I never liked the bailout myself. like I said, it constitutes slapping a band-aid on the current crisis. all it'll do is enable the poor fiscal practices that got us into this mess. as I mentioned on page 8 of this thread, many of the decisions that led to disasters like the fannie mae incident in particular were almost entirely politically motivated. but while the democrats may have gotten the ball rolling by trying to buy minority and lower-class votes, the GOP - particularly in the last congress - is responsible in no small part for a lot of the runaway spending that's been going on for the better part of a decade. so basically two factors - at least as far as capitol hill is concerned - helped land us in the mess we're in: democrats, and republicans who spend like democrats.
For my part, I believe that, as a rule, it's better to have any bill voted down than have an ill-thought out law rushed through. Congress is supposed-supposed-to be a deliberative body that doesn't rush through things. Rushed laws typically are bad laws.
but that's what happens when everything is a potential political statement. they're so concerned about grandstanding and racking up the votes that they'll pass anything that might give them that temporary lift in the opinion polls. it seems they either give no thought whatsoever to potential consequences or they're convinced no real fallout will come until they're out of office or the public has forgotten who voted for that bill way back when that's causing so much trouble now.
Damn the Congress - DAMN THEM! - for voting the way that the people who elected them and who they are supposed to represent wanted. DAMN THEM TO HELL! What kind of government do they think we're running here?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
awwww. so you're mad that he called it like it was.
Boner ..um boehner said himself that they voted the way they did because Pelosi hurt their feelings when she said that the Republican philosophy of unregulated markets caused this meltdown. AAAIIEEE!! The HORROR!!! Having to sit there and listen to what most economics say caused this meltdown!!!
So much for the party of personal responsibility.
So I'd be careful as to who you call douchebags. The market lost over $1 trillion dollars today as a result of the bailout vote fiasco. If you are one of the 62 million Americans who have retirement monies invested in a 401k, for example, you just lost 7% of the total money you had for your retirement. Let me walk you through what that means
- If you had $10,000 in your retirement account this morning, you just lost $700 of it. - If you had $100,000 this morning, you just lost $7,000 of it. - And if you had $1,000,000 this morning, you just lost $70,000 of it.
As Charlie Gibson on ABC noted, losing 7% on the market in a year would be a huge story.
What happened today was real. ABC's financial consultant noted the following tonight: "I don't care if you're a big corporation, a small business, an individual trying to send your kid to college, or buy a car or buy a house, it is virtually impossible to get a loan in this country." As a nation, we no longer have loans, for practically anything. I realize people aren't thrilled about the bailout plan - and as someone who didn't buy a house in the past few years because I wasn't willing to gamble with a risky loan, I'm not pleased about bailing out morons who did gamble, and lost - but giving up 7% of your retirement seems like one hell of a bad way to stick it to Wall Street.
But hey it's Barney Frank who's the douchebag. Not the asshole Republicans who caused the meltdown in the 1st place and not the asshole Republicans who voted in a 2/3rds majority to make the bill fail thus make the market react.
According to whomod, the following congressmen must be douchebags because the voted against the bailout: Abercrombie, Conyers, DeFazio, Delahunt, Gilibrand, Herseth, Jackson-Lee, Jefferson, Kucinich, Lampson, Salazar and Stark.
And the following congressmen must not be douchebags because they voted for it: Boehner, Blunt, Campbell, Cantor, Castle, Davis, Drieir, Fossella, Gilchrest, Granger, Peter King, Pryce, Putnam, both Rogers, Ryan, Shays, Tancredo, Walden, Walsh and both Wilsons.
Similarly, because both McCain and Obama backed the bill, neither of them is a douchebag, nor is President Bush.
awwww. so you're mad that he called it like it was.
Boner ..um boehner said himself that they voted the way they did because Pelosi hurt their feelings when she said that the Republican philosophy of unregulated markets caused this meltdown. AAAIIEEE!! The HORROR!!! Having to sit there and listen to what most economics say caused this meltdown!!!
So much for the party of personal responsibility.
So I'd be careful as to who you call douchebags. The market lost over $1 trillion dollars today as a result of the bailout vote fiasco. If you are one of the 62 million Americans who have retirement monies invested in a 401k, for example, you just lost 7% of the total money you had for your retirement. Let me walk you through what that means
- If you had $10,000 in your retirement account this morning, you just lost $700 of it. - If you had $100,000 this morning, you just lost $7,000 of it. - And if you had $1,000,000 this morning, you just lost $70,000 of it.
