1 God no.  Not another Bush. 
I like them but enough already!

2 Oh lordy. As if this campaign wasn't complicated enough already.

3

Had a conversation with a true indy vote Saturday night.  He was saying what a joke the R candidates were and I threw out some other names, Christie, Ryan, Bush... and he said, not another Bush.  No chance.  He would vote for Obama instead.

But then alcohol was involved.

4 Right, that's going to work. 

Every day I'm being told how Perry can't be elected because he's a Texan and therefore Bush W2.0, but we're supposed to go for Jeb Bush? 

5 Dear Jeb Bush,

Eat a bag of dicks. You suck

That is all.

6 Well he really can't do it this year. Florida's filing deadline has come and gone.

Maybe he's angling for a veep slot. But if you want a Floridian, why not Rubio?

7 We've already got Perry to remind people of Bush, we don't need another one.

8 What the hell. He couldn't possibly be worse than the current front runners......could he?

9 "Bush" is a tarnished brand.  No thanks.

10 I'd rather eat dirt than vote for Jeb Bush.  Does he believe he is some kind of savior of the Republican party?

11

No.

No.

No

No more Bush, Clinton, or Kennedys for as long as I live.

My family fled the political dynasties of Europe, we need not import them here.

If I want to vote for a RINO, then I've already got plenty of options in this primary.

12 I'd rather eat dirt than vote for Jeb Bush.  This. Go away Jeb. Come back & talk to us...NEVER

13 DOA Jeb. Sorry, but will not take another chance on another mushy Bush.

14 Not another Bush.  No. Just. No.

15

He and Rove calculate that Obama wins and he's setting up for 2016.

16 No more political dynasties!

17

Nobody likes bush anymore.  It's all about shaving and waxing.

18 If Jeb Bush gets in this race I'm going to drink this non stop for the next 11 months.

http://tinyurl.com/6hba4u4

19 So who wrote it for him?

20 I'd vote Romney in a heartbeat over Jeb.

21 Maybe he's angling for a veep slot. But if you want a Floridian, why not Rubio?

Why put a Bush on the ticket at all?  Who gets excited for a Bush VP besides the 'men of quality' at RNC HQ?

22 So, apart from his name, what exactly is wrong with Jeb?

23 Didn't his brother do enough to destroy the economy and tarnish the R brand?  What issue will this latest one use to destroy any difference between R & D?

24 I like Jeb Bush.  But no.

25 All the RINO elites would wet their man panties if Jeb Bush got in the race.  That's why I wouldn't vote for him.

26 Jesus Christ!! Not just no, but hell no. And STFU while you're at it.

27 Exactly what the world is begging for: another Bush. I'm sure the SCoaMF & every other Dem would just give up immediately: Oh lawdy, what can we possibly to say against the brother of George Bush & yet another son of th' other George Bush? What can possibly think of? What, prithee, is the essential difference between begging for Jeb Bush to jump in & begging for Sarah Palin to jump in?

28 @22 Same thing that's wrong with daddy and George. Elitist compassionate conservatism. Fuck that a thousand times over. Not doing it again.

29 Karl Rove. Yeah, he needs to go fuck himself in the ass sideways. With a pineapple. The propaganda coming out of that cockholster's mouth does Pravda proud.

30

If Jeb Bush wants to help out then he can run for Senate in Florida. That's about as far as I want him to go.

31 So, apart from his name, what exactly is wrong with Jeb?

Posted by: Grey Fox at December 19, 2011 02:38 PM (sEvRn)

If not for his name, we wouldn't even be talking about him at all.  Names cut both ways.

32 22 So, apart from his name, what exactly is wrong with Jeb?

Posted by: Grey Fox at December 19, 2011 02:38 PM

You're absolutely right, but I'm afraid the name is enough to kill his chances.

33 How do we force a brokered convention?

34
O/T

Attica Cemetery, Harper County, Kansas - 120 year old tombstone

Through this inscription I wish to enter my dying protest against what is called the Democrat party.  I have watched it closely since the days of Jackson and know that all the misfortunes of our nation has come to it through this so called party therefore beware of this party of treason. 

Nathaniel Grigsby
Died April 16, 1890
Aged 78 Yrs. 6Ms. 5Ds.
2nd Lieut. Co. G.
10th Ind. Cavy.

35 Can we tell the GOP that we abandoned the legacy of the throne too during the Revolutionary War now? Bush the Zillionth is not to be. Let him go buy the Marlins and drink pina coladas and leave the rest of us alone.

36 I think the Bushes are decent people on a whole.  But Presidents?  Please, no more.  We don't need round 4 or 5 of compasionate conservative garbage shoved down our throats.

37

I'd vote Romney in a heartbeat over Jeb.

Co-sign.

38

No more Bush, Clinton, or Kennedys for as long as I live.

My family fled the political dynasties of Europe, we need not import them here.

+1,000

Political dynasties are fucking corrosive, and anathema to the underlying principles of this country. One of my rules of thumb is that if a candidate has an elected official parent, sibling, spouse, aunt or uncle, they automatically suck (cough, cough *Mitt* cough, cough).

39

>>So, apart from his name, what exactly is wrong with Jeb?

 

Amnesty, Amnesty, Amnesty.

40


"But first, The Aristocrats!"

41

So, apart from his name, what exactly is wrong with Jeb?

Immigration squish.

Compassionate conservative.

Elitist RINO fuck.

Not that any of those matter - NO!  With the heat of a thousand suns in my fury, no!  No more fucking Bushes, ever!

42 You're absolutely right What? How's about he's pro amnesty? That says it all about his elitist rnc credentials

43 After that, the article is a standard Republican call for an end to excessive and intrusive government regulation.

I wish Jeb and the rest of his family (and a lot of other Republicans) understood that the sentence above needs to end after the word "government".

If we could do the way-back time machine thing, and I could pick only one Bush to serve as President, it would be Jeb, and it's not even a close call. But, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint, he'd be the 3rd and that is just too damn many. If we're going to do dynasties in this country, let's start genetic testing and get a family with a better pool of them before we start. Otherwise, no thanks Jeb (and Karl).

44 And besides, the only way I have to give daddy Bush and George the finger for all the times they shit on conservatives is to do everything I can to deny Jeb a place at the table.

45 The Hindenburg was a trial balloon.

46 23 Didn't his brother do enough to destroy the economy and tarnish the R brand?  What issue will this latest one use to destroy any difference between R & D?   Actually, no. That's what my questioni was about at the end of the last thread: Please school me on how either Bush "tarnished the economy" or "the Republican Brand"? I head 8 years of accusations by the left but every single claim against them was sooner or later proven bogus and/or hypocritical.   PLEASE, exactly what did either Bush do that destroyed the economy?

47 DITTO IN SPADES #5

48 Hard to believe that in 2008, that was the first Presidential election that a Bush or Dole wasn't on the GOP ticket. It took 32 years, but we finally got them off the ballot, please not another Bush.

49

There certainly is a lot of negative knee-jerk reaction to Jeb.

LetÂ’s hope most people come to the realization that Jeb has a better chance at winning the nomination as a write in as Perry does being on the ballot.

