Comments


  • mike
    The main issue here is not who is to blame but what MUST be done to FIX this mess. Nothing should be sacred and all govt funded programs need to be put on the chopping block to eliminate waste, fraud and duplication of effort.

    The only true solution is to freeze new spending and reduce all old spending to a point where outgo is less than income. Reduction and eventual elimination of national debt is Paramount. What we spend on interest alone would pay for a lot of free health care.

    Never in history has such massive spending ever fixed anything. All it does is drive up taxes to pay for it. It is high time the fed govt quits involving itself in areas better handled at the state and local levels and stop passing unfunded mandates.

    A balanced budget ammendment is truely needed as those in washington ( both parties) keep proving they are not willing to stop spending more than we can afford.

    The old addage that LESS GOVT IS BETTER GOVT is still true. If every american could spend the money taken in taxes on whatever they wanted to it would require more jobs to meet the demand for goods. Taxes always hinder economic growth, cost jobs and in the long run never work as a stimulas to the economy.

    July 14, 2010 at 2:35 a.m.

  • mike i am still me and do not post as anyone else.

    July 14, 2010 at 1:48 a.m.

  • Mike, let us a step back here and look at what we're dealing with, Obama or no Obama. I do believe greed has led the United States and the world to suffer. Blame who or what you like, internally or foreign, there is no scapegoat for the fact that greed is propagating itself throughout or society at a fatal rate. Credit is the product of greed. So are loans, and gambling. Businesses, in many of their ventures, can be assumed to be gambling their futures - in so much that there was at least some uncertainty as to whether the idea was sustainable based on the fluctuating markets. It is society who is at fault for their indolent abuse of their own persons - by buying products made in foreign countries, causing a recursion of debt. Our lawmakers are piddling their thumbs, and biding their seniority to quabble about mere gopher holes in the valleys of excrement that country is mired in. My advice to each one of you is to take a vote with each dollar you spend. Make it count, and think hard - you may have to alter your lifestyle a touch if you ever want the change you imagine. Governments should be designed to assist in fostering accord, and eliminating greed. If you want less taxes, then quit asking for more programs or subsidies, plain and simple. Take care of your people, they will not always get what they want - but if they get what they need, we will be far happier a nation. In general, be a good family, America. We need to treat each other with respect, and foremost, treat ourselves with respect. With hard work and genuine respect, we can all have what we need, and many of us, what we want.

    July 13, 2010 at 8:10 p.m.

  • My my, Mikey what a temper. Your statement is still "simply" gibberish, much like the rest of your "economic theories."

    July 13, 2010 at 6:13 p.m.

  • Here is a figure for you, Mike. Sam is a contractor, a good one, and I hired him last year for several jobs, as he was not so busy and needed to keep his guys busy. With me and a few others Sam was able to stay in business for the year. This year, however, Sam has had to let his 7 men go and go back to work for the man he used to work for. The man he used to work for let four men go... two because he does not have the work, and two because Sam does the work of two men. Besides not using Sam this year, I have not used any of the four sub contractors I used last year because I did not have the money for doing the work I did last year. This is what happens when businesses are not growing. And like it or not, taxes make a difference. Add in the fact that they cannot get money for their projects and you can see how things are going.

    I don't know what you mean by "portraying another poster". I have not posted here before about a week ago. Lots of people think like I do.

    I am a Republican now, have been independent or moderate in the past. I think when Obama said he would work with both parties he had the right idea. However, if they all have your attitude, I can see why this isn't working out for him. Things will not work out until the parties can work together. The Democrats want government control and the Republicans don't. They will not compromise, will not work together. So now the Republicans will probably get control and we will see the other side of why they need to work together.

    July 13, 2010 at 6:03 p.m.

  • Mike said
    "Simply means a decrease in in consumer prices or increases in purchasing prices."

    Did you get the "simply" part?.....means in a simple manner.

    No,you were talking about deflation..I was disputing both...

    When does the "reading comprehension 101"course at Beck U coming up?You might add that course,only $79.99..If they have a "gloom & doom" graduate course;you will come out Magna cum laude......Forget it already,you ran that horse into the ground.

    July 13, 2010 at 5:42 p.m.

  • The definition:

    "A persistent decrease in the level of consumer prices or a persistent increase in the purchasing power of money because of a reduction in available currency and credit."

    This is not what you said, I stand by the gibberish comment. Secondly you keep ranting that there is no inflation - so what? We are talking about deflation - duh, a lack of inflation, but whatever.

    July 13, 2010 at 5:20 p.m.

  • Waywardwind.

    You are late for supper.

    July 13, 2010 at 2:09 p.m.

  • A persistent decrease in the level of consumer prices or a persistent increase in the purchasing power of money because of a reduction in available currency and credit.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defl...

    We have available credit $1.2 trillon surplus cash by the banks
    $1.8 trillion by Fortune 500 companies.

    Read it & weep.

    July 13, 2010 at 2:07 p.m.

  • "Simply means a decrease in in consumer prices or increases in purchasing prices" = gibberish!

    July 13, 2010 at 2:02 p.m.

  • waywardwind

    I agree it's one of the tools that they use to track terrorist, drug dealers, and tax cheats but I don't really think it's that much of a hindrance. I wish I could withdraw $10,000 on a regular basis; I wouldn't mind the hassle....:-)

    Interesting point about the monopoly game; I didn't know that.

    Along those lines of civil liberties, I think I heard that Texas is gonna get some money to start the the DWI checks again. Because of my declining age and type two diabetes, I don't drink anymore but I will still have to wait in line; just in case they catch an offender.

    July 13, 2010 at 2 p.m.

  • Rollingstone

    I don't have to make up the definition to suit my needs because I know what deflationary means.

    Simply means a decrease in in consumer prices or increases in purchasing prices but the fed is the place to watch if we suspect inflation.... The interest rate is near 0%. We have not seen any of this.

    Again, Your're hung up on subprime and I said" it's not just about that" but you want to be because then it goes along with the Rush Limbaugh trifecta +1.... It puts the blame on the Federal government, minorities, the poor and strikes fear into those that are paranoid ... Run,run,run the commies are coming... It's socialism because everyone will agree that Wall Street needs to be regulated.

    I'll break it down like this:

    If the police raid a house filled with drug dealers and drugs; they arrest the drug dealers but keep most of the money and some of the drug for themselves; two crimes have been committed; mutually inclusive.

    Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote about the players backgrounds and the part they played in the financial crisis. How Goldman Sachs convinced a respected insurance company(AIG) to take part in their schemes.

    You can continue to ignore that part of the financial crisis all you want.

