On Jan 4, 5:23 pm, wrote:
On Jan 3, 2:58 pm, bud-- wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 1, 1:48 pm, bud-- wrote:

The smart republicans know the election was not an endorsement of
republican ideas.

It was however an endorsement of conservative ideas. Unfortunately,
many
republicans lost their way over the last decade in that regard,
particularly with
regard to out of control spending.

Funny - conservatives didn't complain about huge deficits until
democrats were back in power.

You keep confusing conservatives with republicans. Many
conservatives spoke
out about the deficits caused by out of control spending during the
Bush years and
criticzed him and the republicans in congress for it. They warned
that the republicans
had lost their way and ultimately it cost them control of congress and
the white house.
I was no big fan of Bush.

I don't remember the big ruckus.


The deficit increased by about 80%, if I
remember right, under Bush 2. Under conservative darling Reagan the
deficit almost tripled. Trickle down economics worked so well...

The economics of Reagan did in fact work extremely well and all
American benefited
enormously His policies turned an economy
that had high unemployment, high inflation, high interest rates and no
growth, into
the marvel of the world

If you borrow thousands of dollars from everyone (the deficit) it is a
lot easier.

....

That's right, cutting taxes generated MORE revenue.

I don't know of too many mainstream economists that believe the Lafler
(sp?) curve.

Maybe it's time to stop bitching
about deficits and look at the big picture.

So the stimulus package which, contrary to continuing lies, created or
kept millions of jobs (source CBO) is not a problem.


The last president that balanced the budget was .... let me see....musta
been a long time ago...Clinton. Bush 2 inherited a surplus that was
paying down the national debt. Didn't last long.

If you look at the big picture, that brief surplus was part of the
same long term
economic boom created when Reagan lowered the confiscatory 70% tax
rates.
cut deregulation, and re-ignited the American economy.

So the Clinton surpluses were caused by Reagan.


It was a cry for change in the economic disaster that is still too much
in force which had not sufficiently abated under democratic government.

I hope the dems keep believing that and go right on with their liberal
approach.

I hope republicans actualy try repealing the health care bill. People
really want to get back to no insurance for preexisting conditions,
lifetime caps, losing insurance,....

Apparently they do, because polls consistently show that most
Americans
didn't like Obama care.

Most Americans don't know what is in the new health bill or why it is
there.

What percentage believe lies like "death panels". About a year ago 47%
of republicans thought there were "death panels".

Republicans and propaganda mills have been very effective at lying
about what is in the bill. Part of the problem is there was no final
bill to defend. Part of the problem that democrats simply did not
respond to the lies. Part of the problem is the truth takes longer to
communicate than sound bites.

If the house actually tries to repeal the health bill it could be an
good forum to make it clear what the bill actually does.

As for pre-existing conditions, can you get
a fire
insurance policy after your house is already on fire? I mean libs
through this
out like it's some horrific, evil business practice. In reality,
it's straightforward
business.

I don't have much sympathy for people that intentionally didn't get
insurance. (But if their condition becomes critical they can still get
health care at emergence rooms, which the rest of us likely pay for).

But it may mean that you can't safely quit a job where you have
insurance and a 'condition', because you may not be able to get new
insurance.

Or if you loose your job with insurance you may not be able to get
insurance.

Preexisting conditions are a major reason for requiring almost
everyone to have insurance.


Now, note, I'm not saying that some part of an overall solution that
uses the free
markets could not include coverage for pre-existing conditions. But
to do so
basicly requires that everyone be required to have insurance. That
could be part
of a new plan.

Which is exactly why almost everyone has to have insurance in the new
health bill. Glad you agree.

But the current one, the methods used to pass it,
stinks to high
heaven.

Perhaps if the republicans didn't require 60% to pass anything you
would have fewer objections to the process.

Perhaps if republicans did not have a stated goal of preventing Obama
from getting a second term they would have participated in governing.


And in the recent past, we had the savings and loan debacle, which was
about
as regulated an industry as you can get.

That's pretty funny. Deregulation of S&Ls was a major cause. Most
deregulation was under Reagan.

One consequence of deregulation was S&Ls got into investments that they
didn't understand.

There was also inadequate supervision by regulators, and in some cases
political interference. A famous one involved McCain (don't remember who
else, but also democarats).

Yet the solution is more regulators, right?

The stated problem was inadequate supervision by regulators.
If there were not enough regulators the solution is more regulators.
If the regulators were opposed to regulation the solution is different
regulators.