50 @46 Medicare prescriptions. TARP, too big to fail, "I had to abandon capitalism to save it," etc.

51 People like Karl Rove need to go away...forever.  He'll tell you Jeb is the one because he married a Hispanic (therefore we get their vote) and he can speak Spanish, blah, blah, blah.  Yeah, well my brother can fart the alphabet.

52 That "Prometheus" movie from Ridley Scott, set in the Alien universe, may be the first film I've been genuinely excited about in a decade.  Literally.

God I hope it doesn't suck.  Please don't fail Ridley, this is your legacy we're talking about here.

Oh, and as for Jeb: nice guy, shame about the name.

53 ^{PLEASE, exactly what did either Bush do that destroyed the economy?}

^{Posted by: Mr. Obvious at December 19, 2011 02:44 PM (2uovW)}

Damaged the party so that Democrats were elected right after them.

54 No thanks.

55
It's way too late for Jeb in '12.

He's not running.

56 Between this, the Draft Hillary stupidity, and the apparent ascendency of Ron Paul, I fear for the future of American democracy.

57 yes, negative knee jerk reactions to jeb. for a good reason. sucks for him, but so what.

58

I wanted Jeb over W in 2000. Then again, I was 20 at the time and constantly intoxicated..

 

59
And he's not looking for a spot on any ticket.

60

LetÂ’s hope most people come to the realization that Jeb has a better chance at winning the nomination as a write in as Perry does being on the ballot.

Posted by: jwest


Four words.  Lay. Off. The. Hash.

61 ^{Yeah, well my brother can fart the alphabet.}

^{Posted by: mpfs, Back From Vegas and All I Got Was This Lousy Hangover at December 19, 2011 02:47 PM (iYbLN)}

Pix/video or it didn't happen.

62 Uh....  NO

63
Jeb is essentially Mitt and Newt......with the added "electability" of the Bush name.

64

If Jeb's last name was Smith, I'd be open.

But it ain't, so I can't.

65 Stay out da Bushes!

66 After a very long night at one of Houston's finest ERs, I want the damn border closed yesterday.  Jeb would install an express lane from Matamoros straight to the 610 loop.  Oh, wait.  We already have 59 - bringing every pregnant, no prenatal care, chanel bag carrying, iphone using, nails done weekly illegal possible to our anchor baby ERs and delivery rooms.  So really, what does Jeb have to offer that we don't already have?

67 When will these yo-yos in the beltway get a clue.No more Bushes.

68

Actually, no. That's what my questioni was about at the end of the last thread: Please school me on how either Bush "tarnished the economy" or "the Republican Brand"? I head 8 years of accusations by the left but every single claim against them was sooner or later proven bogus and/or hypocritical. PLEASE, exactly what did either Bush do that destroyed the economy?

His handling of the 2008 economic crisis, allowing the fear mongering by Bernake, having appointed the gaggle of fuckups that mismanaged the hell out of it, TARP.

69 Jeb is already running- as Mitt Romney

70  If Jeb Bush gets in this race I'm going to drink this non stop for the next 11 months.

http://tinyurl.com/6hba4u4

Posted by: mpfs, Back From Vegas and All I Got Was This Lousy Hangover at December 19, 2011 02:37 PM (iYbLN)

 

Aw, c'mon, mpfs.  You were going to do that anyway. 

71 I feel the same way about this as I would anyone else coming in at the last minute.

For THREE YEARS Jeb Bush has issued no comments on all of the disasters this country has been through.  He failed to defend any Republican unjustly accused (and that includes Perry, Palin, Paul Ryan, and a host of others).

Silent when Israel was trashed.  Silent when the stuiimulus bill was passed.  Silent on Obamacare.  Silent on the attacks on small business, the depletion of our oil supplies, the class warfare, the endless divisive talk.

Now that it looks like Obama might NOT get a second term,  like he thought all along (thinking he would run in 2016), he suddenly appears and we are all supposed to be thrilled.

NO.  He's a coward and concerned more with his political career than the country.

And this is coming from someone who voted for both Bushes and still thinks that W did as well as he could and was a pretty good president.

NO.

72 Morons, chill... most filing deadlines have passed.

73 The thought of another Bush lecturing me from the White House about what a yokel I am for wanting illegal immigration stopped makes me want to vomit.

74
Tell me again why we don't like Huntsman?

75 Wow.  I guess this means Newt is not pretty enough, and Willard isn't conservative enough?

Let do a remake of McMaverick!

76 Can we just skip to Perry/Jindel already? Please!?!?!

77 If Jeb Bush wants to help out then he can run for Senate in Florida.

He'd be a major upgrade over that liberal creep Nelson.

78

Posted by: mpfs, Back From Vegas and All I Got Was This Lousy Hangover at December 19, 2011 02:37 PM (iYbLN)

Ever notice that all the various brands of Vodka are the purest, finest made, God nectar on the face of the planet, yet they all still taste like Russian tater squeezins'?

79 Tell me again why we don't like Huntsman?

He's a douche that looks like an old Zoolander.

80

Jeb Bush may be a great guy.  I honestly know very little about him.  But this country is still suffering a Bush hangover.  We need fresh blood in Washington, not the same tired family tree that's bookended the last two democratic presidencies.

(Also, temporarily hijacking the thread with an OT comment to say that the link in the sidebar about the "Twidiots" who thought Lil Kim died -- presumably b/c they're too dumb to know who Kim Jong Il is -- makes me despair even further for the future of our country.)

81 I hate Bush!

82 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

83 I love Bush!

84
Huntsman was on Laura's show this morning and sounded articulate, energetic, and conservative.

Remind me again what's in his record as governor that is liberal.

85 No. Just no. No, no, no.

Don't get me wrong: I like the Bushes. I liked GHW Bush, and I think George W. Bush is one of the finest men to hold office.

But this is a democratic republic of free men. We don't need to keep electing the same family. Leave that shit for the North Koreans.

86 Tell me again why we don't like Huntsman?

Posted by: soothsayer at December 19, 2011 02:52 PM (sqkOB)

His mandarin is awful.

87 What a shame that such a simple, straightforward article as this should be seen as this bombshell "whoa, is he running for President?" event. It should be an everyday occurrence.

88 For the afternoon crowd: New post at my place.  You should go check it out.

89
Newt just challenged Kim Jong Il to a staring contest.

90

>>.Tell me again why we don't like Huntsman?

Instead of running on his fairly conservative record as governor of Utah, he decided to run to the left of the entire GOP field.

He also decided to poke the Republican base in the eye repeatedly to curry favor with the MSM.

He had a tweet equating AGW to evolution. It's purpose was to mock us and be condescending.

Also he's nothing special. He doesn't stand out at debates. He doesn't have an grand ideas. He's just there, like the podium is.

91 Remind me again what's in his record as governor that is liberal.

He worked for Obama. Nobody gets away from that without some Taint.

92 @84 His elitist, sniveling condescension toward primary voters on the issues of climate change and evolution was all I needed to hear to decide to do no further research into his background as governor. Oh, and his serving in the Obama administration.