    Former treasury secretary Hank Paulson said if he would have the financial reform package that will be passed, he might have saved Lehman Brothers.

    July 13, 2010 at 1:49 p.m.

  • Okay, Mike. I thought you were talking more about people like the guy I saw at Dairy Queen a couple of weeks ago. He wanted to pay for his lunch with a credit card and had to go through four denials before he found one with enough space left for a burger, fries and a coke. I told my wife that was one of the things really wrong in the country. Monopoly games are now teaching kids to use credit for real estate purchases. Even the government's into wanting people to use credit. Our kind Uncle Sam considers you to be a terrorist if you use cash to buy a plane ticket. If you go to the bank and withdraw a large sum of YOUR OWN money, the bank needs a ton of personal information from you. Why? IT'S FOR THE GOVERNMENT. The feds think you're a drug runner if you take out your own money in cash. They do this even though the cash that makes them consider you to be a crook says that it is legal tender for all debts, public and private.

    July 13, 2010 at 1:29 p.m.

  • Mike, you are not a trick pony. No, you just don't know what you are talking about. We were/are in a deflationary period - that's basically what a recession is, a lack of demand. This finance bill will increase this deflationary tendency. And I took the liberty of cutting and pasting comments from Sorkin's magazine about Paulson's endorsement.

    What he said did not sound like a ringing endorsement. Secondly I know you read Sorkin's book "Too Big to Fail," - talk about a broken record, you could have saved yourself a lot of time and just read the introduction.

    I have read many reviews about his book that say he completely ignores the role subprimes played in the collapse.

    Prior to 1997 subprimes made up about 1% of all the mortgages. After 1997 they exploded up to about 25% in 2006. What happen? Andrew Cuomo took over as HUD Sec. in the Clinton Administration. In 2003 F&F got directly involved in the lucrative subprime business with triple AAA credit ratings on its securities - the rest is history.

    "Hank Paulson told Dealbook that the one issue he has with the financial reform bill is the Volcker Rule.

    From Dealbook:

    “Proprietary trading during the crisis that I dealt with wasn’t what created the problems at WaMu or Countrywide or Wachovia or Lehman Brothers or A.I.G."

    “We were dealing with another set of issues.”

    So the Volcker Rule, which would bar banks from proprietary trading, and investing in hedge funds or private equity, would be an unnecessary addition to the bill.

    The other problem he has is with the people enforcing financial regulation.

    “A lot of this is about the people who have the responsibility for the regulation when there isn’t a crisis and the people who have the responsibility during a crisis."

    But let's face it: the Volcker Rule is already a shadow of its former self, having been wittled down from a robust profit-buster to a rule that will be pushed off for 11 years - plenty of time to get rid of it entirely."

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-on...

    July 13, 2010 at 1:22 p.m.

  • Rollingstone

    You are a one trick pony; with the same talking points of someone that wants an unfettered free market. We're nowhere near inflation(Fed is in@ near 0%) and and we have the tools to prevent one. At least are consistent; boring but consistent.

    If you read some financial perspectives; you will find out that the funds are available for credit because the banks have a $1.2 trillion cash surplus. Yesterday, the fed chairman scolded the banks for not lending to creditworthy small businesses.

    Not fixing the problem is a personal opinion of yours but a recent treasury secretary disagrees. I kinda go with the people in the know.

    July 13, 2010 at 11:51 a.m.

  • KyleC

    You should be called the "Icebreaker".... :-)

    I thought it was appropriate for that particular poster, because he seems to go all right wing on one blog;then tries to be seen as a moderate on another..... Comment history is a great telltale.

    Sorry,I can't stand superficial.....Since I am a partisan;I can deal with that...Perhaps,I need to reread April's column.

    July 13, 2010 at 11:34 a.m.

  • born2bme

    I remember a having discussion with a poster(back in March of 2009) where we both agreed that it would take three years a for our economy, which was on the verge of going into depression, to show any real signs of recovery; that was then . He sings a different tune today.

    I I don't think the general public trusts the republicans(as the poll indicates) because they have not come forward with a plan of their own and people are not that forgetful; they remember the years of 2000 through 2008.

    I might add to the points you made, Wall Street is doing very well after we bailed them out, the oil companies are making record profits; yet the GOP wants them to keep their tax incentives.

    Several republican representatives have said that unemployment benefits tend make people lazy and not wanting to take the jobs that are available.No stats to back that up but at the same time the GOP representatives will squawk because the Obama Administration will let the Bush tax cuts that were geared to the 2% of the rich, expire.

    You're absolutely right, the new poor are the middle class of last week.

    July 13, 2010 at 11:25 a.m.

  • I was going to break into a rendition of Button and Bows from Bob Hope's classic movie, The Paleface: "East is east and west is west, And the wrong one I have chose"...

    :-)

    July 13, 2010 at 11:16 a.m.

  • jbj
    I looked over your comment history and I'm sure you are portraying a previous poster but nevertheless, you seem to be an apologist for the republican party because on one hand; you speak of what could have been (positive) and on the other hand you speak of reaching out to democrats. You can't have it both ways; you're much better if you just admit you're a partisan and go from there.

    The democrats did not put the two wars off budget and stay up till the wee hours of the morning passing a $7 trillion dollar Medicaid Part D that was not paid for... The democrats are operating under a" pay as you go" meaning a piece of legislation has to be deficit neutral before passing. If a legislature wants to pass a bill,she/ he has to offer a way to pay for it such as cutting a program or two.

    You have a one track mind of lowering taxes and cutting spending which as nothing to do with growth. Those are just talking points with no real meaning unless you can show actual figures.... There's a different mindset of getting this economy back on track, maintain that for reasonable period of time, then bringing fiscal policies.

    I can't speak for the validity of that poll but I have seen results were incumbents were replaced and the poll is representative of the angry and confused voters... Recent history has shown that the economy normally the trumps anything else. We're at a point where unemployment will not come down by November so the republican party will benefit by default.

    It's highly likely that the GOP will pick up many seats(by default) but I doubt many republicans posters will come in and criticize when their policies go south because posters have been in the forum for three years or more, know that the republicans did not come forward and complain when the Bush administration squandered the surplus, the Clinton administration left them, and left this president with a $1.6 trillion deficit...Even after Prsident Bush's approval was @ 32% and 89% thought this country was going in the wrong direction...I don't see a changed GOP...It was only 2 years ago.

    BTW I really believe we're wasting our time because you have your way of thinking and I have mine and "Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."
    Rudyard Kipling

    July 13, 2010 at 11:06 a.m.

  • jbj,

    No polls are accurate and people's minds change from day to day. If the republicans pick up a lot of seats, it will be a strickly anti-incumbant move. People won't be voting for republicans, they will be voting people out of office.
    The fact is, that no one party can fix this mess in less than 2 years. It is not possible.
    I read somewhere a few years ago that it takes at least 2 years to even start turning things around. The economy is not a vehicle that can stop on a dime and go the other way. It has to be coaxed into slowing down enough to start the turn in the other direction.
    And, you also have to remember that we are in a world economy now, so it is not just about America anymore. Everything has to be done in a certain way so it doesn't upset other Countries' economies, which would in turn make ours take a nose-dive again.
    You want someone to blame? Blame financial de-regualtion, letting major companies merge, outsourcing, NAFTA, going to war and not getting out as soon as the objective was met (toppling Sadam). The loss of jobs is what sent a lot of people to public aid and indigent care has skyrocketed.
    It's only common sense that if so much of our money is going into the war, we have so much less over here. You cannot have a strong economy over here if the jobs are not brought home. People just cannot spend, they have no choice but to rely on credit to get them though from week to week. It's just one big snowball rolling down the hill getting bigger and bigger.

    July 13, 2010 at 10:58 a.m.

  • From what I read about the "financial reform" bill is it will create a lot of bureaucratic friction. It will slow lending and reduce the availability of credit. This in turn will reduce the "velocity" of money and cause deflation and slow the economy.

    The bill is trying to fix a problem that doesn't need fixing and not fixing a problem that does - it is a stupid bill and it will have many unintended consequences. One thing it does do is it gives the government more control of our economy.

    July 13, 2010 at 10:46 a.m.

  • Mike, it is not the oversight that is the problem with the new bill. It is the fox they are going to use to watch that henhouse. And the other stuff that is going to hurt banks and raise our fees.

    Barney Frank was overseeing Fannie and Freddie. Now, while things may have been just fine with that endeavor, why can we not audit it or include it in the reform bill?

    It is a little like a health care bill that is good for us all but not good enough for Congress.

    Many of us smell a rat.

    July 13, 2010 at 10:42 a.m.

  • There is something wrong with a poll that says 72% have no faith in Republicans yet so many are set to pick up seats. The poll is not a true representation of the voters. In other words, not a valid poll.

    Too bad we will never know what the Republicans would have done to try to save the economy. I am sure it would have much to do with lowering taxes and getting small businesses growing. That is the only way to get private sector jobs.

    This administration is against anything Republicans suggested. I am of the opinion that they want to be exactly where we are, and hope to be headed even farther south. The President has said that Republicans had driven us off the road, heck the Democrats were there also, holding that wheel. And as soon as they got control of that wheel, they went off into a muddy ditch and are continuing to dig.

    July 13, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.

  • Waywardwind

    I hope I didn't lead you astray with that " we are a credit based economy."..I meant that consumers usually don't have an extra $100,000 or $25,000 for that new home or new car purchase and businesses need to borrow to buy the new equipment they need. I agree we should limit our credit card purchases.
    This morning's" Morning Joe" cast were discussing the recent Washington Post / ABC News poll results: I need to get into a 12 step program, so I can wean myself off these polls.

    The question was: Do you have some /no confidence, to make the right decisions for our future.

    58% do not have confidence in president Obama.
    68% do not have confidence in the democrats.
    72% do not have confidence in the republicans....{Yet it is predicted that the GOP will pick up many seats and might takeover the house and senate}

    The voters will look at that 9.5% unemployment.... Fair enough, but name one republican that has an idea of how we can hire workers in the private industry at a rate of 125,000 per month just to keep up with population growth and about 240,000 to bring that number down to 9%... We have 15 million unemployed today ,and more are eligible for the work force each day..

    Although we bailed them out, the banks are setting on about $1.2 trillion; not willing to loan to creditworthy businesses. And I stated the other day, big business has a $1.8 trillion surplus but they won't do any hiring because they are satisfied in getting more done with less people. I will bet my bottom dollar that big business's quarterly reports will show another gain.

    Name a politician republican or democrat it has an idea of how we can reduce our $42.3 billion trade deficit. Other nations are not buying our stuff and our consumers and small businesses have stop spending?

    The democrats are pretty bad at tooting their own horn, but I would be on all the networks repeating the words of Bush's treasury secretary,Hank Paulson (Republican). Andrew Ross Sorkin, author of" Too Big to Fail" and a columnist for the New York Times, interviewed the former treasury secretary. Hank Paulson said the current financial reform bill could have prevented the financial crisis we got into, yet, republicans are not ready to get behind this bill. Last I heard senators Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins might join the democrats in order to pass this important legislation. My point, only three republicans.

    July 13, 2010 at 9:27 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    July 13, 2010 at 9:13 a.m.

  • live within your means...not really a ground breaking concept. You set a great example www.

    Americans have lost sight of this. The government has shown us how to do it. The only problem, citizens don't have the power to print money or borrow at the same rate as a nation.

    Both sides of the aisle have to take blame. It's my contention that conservative fiscal policies are always in the best interest of the people.

    By cutting certain programs the people will have no choice but to change their habits.

    That's not to say there won't be hard times and some bumps in the road, but that's the stuff that made this country great.

    We have to admit that we have limits and have the self-control to abide by these limits.

    I think most agree that we can't continue to run our households and the country this way. What seems to be the root problem is that no one wants to change their behavior.

    July 12, 2010 at 10:56 p.m.

  • The sad fact is, so many people in this Country are tied to the credit market, in one way or another. I'd hate to see how this economy would crash if it were all of a sudden taken away. It wouldn't be pretty.

    July 12, 2010 at 10:51 p.m.

  • Born...Yeah, I kinda forgot that almost four years ago, we were in Kerville -- actually out of town at the replica of Stonehenge -- when the alternator died. We had to use the credit card to fix the car and rent another one so I could get back to town to go to work. Went back the next weekend to retrieve the car and turn in the rental. Credit does come in handy once in a while, but not as a steady way to purchase stuff. It's kinda like booze. Buy responsibly.

    You know, one of the things my wife and I have noticed over the years is that a great many times while we're saving for something we just can't do without, we realize that we really don't want it after all. The money we were saving for that stays in the bank and sometimes gets spent for something ELSE we just can't do without. But, we pay for it when we buy it.

    You said you didn't know how the country would get along without credit card interest. Gee, just look at the slimy companies that'd take the hit. I've known a couple of people who have been harassed by credit collectors. It ain't pretty what those collectors will do. The only good thing that comes from those collectors is that the people I knew who had the run ins with them, vowed to never get in that situation again. So far, they haven't.

    July 12, 2010 at 10:17 p.m.

