earnings. Dems favored generous employee stock options, to give workers a share of their company. Republicans liked the idea too in 1994, they finally fixed it.

I agree Clinton was crap. "Centrist" as the Republicans would say, or "Republican" as my brand of Dem would say, on economic issues. But, that was 14 years ago. 1994 was FOURTEEN YEARS AGO, even if Clinton feels like yesterday to people. So I still fail to see how posters like CR can legitimately convince themselves that after 2 terms of FULL Republican control, this is all the fault of Democrats, or even primarily so would be a stretch in my mind. The bar here seems to be, the Dems need to do everything correctly the first time, and fix anything wrong that the excesses of greed or corporate influence that inhabit the Rep party might try to slip in here and there, because we can't count on the Reps to do crap but line pockets and pick their nose. That is the message I'm getting out of people like CR who claim to be SO against the conditions that enabled all of this, while his political party sat in control for the last 8 years. Clearly he and his party have a difference in opinion as to whether or not regulation or deregulation was needed.

Again, goin back to page 1... deregulation has been the mantra of the GOP since Reagan. All these fake protests now, after the fact, about how McCain or the Republicans or the GOP or this or that or so and so's friend George "talked about better control of the financial industry" isn't worth the paper it was never printed on.

[Ronin]

it´s funny....because it´s true

[Spino]

Certainly explains McCain, and Bush too for that matter. Spino, is there any political opinion you have that doesn't boil down to, some half-baked psychological deconstruction which seems exclusively reserved for people not on your side of the aisle? Someone listens to too much Michael Savage.

Or Franks, or Obama, or Biden, or Stevens, and so on and so on and so on. Pelosi is like Bush, she's far too easy to pick on but you do it anyway because you can't help yourself. You're reading waaaay too much into my comedic drive-by. Feel free to let one loose at a Republican congressmen/senator of your choosing.

Savage? Bah. I don't listen to talk radio, there's far better things I can do with my time... like playing computer games or flaming in my favorite forums.

You see Idaho has shown me the light. I'm all about the drive-bys now. I've decided to cash in my partisan bickering wheels for a dee-lux pimped out gangsta coach with phat rims and a Tec-9 stashed under the seat. I offered to ride shotgun for Idaho but he said no way, I might ruin his custom Corinthian leather upholstery...

[Koga No Goshi]

You see Idaho has shown me the light. I'm all about the drive-bys now. I've decided to cash in my partisan bickering wheels for a dee-lux pimped out gangsta coach with phat rims and a Tec-9 stashed under the seat.

I wasn't aware you ever did much more than that in political discussions anyway, but suit yourself.