93
alright, just checking

94

Don't be assholes who argue and lie like liberals. Dubya didn't ruin the economy. That's just Donk talking point garbage. TARP didn't ruin the economy--probably saved it. Part D didn't ruin the economy, though why seniors need more free shit defeats me.

He didn't do enough about a lot of things including the GSE's, but with the jackals howling at him at every turn, there wasn't much he could do.

I don't expect anybody to waste time defending a guy we killed ourselves defending for 8 years, but don't act like Lefties. We're better than they are.

95 Fuck Jeb. No more fucking Bushes. Ever.

96 Posted by: Miss Marple at December 19, 2011 02:51 PM (GoIUi) Nicely said. Clap clap clap

97 My turn!

98 Names cut both ways.

Indeed.

99 TARP didn't ruin the economy--probably saved it

I'll need some evidence before I accept that assertion.  All TARP did was remove (once again) the possibility of failure for the privileged class.  It didn't even really help anyone else, and those it did (nominally) help, it did so as an unfortunate side-effect.

I'll grant that W didn't "destroy" the economy, but TARP didn't help.

100 @94 I stand by my criticisms of George, and there are many more that have gone unstated at this time. You obviously don't have to be a lefty to know that George was less than stellar on government spending and expansion.

101

>>>Don't be assholes who argue and lie like liberals. Dubya didn't ruin the economy. That's just Donk talking point garbage. TARP didn't ruin the economy--probably saved it. Part D didn't ruin the economy, though why seniors need more free shit defeats me.

 

 

He put Chris Cox as head of the SEC, he pushed Medicare Part D, he gave out a 34 billion dollar unpaid stimulus(back when 34 billion was a lot of money), he gave us no child left behind, he tried to push amnesty on us,  he pussed out when the going got tough on SS reform and going after Fannie and Freddie.

He wasn't a very good President. I don't hate the man and I'm not going to resort to the normal leftist attacks. I am attacking him from the right. He wasn't a conservative.  He responded appropriately to 9/11 and cut taxes. That's about it.

102 Sounds like campaign rhetoric to me.  I can tell because he didn't say anything about how wonderful amnesty for illegals is.

103
Meh.

104 Names cut both ways.


What??

105 Yeah sure another Bush, and then maybe Chelsea and then one Obuttwipe's daughters.
Or may be we could get a Queen on sale somewhere in Europa...

Maybe we really are Alice in Wonderland and this shit is some fantasy charade.

_{yaaaayzooo crispies}

106 @101 ditto

107 >>>Remind me again what's in his record as governor that is liberal.

He was an absolute backstabber on the issue of school vouchers, and he did enroll Utah in some "green" quasi-cap & trade initiative, but other than that not much.

Really, the issue with Huntsman is all about salesmanship.  He's made every possible wrong move one could make.  And he makes Romney look like a charismatic powerhouse by comparison, which says volumes.

108

Jeb Bush may be a great guy.  I honestly know very little about him.  But this country is still suffering a Bush hangover.  We need fresh blood in Washington, not the same tired family tree that's bookended the last two democratic presidencies.

 

*cough* Chelsea Clinton *cough*

*cough* Malia and Sasha Obama *cough, wheez*

 

109
speaking of TARP and shit...

Obama is still saying he saved us from a great depression. Every time I hear him say it, I yell, "Ask him how, exactly!"

The media never interjects and asks, "What policies did you create and employ to save us from another depression, Mr Pezident?"

I really wanna know the answer to this.

110 >>>He responded appropriately to 9/11 and cut taxes. That's about it.

I'll also give him Roberts and Alito, though it's worth remembering that he very nearly fucked that up as well.  (Harriet Miers?  Dear god.) 

Still, two solid conservatives on SCOTUS (one of them replacing the squishy O'Connor in particular) is nothing to sneeze at.

111

None of these things resulted in our poor economy. It's just sloppy to say they did. I disagree with some of his policies also, but I never expected him to think just like me. And I know that none of those policies trashed the economy.

Pinning the poor economy on Bush is sloppy thinking to the point of dishonesty.

112 Hey, I might still run. Or I might not. I don't know. I might though.

113 From the sidebar, Maria Conchita Alonso wins the Tough Broad with Metaphorical Balls award presented by the Joncelli Institute for Awarding Stuff.

114 The media never interjects and asks, "What policies did you create and employ to save us from another depression, Mr Pezident?"

Of course not.  They can't risk him proving that he's an empty suit in a way they can't censor.

Like they say, "Better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it."  Well... if they ask that question (or any tough question, really) he'll open his mouth and prove it.

115 The record is clear. George Bush was a mediocre president at best. Just like his dad.

116

>>>I'll also give him Roberts and Alito, though it's worth remembering that he very nearly fucked that up as well. (Harriet Miers? Dear god.)

>>>Still, two solid conservatives on SCOTUS (one of them replacing the squishy O'Connor in particular) is nothing to sneeze at.

 

ahhh yes. I forgot about them. I would agree with that assessment.

117 Yeah, that stupid Bush wasted a bunch of time keeping America safe from any more terrorist attacks, and then the soft-headed tool-bags snuck up on him and voted in the Democratic House and Senate. Even while all the media outlets constantly covered for Bush, still people turned against him, because how could anyone believe the media. I mean the media is so against Obama but still everyone knows what a genius he is. No, the American people hold no responsibility for the election of Obama, because they were paying such close attention. Bush did it. Yeah, that's it.

118 We specifically asked for a shrubbery. Quit bringing us these dam bushes!!11!!

119

 All TARP did was remove (once again) the possibility of failure for the privileged class.

Which helped a lot to really fuck our economy. Perverse incentives do wonders, really. They're all right back at it again.

120 Mercy.  He'd be totally, 100%, without a doubt, unelectable.  What a waste of time.

121 #94 spongeworthy aos commenters for the most part never defended Bush. They just like to complain no matter what. It's what they do.

122 >>>All TARP did was remove (once again) the possibility of failure for the privileged class.

Well, the privileged class and the entire global banking and credit sectors.  Don't really give a shit about the former.  The latter is a different matter.

TARP in its execution was awful in a number of ways.  But the basic idea is something I supported then and still do now (as did Newt, and Romney, and Cain, and Ace, and most of the cob-loggers, I think...so just bottle up the reflexive "RINO!" cries for once).  We'll never know for sure, because I still haven't gotten these flux capacitors working, but the fact is that a global banking meltdown would really and truly have been the Apocalypse, and people who act as if it wouldn't have been such a big deal can only do so because they have the luxury of never having experienced it.  I think it was appropriate for Bush to act in those circumstances to forestall disaster.  It's everything that came AFTER that I object to so much.

123 I'd pick him over Ron Paul. But that's it and that ain't sayin' much.

124 @121 Or maybe they just didn't have much to work with to "defend" George Bush.

125 TARP was a reward to those who lost giant fucking bets with the taxpayers' money.  It's like socialism, but without the economic benefits.

126 Obama is still saying he saved us from a great depression. We're three years in to an arc and policies that parallel the twenty-year Great Depression. If I look into 1932, is FDR or a minion going to be claiming the same thing?