  • thewww,

    You got the right idea. Although, I don't know how this Country would make it without all the CC interest. That would open up a whole new set of issues.
    Americans seemed to have lost the idea of personal responsibility. I too only use credit cards when absolutely necessary and that is usually auto-related. Can't just wait to get the cars fixed when they need it.
    I'd much rather pay with cash and not have to worry about some dickhead getting ahold of my CC# and stealing my identity. Life is so much simpler doing things the old fashioned way. Less stress all the way around.

    July 12, 2010 at 9:17 p.m.

  • Tell you what, J. I'm 62 and I say to you in front of all the winesses on this forum, you can call ME "boy" anytime you want. You can call me "whitey" or "cracker" or "Jim" or .... sorry, I don't know any others. I'm sure you can think of some. You can call me pretty much anything you want to as long as you don't call me late for supper.

    July 12, 2010 at 8:56 p.m.

  • Mike...You told Holein1 that "Whether we like it or not; we are a credit based economy."

    You're right. We are. Now, with this mess we're in, this just might be the time to change some of that.

    In 1985, I was working for Gulf Oil in Houston -- remember them? -- and my wife was working for Texas Instruments. We were making good money and if we wanted something, we bought it. Cars, electroninc entertainment stuff, whatever. We had credit debt like almost everyone else. Buy with "Other People's Money" was the mantra. Then, a wake-up. T-bone Pickens decided to destroy Gulf. We were lucky in that we had almost a year to repair our situation. We stopped buying on credit and shifted into a mode of paying off our debt instead of increasing it. We got most of it paid before the axe fell on me, New Years Eve, 1985. We limped along on my wife's pay till I got another job with HL&P. We finished paying off all the debt except the house and didn't go back to buying on credit. If we didn't have the money in the checking account, we didn't buy. It was amazing how much money we had when we weren't sending it out to credit card companies. By not paying 10 to 18 percent interest payments every month, you really can save up to pay cash.

    That was 25 years ago and we still don't buy with credit except for gas for the cars That gets paid in full every month. If more people would adopt a similar pay as you go plan, they would be able to get through hard times much more easily. Manufacturing would take a hit, of course, because they wouldn't be selling so much to people buynig with credit on a whim, but in the long run, the turn around in our economy would, I firmly believe, would be worthwhile. Without having to allocate so much of their incomes to interest payments, perhaps a two income family wouldn't be essential to survive. One parent could stay home with the kids, and that would be a boon to their learning and their deportment. With so many people no longer in the work force, industry wouldn't be so constrained to provide more and more jobs. Fewer jobs wouldn't be such a disaster because people wouldn't need as many.

    You're of an age, Mike, as am I, that we can remember the fifties before the credit card boom. People paid for what they bought. Life was less stressful. I'm not saying that by having a large percentage of Americans paying cash for their purchases would return us to "Leave it to Beaver" times, but my wife and I are living proof that it works and we'll never go back to the credit card car wreck.

    July 12, 2010 at 8:44 p.m.

  • you're right about speculation being a driving force, but i belive it was speculation by the consumer, not by professional real estate investors. i lived in a tourist town in colorado. plenty of people i know speculated on the market, as home owners not "investors".

    the market was showing a steady 40% increase for a number of years. who wouldn't want to spend $180,000 on a condo and sell it or refi for $250,000 a couple of years later? the bubble bursts and you now have no outs and can't tote the note.

    that kind of stuff happened all over CA and plenty of places in the US. that's the bulk of the subprime defaults. it's not professional speculators.

    if the mortgage company/bank tells you, based on the information you've provided, that you qualify for a house payment that is 35%-40% of your income, are you going to shop in that price range?

    July 12, 2010 at 8:04 p.m.

  • Legion, the first brick out was the government getting into subprime loans. Requiring banks to lower there lending standards and then requiring F&F to meet certain targets on their percentage of subprime loans. This was all done to make housing affordable.

    These loans were cranked out by the millions and sold as triple A securities - that is what screwed everything up. That and Wall Street along with the regulators relying too much on the computer programs. That lesson has been learned, but the Quants are already working on the next generation. I doubt the regulators have a clue.

    But the blame game will continue I'm sure. What's important for the socialist is that this crisis not be wasted. It will be used to secure more control of our economy, that's what really counts.

    July 12, 2010 at 7:42 p.m.

  • Then of course everyone wanted to make money, loans where bought and package by F&F, investment firms bought them, then bought insurance if they didn't produce.... voila, but IMO, the first brick out of the wall was the speculative investors.

    July 12, 2010 at 7:10 p.m.

  • How did this turn into a "who is to blame thread?"

    On the point of your blog Mike, I can't disagree, sides have been chosen and any compromise will be achieved will be a tedious process if even possible at all.

    Back to the "Who is to blame" part, can anyone really blame a person that wanted to buy a house, (to live in), and was told by a lender that they qualified for more of a house than they could actually afford? All the lenders where worried about was writing more paper, it looked good on their books.

    IMO, as in any boom, the speculators couldn't resist jumping in. So then you had people buying property as a investment, (not to be a primary residence), taking out interest only loans with the plan to resell the property in a few months for a profit. Remember the TV show Flip this House? That drove up prices for every buyer. Eventually, as with any boom, a point was reached where prices had gone up so much no one was willing to pay the asking price. Real estate investors where stuck with house they could not sell for a profit, that drove down prices, caused defaults on their loans that rippled through the economy and made actual home owners who lived in the house they bought think, "Gosh, a house was suppose to be a good investment, now I owe more than the house is worth." So they starting bailing out on loans which further decreased prices and, again rippled through the economy.

    July 12, 2010 at 6:33 p.m.

  • Holein1, I think that's oversimplification, although I agree with your logic but it is my opinion that the crisis had to do with lack of government oversight, subprime lending gone bad, and the schemes of Wall Street here and abroad. Wall Street sold the junk to our trading partners; and brought them into the crisis.

    Right now, the consumer and businesses need to have the confidence to spend or we will stay status quo. Whether we like it or not; we are a credit based economy. Credit is not flowing because people are overextended(like you say) but just think where we would be if they all decided to default on their credit payments. I don't think anyone has the answer.

    July 12, 2010 at 5:55 p.m.

  • Rollingstone

    Forget it.... I didn't spend the last three months reading " Too Big to Fail" and the"The Big Short" so I could get a clear picture of what happened, just to waste my time discussing things that had nothing to do with the financial crisis.... The books separated the prime lending practices from what was happening on Wall Street. The books centered on Wall Street and their practices, not on Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd and Fannie and Freddie. Two separate issues although eventually connected.