As Charlie Gibson on ABC noted, losing 7% on the market in a year would be a huge story.
What happened today was real. ABC's financial consultant noted the following tonight: "I don't care if you're a big corporation, a small business, an individual trying to send your kid to college, or buy a car or buy a house, it is virtually impossible to get a loan in this country." As a nation, we no longer have loans, for practically anything. I realize people aren't thrilled about the bailout plan - and as someone who didn't buy a house in the past few years because I wasn't willing to gamble with a risky loan, I'm not pleased about bailing out morons who did gamble, and lost - but giving up 7% of your retirement seems like one hell of a bad way to stick it to Wall Street.
But hey it's Barney Frank who's the douchebag. Not the asshole Republicans who caused the meltdown in the 1st place and not the asshole Republicans who voted in a 2/3rds majority to make the bill fail thus make the market react.
And what do you think about the Democrats who didn't vote for it?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Markets up 253 points today and consumer confidence is way up for september......so much for the end of the world. The market needs to weed out the bad loans and the douchebags that made them.
awwww. so you're mad that he called it like it was.
Boner ..um boehner said himself that they voted the way they did because Pelosi hurt their feelings when she said that the Republican philosophy of unregulated markets caused this meltdown. AAAIIEEE!! The HORROR!!! Having to sit there and listen to what most economics say caused this meltdown!!!
So much for the party of personal responsibility.
So I'd be careful as to who you call douchebags. The market lost over $1 trillion dollars today as a result of the bailout vote fiasco. If you are one of the 62 million Americans who have retirement monies invested in a 401k, for example, you just lost 7% of the total money you had for your retirement. Let me walk you through what that means
- If you had $10,000 in your retirement account this morning, you just lost $700 of it. - If you had $100,000 this morning, you just lost $7,000 of it. - And if you had $1,000,000 this morning, you just lost $70,000 of it.
As Charlie Gibson on ABC noted, losing 7% on the market in a year would be a huge story.
What happened today was real. ABC's financial consultant noted the following tonight: "I don't care if you're a big corporation, a small business, an individual trying to send your kid to college, or buy a car or buy a house, it is virtually impossible to get a loan in this country." As a nation, we no longer have loans, for practically anything. I realize people aren't thrilled about the bailout plan - and as someone who didn't buy a house in the past few years because I wasn't willing to gamble with a risky loan, I'm not pleased about bailing out morons who did gamble, and lost - but giving up 7% of your retirement seems like one hell of a bad way to stick it to Wall Street.
But hey it's Barney Frank who's the douchebag. Not the asshole Republicans who caused the meltdown in the 1st place and not the asshole Republicans who voted in a 2/3rds majority to make the bill fail thus make the market react.
And what do you think about the Democrats who didn't vote for it?
I think they need to explain to Americans just why they thought letting the market slide 7% was preferable to actually trying to work with their fellow Democrats and 1/3rd of Republicans as well as the White House and Treasury to try to stop this erosion of confidence.
Listen, i'm not happy about this bill either. but I am unhappy about the alternative, which is to continue to squabble along party lines even further as all our retirement savings and quite possibly and inevitably, our ability to borrow evaporate.
What I see happening now and to a lesser extent (or micro version) here is people emphasizing the Democrats who voted AGAINST the plan even though 2/3rds of them voted FOR and 2/3rds of Republicans voted AGAINST. What kills me is that they voted for partisan and ideological reasons rather than to actually try to stave off astronomical losses.
Why are Republicans only ever fiscally responsible when it's someone else trying to do something to help people? When it comes to waging wars of choice for their own ideological theories, then running rampant deficits is all fine and dandy. But when it comes to health care, education and now trying to keep our economy solvent, suddenly they're back to being the fiscal guardians once more.
Nancy Pelosi gave permission for 16 democrats who are up for reelection to vote no.....a good leader would have forced them to vote yes and then have been conciliatory to all people about to vote yes and not fault their party for this mess. She is a fucking train wreck. The dems should oust her and Reid when this is over and put new leaders in charge.
even you whomod should realize what she did yesterday was really stupid and really bad leadership.