127

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 03:08 PM (hIWe1)

 

Thanks - well said.  Letting everything fall into chaos so the bankers could get their cummupence would have felt good for all of about 2 seconds.  If you think unemployment is bad now, it's nothing compared to what a systemic banking collapse would have brought. 

128 Saw this coming...

129 TARP didn't ruin the economy--probably saved it. Posted by: spongeworthy

Unbelievably risible. TARP was an exercise in fraud, corruption, and Statist triumphalism. There has never been a complete accounting of TARP and the related programs (TALF, etc.)

Want to know why? Because the Treasury has been fighting to keep the information secret.

Fucking $7.7 trillion in loan guarantees to foreign banks? Saved our economy? Are you shitting me?

130 No, God, no!

131 How is spending 7.7 trillion we don't have to give away to banks here and abroad not criminal?

132 Dynasties aren't American.
Obama is a SCOAMF.
The GOP needs a suicide hotline.

133 Bush gave us Obama! Why did you do that Bush?!?!

134

Thanks - well said. Letting everything fall into chaos so the bankers could get their cummupence would have felt good for all of about 2 seconds. If you think unemployment is bad now, it's nothing compared to what a systemic banking collapse would have brought.

Recovery.

Recovery is what it would have brought. It's called the "free market".

135 Bush made it possible for Obama to be elected, so right now I hate Bush.

136 Dynasties aren't American. Obama is a SCOAMF. The GOP needs a suicide hotline. Posted by: sifty Is it haiku day?

137 Keep out da bushes!

138 >>>TARP was a reward to those who lost giant fucking bets with the taxpayers' money.  It's like socialism, but without the economic benefits.

It was.  It was a fucking moral atrocity. But that doesn't mean it wasn't necessary.  It had to be done, and the right response would have been to address the problem of "Too Big To Fail" moving forward.  But you don't let the world fall into near-anarchy if you can avoid it, even though certain bad actors will avoid getting their full and proper comeuppance.  That's what being a leader is all about, really: making absolutely shitty, hard decisions like that.

None of which Obama has done, of course.  Dodd-Frank is an abortion as a piece of so-called "financial reform" that does nothing to address the underlying problem. 

139 Because Bush killed the only guy who could have beaten Obama in an election.

140 It's everything that came AFTER that I object to so much.

Everything that came after was inherent in TARP.  Once Government intervenes to stop a "Global Financial Meltdown," then Government must continue intervening in ever increasing ways.

The Great Depression included a "Global Financial Meltdown," and the Government never intervened in the way it did with TARP.  TARP was the logical extension of policies begun by Hoover and FDR.  Likewise, ARRA and other things Obama have done are logical extensions of TARP.

And for what?  BofA looks like it's going down anyway- Wells Fargo may not be too far behind.  Banks all across Europe are looking failure right in the face, and if we could have caused their failure, they can cause ours: that's what "interdependent" means.  Now, on top of all of that, we have more debt, and less financial security, and instead of trying to get a handle on it and take care of things, the same philosophy that brought us TARP in the first place has made matters worse.

I'll grant that TARP may have forestalled the coming apocalypse. But that would only have been a good thing if the Government had then had the intestinal fortitude necessary to start us back on a path to sustainability.  They didn't so now we're boned.

(See: not one remark that you're a RINO.)

141 JEB 2012: THE THIRD TIME'S THE CHARM!

142

No Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Harrisons, Roosevelts, Adamseseses, or anyone else who even faintly whiffs of dynasty.

This is America, not inbred Europe.

143 Is it haiku day?

Obama haiku.
Writing Christmas cards.
Selling my blood to buy stamps.

144 Letting everything fall into chaos so the bankers could get their cummupence would have felt good for all of about 2 seconds.

I recall in August people claiming that if the US had a credit downgrade the result would be total chaos.

It's a total guess what would have happened if there hadn't been a TARP.  All I know is the notion that some banks are so 'important' that they get government bailouts for their incompetence is not a positive thing, and pretty much kills the notion of a free market.

What we do know for certain is that TARP didn't prevent a recession.

145

*cough* Malia and Sasha Obama *cough, wheez*

Not until 2040 or so. Obamacare should kill most of us off by then.

Meanwhile, there's a Michelle 2016 movement.

146

W Bush was a good man and a decent president.  4.6% unemployment before the dems took over in 2007 is nothing to sneeze at.  Two solid constitutionalists comfirmed to the SCOTUS has saved out asses a few times since.  An economy that wasn't booming, but it wasn't really that bad either.  A CoC that was truly loved by the troops even though he made mistakes in executing our war on terror.  Show me the president that didn't make any mistakes in the time of war. 

For those of you who are Bush haters, please compare him to what we have now.  All of you believed what the MFM was saying about him.  You got the results you deserve.

147 <i>It was.  It was a fucking moral atrocity. But that doesn't mean it wasn't necessary.  It had to be done, and the right response would have been to address the problem of "Too Big To Fail" moving forward.  But you don't let the world fall into near-anarchy if you can avoid it, even though certain bad actors will avoid getting their full and proper comeuppance.</i>

It's not about comeuppance.  It's about risk and reward and moral hazard and letting the world correct itself.  If it werent for all the socialist fucking around that started those few fateful days in Fall 08, we'd have come roaring back.  I note a distinct lack of confidence in your opinion of peoples' ability to take care of themselves.  Adam Smith's invisible hand worked marvelously right up to October 08?  That's ridiculous.

148 How can people say TARP did anything when we don't even know where the money went or how much it cost. IMHO, TARP didn't work because all it did was create moral hazard by keeping the deadwood piled up on the forest floor, ready for a new fire threat. BTW, Great Depression 1.0 wasn't an occurrence...it didn't happen because there was a stock crash or a bad day of trading or whatever the TARP-apologists would have you believe. Great Depression 1.0 was a decade's worth of bad decision making by the governing class that stifled new wealth creation. Same way that Great Depression 2.0 is starting out. Crashes are cyclical, government mandated poverty is not.

149 It had to be done, and the right response would have been to address the problem of "Too Big To Fail" moving forward.

Unfortunately, those are two contrary things.  The same people who believe in "Too Big To Fail" in the first place are the same ones who think the correct response to our debt and current crash-course with reality is to kick the can down the road again.

The kind of mind that thinks that TARP was "necessary" is (generally speaking) not the kind of mind that then also says: "Never again."

Further: how would you "fix" TBTF?  Seriously?  Because the fact is that with Globalization and the Internet, a collapse like 2008 was nigh inevitable.  The Government probably made it worse the CRA and other policies, but it was going to come eventually.  So would you forbid Globalism?

150 Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 03:18 PM (AB6pF)

Better than Obama is setting the bar really low.

151 I'd vote for George W. over Obama in a heartbeat. Sucking less is hard to sell in a campaign though.

152

I understand the instinctive reaction against Jeb Bush. I don't want another Bush either. And having him shoved on us in a brokered convention would be pathetic. He is as much an establishment guy as you can get. And I despise the establishment.

