Robert Reich has a little experience... "He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997." I usually agree with his ideas and I especially think the idea of trickle-down economics to be a load of crap.

Banks are not forced to make huge profits that drive up their share price and create huge dividends for their stockholders. They CHOOSE to make huge profits that drive up their share price and create huge dividends because they CAN. They didn't used to.

You speak like banks are supposed to act like a charity, or a public work like a sidewalk. Banks didn't 'used to' try to earn profits? When was that - exactly? Profits on home loans used to be based on the interest. Why did that change? Because politicians changed the laws. Loans became cheap and the poor, middle-class, and rich all started getting bigger loans (or more loans) that they couldn't have gotten under the old system. They all did it not because banks were 'forcing' them, but because they could make out like bandits while it was all clicking.

Canada didn't have the same problems our country had, because they had BANKING REGULATIONS.

Regulations that the US also had before government interfered in the marketplace. Government removed Glass-Steagall - not the banks. Prog-libs may whine about the banks acting unscrupulously, but you don't see mass arrests and prosecutions do you? Why? Because the cold hard reality is that banks did not break any laws. They simply followed the laws that government created. Don't like what they did? Blame the government. Prog-libs say government didn't 'force banks' to lend bad money. True. But you know what? Banks didn't 'force consumers' to borrow bad money either. But both banks and consumers acted stupidly for the same reason... Because government said it was fine.

And when you say the government pushed for subprime lending so everybody could buy a house, don't you mean bank lobbyists told Bush to push the idea in the first place?

The whole push for this started under Jimmy Carter, built up in the 80s & 90s, and finally took place with Bill Clinton in 1999. Did bank lobbyists push for it? Of course - mostly the bigger financial houses who were really limited by Glass-Steagall. The GOP was all OK with it too - alas. Democrats (particularly Barney Frank) were salivating over it. The rhetoric that built up to the final passage was mostly about how banks who were redlining poor minorities, and repealing G/S wouldu help everyone get homes, increase bank profits, fix your truck, and cure cancer. Both the GOP and Dems let this happen. Nowhere near enough people tried to stop it.

But let's call a tiger a tiger here... Standing up for Glass-Stegall in 1999 was a tough position to take. The proponents of the change were blasting anyone who opposed it as a racist, or a rich fat-cat that just didn't want 'the poor' to get a break. If you were against the repeal, all you could do is point at the Great Depression, and very distant macro-economic philosophies. We now have the 20/20 hindsight to see clearly that it was really the people trying to repeal G/S who were the jerks, @$$hats, and slimeballs. But in 1999 it was very different. Bush never 'speechified' it. In fact, Bush tried to get some reforms going in 2005 long before the bubble popped. But it was slapped down for the same reasons as the before. Wasn't until September/October 2007 that reality finally hit.

Well - the video gets one thing right. Repealing Glass-Steagall was a horrible mistake. Where they get it wrong is that it was not 'banks' or 'Wall Street' that was pushing for it.

Glass Stegall's repeal is a long story that begins with Jimmy Carter and ended with Bill Clinton. They leaned hard on banks because they wanted more poor folks owning houses. But the dang awful truth was that the poor folks just couldn't actually AFFORD to pay for those homes, and banks weren't in the business of giving them houses for nothing.

So Congress (with both the GOP and Democrats) began pushing for a change. It is very true that there were companies (notably AIG) who also pushed for this because they saw a way they could profit from it. But "banks" did not want this at all. They were forced into it. Once the housing bubble started they had to start in with the sub-primes just to compete but a lot of them knew it was very risky. But for a while it seemed to be working and everyone was making money hand over fist. And it has to be said also that CONSUMERS weren't exactly ethical either. Many people bought homes they knew they couldn't pay for just to make a quick buck.

That's the history and fact. Glass Steagall didn't go away because of evil banks. It went away because of governmetn social engineering. So bring it back already! Oh - yeah - that would interfere with Obama's CURRENT PRACTICE of forcing banks to give away more loans in minority communities...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/577794/201107081851/DOJ-Begins-Bank-Witch-Hunt.aspx

The real problem is government. Get the government OUT of the market. Establish a simple set of basic, fair guidelines and then tell government to get out of everyone's way. Glass Steagall would have never been repealed without a corrupt government pushing for it.

Monday, August 15. 2011

Nero in the White House
By Mychal Massie

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

The Tea party is holding elected officials accountable and its about time.

Obama has no plan, he never does. He is such a looser. He is so bad that he makes Jimmy Carter look good.

bob, it's time to check your dosage, you're slurring.>> ^bobknight33:

They thinks so little of Palin. They must think Obama is a true piece of shit of a President. I mean really She would have done an equal if not better that the current wipe that is in office now.
Heck He makes Jimmy carter looks pretty good. Now we have a new "but of the joke" to use.

They thinks so little of Palin. They must think Obama is a true piece of shit of a President. I mean really She would have done an equal if not better that the current wipe that is in office now.