    The books detail how Goldman Sachs was the driving force in forcing AIG into being a player. The crooks at Fannie and Freddie were different from the crooks of Goldman Sachs &Company because only a few knew the schemes.

    It's very difficult to explain but it's more like inside baseball of Wall Street.... Now,I've made it even more difficult to understand.

    July 12, 2010 at 5:43 p.m.

  • I wasn't even going to touch the loan issue, but I just have to say something. You see, the government said mortgage companies were making it too hard for everyday citizens to own a home. So they told them to lower the standards for debit to income ratio. That made it possible for people with way too much in their driveways and back yards to buy more home than they could afford.

    I'm not putting all of the blame on the government. The consumer has the most blame in this whole fiasco. When are we going to stop pointing the finger at banks, F&F, mortgage lenders, etc. and call in to question the logic used by the consumer to justify the loans?

    The information a borrower puts on an application isn't the whole picture. It's the large bills and the things you would see on a credit report. What doesn't go on there is what you spend on fast food, beer, smokes, hair care, clothes, toys, etc. Those things are often big figures.

    The consumer has a responsibility to say "no" to themselves.

    The government, sad to say, is enabling this type of behavior.

    July 12, 2010 at 5:28 p.m.

  • You have a one sided view, Goldman Sachs,AIG,Bank of America, credit default swaps, 30% leverage and other schemes are listed in the free market principles of today.

    July 12, 2010 at 5:25 p.m.

  • "The free market fundamentalist will never admit that the market can and did go wrong, so they try to put the entire blame on the Federal government but only the gullible will buy it."

    Does anything associated with the subprime, real estate implosion sound like free market fundamentals? Gibberish Mike, come on you can do better than that.

    July 12, 2010 at 5:22 p.m.

  • Touche,holein1 but I assumed people will keep their insurance..I see your point. I just wanted to point that the word "taxes" is like kryptonite to conservatives. All things being the same, they will not complain about a price increase but call it a tax,look out. I believe they are hardwired that way.

    1. I meant that Guantanamo Bay was a recruitment tool for the terrorist.
    2. The Patriot Act remains intact but many thought it was unconstitutional.
    3. Oh I don't have a dog in that hunt but Obama instincts was to allow transparency but he was talked out of it by defense secretary Robert Gates... If you didn't want the pictures released, then you would want to close Guantanamo Bay for the same reason. Had nothing to do with civilian prisons.
    4. I believe in our justice system and we have tried terrorist before and I don't give the detainees any special classification... That's Bush/Cheney logic to get around the rules... I think everyone's aware that we just escalated the war in Afghanistan; we all know we are at war.

    I would just naming some reasons as to why the left that unhappy with the president; another reason for that 45% approval; is not just conservative republicans.

    July 12, 2010 at 5:06 p.m.

  • I'll dip my toe in the water on this.

    Mike, you said, "If your premium rate goes up by $50.00 and your tax rate goes up by $50.00; what's the difference?"

    For one, I can choose to pay a health care premium, for now. I do not really have a choice in tax payments. I guess if I didn't like it I could quit my job, or just not file, but that's not really a solution now is it?

    Another gem:

    1. Guantanamo Bay still open. GB is a base, but I assume you meant the detention center located on base. There are plenty of prisons in the US that were found to have mistreated their wards, but they are still open. You don't cut off the nose to spite the face.

    2. Patriot act. I believe there were some parts of the act that expired? I don't like it, but some are jot that intrusive. Have a problem telling the guy down at the bank where you got your large amount of cash? Solution, don't deposit it.

    3. Blocked the court-ordered release of detainee-abuse photos. Ok, what good could possibly come from that? It would only incite our enemies abroad and at home. It would put more innocent Americans in danger and make Mr. Obama's job even harder.

    4. That call for military commissions instead of trying the detainees in Federal Court. Perhaps we are fighting an unconventional enemy in that they do not wear uniforms, fight under a single flag or whatever the antiquated rules of war tribunals state. We are at war and our enemies should be tried in a military court.

    July 12, 2010 at 4:50 p.m.

  • In this case, two rights(pun intended) make a wrong.

    The free market fundamentalist will never admit that the market can and did go wrong, so they try to put the entire blame on the Federal government but only the gullible will buy it.

    July 12, 2010 at 4:25 p.m.

  • jbj, you smacked that nail right on the head. F&F made millions of those crappy loans and investment firms bought them. They bought them because their computer models told them there was little risk or at least acceptable risk associated with the mortgage securities.

    Goldman with the regulator's approval bought a lot of the securities with leveraged capital, again with regulator approval. So Goldamn like many other investment firms ended up way out of position when the music stopped.

    Many investment firms shorted the lower tranches and went long on the "more secure" triple AAA rated superior tranches. The problem was the "superior" tranches had the same quality of mortgage backed secuities as the lower tranches.

    The whole thing blew up in their face when the giant real estate bubble burst - who was left? Yep the taxpayer, that has got to stop.

    July 12, 2010 at 4:21 p.m.

  • jbl
    I don't have the foggiest idea of what you want to talk about?
    We are in a world financial crisis and you left out credit default swaps, derivatives, and schemes that involved AIG . This had to do about leverage, credit ratings and yes the clientele from Freddie and Fannie. Come back with more detail.

    President Obama did receive the most campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs but they knew early on that he was gonna be the president of the United States. Why would they contribute to the eventual loser? Question is, can you prove they benefited by him being in office.. After their recent debate on financial reform, Wall Street went on record saying that they will not contribute to democrats anymore. That's a good thing.

    July 12, 2010 at 4:19 p.m.

  • Writein
    I really don't care about someone's former occupation or what they said they have done.

    If I get a threat in a form of an e-mail, that is the evidence that the police would be interested in.

    That would not make me leave; that would be laughable. People leave for different reasons but when I think it becomes sheer boredom; it's time to leave. Right now, there are several interesting points of view from different bloggers.

    July 12, 2010 at 4:07 p.m.

  • ok let's talk about the cause of the recession.

    I would not be quick to blame Goldman Sachs unless I wanted to implicate Obama. There are so many ties between the two.

    The housing market was a major player. With Fannie and Freddie in on about 50% of the mortgages, then up to 90% by Dec. of '07, I cannot help but think that had a huge hand in it. 84% of their loans were interest only, 62% less than 10% down, and they were selling these loans off as fast as they could package them up.

    I watched the housing market go up, Texas was not as involved, but I sold real estate to people in other states, California for example, who thought they were getting a deal because they thought we were on the way up like they had been. Well up it went, but not so much, but people were buying, then it started down and loans were upside down. This snowballed, as you can imagine. Those packaged loans were not insured... because they were not called "loans", but they were sold all over.