However, those that prefer Mitt Romney are not too bright. They also probably don't have a clue about Jeb Bush and what he did in Florida. Jeb was more conservative then George aswell as more competent. Jeb fought against the Libs on afirmative action and took a ton of heat for it. What has Mitt ever fought for on the conservative side?

For those who love Marco Rubio, you do realize that Marco is Jeb's puppet don't you? How can you love one and dislike the other?

I don't want Jeb Bush to run either, but I take him over Romney in a heart beat. Doubt any Floridians would disagree with me either.

153 How is spending 7.7 trillion we don't have to give away to banks here and abroad not criminal?

Posted by: Dave at December 19, 2011 03:12 PM (Xm1aB)

Normally I'd share the horror at such outlays, but this is hyperbole.  The great recession itself caused something like 16 trillion in losses of asset value.  The loans to the banks, largely (though not entirely) repaid, did little to redress that. 

As for "not having" that money, we have it.  The US government has as many dollars at it needs at any time.  Taxes don't supply the government with revenue - they are nothing more than a reserve drain for controlling the demand for dollars.  Government "deficit" spending, regardless of its form, is only harmful to us if it causes a drop in demand for dollars via oversupply, aka inflation.  The TARP generated little to no inflation, except to the extent that it prevented deflation.  That means that in real terms the cost to the US was negligible.  Deflation is way, way worse than inflation when caused by monetary policy and not derived as a benefit of improved productivity.

 

154 For those of you who are Bush haters, please compare him to what we have now.  All of you believed what the MFM was saying about him.  You got the results you deserve.

We can think electing a dynasty is a bad idea without hating the Bush family.

155 It was a fucking moral atrocity. But that doesn't mean it wasn't necessary.  It had to be done, and the right response would have been to address the problem of "Too Big To Fail" moving forward. 
Posted by: Jeff B.

Just because we said so. We can't show you the numbers, the recipients, or the results. Trust us. We know better than you...

Arrogant argument by assertion. That's the sole, limp-wristed excuse for TARP supporters.

Fuck you, you Statist.

156 Government never intervened in the way it did with TARP

During the Great Depression?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Government intervened far far more under President Syphilistic Socialist than TARP even came close to.  That Gimp-Legged Communist Cock Sucker was probably pissed that Hitler upstaged him.

157 But you don't let the world fall into near-anarchy if you can avoid it, even though certain bad actors will avoid getting their full and proper comeuppance

This isn't about comeuppance, this is transferring the debts of poor decision makers to the hapless taxpayer.  Let's not pretend that mass wealth redistribution (particularly a regressive one such as this) is in any way beneficial.

158
No Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Harrisons, Roosevelts, Adamseseses, or anyone else who even faintly whiffs of dynasty.





Don't forget the other luminaries like Dodd, Gore, Pelosi (D'Alesandro), Begich, Capps, and some Alaskan scrunt named Meerkatski

159 We can think electing a dynasty is a bad idea without hating the Bush family. That would be awesome, but Soona is right in that Dave must believe everything he sees on NBC.

160 This thread looks like the type to skyrocket the blood pressure to Old Faithful levels.

You kids have fun.

161 @153 You know much more about these matter than I, which isn't too hard to do, so don't get too big a head. But, bailing out banks and auto companies and the like just doesn't seem right to me. We have bankruptcy courts for a reason.

162 Better than Obama is setting the bar really low.

Posted by: MetaThought at December 19, 2011 03:20 PM (RIoJm)

 

You obviously have no sense of context or you didn't read the comment. 

163 #149 Not according to Milton Friedman. The Fed allowing the run on the banks , letting them fail, was the main catalysts of the depression.

164
This isn't about comeuppance, this is transferring the debts of poor decision makers to the hapless taxpayer.  Let's not pretend that mass wealth redistribution (particularly a regressive one such as this) is in any way beneficial.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 19, 2011 03:23 PM (FkKjr)

That's right, nobody will starve if the banks go down. Just gotta manage it right, and make sure everyone's insured investments are good. We already have unemployment insurance.

165

How can people say TARP did anything when we don't even know where the money went or how much it cost.

And just to be clear--ahem--all those bad loans?  STILL BAD AND STILL ON THE BOOKS.

All TARP did was bail out Hank Paulson and Jon Corzine's drinking buddies.

If you believe banks needed the help, then you have to believe GM and Chrysler did, too.

166 >>>Fuck you, you Statist.

Gotta think there are better ways to express your disagreement with me than this.

167

All TARP did was bail out Hank Paulson and Jon Corzine's drinking buddies.

Well it would have been The End Of The World... for them.

168 It was a fucking moral atrocity. But that doesn't mean it wasn't necessary. It had to be done Wow, now that you mention it, that really opens up my options...

169

Recovery is what it would have brought. It's called the "free market".

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 03:14 PM (AuQqX)

 

A recovery that looked like what?  With what institutions ready to lend?  What, do you think that people would just make do with their personal savings when it comes to starting or growing businesses?  Pay cash for their houses?  How would large enterprises roll over their debt or obtain capital for expansions?  I don't see where poeple get this optimistic view of where all the lending was going to come from had all the "bad" banks been allowed to go down, and drag down many healthy ones with them.

The machine is not working that well and is too complex.  But it is what it is.  I'm not willing to tear it apart and rebuild it, considering the level of pain required.  Take the hit, fix what can be fixed, and move on. 

As for TBTF - I believe the solution is noxious, but clear.  It would require a limit to market capitalization.  Once a bank hits "x" billion dollars in market cap, it get the Ma Bell treatment.  Orderly break up into regional concerns.  Something along that line.

 

170 I guess Bush arguing that the banks were too big to fail kinda made Obama's argument that GM was too big to fail a little easier, huh? By the way, what''s the difference in the 2 governing paradigms or is there any?

171 >>>But, bailing out banks and auto companies and the like just doesn't seem right to me. We have bankruptcy courts for a reason.

The thing is, you need to be very careful in separating these concepts. The auto bailouts were damn near criminal, and completely unnecessary.  The most vile thing about Obama's management of that was in fact the way he completely subverted bankruptcy law by allowing the unions to jump the line ahead of GM's secured creditors and screw them into taking a far worse deal on their debts than the workers had to.  Even thinking about it now makes my blood boil.

But this is a separate issue, and unrelated to the question of whether TARP was a necessary thing that was later used (by Obama) for corrupt purposes.  About that we are in complete agreement. 

172 Yes, 163, Friedman had a very interesting article on monetary policy in three different recessions, including Great Depression 1.0, but FDR and Hoover screwed that pooch many different ways, and America was living in FDR's money pit until 1981 and now we're back in it.

173 Don't forget the other luminaries like Dodd, Gore, Pelosi (D'Alesandro), Begich, Capps, and some Alaskan scrunt named Meerkatski

There's been a Dingell in a Michigan seat since before FDR's first Inaugural.

174 >>>As for TBTF - I believe the solution is noxious, but clear.  It would require a limit to market capitalization.  Once a bank hits "x" billion dollars in market cap, it get the Ma Bell treatment.  Orderly break up into regional concerns.  Something along that line.

This is my version of the answer as well (Huntsman actually has floated a plan similar to this -- give him credit for that).   I'm sure you could bend existing antitrust legislation and precedent to fit this situation.

It isn't an ideal lassez-faire solution, but then again neither is what we've been suffering through for the last four years.

175

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 03:30 PM (hIWe1)

 

You forgot the political and racial motivation behind 'consolidation' and the dealership closures.

176

Not according to Milton Friedman. The Fed allowing the run on the banks , letting them fail, was the main catalysts of the depression.

I'd say I'm 50/50 on whether or not Sheila Bair and Jamie Dimon intentionally conspired to start a run on WaMu and Wachovia, or if they just did it by accident with incompetence.

But they ought be blaimed either way.

177 >>>A recovery that looked like what?  With what institutions ready to lend?  What, do you think that people would just make do with their personal savings when it comes to starting or growing businesses?  Pay cash for their houses?

For what it's worth, banks are slobbering to lend, people ARE having to make do on their personal savings (or their wits), and a surprising number of real estate deals now or done either with cash or on land contract.  The economy goes on no matter what.  It has to.

178 Friedman and Schwartz argued that all this was due to the Fed’s failure to carry out its assigned role as the lender of last resort. Rather than providing liquidity through loans, the Fed just watched as banks dropped like flies, seemingly oblivious to the effect this would have on the money supply. The Fed could have offset the decrease created by bank failures by engaging in bond purchases, but it did not. As Milton and Rose Friedman wrote in Free to Choose: The [Federal Reserve] System could have provided a far better solution by engaging in large-scale open market purchases of government bonds. That would have provided banks with additional cash to meet the demands of their depositors. That would have ended—or at least sharply reduced—the stream of bank failures and have prevented the public’s attempted conversion of deposits into currency from reducing the quantity of money. Unfortunately, the Fed’s actions were hesitant and small. In the main, it stood idly by and let the crisis take its course—a pattern of behavior that was to be repeated again and again during the next two years. According to Friedman and Schwartz, this was a complete abdication of the Fed’s core responsibilities—responsibilities it had taken away from the commercial bank clearinghouses that had acted to mitigate panics before 1914—and was the primary cause of the Great Depression.

179

Once a bank hits "x" billion dollars in market cap, it get the Ma Bell treatment.  Orderly break up into regional concerns.  Something along that line.

I see zero problem with that solution.  The greatest advantage is that it does not allow one band of idiots to drag everyone else over the cliff like Lehman Brothers did.  Index it to inflation and let nature takes its course.

Having said that, I'm not entirely sure that we exhausted all the options that some are so convince we did (IT HAD TO BE DONE) before deciding that we had to write blanks checks to the financial genius sector that set the house on fire and then ran up to the roof to see how the flames looked from above.

180 It isn't an ideal lassez-faire solution, but then again neither is what we've been suffering through for the last four years.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 03:33 PM (hIWe1)

Banks are pretty incestuous though, and these things spread like a contagion.

181

But this is a separate issue

Bankers are too good for bankrupcy.

182

As for TBTF - I believe the solution is noxious, but clear.  It would require a limit to market capitalization.  Once a bank hits "x" billion dollars in market cap, it get the Ma Bell treatment.  Orderly break up into regional concerns.  Something along that line.  Posted by: Reactionary

Ah, yes. The Pringles Mode of Benevolent Governance. Once you start interfering with markets, you just can't stop. 

Once the broken up banks figure a way around it <cough multinational corp cough>, we'll just tax them differently, hire more regulators that won't find any wrong doing, and declare everything wonderful until it falls apart again inducing another round of TARP, LARP, FARP, and DERPA-DARP.

Oooor, we could, realize that no individual or group is wise enough, ethical enough, or knowledgeable enough to play god with the markets. You know, not 'destroy capitalism to save it.' Yeah, we could try that for a change. 

Crazy I know.

183

The new RINO theme song, set to a tune by Lennon and Ono:

 

"All we are sayyyying, is give JEB a chance!"

 

Who else can save us from Ron Paul?  Jeb Bush will entice every one of Paul's supporters!

Serious, TARP was necessary because there's no J.P. Morgan to stop a financial crisis.  You wouldn't expect George Soros to help, would you? 

TARP was no doubt corrupted, but as a financial TECHNICAL response, it was appropriate.  The Stimulus of Obama was a naked steal.

 

 

184

A recovery that looked like what? With what institutions ready to lend? What, do you think that people would just make do with their personal savings when it comes to starting or growing businesses? Pay cash for their houses? How would large enterprises roll over their debt or obtain capital for expansions? I don't see where poeple get this optimistic view of where all the lending was going to come from had all the "bad" banks been allowed to go down, and drag down many healthy ones with them.

There would be lending out the wazzoo if the interest rates rose like they ought.

185

Banks are pretty incestuous though, and these things spread like a contagion.

Exactly--"Hey, did I tell you about the insane thing I just did with credit default swaps based on a thousand subprime interest only mortgages, Biff?  It's all the rage."

186

TARP was no doubt corrupted, but as a financial TECHNICAL response, it was appropriate.

Prove it.  With numbers...not sentiment.

187 >>>Banks are pretty incestuous though, and these things spread like a contagion.

That's why I think there's a pretty solid, respectably conservative argument to be made for a market cap limit along quasi-antitrust grounds.  It's about making capitalism actually work, making it robust and able to withstand the pressures of global interconnection, not about punishing a concern that's "gotten too big" merely because it's been successful.  The banks ain't playing with paper money here, after all.

188

For what it's worth, banks are slobbering to lend, people ARE having to make do on their personal savings (or their wits), and a surprising number of real estate deals now or done either with cash or on land contract. The economy goes on no matter what. It has to.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at December 19, 2011 03:34 PM (zlvkY)

 

You're right that things are still going on - but even with the level of lending we still have, we continue to endure double digit unemployment.  I contend that had more banks, big banks, gone down in flames, the banking system would have gone into near paralysis, and access to capital would be way more difficult to get.  Regarding the banks "slobbering to lend" that does not appear to be a widespread phenomenon.  Perhaps my source articles are biased, but my reading suggests that banks are finding it difficult to find enterprises they can feel are safe enough to loan money to.  With unemployment this high it seems only a matter of time before consumption starts to fall off more, especially when we finally say "no mas" on the employment benefit extensions.  Further drop in aggregate demand will send us further down the thrift spiral.  Lending out money to the private sector right now is a risky proposition, and the banks can make risk-free cash loaning to the Fed. 

189

Posted by: Reactionary at December 19, 2011 03:29 PM (xUM1Q)

 

So you're not a free market advocate.  To be honest, I wish we would have let the free market take care of the so-called failing system.  It would have been painful, but a hell of a lot less painful than what has transpired since.

$15 trillion in debt.  Now, tell me how "your way" is better.

 

190 I don't care if Jeb Bush is the second coming of Abraham Jefferson Washington, he's not getting my vote. And he's not. He's even more squishy than his brother. Enough Bushes.

191

about making capitalism actually work, making it robust and able to withstand the pressures of global interconnection

Leave it the hell alone.

It does that by default.

192

Prove it.  With numbers...not sentiment.

Posted by: Circa

Oh, but if they insist enough and click their heels it will become true.

193

There would be lending out the wazzoo if the interest rates rose like they ought.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 03:38 PM (AuQqX)

 

Perhaps.  But if interest rates rose that much the damage to aggregate demand would, itself, do great harm to the economy.  The demand for credit would drop, because the potential profit margin would be too low. 

In any case, what do you think the interest rates should be?  Why should they be high?  Inflation isn't high. 

A strong economy runs on cheap inputs.  Cheap fuel, cheap food, cheap credit, cheap "conformance" costs (regulation).  Those are "good" things. 

194 That's why I think there's a pretty solid, respectably conservative argument to be made for a market cap limit along quasi-antitrust grounds.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 03:40 PM (hIWe1)

It's not just about market caps. Its that many many banks invest in similar things, for eg: CDS, and if those turn out to be bad, a lot of banks fail. So... how would you protect against that black swan?

195 <i>the banks can make risk-free cash loaning to the Fed.</i>

Yell that out your bedroom window.  Then ponder the problems with government intervention.

196

Its that many many banks invest in similar things, for eg: CDS, and if those turn out to be bad, a lot of banks fail.

A great many of the mid and small sized banks, in fact, did not engage in the CDS stupidity.

197

A great many of the mid and small sized banks, in fact, did not engage in the CDS stupidity.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 19, 2011 03:52 PM (B+qrE)

Yes, but enough did to threaten the economy. Just goes to show that you can't protect against everything, and probably bad to try.

198 Face it: we're a nation that spent 500 million dollars last year to give penis pumps to middle aged men who couldn't get it up.

It's over.

199

Yes, but enough did to threaten the economy.

No, no, and no.  Without the big boys dragging everyone else over the cliff, that would not have happened.

The fundamental question for everyone who believes in total laissez-faire is:  "What happens if those in charge turn out to be simultaneously venal AND incompetent?"

200

Face it: we're a nation that spent 500 million dollars last year to give penis pumps to middle aged men who couldn't get it up.

THAT, and yet, Ron Paul is fucking crazy and will wreck the country. Whatev.

Yes he is. Yes he is. But several of our candidates are fucking crazy and will wreck the country. No point singling him out.

201

The fundamental question for everyone who believes in total laissez-faire is: "What happens if those in charge turn out to be simultaneously venal AND incompetent?"

They go to jail and/or fail. If it were laissez-faire.

202

@101: "He responded appropriately to 9/11 and cut taxes. That's about it."

Huzzah for half-assed nation-building projects!  He responded to 9/11, but he mostly made a hash of it.  The takedowns of the Taliban and Baath regimes were decently done, but the aftermath was a fiasco at best.

 

203 As a Floridian, while Jeb beat the heck out of the Orange Crist that came after him, I don't thing we are ready for another Bush (as much as I liked W's FIRST term). No.

204

So you're not a free market advocate. To be honest, I wish we would have let the free market take care of the so-called failing system. It would have been painful, but a hell of a lot less painful than what has transpired since.

$15 trillion in debt. Now, tell me how "your way" is better.

Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 03:41 PM (AB6pF)

 

I've never seen a free market.  Have you?  To embrace a true free market system would take a systemic overhaul so drastic that it could not be accomplished without bloody revolution.  I'm advocating change that "could" be achieved within a system that we are stuck with, like it or not.  Nobody in power is going to listen to free market appeals, now or ever.  Maybe if we get space colonization we can go forth and build a conservative Utopia, but until that day we're stuck with what we've inherited.

$15 trillion in debt will mean something to me when we have inflation over the average 6% rate we had during the 80's.  Right now, even factoring in motor fuel, we're still running at about 2% a year.  The fact is that the only reason to even get upset about that kind of scary number is because in many ways we choose to act as if we operated a hard money currency.  We don't.  If we had any sense the deficit figures would be nothing more than a reference number, to help us understand what's going on when inflation moves up or down.  And, in my view, the government certainly shouldn't be in the business of providing people with a savings product.  Borrowing money is silly when you are the issuer of currency, except to the extent that you use borrowing to sterilize overspending - thus kicking the can down the road.

I object to government overspending that results in the state sucking up too much of the resources available in the economy (creating large inflation, or tax increases to fight inflation).  I also object to government spending that is aimed at taking away my freedoms.  I am indifferent to, and sometimes supportive of, fiscal accomodations to smooth out what would otherwise be radical economic dislocations but are otherwise of minimal effect (TARP). 

 

 

205

Perhaps. But if interest rates rose that much the damage to aggregate demand would, itself, do great harm to the economy. The demand for credit would drop, because the potential profit margin would be too low.

Then the interest rates would drop again.

It's self-correcting.

206

To embrace a true free market system would take a systemic overhaul so drastic that it could not be accomplished without bloody revolution.

Bloody Revolution/Palin 2012!

207 A recovery that looked like what?  With what institutions ready to lend?  What, do you think that people would just make do with their personal savings when it comes to starting or growing businesses?

I'm pretty sure institutions to lend would spring up as quickly as people realized lending money is profitable. 

This idea that only Bank of America or JP Morgan can loan money is false.

208 So... how would you protect against that black swan?

Posted by: MetaThought at December 19, 2011 03:48 PM (RIoJm)

 

I suggest that to do so is impossible.  The Black Swan event is defined as a true paradigm breaker - something nobody saw coming.  No way to prepare for that.  But decentralization is usually helpful when it comes to containing "bad things" in general.  The Russians liked to build huge, sprawling factories to make all of "x" product for a vast region.  In theory you should gain some efficiency from that.  The US has lots of smaller factories all over, built according to what was needed where.  Guess who had an easier job of killing the industrial production of his rival should war come...

I think it's reasonable to posit that 5 smaller banks have better odds of producing a couple survivors in the case of a bad event.  1 massive bank puts all the eggs in 1 basket.

 

209 I'm pretty sure institutions to lend would spring up as quickly as people realized lending money is profitable.

This idea that only Bank of America or JP Morgan can loan money is false.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 19, 2011 04:04 PM (FkKjr)

 

OK - but how fast do you think those new start up banks could grow?  We're talking about building up new organizations, or radically growing smaller survivors.  This does not happen over night.

The profit motive is indeed powerful, but it's not magic.

210

So we let the banks fail, their depositors run to the window to withdraw what's left of their cash (very little). We make up the difference (up to the insurance limits)with FDIC and now we have: No banks, huge deficits in the FDIC that we have to be covered by taxpayers and massive losses to depositors.

Instead, we have no losses to depositors, a couple of bank consolidations and minor hits to the FDIC. A small profit to taxpayers for lending to the banks.

Yeah, this TARP, what were they thinking, right?

 

211

Then the interest rates would drop again.

It's self-correcting.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 04:02 PM (AuQqX)

 

OK.  But what did we just gain there, other than further volatility?  Regular rate fluctuations make business planning a much dicier affair. A policy of holding down rates during a recession seems fairly sound to me.  The key is creating an environment that encourages (or at least fails to discourage) business creation and profitability.  That, sadly, is the biggest missing ingredient right now. 

212 Bush may have been a good man who responded well after 9/11.  He also brought us increased spending and unfunded liabilities.  He made it impossible to distinguish between D and R in terms of fiscal responsibility, helping to elect the much worse Obama.  He was pretty much silent and uninvolved during the economic crisis.  Does anyone think Paulson bringing bankers into a room and telling them to sign this or else was a legitimate exercise of executive power?  Does anyone think TARP was designed to help anyone but bankers recover from their own poor decision making.  Sorry but Bush cleared the brush for Obama's later marauding. 

213

OK - but how fast do you think those new start up banks could grow? We're talking about building up new organizations, or radically growing smaller survivors. This does not happen over night.

You're right. We'd be loosing out on all this gangbusters economic development that we've had since our experts 'fixed' it.

But to be specific - no not quite. It would not have to be new organizations. There is a whole small-lending industry in this country. Places like pay-day loans are there and can offer credit.

I've been seeing signs on some of the empty retail spaces now - the sellers are offering to finance it themselves and take payments.

The end of the Too Big To Fail banks is not the end of the world. Just the end of the Too Big banking world.

214

I've been seeing signs on some of the empty retail spaces now - the sellers are offering to finance it themselves and take payments.

The end of the Too Big To Fail banks is not the end of the world. Just the end of the Too Big banking world.

Bingo.  I was just offered 11000 sq ft of manufacturing space for 130 K.  No money down.  Seller financing.  Good space, too.

215

The idea of financing the sale of your house is something you probably haven't seen much of.

But there's no reason people shouldn't, except that the convienence and regularity (and somewhat false security) of the JP Morgans and WaMus.

When's the last time you asked your church for a loan? Why would you? Who does that anymore? In a world without the Too Big banks, these sort of practices would come back with force. And it might be for the best.

216

Bingo. I was just offered 11000 sq ft of manufacturing space for 130 K. No money down. Seller financing. Good space, too.

Thank god they 'fixed' it and the banks got back to lending and there isn't still a credit crunch TARP had no great effect on...

Because if we didn't have banks, people couldn't get loans, and would have to do things like save or self-finance.

Hey... wait a minute!

217 I think my chocolate ration just got increased from 15g to 8g.

218 Jeb Bush Pens a Campaign-Theme-Like Economic Manifesto

No more Bushes, please. The first two weren't exactly stunning successes.

219 OK - but how fast do you think those new start up banks could grow?  We're talking about building up new organizations, or radically growing smaller survivors.  This does not happen over night.

So TARP was to forego several months of economic slowness because it would be slightly harder (though not impossible) to secure a loan?  I will point out that TARP didn't mean loans went out uninterrupted.  Most of the banks stopped loaning anyways, sitting on money given them by the federal government like dragons.

TARP's real problem is that it was a panicked attempt to avert a recession at any cost, although that was impossible.  As a result, a lot of wealthy people managed to pawn off their bad doings onto taxpayers and escape unscathed.

220

The record is clear.

George Bush was a mediocre president at best.

Just like his dad.

Dave that's what I keep getting handed to the question. NO facts, no specifics, just an opinion that he was "at best mediocre".

His father was the Hero of the Gulf War that got the longest standing ovation in SOTU Address history.

And while nobody claims he was great, G.W. rallied a nation after 9/11, and took them into the War on Terror. He presided over a democratic congress and called for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform 26 times in a congress full of deaf ears and leftist idealogues......and all anyone here can honestly hold against him is TARP????....but he's still only mediocre???

 

What's wrong with this picture?

221 and all anyone here can honestly hold against him is TARP????

What the hell gave you that idea?

Medicare Part D.

NCLB.

McCain-Feingold.

Harriet Myers.

That took me 3 seconds shall I continue?

222 <i>and all anyone here can honestly hold against him is TARP????.</i>

Medicare D
Nation building in Iraq and that misfuck L Paul Bremer
Harriet Miers
"Mission Accomplished"
All the fall 2008 economic bullshit

******FAILING TO ADVANCE LIBERTY.  FAILING DRAMATICALLY***

"Liberty".  There's a word we haven't heard in political discourse in a while.  Why?

223

@193: "Inflation isn't high."

Yeah, prices are totally stable - a 20-can case of Coke costs the same as a 24-can case a year ago. 

224 The thread contains numerous examples of the failings of both Bushes.  Senior's wartime failings (helped along by that shining conservative, Powell) laid the seeds for the Iraq War (where we had fewer allies and were moving from a position of much less strength).  Bush II brought us the compassionate conservatism (which doesn't have much conservatism) that amounted to higher spending and less fiscal responsibility.  Many specific are given in addition to TARP (the big bankers welfare fund).  After Bush, what R had any credibility on the issue of fiscal responsibility. 

225 And you can buy a house for half what it was 10 years ago.

226

Hehe.

Even just a tiny 3%, it is not much. It ads up.

I don't think "3%" ever makes the impact. Look 10 years back. That has an impact.

Everyone must be a speculator, or else a consumerist debtor. If you try to save your cash the government will make sure it's worthless when you need it. That is how they are literally robbing us.

227 Inflation isn't high as long as you factor out the things that people actually need to buy to survive, like food.  Of course, that's what has been done with the inflation calculations.  As long as you have not had to shop for food, you can say inflation is non-existent.  After all, house prices have gone down (not that people are buying them in any event). 

228 NOOOO!   No more Bushes, Clintons or Kennedys.  No political dynasties.

229 I have been quite impressive with your posts, keep up the great work.

230 Yep! I was agreed, I'll keep in touch to your blog.

231 YouÂ’re a very skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, IÂ’ve shared your site in my social networks!

232 thanks for sharing

233 I love what you guys are frequently up too. Such clever work and reporting! Keep up the terrific works guys IÂ’ve added you guys to my blogroll.

234 I have been quite impressive with your posts, keep up the great work.

235 The only difference between Jeb & Willard is Jeb has Mexican in the bedroom and Willard has one cutting his grass.

236 She's right. I'm even thinking about getting into the presidential race myself.

237 Uh, yeah right, that's why the last Tea Party Patriot's poll has Perry in the lead-FOR LAST FUCKING PLACE AT 2%. The main beneficiary of Newt's implosion is Bachmann who in the same poll drew 28% to Newt's 31%. Romney was third at 20, with Santorum fourth at 16. Paul, at 3rd with 3%. If that's a reflection of overall voter sentiment, it looks to me like conservative voters are rejecting Perry en mass. And even if its not a reflection of overall voter sentiment, oh well, the Tea Party Patriots are probably a hell of a lot more likely to show up at the polls, and incidentally according to the TP Patriots, Bachmann actually leads the pack in voter enthusiasm. Sorry Ace, looks like I'd better not take any horse racing advice from you, you seem to have this habit of picking the losers.

238

air filter,oil filter,water filter,all filter

www.genset-china.com

239 s