I don't think anyone who voted against the bill is going to have to explain anything to the voters as it was the voters who told them to not vote for it. Maybe now they'll actually work on a bill that isn't rushed and will actually accomplish something and not just be a band-aid to make their re-elections run smoother. Weren't you pissed at the Patriot Act because it was rushed through Congress and passed before they had a chance to really delve into it and figure it out? Why would you support another bill being done just as hurriedly and have the same possible effects in an economic fashion?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
The Democratic Party has been criticized here for quite a while for not being able to elicit exactly what their economic plan is in three words or less, where the Republicans for 30 years have vowed to have lower taxes, less government, and less regulation.
The good news is that the catchy phrase and it‘s so catchy I hope the American people remember it when they go to the polls in November, but another more truthful way of saying that is to say that the Republicans were in favor of huge deficits, rampant corruption, and global financial meltdowns.
And there‘s nothing random about this event. You know, Greenspan and others are trying to claim this is a 100-year flood, completely unexpected. It‘s really just the opposite. It‘s a direct result of complete and utter deregulation of the entire financial market for the last 30 years, starting with realtors, commercial bank leverage, investment bank leverage 25 times, Fannie Mae leverage over 100 to one, hedge funds completely non-transparent.
The whole idea of deregulation is to allow business owners to do what they want. And all business owners want one thing which is greater profits however they can accomplish it. And unfortunately, for American workers, workers‘ wages are the biggest line and cost expense to most businesses.
So, what do you do, you get in and you put the American worker in competition with low wage China and Vietnam, you cut their benefits, you attack their unions. And then you do whatever else you can to improve your profits, whether it‘s, you know, degrade your quality control, hurt your environmental, et cetera, et cetera.
This is the fallacy of most free market economists. They believe as productivity increases, workers‘ pay will increase. But workers‘ pay is a negotiation, if anybody knows or who‘s ever gone into their boss‘ office at the end of the year. And we‘ve seen unions on this country decline in the private sector from 35 percent to approximately 9 percent.
This worker force in America, one of the most productive in the world, has been put in competition through globalization with 50-cent-an-hour employees around the world. So, that‘s very a tough environment to negotiate a higher wage.
I think we all remember the pitch for trickle-down economics back in 2000 and even as far back as Reagan. I think, the American people were taken, but you ended up voting for George Bush. He ended up giving $3 trillion or $4 trillion to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans.
It‘s just amazing to me that McCain is trying the same pitch again because some of you fell for it, but the money never trickled down. It didn‘t result in a tremendous improvement in the economy or in new jobs. So Obama's sole emphasis is on bottom-up, not wealth redistribution, but giving everybody an equal opportunity through greater education and greater job opportunity.
I don't think anyone who voted against the bill is going to have to explain anything to the voters as it was the voters who told them to not vote for it. Maybe now they'll actually work on a bill that isn't rushed and will actually accomplish something and not just be a band-aid to make their re-elections run smoother. Weren't you pissed at the Patriot Act because it was rushed through Congress and passed before they had a chance to really delve into it and figure it out? Why would you support another bill being done just as hurriedly and have the same possible effects in an economic fashion?
that is a good point and that is why I initially was for the house Republicans slowing it down a bi. Which they did. They gave us an extra week to look at it and amend it greatly. The problem though is that we don't really have a lot of time to try to avert a collapse of the economy. We've already lost one trillion dollars just in one day. I broke it down above.
This is real money to me, you and everyone else. Especially people older than me right now who are watching their savings disappear before their very eyes.
I don't think anyone who voted against the bill is going to have to explain anything to the voters as it was the voters who told them to not vote for it. Maybe now they'll actually work on a bill that isn't rushed and will actually accomplish something and not just be a band-aid to make their re-elections run smoother. Weren't you pissed at the Patriot Act because it was rushed through Congress and passed before they had a chance to really delve into it and figure it out? Why would you support another bill being done just as hurriedly and have the same possible effects in an economic fashion?
Exactly. As I mentioned to MEM yesterday, I'm willing to give the democrats who voted agains the bill the same points for listening to their constituents as I give the Republicans.
As for the fact the market dropped, markets go up and down. That's to be expected. And those losses you speak of for the average person, unless that person cashed out yesterday they were only on paper.