    So that is from where I was sitting. What is your perspective?

    I don't think anyone is exempt from audit. Now who sent me to "sex for oil" and why?

    July 12, 2010 at 4:01 p.m.

  • CindyBonner...You're right about campaigns costing too much and the congress critters being beholden to the contributors. The SCOTUS didn't help a bit when they said corporations could contribute as much as they like. I used to have a boss who suggested that congress critters shouldn't wear suits, but should dress like NASCAR drivers with patches from all their contributors sewn on so we can know at a glance who paid for them.

    July 12, 2010 at 3:57 p.m.

  • Pilot.

    Who are my handlers?

    Mike.

    If a person who claims he’s former Airforce and DoJ threaten you, what would you do? Leave? That is what he wants. I was never bought up to be anyone's punk.

    July 12, 2010 at 3:57 p.m.

  • Since there is no on- the- job training for the president of the United States, I imagine several president in their first term have been called inexperienced. Military officers and several of Obama's colleagues have said that he is a quick study. He is very intelligent. I would be more inclined to believe those that actually work around him than an online poster.

    We can Judge President Clinton on his moral failures or his intelligence and effectiveness, or both .

    Then again ,we all have opinions.

    July 12, 2010 at 3:48 p.m.

  • writein
    I think it's utterly stupid to use the second amendment as an equalizer.

    I would rather just quit the forum and be among the civilized; than to resort to those tactics.

    I don't think you frighten them; you irritate them because they can't shut you up, and in some cases you might scare off their backups. They are used to being the only voice.

    I do not mean to be disrespectful but I don't condone violence to prove a point.

    Ain't you heard? Everyone in the forum is 6'6' and weighs 350 pounds and has been trained in martial arts.:-)

    July 12, 2010 at 3:37 p.m.

  • Observer
    A lot of what you posted is just partisan rhetoric from hate radio and other sources.

    I read a couple books about the financial crisis since I wrote that blog and it seems like the crisis came to a head in the years 2007 to 2008. It had nothing to do with racial lending policies or anything of the sort. Had more to do what Goldman Sachs is on trial for.

    You can marginalize president Obama all you want but even his political opponents praise him for his intellect and accomplishments.He will never get praise from the right wing blogosphere.

    July 12, 2010 at 3:26 p.m.

  • Mike.

    This is why I strongly believe in the second amendment. One of those ladies, our mutual friend, told me that the reason why they are attacking me so hard because I frighten them

    July 12, 2010 at 3:25 p.m.

  • Observer.

    President Obama return the bust was out of repeact of his grandpa who fought independence from the British

    KNOW YOUR HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    July 12, 2010 at 3:19 p.m.

  • Pilot
    The fact remains, Clinton was never called a boy and president Obama was the first to get that dubious honor.

    July 12, 2010 at 3:13 p.m.

  • Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin should be front and center detailing the republican plans for recovery. This no secret that he wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare but that is not an electable platform to run on. They can unveil that plan after the takeover in November. It will have to be a complete sweep before they can fulfill their other plan of repealing the healthcare bill. There will have to have enough votes to override a presidential veto. I wonder how that will go over with and 31,000,000 that will eventually be added, and repealing the provision that allows pre existing conditions and the other goodies. I wonder how many will complain about legislators not fulfilling their campaign promises?

    I guess we can continue with the merry- go- round round politics of just replacing politicians every two years and when their senate term expires. That beats constituents studying the issues and taking a civics class. " I want one that follows the constitution" is just a talking point that doesn't mean anything unless the voters understand what they want their legislators to do

    July 12, 2010 at 3:07 p.m.

  • 1. "...show some respect to a few foreign leaders..."? When one of the Great Obama's first acts was to return a bust of Winston Churchill that had been in the Oval Office since shortly after 9/11, accompanied by some videos that were not viewable in European countries? It appears to be paying dividends when Nicholas Sarkozy of France refers to him, in public, as a "naive idiot". His foreign policy has alienated our friends and is comforting our enemies. If you think the Taliban are not encouraged when he states we will be pulling out in a year, your ability at self-delusion defies belief.

    2. "I wrote a blog several month ago about the [mortgage] ratings that were bought and paid for." Yes, I remember that blog. It went on for several screens of verbiage without once mentioning the Jimmy Carter Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 or the Clinton administration regulations imposing numerical "diversity" lending quotas on mortgage lenders, coupled with a threat of discrimination lawsuits for noncompliance. It conveniently failed to address the complicity of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in purchasing these "liar loans" without question and packaging them as AAA-rated bonds. I would say it was the most dishonest discussion of the issue ever written, but I am sure the New York Times and Washington Post have published articles that top it.

    3. Yes, Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review. He holds the distinction of being the ONLY person to hold that office who never had an article published in the Review. Looks like "equal opportunity" hiring in action. The Review had a quota to fill, and they filled it with a warm, breathing body that met the quota criteria.

    July 12, 2010 at 3:05 p.m.

  • So Mike, "Supply and demand= elementary understanding." Really? And you are still for Obamacare and the rest of his socialist agenda? Amazing!

    July 12, 2010 at 2:54 p.m.

  • Writein

    I've been on both sides of those hateful comments and it's never pleasant but I've never had a threatening e-mail but several of my former on-line friends have. Three of them were women, who were frightened away or for lack of a better word; disgusted with the forum.

    July 12, 2010 at 2:49 p.m.

  • I thought this was funny, this is a Vicad ad right next to your blog Mike, it's right on topic.

    http://www.righttoworkcommittee.org/p...

    July 12, 2010 at 2:49 p.m.

  • @born2Bme

    You raise a good point - There is a lot of criticism of the President and some of that might be justified but I see and hear little of alternatives. With November only a few months away Republicans need to formulate positive ideas for this country if indeed they do win control of Congress. If you decide to vote an incumbent out because of their policies you better be damn sure you understand what the opposition has to offer as an alternative.

    I suspect that the Republican leadership is loathe to publicly produce much of the platform that they want to run on in November because it detracts from the perceived winning formula of slinging political mud at Obama.

    I am hoping that people will be equally as discerning of Republican strategies as they are of Obama's policies.

    July 12, 2010 at 2:48 p.m.

  • Mike.

    Speaking about these local rants, those people need to be called out. Second, I bet you my bottom dollar neither of these fools on this forum will repeat their immature or bigoted statements outside or in person. They won’t. They speak about the 1st amendment, but campaign to ban someone for speaking out against them. Banning someone for speaking one’s mind is Marxist. You know.….…the very thing they preach against.

    July 12, 2010 at 2:44 p.m.

  • born2Bme

    Knock yourself out and a good question but I doubt if you will get a response.

    I have mentioned that a couple times myself.... If the republicans regain control; will the democrats become the party of" no" and the president use his veto power? This game of political posture in can be played several different ways.

    Unfortunately for the democrats, we have 52 conservative blue dog democrats that think like republicans in the house and about 10 of those in the senate. I don't think a filibuster is likely

    July 12, 2010 at 2:40 p.m.

  • Mike.

    Speaking about the hateful comments. Maybe I should share with you the threaten email from one of our fellow posters.

    " You better look at my bio(DOJ & Air Force) before go running your nasty mouth."

    July 12, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.

  • Writein

    It's all hyperbole .... We still have the same freedoms we had under president George W. Bush.

    They worry a about a health care mandate that is unenforceable in the year 2014. It probably won't pertain to them at all. It states that in the bill....

    I've been hearing the complaints about local and state governments all my life but you are more knowledgeable about the local rants than I am.

    July 12, 2010 at 2:32 p.m.

  • Mike, I hope you don't mind me asking those here that want Republicans to take control in November, a simple question.
    We all know by this last year and a half that people want immediate action, or those in charge get blamed. What happens if Republicans do take control in November and don't get anywhere either? Does that mean that in 2012 that Democrats have a good chance at the Presidency again?

    July 12, 2010 at 2:31 p.m.

  • Mike.

    You know enough is enough. They keep on talking about the White House stealing their freedom? However, they refuse to say anything about the problems in the crossroad area. I mean look the DA of Victoria County and Jackson county. The governor of texas, the State Rep, and their city council.

    Back in Jananury, a letter from J. Pohl talks about how Obama or the federal government will take his water rights, but two/three years ago, this same writer was urging Geanie Morrison and Glenn Hegar via state government to be in his water.

    July 12, 2010 at 2:20 p.m.

  • I am getting tired of the same old thing but I should have posted back and forth instead of back in forth,,,Too lazy to to delete & re-post.

    July 12, 2010 at 2:10 p.m.

  • Writein

    The facts speak for themselves; the 47 year old man was president of the Harvard law review, a state senator, a United States senator and and finally a United States president. The people who call him names don't have the intellect or the accomplishments of our 48 year old president. I wonder how many votes they would get ,or how many the person they voted for, actually received? As I once said about my church; it does not need defending against the likes of those.

    Back in fourth name calling will not accomplish much and might get someone deleted ,permanently. To some, it is a badge of honor and mission accomplished.

    July 12, 2010 at 2:03 p.m.

  • Supply and demand= elementary understanding.

    We are in a world financial crisis and every move we make corresponds with our trading partners, current policies and consumer and business spending. A misreading of those variables can and has been devastating.

    It may not be brain surgery but it's safe to assume that it is beyond the understanding of anyone in this forum, it's usually left of those people making six figure salaries. ... I'm just a student with much to learn and If I made a six figure salary; I certainly wouldn't be responding; I would be making more money.

    July 12, 2010 at 1:50 p.m.

  • Mike.

    You said this, "I wonder if any thought was given to calling Presidents' Kennedy and Clinton,"BOY?" They were young presidents. "

    You know if this area and this site was of a different ideology or different social group. That fool, that punk, would had been called out. He would face alot more grief than Wm Paul Tasin. A 60 year old white man calling a black late 40's,early 50 year old a boy is bigoted. Plus he uses his 15 year old son and the age of the President as an excuse.

    What happens if I call that 60 year old a "boy". Would I be wrong? It is too late to say "I'm sorry".

    July 12, 2010 at 1:44 p.m.

  • Mike, does your great knowledge and grasp of economics include an understanding of the "Law of Supply and Demand?" If not you should look it up - it's not rocket surgery or brain science.

    But it is a law, not a theory and it is relentless, it will never quit, it never stops, it always wins. We try to out smart it at our peril.

    July 12, 2010 at 1:38 p.m.

  • Cindy
    Welcome to my world; I've been saying this for months now and many have agreed.

    The recent Supreme Court ruling will only open up the floodgates and make this problem even worse..... The ruling judges of the recent moratorium case had a lot of money invested in the oil industry.

    You are exactly right, it will take a grassroots effort because the lobbyist have a constitutional right to petition the government. I don't see Congress having the appetite to reform themselves.

    July 12, 2010 at 1:35 p.m.

  • That is not the way I framed the question.... Let me spell it out.
    If your premium rate goes up by $50.00 and your tax rate goes up by $50.00; what's the difference?

    The Massachusetts healthcare had problems during the debate; nothing new.

    Speculation is not a fact.....Economics'is not as constant and it changes dramatically sometimes; from quarter to quarter.

    July 12, 2010 at 1:23 p.m.

  • There is one issue I wish people would talk about and educate themselves about to a much greater degree, and that is the incredible amounts of money it takes for a politician in this country to get elected, what that huge amount of money does to corrupt the system, and why it will never be solved by campaign finance reform initiated in Congress. The whole process is corrupt and does nothing to further the interests of the people. Any kind of real reform of the process is going to have to come from a public outcry because the candidates and politicians are too mired in the system, too beholden to their contributors, to ever generate real reform themselves. I think everybody is tired of the endless campaign. We should limit campaign time to three months, maximum. No more. The campaigns should be financed with public monies, maybe a buck from every person in the country. Any corporate contribution, or special interest contribution should have to be published in national newspapers, and broadcast media should be required to give free air time to all candidates. There should also be one townhall type televised event, with no prior screening of questions or of people allowed to attend. Transparency in the election process is the only way we are ever going to get decent people back in Washington. The current method puts people into office who are little more than hand puppets for the corporations and special interests who have put them there, as witness the Texas congressman who actually apologized to BP for committee questioning about their methods of drilling in the Gulf and how that disaterous spill happened. On closer inspection yep, that fellow's campaign was financed by the oil industry. Of course, he apologized. He didn't want his campaign fund to run dry. The ability of large corporations and special interest groups to influence elections is appalling and the people this government is supposed to represent are being held hostage. I don't mean to rant, but this really is at the heart of the matter, and it infiltrates every aspect of our political reality.

    July 12, 2010 at 1:21 p.m.

  • waywardwind
    That was no mistake and there is enough material for another blog but I don't feel like researching and all the similarities for you.
    1. Guantanamo Bay still open.
    2. Patriot act
    3. Blocked the court-ordered release of detainee-abuse photos
    4. That call for military commissions instead of trying the detainees in Federal Court.

    These are just a few and then not ranked according to importance and many have been left out.

    Why do I feel like I'm being set up for something else? These are supposed to be known facts.