Heck He makes Jimmy carter looks pretty good. Now we have a new "but of the joke" to use.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Totally disagree. MSNBC & Fox are peas in a pod, just on opposite sides of the pod. MSNBC doesn't lie & distort and it's hosts aren't insane? No offense, but only a person who had been braised for decades in the bile of liberal bias could possibly think that.


I dont live in the US, but from my perspective I have watched rightwing broadcasting in the US descend into utterly paranoid absurd nonsense the last 10 or so years, largely because of FOX. From my perspective, and the rest of the world,, FOX isnt even rightwing, its just insane, a network that has basically constructed its own reality that it operates within, in this pseudo-reality Reagan is still the king, False, Christian versions of the Founding Fathers were infallible gods who freed the slaves and Glenn Beck is considered sane.

The same kind of crazyness is found in places like Italy, where Berlusconi owns most of the media. Luckily there are always alternatives in the US, but because FOX have been so successful in setting up the right wing pseudo-reality far into crazy town, the balance point between left and right is now far off to the right. Everything becomes "socialist" in comparison, MSNBC, BBC, AlJazeera,CNN, compared to Fox, these are basically the red army propaganda channel compared to FOX

So which worldview do you think is closer to the truth: One where FOX is plain nuts, or one where the rest of the world are all brainwashed liberal-socialist-marxist-communist-nazi sympathizers?

Think about it.

Take Obama as an example: Now talk to ANY proffesional political analyst in the WORLD, and they would all say that Obama is a Center-leaning Democrat, more to the right than, say JFK or Jimmy Carter, for instance. But because FOX and others has, ever since Obamas campaign started, and perhaps even a bit before that, they have distorted, lied and insinuated systematically for close to 3 years now, and now you'd do extremely well to convince even one person at a tea-party rally that he isnt a reincarnation of Stalin. Just forget about even trying to place him on the political spectrum in america, Fox and friends have made him into a socialist maniac. A SANE analisys of Obama would perhaps land him as a right-center leaning democrat.. Now what does this tell you about how fucked up FOX really is?

Sigh. liberalism is a mental disorder; I see it on the sift every time I visit. There is no arguing with peeps who don't care about facts and let emotions rule them, instead of the other way around.

I don't know who is responsible for returning these ancient sifts to the queue, in order to join the lamestream media in trying to pin the murderous actions of a lone, mentally-ill vermin on Sarah Palin, the Tea Party or the Right. In a more perfect world you would feel shame, but bolsheviks eat, sleep and breathe lies. Twenty or even ten years ago you might have gotten away with it, but not now. Team Soros has no traction with the majority any more.


WHOA! Fuck that...Obama is Jimmy Carter...that's fucking Treason right there. Jimmy Carter not only participated by facilitated one of the worst Genocides by funding one in East Timor. You dare compare the two you sniffling little weasel?! Learn your history before you start comparing Hitler to Obama next you fucking asshole!

>> ^quantumushroom:

QM can't tell the difference between a movie and a pundit on a "news" programme. Wow.
Well, can you tell the difference between one woman's thoughtless aside and an entire network?
In addition to liberals' unhealthy, irrational obsessions with race, gender and class, add Fox to the list.
PS Obama is Jimmy Carter.


WHOA! Fuck that...Obama is Jimmy Carter...that's fucking Treason right there. Jimmy Carter not only participated by facilitated one of the worst Genocides by funding one in East Timor. You dare compare the two you sniffling little weasel?! Learn your history before you start comparing Hitler to Obama next you fucking asshole!

>> ^Reefie:

What is it with Republicans talking sense lately? Maybe Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul can encourage the rest of their party to actually collaborate with the Democrats and then we can see some real progress!


Sanders is an independent and self-described socialist. The Republicans are more likely to listen to Jimmy Carter.

The office in the background of the freaky Jimmy Carter pic is a semi-famous raycast from 2004:
http://hof.povray.org/office-13.html

Some of the notable peace prize winners from my lifetime, there's a lot more than Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. Sorry Joe but not everything on Earth is about hating Bush or America:

MARTTI AHTISAARI
KIM DAE JUNG
DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS (MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES)
JOHN HUME
CARLOS FELIPE XIMENES BELO and JOSE RAMOS-HORTA
YASSER ARAFAT
SHIMON PERES
YITZHAK RABIN
NELSON MANDELA
AUNG SAN SUU KYI
MIKHAIL SERGEYEVICH GORBACHEV
ELIE WIESEL
DESMOND MPILO TUTU
LECH WALESA
MOHAMED ANWAR AL-SADAT
MENACHEM BEGIN
BETTY WILLIAMS
MAIREAD CORRIGAN

I don't care if they give him the Nobel award. It's just an award. It doesn't mean anything.

But for Scarborough to say that it was given to Jimmy Carter and Al Gore because they hated George Bush, and to Harold Pinter because he hated America? That's just ridiculous.

Oh, and the bit about Reagan was HILARIOUS.

A Jew-hating socialist and one of America's worst presidents is attempting to defend a freedom-hating communist and one of America's future worst presidents.

This is good news. The public should associate their bad memories of Jimmy Carter I with Jimmy Carter II.