Last edited by the G-man; 2008-10-0112:46 PM. Reason: Heh. Stupid MEM had changed this thread title to "obama in 08." Wrong thread, dude.
that is a good point and that is why I initially was for the house Republicans slowing it down a bi. Which they did. They gave us an extra week to look at it and amend it greatly. The problem though is that we don't really have a lot of time to try to avert a collapse of the economy. We've already lost one trillion dollars just in one day. I broke it down above.
This is real money to me, you and everyone else. Especially people older than me right now who are watching their savings disappear before their very eyes.
Listen, I'm a capitalist. I believe that letting business prosper is best for everyone, but I'll admit that I'm not a laissez faire capitalist (by that I mean the 100% hardcore government keeps their hands off philosophy). I'll support regulation, up to a point. I just don't think any one person or body should have that much power, which is why I'm anti-big government and socialized programs. If a business needs to be kicked in the nuts to get it on track, then I say let it be kicked in the nuts. I have no problem with our government coming over with an ice pack afterwards to help the business stop the swelling and pain. I don't think that the government should give the business a cup to prevent it from feeling the swift kick to begin with. The government gave the S&L's a cup in the late 80's and early 90's. That didn't stop the same thing that happened then from happening now. As a matter of fact, it let the problem become even worse. Yes, you had Republicans deregulating and not enforcing the rules; but you also had Democrats pushing institutions to take on higher risk mortgages and loans that's a big part of this problem too. There's enough blame to spread around to people of both parties.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Where government regulation works well is where it enforces transparency and punishes fraud.
Where it fails is when it rewards inefficency and/or tries to micromanage or force businesses to act in ways that are inherently at odds with sound business practices (ex: forcing them to lend to people who can't afford to pay it back).
As near as I can tell, the bailout was compunding the bad by rewarding inefficiencies that the government pushed for.
Nancy Pelosi gave permission for 16 democrats who are up for reelection to vote no.....a good leader would have forced them to vote yes and then have been conciliatory to all people about to vote yes and not fault their party for this mess. She is a fucking train wreck. The dems should oust her and Reid when this is over and put new leaders in charge.
even you whomod should realize what she did yesterday was really stupid and really bad leadership.
I'm no big fan of Pelosi and Reid. So I'll agree with you there about their weak leadership. Listening to them these past 2 years, they genuinely think they regained Congress due to their tepid weak overcautious scheming and maneuvering against Bush (which really amounts to a lot of lip service and not much action) and not the groundswell for change and opposition to Bush/GOP polices and rule. I think this also plays into why we're running with Barack Obama as opposed to Hillary Clinton right now. I think people want real change and not just in the Republican Party either. for too long I think the Dems have had weak milquetoast DLC style (Republican Lite) Democrats and I think that era started to fade the minute Howard Dean took control of the party. As you may or may not know, he's not exactly Reid or Pelosi's (or the Dem old guard's) favourite guy. Which to me, is praise indeed. The gains Democrats have made in the past 2 years can be laid at his doorstep and unfortunately for Reid an Pelosi's ego's, not on theirs.
As for G-man's earlier post about "dochebags" that included Kucinich, yeah, sure why not?
Both the extreme left and the extreme right voted their partisanship rather than accept the fact that no one really likes doing this bailout, but it's necessary. And as far as that partisanship. It's sort of telling to me when 60% of Democrats support taking action WITH A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, even though they admit it's an unpopular vote with their constituents and on the other side 67% of Republicans vote their ideology (or their re-election). So 2/3rds of Democrats were willing to put partisanship aside on this important historic matter but on the other hand 2/3rds of Republicans were unable to do that.
And PJP, your earlier post about the market being up so there is no crisis. That's is looking at the small picture and not looking at the fact that the market has been swinging wildly up and down since this crisis began. One good day doesn't mean there is no crisis. The wild swings though does mean that the market is highly unstable right now.You also have to look at the credit situation which is the main problem right now not just at the Dow Jones averages.
Now for the Twilight Zone moment. The National Review agrees with me and blasts House Republicans:
The National Review Online, a publication which is probably the father of the modern conservative moment:
Quote:
[T]he assertion by Republican leaders in the House that as many as a dozen of their members who were leaning toward voting for the legislation ended up voting against it because of Pelosi’s speech is extraordinary.
Let’s see if we have this straight: whichever side of the issue you were on, yesterday’s vote was considered one of the most important ones members of Congress will ever face. Many respected voices argued that an economic catastrophe might follow in the wake of its defeat. Opponents of the legislation considered it a terrible violation of free-market principles. The stakes could not be higher.