    July 12, 2010 at 1:17 p.m.

  • Mike says, "What is the difference between a tax increase and a increase in cost on say something like Health Insurance?"

    Have you been reading about what is going on in Massachuets. The insurance rates have been going through the roof there and now they are trying price controls. The insurance companies are going bankrupt - WTH !!!

    Obamacare is going to have the same problem. The only way to somewhat contain this problem is to have rationed care and price controls - our brave new world. But oh, this is not socialism, no it's well, uh.... ?

    July 12, 2010 at 1:07 p.m.

  • Mike..."...we escalated the war in Afghanistan, and many of the and Bush terror policies are still in place."

    I'm not trying to start a fight. I think you need to re-read and correct that last sentence. Either something was left out or there was some sort of typo, but I can't decypher what you're saying there.

    July 12, 2010 at 1:04 p.m.

  • notasheep
    We certainly have a lack of communication because I believe in the first paragraph, I blamed myself and it certainly was not my intent to write a " pity party" blog. I guess the interpretation lies in the beholder.

    In my closing paragraph, I welcomed the labels but established a caveat. Do not take my words out of context or try to give your interpretation as to what I believe.

    In the four years I have been blogging , I have never called for an open debate because I do like to engage and retaliation is not necessarily an attack. In all depends on who initiates the attack.

    I've had many civil discussions but we stayed on the issues and there never was a clear-cut winner...In fact I just completed one with a poster where we have never engaged in a hateful debate for two or three years,now.

    July 12, 2010 at 1:04 p.m.

  • Hello arlewill

    It's no secret that the president had 52% of the independents prior to election and is now down to about 38% because of uncertainty of his policies.

    Whenever I hear someone talk about not raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year; I start to wonder what they mean because it seems like Obama's financial advisers want to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the top 2% but maintain them for the middle class. It will be interesting because the republicans could take over the house where they will control the agenda and I seriously doubt they will bring up tax increases. If this deficit/debt reducing commission advises a tax increase and spending cuts to bring our economy back in balance; will this be held against the president or the party in power? What is the difference between a tax increase and a increase in cost on say something like Health Insurance?

    Barack Obama did say if you'd like you own insurance you can keep it. He said this for two years on the campaign; unaware of what private industry would do.

    I keep hearing of radical left wing policies passed by this administration; without any examples. That healthcare plan was not left wing, the water downed cap-in-trade passed by the house was not left wing, finance reform is not a left wing. I guess I need a better definition of what governing from the center means. That's going to be difficult in the political climate we're in.

    Many are disappointed; that's the reason for the 45% approval but liberals are also disappointed because they don't have an energy policy, " don't ask don't tell" has not been repealed, we escalated the war in Afghanistan, and many of the and Bush terror policies are still in place.

    Thanks for responding

    July 12, 2010 at 12:51 p.m.

  • I find it hard to believe that you honestly would like to have a civil political discussion. In order for people to truly have a civil political discussion, both sides must have an open mind. So excuse me for not falling for the "poor me, I just get attacked for stating the opposite side" trick. How can you even expect to have some kind of open debate when you attack your opposition before they even have a chance to respond? Why do you think "that were in a volatile ideological age", as you put it? Because of things like this. In your first paragraph it seems like you did not like being labeled, but is that not what you are doing to your opposition? If you truly want an open debate, do it the right way. Post a question, post your opinion, don't attack, and respond to the comments. Otherwise, everyone wastes too much time defending themselves, instead of focusing on the true issues at hand.

    July 12, 2010 at 12:08 p.m.

  • Mike
    I think the President communicates very well however his words have not matched his actions:
    Will not raise taxes on couples making less than 250k per year.
    If you like your health care plan you can keep it.
    and many more such words.
    I did not vote for the President but after the election, I had hoped he would govern from the center. I am very disappointed.

    July 12, 2010 at 12:05 p.m.

  • jbj
    I see the cartoons got the attention I wanted.

    lol.... You might want to go back and check on the history of the housing crisis.

    We will not have agreements until we get the myths out of the way. We can never have a compromise if one believes in myths.... Economics is about economic data.
    Like as said I don't really care what anyone thinks of this president because it is irreverent. A better argument would be Keysanian v Laissez-faire for solving our economic problems.

    You write like someone that used to call themselves holly1.... It's the right wing version of the facts.

    You might want to go back and read up on the scandals of the 2008 MMS and the fact that BP lied about having a " worst case scenario" plan.

    July 12, 2010 at 11:47 a.m.

  • You, the Wall Street Journal and others can try to make it about Fannie and Freddie, Barney Frank & Chris Dodd.... I'm not that gullible and I wrote a blog several months ago about the ratings that were bought and paid for.

    I've never needed your advice and I don't single source my blame.... There you go again: telling me what I believe.... Never has worked and never will.

    July 12, 2010 at 11:36 a.m.

  • Those cartoons are based on some untruths and partial untruths.

    For one thing, the drilling was under the watchful eye of the US government. The housing market, which is a big part of this recession was under the watchful eye of Barney Frank.

    I would bet that there is more corruption in Congress than in most banks. It could be close, however.

    I will make this short and sweet. In the past I have been friends with many Democrats, I do not agree with everyone, yet I do not hate them. We can disagree and still get along, in fact, disagreement can lead to compromises that are better than a one sided approach to a situation.

    I do have a problem with Obama and his policies. I do not dislike him but do not agree with the way he thinks we can solve America's problems. I do not wish him any ill will, except to be voted out of office.

    July 12, 2010 at 11:29 a.m.

  • Hello Mike, was that cartoon a "cut and paste" - chuckle. I read your essay carefully. I thought you'd be interested in this link -

    http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magaz...

    It's about the "formula" that brought down Wall Street. But it was really the regulators that brought down Wall Street in particular the credit rating agencies that gave triple A ratings to mortgage back securities.

    In addition the Wall Street Journal had this to say, "Market observers, rating agencies and investors were unaware of the number of subprime and Alt-A mortgages infecting the financial system in late 2006 and early 2007. Of the 26 million subprime and Alt-A loans outstanding in 2008, 10 million were held or guaranteed by F&F, 5.2 million by other government agencies and 1.4 million were on the books of the four largest US banks."

    They were unaware because F&F lied about the number of sub prime and Alt-A loans they held or made. Alt-A are the so-called "liar loans." F&F told the regulators these were "prime loans" - someone should be in jail for this, however no one should hold their breath.

    My advice to you Mike is be careful about assigning blame for our current troubles and promoting the false promise that more regulation, bigger government will solve our problems.

    July 12, 2010 at 11:27 a.m.