"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my
view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the
banks,"
Source - Spencer Bachus, the new republican chair of the house
Banking Committee.

Does that sound like a good idea?


Some major causes of the crash:
- Repeal of Glass-Steagall, which kept previously kept banks, investment
houses and insurance companies as separate entities. This came out of
the Great Depression. Apparently we forgot its lessons. Repealed 1999
largely on the efforts of Phil Gramm (signed by Clinton).
- Ban on regulating derivatives. Snuck into an appropriation bill by
Phil Gramm.
- The housing bubble in general, but specifically
- Mortgagees that would likely fail. The originators didn't care because
the mortgage was sold to investors and the originator got big money.
Countrywide was a major source. Some of these used fraudulent
documentation, such as income verification, which the borrower knew
nothing about.
- Mortgages that were a scam by mortgage originators, appraisers, straw
buyers and others.
- "Monetization" of mortgages - a derivative The mortgages that were
likely toxic were chopped up and combined with other toxic mortgages.
Pieces of multiple toxic mortgages became an investment. (There may not
be legal documentation of original mortgages to foreclose on many of
these mortgages.)
- Rating houses like Standard and Poors believed mathematical voodoo and
highly rated the "monetized" toxic mortgages. (Or they just liked the
big bucks they got from the rating).
- "Credit default swaps" - another derivative. I can buy "insurance"
that my monetized mortgage investments will not fail. Or that your
monetized mortgage investments will not fail. Or that your investments
will fail. (I can see insurance on investments that are owned, but not
on others.)
One of the investment houses (Goldman Sachs?) created an investment for
others (at the request of an investor) that had a high probably of
failing. If I remember right big money was made on CDS. (Goldman Sachs
also created derivatives for Greece to hide its debt - with the recent
financial crisis in the EU as the result.)

The ban on regulating any derivatives, engineered by Phil Gramm, was a
major benefit to Enron. Gramm's wife worked at Enron. (Gramm was the
senior economic advisor to McCain-for-president until Gramm said, after
the crash, "we have sort of become a nation of whiners".)

Greenspan was also strongly opposed to regulating derivatives. (So was
Summers.).

Derivative were probably the major component of the crash. If no one
bought the likely toxic assets (un-monetorized) they wouldn't have
continued to be made. CDSs were what brought AIG down. Since derivatives
were not regulated no one knew what the exposure was. (Maybe AIG should
have just failed.)

Greenspan used to be a big fan of "self regulating markets". Who needs
regulation. After the crash Greenspan said he had been wrong.

So, maybe you have not learned and still believe in "self regulating
markets".

I believe you can put together a bunch of new regulations, a bunch of
new regulators,
massive new agencies, and collectively they will cost us untold
trillions in dollars, reduce
long term growth, make us less competitive in a world wide economy.
And then just like
in the past, you'll have the next financial panic.

Much better to keep the old regulation (and regulators). It worked so
well a couple years ago.

This isn't just a
US problem. Many countries
in Europe are in worse shape and they have followed precisely the libs
prescription for
economic success for decades: big govt, lots of regulation, public
works programs, govt
healthcare, etc.

They stupidly invested in the derivatives created by Wall Street. Our
crash was also their crash.

And Goldman Sachs helped Greece conceal their debt - which was way
over what was allowed in the EU. Another big cause of EU problems.

If there was no linked EU, some countries would be doing well. Some
others, like Greece and Ireland, would be doing far worse than they
are (and they are in rough condition now).


A large part of what is happening today is a complete loss of personal
responsibility and values. Three
decades ago, if you declared bankruptcy, it was a personal disgrace.
IF you bought a house on flimsy
financing and lost it, it was a disgrace. If you ran a company
and it went bankrupt, it was an embarrasement and you'd be lucky to
get a high executive job
again. If you got caught getting a blow job from an intern, you
resigned. Today, it's all now
OK and whatever you can get away with, well it's just no big deal.
You just walk away and move
on and it's accepted.

Largely small time character flaws.

If you sell mortgages that are almost guaranteed to fail you get big
money.
If you package those mortgages into securitized investments you get
big money.
If you do voodoo math that 'proves' the securitized investments are
safe you get big money.
If you are in a rating house that says the securitized investments are
a good investment you get big money.
If you create and sell credit default swaps you get big money.

When what you created causes the financial system to crash you keep
the big money, almost always keep your job, and continue to make big
money.

--
bud--