After the legislation was defeated and only one-third of House Republicans backed the plan, John Boehner and Roy Blunt took to the microphones and indicated that Pelosi’s speech had been so alienating and offensive that a significant number of House Republicans changed their mind and voted against the bill.
Can they be serious? Do they realize how foolish and irresponsible they sound? On one of the most important votes they will ever cast, insisting “the speech made me do it” is lame and adolescent. The vote, after all, was on the legislation, not the speech. And to say that a dozen members of your caucus voted not out of principle but out of pique is a terrible indictment of them. I hope we learn the names of these delicate figures whose feelings were so bruised and abused.
I have been defending House Republicans for a week against friends who thought they were acting in an irresponsible fashion. I argued they were people with admirable free-market principles who were simply trying to improve legislation and have their voices heard, something to which they were certainly entitled. And I thought they made the bill better than it was. But yesterday’s vote, and the excuses that followed the vote, have made me reassess my judgment. Watching Boehner, Blunt, and Cantor blame the outcome on the Pelosi speech was an embarrassment.
We are in one of the most dispiriting moments I have ever witnessed in Washington, when political authority seems to be collapsing all around us. House Republicans have contributed to this, and it’s a shame.
The Republican party was secretly opposing the bailout bill BEFORE Pelosi spoke and supposedly offended House Republicans.
We now find out that the Republican party cut ads, and sent them to TV stations around the country, opposing the bailout bill even BEFORE Pelosi spoke before the vote yesterday.
The Republican National Committee, the official "party," was planning on the bill passing, and then was going to attack Democrats who voted FOR the bill. Talk about calloused. So in fact, the Republican party was playing games, playing politics, with our economy. Did the RNC tell individual members of Congress that they were going to be running ads attacking anyone who voted for the bill? Is this why Republican members voted against the bill 2 to 1 (while Dems voted for the bill almost 2 to 1), sending Wall Street into a nose dive? And what about John McCain? What does it say about him when his own party is secretly undercutting the proposal that he claimed to "save the day" on?
All this talk about an alternative plan reminded me of this email that BSAMS posted.
Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts
Quote:
This idea sounds just crazy enough to possibly work, so naturally it won't be given serious consideration. How great is our bureaucracy!!
Hi Pals,
I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.
To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.
Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
So divide 200 million20adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.
My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.
Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.
Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.
But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else
Remember this is for every adult U S C itizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!
As for AIG - liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in< br> > >> Washington DC
And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Kindest personal regards,
Birk
T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic
Too bad that the guy's 'simple' math is totally off. 200 million people divided into $85 billion only leaves $425 per person. Not the $425,000 that he claims. So, even if you use the $700 billion that was up in the failed bailout; only about $3500 would make it to each taxpayer.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
whomod I agree with a lot of what you are saying I just don't agree with how we got here. I want them to pass a bill but I want them to take their time and make sure everyone is comfortable with it. Another few days won't kill anyone.
one hundred and sixty-five economics professors and research fellows from universities including mit, johns hopkins, stanford, and columbia signed a letter asking congress not to pass the bailout bill. between that and the flood of constituents urging their elected representatives not to vote for it, shouldn't that make a sane person at least consider the possibility that the particular bailout proposal in question might not be what this country needs or wants?
whomod I agree with a lot of what you are saying I just don't agree with how we got here. I want them to pass a bill but I want them to take their time and make sure everyone is comfortable with it. Another few days won't kill anyone.
Looking at what the stock market did today it looks like your right PJP. Yesterday I think alot of worst case scenarious were being envisioned but it didn't happen today.
Seems like a lot of the bad stock market swinging is due to folks getting scared by the media and politicians playing like we're headed for another 'Great Depression' when we're really not. Times are going to be tight, but we're not headed for soup lines if everyone keeps their heads. The runs on the banks are being caused by the politicians and 'journalists' (I use the term lightly) running around, flailing their arms, and yelling that it's the end of the world.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Um... wouldn't they be considered 'politicians', G-man?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
this is one youtube clip whomod and dems don't like.....it proves who is at fault for this mess.
Yes, it's not about the eeeeviilll Republicans preventing regulation, it's about the Democrats over-regulating, requiring millions of home mortgage and business loans to poor individuals who couldn't afford them, who inevitably defaulted on their financial obligations. In Democrats' costly attempt to use our financial system for social engineering.
