What's Wrong With This Picture?

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by mini me

. . . Frankly, I don't see much difference between what this the Fed and this administration is doing, and what's happening in Cyprus.

Do you see where the policy came from? I'll give you hint. Shortly after Obama was elected in 2008 he had a come-to-meet-Jesus meeting with the Republican party. In that meeting he told them that saving the banks was "automatic" and they knew it. They didn't so much as blink or question him.

Tell us about the "automatic" part and how it came to be policy, but not law. I guarantee you that McCain or Romney would have done the same thing that Obama did, maybe even on a bigger scale.

[mini me]

Originally Posted by ebacon

Do you see where the policy came from? I'll give you hint. Shortly after Obama was elected in 2008 he had a come-to-meet-Jesus meeting with the Republican party. In that meeting he told them that saving the banks was "automatic" and they knew it. They didn't so much as blink or question him.

Oh, BS. The Dems have just as much at stake protecting their friends on Wall Street as the Repubs do. In fact, the Dems gave us Dodd-Frank. Which institutionalizes the too-big-to-fail protections for the big banks. So much so that now 10 states, including those lead by Dems, are filing suit to protect themselves from it.

Bottom line: Dodd - Frank exempts mortgage loans sold to Fannie or Freddie, even if they under-written as poorly as some of the loans that got us into the 2007 financial pickle to start with. Guess who sells the most loans to Fannie and Freddie? Hint: It isn't the mom and pop credit unions and smaller, regional banks.

[bobabode]

Uhmerican exceptionalism at work.Damn Tea Partyists sound like wide eyed radicalistic Chicken Littles.

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by mini me

Oh, BS. The Dems have just as much at stake protecting their friends on Wall Street as the Repubs do. In fact, the Dems gave us Dodd-Frank. Which institutionalizes the too-big-to-fail protections for the big banks. So much so that now 10 states, including those lead by Dems, are filing suit to protect themselves from it.

Bottom line: Dodd - Frank exempts mortgage loans sold to Fannie or Freddie, even if they under-written as poorly as some of the loans that got us into the 2007 financial pickle to start with. Guess who sells the most loans to Fannie and Freddie? Hint: It isn't the mom and pop credit unions and smaller, regional banks.

I've always said the dems were the beginning of the debacle and the repubs caught up later. What's your point? Outside of making fun of Obama like always?

[Dondilion]

Nothing new here. The man in the street knew and has been shouting about this long ago. I guess Stockman is just formalising what is obvious.

An interesting read is president Franklin D. Roosevelt's Commonwealth Club Address (1932).

Excerpt:
Woodrow Wilson, elected in 1912, saw the situation more clearly. Where Jefferson had feared the encroachment of political power on the lives of individuals, Wilson knew that the new power was financial................The concentration of financial power had not proceeded so far in 1912 as it has today; but it has grown far enough for Mr. Wilson to realise its implications.

[ebacon]

It's amazing how much the Tea Party leaders rewrite history to make their bullshit even palatable. A prime example was when they went on a campaign to smear Teddy Roosevelt as being a so************************t.

At the beginning of the movement for a progressive tax, Teddy Roosevelt said that we need to look not at how much money a man has, but rather how he makes it. The implication at the time was work vs. banking, with banking being considered lazy but insanely profitable "work". For that reason Teddy Roosevelt argued in favor of the progressive income tax. To put it simply, the only way a man can make a ton of money is by having a lot slaves, so we punish that behavior with high taxes.

The Tea Party leaders spun that story 180 degrees and said that Teddy was bad. He wanted to punish job creators. And the part about looking at how a man made his money got spun into workers vs. welfare/unemployment. Of course the voters ate it up because they didn't know that unemployment and welfare benefits didn't exist at the time. It was all a big lie.

They also rewrote the Federalist Papers to make them easier to read. Yeah, right. At the time they also spun the translation in their favor.

These guys are out to make a mess, there are no two ways about it.

[BlueStreak]

Pop once told me,

"Nobody ever gets THAT* rich by giving money away. They get rich by holding on to it as tight as they can."

(*We were talking about the "Robber Barons", Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Hearst......et al.)

Dave

[bobabode]

Didn't the Reaganauts have a couple of big backers, (big as in fat assed Texans) corner the silver bullion market and drive the cost of silver through the roof? Yep, I give you the the Hunt brothers. They're probably folk heroes to the teabaggers.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by ebacon

It's amazing how much the Tea Party leaders rewrite history to make their bullshit even palatable. A prime example was when they went on a campaign to smear Teddy Roosevelt as being a so************************t.

At the beginning of the movement for a progressive tax, Teddy Roosevelt said that we need to look not at how much money a man has, but rather how he makes it. The implication at the time was work vs. banking, with banking being considered lazy but insanely profitable "work". For that reason Teddy Roosevelt argued in favor of the progressive income tax. To put it simply, the only way a man can make a ton of money is by having a lot slaves, so we punish that behavior with high taxes.

The Tea Party leaders spun that story 180 degrees and said that Teddy was bad. He wanted to punish job creators. And the part about looking at how a man made his money got spun into workers vs. welfare/unemployment. Of course the voters ate it up because they didn't know that unemployment and welfare benefits didn't exist at the time. It was all a big lie.

They also rewrote the Federalist Papers to make them easier to read. Yeah, right. At the time they also spun the translation in their favor.

These guys are out to make a mess, there are no two ways about it.

It goes even deeper than that.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

It seems they've been busy rewriting everything up to and including the Bible, for crying out loud.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

""White House to furlough 480 staffers." [4] But self-centered Obama will not join the furlough that he caused."

Typical Conservapedia fodder.

Right. The president should lay himself off, but he won't because he is "self-centered". This from the party of bloated egos who think the whole world rides on their coattails.

I wonder if they would concur should I suggest that Bush should have resigned after going into Iraq for bogus reasons? I seriously doubt it.

Dave