In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

Who took the cop off the beat on Wall St.?

Both parties.

In large part true, but the legislation was crafted by Repubs, although Bill
Clinton signed it with glee and defends doing so still.
And was passed with only about 5 dissenting votes in the House (one
of whom was Barney Franks who has done so consistently over the years in
similar legislation and thus about the only leader of either party has
any right to pontificate on any of this) and was passed by a voice vote
in the Senate. Unless the GOP has some sort of mind control drug over
the Dems, they voted for it right along with GOP. They then can't say
that this is all the GOPs fault, like they could on a largely party line
vote.




Who doubled the federal debt in large part due to an unjustified war,
which
according to the CBO will end up costing well over two trillion dollars
(much of it borrowed from our dear friend China)?

Which had what to do with the collapse?

According to the Repubs currently running for office, deficits are the
worst, most horrible thing imaginable and are directly responsible for
everything from unemployment to bad breath. Except when *they* run
deficits, then, according to former VP Cheney, they don't matter. So
*logically* if huge deficits are so bad for the economy, Bush's huge
deficits must have been bad too.

You most likely know that I agree on deficits, but again, the Dems
certainly got at least their share of earmarks, etc. and thus gave up
any right to the deficit hawk mantle. Actually the main problem is that
after a few years in power, the GOP noted how much fun it was to spend
money and joined the Dems in the fun. There was NOBODY any more ever
pretending they had a hand on the spigot.
Rather interesting stat. Compared the 5 years before the GOP took
over in '94, the annual %age increase in spending went along at a pretty
consistent pace. In the next 5 years, spending still grew, but at a rate
averaging about .5% less. By '00 or so, the spending was back up to what
it was prior to the GOP takeover, and took off soon after that.


Who decided torturing prisoners was a good way to go?

Which had what to do with the collapse?

Didn't say it did, I was making a list.
Okay. But you made the biggest part of your post about the deficit
and then started your list. I was wondering if you were trying to
connect the two. ALthough it seemed strange, since there was no
transition, I wasn't sure.


Who figured the feds shouldn't need a court order to listen to your phone
calls or read your e-mails?


Which had what to do with the collapse.

Full marks for determination, but Thread Drift is a law of nature, sorry
about that.
See above.


And then he signed his name at the bottom. If we're going to give Clinton
discredit for signing those deregulation bills which helped turn Wall St.
into a casino run by lunatics, then Bush gets his share for signing huge
bailout legislation which today the Repubs would rather lay at the doorstep
of the Dems.

I agree. In fact, much of this I think is related to his
administration's throwing Lehman Brothers overboard. Until that time,
there had been problems, but they were still being managed through
shotgun marriages and other means by the Feds and Treasury, etc. We were
muddling through and there had been relatively little money actually
sent out the door.
Then, in a rather abrupt change in behavior, they took out Lehman.
The one thing the market hates more than anything is uncertainty and
Lehman brought that about in spades, freezing everything and multiplying
the problems.
Can't say that we would have survived otherwise, this was a time
where EVERYBODY was highly leveraged and no one (govt., consumer, big
and small businesses) had any extra to bring out and spend. Which
exacerbated the problems and helped (along with the Fed paying higher
interest rates for banks to park money with it than they could get
elsewhere with the associated dislocations) the resultant slow recovery.

Yup, I wonder if the Repub leadership was really, truly sorry that McCain
didn't win in 2008. I guessed then that we wouldn't see significant
economic improvement until 2011-12, and if they thought the same they might
have been pleased to know the Dems would take the hit, not the Repubs.

I retrospect, probably. At the time, I saw nothing that indicated
they were any less caught up in the "fact" that things were different
this time and we were working with a new paradigm. Always reason to my
mind to convert to cash and gold (grin).
I still think Mr. Greenspan still summed it up the best. "They
[financial crises] are all different, but they have one fundamental
source," he said. "That is the unquenchable capability of human beings
when confronted with long periods of prosperity to presume that it will
continue."

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke