Obama Waited and Came Back With Realities

[Xavier_Onassis]

The restrictions on bundling mortgages and selling them in bunches like stock were lifted, that is why this happened. Not government meddling, government incompetence and corruption, was the obvious cause. Obama seeks to reimpose regulations. That is a change, and a welcome one.

Unrestricted capitalism does not work to the benefit of human beings. Weather does not make for successful agriculture everywhere, either. That is why irrigation was invented. Before FDR we had a panic crisis or depression about every decade, because the market runs on excessive amounts of fear, greed and faith, because that is the way the human herd mentality works. This is why it must be regulated.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would say the same about Barry. He's a ruse, a stunt. A Black man with no record of ... anything. But he's black, see. So you have to vote for him or you're a racist. A stunt. The people who support him know little or nothing about him, other than some platitude about hope, or change. The media has propped up this empty suit and have failed  miserably in their charge of vetting candidates. There is no more journalism in America. The left has killed it.
============================================
The main difference between the manner in which Obama was nominated and how Palin was chosen was that Obama actually ran for the office, and got a majority of the delegates. While I am sure that your ignorance of Obama is quite impressive, we must take into account that it comes from Limbaugh and other rightwing doofuses, while I think the Democrats who voted for Obama knew quite a bit about him. He attained the nomination by the votes of the delegates.

Palin was a stunt, chosen by pone man with minimal consultation. There si a major difference between a BA in journalism and a career as a weathergirl, PTA president and small town mayor and two year governor to a postgraduate degree from Harvard and experience writing for the Review and teaching constitutional law. I would not expect you, with what seems to be a rather minimal contact with education to appreciate the difference, but it still exists.

Palin: STUNT
Obama: NOMINATION

[sirs]

By all means, please, keep making this a contest between the Democratic Presidential candidate, and the GOP Vice Presidential running mate.  And I'm sure there are other ways to diminish his status, as well, but that's good one for now

[Universe Prince]

The restrictions on bundling mortgages and selling them in bunches like stock were lifted, that is why this happened.

No, but thank you for playing.

Not government meddling, government incompetence and corruption, was the obvious cause. Obama seeks to reimpose regulations. That is a change, and a welcome one.

There was much government meddling involved, not the least of which was the attempt to control interest rates, keep the dollar weak, and essentially regulating that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide housing loans to people with lower and lower incomes (to provide affordable housing, naturally). And now the government is faced with an economic crisis of its own making, and the best that politicians, including Obama, can muster up is "let's keep doing what we've been doing, just more so." That is kinda like facing a problem caused by one's alcoholism and deciding that drinking more alcoholic beverages is the solution.

Unrestricted capitalism does not work to the benefit of human beings.

We don't have unrestricted capitalism and never have. Criticizing it is irrelevant.

Before FDR we had a panic crisis or depression about every decade, because the market runs on excessive amounts of fear, greed and faith, because that is the way the human herd mentality works. This is why it must be regulated.

And people tell me I'm idealistic. Sheesh.

You are distorting the facts. There were economic downturns, and most of them were short lived. The economy generally took an upturn by itself without need for massive government intervention. Hoover is the one who really started the ball rolling to change all that. F.D.R. was just more ambitious about it. And, I might add, that thanks to Hoover and F.D.R., an economic down turn that might have been over by 1932 was not over until 1942, or later depending on how one looks at it. Their efforts are a clear example of what government meddling causes in the economy. And here we are, about 60-70 years removed from this example, and we are chomping at the bit to ignore it and press ahead with repeating it.

The funniest thing is, all the people clamoring for government to do something insist it is all to protect the people. Somehow we always couch taking power away from people in terms of being about protecting the people. One almost gets the impression that we think of ourselves as incompetent boobs who cannot be trusted to do anything but have sex. We want government to control our property, our health, what we eat, what we wear, what we buy, what we sell, what we see on television, even with whom we are allowed to associate, but by god we're going to keep government out the bedroom, and by this we protect the "freedom" of the people.

Orwell's fault was in thinking we would need a Ministry of Truth to impose upon us certain ideas. The reality is, we seek new ways to embrace the Minitrue slogans all the time.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Xavier_Onassis]

There were economic downturns, and most of them were short lived.

They were disastrous and lasted for years, each time ruining millions of people, forcing them out of their homes and to start all over again.

Your knowledge of history is not to be taken seriously.

I know I don't.

Don't you have any smartassed reply other than "no, and thank you for playing"? That was annoying the first time and is now worn out and trite. It has progressed from smartassed to dumbassed. Try to be more original.

[BT]

Do you think bredesen would make a good president?

[BT]

And Carter begat Reagan.

And whether you agree with his policies or not he was an Agent of CHANGE with a track record.

[Universe Prince]

They were disastrous and lasted for years, each time ruining millions of people, forcing them out of their homes and to start all over again.

Some of them lasted for years. Some of them did not. Some of them were genuinely disastrous. Some were mild. Your sort of fearful restructuring of history to make them all horrible disasters that lasted for years is just the sort of nonsense that causes people to panic anytime there is any sort of downturn in the economy.

Your knowledge of history is not to be taken seriously.

Physician, heal thyself.

I know I don't.

I'm sure you don't. Over time, I have gotten the impression that pretty much any recounting of history that does not fit your desire to criticize "unrestricted capitalism" you claim not to be serious or you simply ignore.

Don't you have any smartassed reply other than "no, and thank you for playing"? That was annoying the first time and is now worn out and trite. It has progressed from smartassed to dumbassed. Try to be more original.

I use it when appropriate. That you don't like it is not something I care about.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Don't you have any smartassed reply other than "no, and thank you for playing"? That was annoying the first time and is now worn out and trite. It has progressed from smartassed to dumbassed. Try to be more original.


I use it when appropriate. That you don't like it is not something I care about.

=======================================
It never was appropriate and now it it is very boring and reveals a total lack of originality on your part.

You apparently are totally clueless as to why this happened, since you say not a word about it.
I really don't think you can blame this on FDR

[Brassmask]

Do you think bredesen would make a good president?

I don't think he would, he's kind of pushover at times.

[Universe Prince]

It never was appropriate and now it it is very boring and reveals a total lack of originality on your part.

Originality? I'm not performing tricks for your pleasure. Get over yourself.

You apparently are totally clueless as to why this happened, since you say not a word about it.
I really don't think you can blame this on FDR

Why what happened? The current crisis? I did in fact spend words about why it happened in this very thread. If you're not paying attention, that is not my fault. Also, I don't recall blaming F.D.R. in any fashion for the current crisis. Feel free to point out where I did.

[Xavier_Onassis]

YOu said nothing of import, just that the whole thing was the result of too much regulation.

As a rule, you blame FDR for everything.

You can't do any tricks, because you don't know any tricks.

[Universe Prince]

YOu said nothing of import, just that the whole thing was the result of too much regulation.

It is, and I gave examples.

As a rule, you blame FDR for everything.

No. See, you're not paying attention. I only blame F.D.R. for what he did. If you refuse to acknowledge his responsibility in extending the Depression is not my fault. That I do acknowledge it does not mean I blame F.D.R. for everything.

You can't do any tricks, because you don't know any tricks.

Not true. I can put a coin on my elbow and catch the coin in my hand.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I've got your nose.


See?  See?  It's wiggling...