And quite a few of the architects of this mess are prominent advisors to the Barack Obama campaign. One of whom was on the committee to select Obama's Vice President.
And incredibly, the Democrats blame their own mess on the Republicans who warned them not to do it.
And I agree, McCain should be pounding these facts to the public in stump speeches and campaign ads.
You didn't say liberal in that post. Did someone hack your account?
Well, liberalism is clearly what inspired a financial regulation policy that mandated lending to millions of minorities who didn't qualify for the mortgages they received and defaulted on, that initiated this crisis.
But in this case, there's plenty of blame to go around, in Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, and ultimately George W. Bush, who mismanaged this crisis and let it build for the last 18 months, along with the Democrats who started the mess against warnings, and Democrats and Republicans who are eager to vote for an unscrutinized and bad 700 billion dollar bailout package, just to save their political asses to get re-elected and escape blame.
On Sunday evening, Republican House Minority Leader John A. Boehner explained his considered opinion on the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan: It's a "crap sandwich," he said, but he was going to eat it.
Well, it turned out he couldn't shove it down his colleagues' throats. The bill failed on a bipartisan basis, but it was the Republicans who failed to deliver the votes they promised. Some complained that Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi drove them to switch their votes with her needlessly partisan floor speech on the subject. Of course Pelosi's needlessly partisan. This is news?
The Republican complaint is beyond childish. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, a man saturated with guilt for this crisis, nonetheless was right to ridicule the GOP crybabies on Monday. "I'll make an offer," he said. "Give me (their) names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are and maybe they'll now think about the country."
Would that Frank had been imbued with such a spirit earlier.
Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has spent the last few years ridiculing Alan Greenspan, John McCain and others who sought more regulation for Fannie Mae's market-distorting schemes - the fons et origo of this financial crisis. Now he says "the private sector got us into this mess."
His partner in crime, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), a chief beneficiary of Fannie Mae lobbyists' largesse, claims this mess is the result of poor oversight - without even hinting at the fact he is in charge of oversight of banks.
They sound like pimps complaining about the prevalence of STDs among prostitutes.
And let us not forget that House Democrats, with a 31-seat majority, could not get 95 of their own to vote for the bailout, largely because it didn't provide enough taxpayer money to their left-wing special interests.
Would that they thought about the country.
The one man who truly tried to treat this crisis like a crisis - McCain - was ridiculed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who [prior to ridiculing him for coming] implored him to come to Washington to help in the first place.
And the news media, which now treat any Republican action that threatens a Barack Obama victory as inherently dishonorable, uncritically accepted the bald Democratic lie that McCain ruined a bipartisan bailout deal last Friday.
This is not to say that McCain knows what to do. Faced with an unprecedented financial crisis involving frozen global credit markets and a maelstrom of moral hazard, his standard response is to talk about wiping out earmarks and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Memo to Mr. McCain: Waste, fraud and abuse are the only things holding the system together at this point.
Obama is no better. The man has spent two weeks irresponsibly excoriating his opponent for saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong - a perfectly leaderly thing for McCain to have said during a panic. Then, campaigning in Colorado on Monday, the day the Dow plunged 777.68 points, Obama proclaimed: "We've got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows."
Perhaps after al-Qaida seizes Baghdad, a President Obama would finally declare, "Hey, we can win this thing!"
Meanwhile, President Bush, his popularity ratings stuck at below-freezing numbers, has decided to cling to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson for warmth on the grounds that the vaunted former Goldman Sachs CEO has the credibility to sell the solution to a problem he's been exacerbating for 18 months. When a reporter for Forbes magazine asked a Treasury spokesman last week why Congress had to lay out $700 billion, the answer came back: "It's not based on any particular data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number."
There's a confidence builder.
As for the reputedly free-market purists of the congressional GOP, with whom my sympathies generally lie, I cannot let pass without comment the fact that they controlled the legislative branch for most of the last eight years. Only now, when capitalism is in flames, does this fire brigade try to enforce the free-market fire codes without compromise.
I loathe populism. But if there ever has been a moment when reasonable men's hands itch for the pitchfork, this must surely be it. No one is blameless. No one is pure. Two decades of crapulence by the political class has been prologue to the era of coprophagy that is now upon us. It is crap sandwiches for as far as the eye can see.
