Has anyone heard the Republicons ever explain how THEY think the economy got to this place? If you did, let me know. I am curious.

Could this strategy have been nothing more than a ploy by Obama to show Americans that the Republicons don't really care about us and are only concerned about the 2012 election.

If you did, let me know. I am curious.

Well, a lot of people have argued that the credit crunch happened in large part because the government was leaning on lenders to offer home loans to low-income people that simply couldn't pay their mortgages, banks went on a high-interest lending spree, and a lot of people who're financially ignorant took loans that were beyond their means.

In short: we got here because people at all levels, from the government to the lenders to the lendees, blew it. Everyone is at fault.

Unfortunately, this explanation doesn't fit neatly into the "good guys" vs. "bad guys" narrative that both parties are flogging. It's so much easier for Democrats to cast "greedy Republicans" and "Wall St. fat cats" as the bad guys and everyone else as hapless victims and for Republicans to point fingers at Barney Frank, et. al. Both parties are being pretty disingenuous in their assigning of blame.

One thing to keep in mind when discussing the economy, though, is that claims that the economy was "laissez-faire" or "unregulated" over the last eight years are basically counterfactual. Again, that's a data point that gets lost in the "victims" vs. "oppressors" rhetoric, but it's true.

Obama gave Pelosi a free hand to craft the House bill. She stripped out ALL of the provisions that had either Republican or bipartisan support. Republicans tried repeatedly to craft something they could vote for and were given the back of Pelosi's hand.

And now it's the Republicans' fault they didn't vote for the current monstrosity?

"Obama gave Pelosi a free hand to craft the House bill. She stripped out ALL of the provisions that had either Republican or bipartisan support. Republicans tried repeatedly to craft something they could vote for and were given the back of Pelosi's hand.

And now it's the Republicans' fault they didn't vote for the current monstrosity?"

And do, pray tell, explain why it is that Pelosi or any other Democrat for that matter should lift a single finger to meet Republican demands? As many knew all along, it is nigh impossible to be post-partisan, non-partisan, what have you, when only one of two sides cooperates. The Republicans should have NO say over this jobs bill. They deserve no say because they have spent a quarter-century working to dismantle the American safety net and the American middle class. They are disloyal to all but their own party and do not merit inclusion in anything at this point. Given that Republicans are openly and proudly aiming to derail any spending bill before it gets to Obama's desk, I'd say they deserve only to be the subject of much ridicule and scorn. Put simply, their views, if you can call them that, don't matter. What they want doesn't matter because what they want is utter disaster for the country so they can blame Obama and the Democratic Party for their own failings.

I'd go so far as to say the Republican Party as currently constituted should be proscribed completely and added to the federal government's list of terrorist groups.

Unsurprisingly, Carla, the issue is not as neatly cut-and-dried as you make it out to be.

You're correct, of course, to note that Fannie and Freddie did not directly lend money. They did, however, buy mortgages from lenders ("securitization"), and came under a great deal of pressure to ease their requirements as to which loans they'd pick up, making it easier for high-risk loans to be offered by banks who might otherwise have been unwilling to do so.

It's also important to note that it wasn't just the Clinton Administration who was at fault: the Bush Administration followed in Clinton's footsteps in many important ways. The problem wasn't a "Democrat" problem or a "Republican" problem, it was a "law of unintended consequences" problem, wherein successive Administrations, Fannie and Freddie, lenders, and irresponsible lendees, as I said above, all blew it.

I realize that you have a partisan stake in taking up the "end of unregulated capitalism" narrative (and a worrisome habit of dismissing as "wrong" or "worthless" any arguments you don't personally agree with), but I'm afraid that in this case, it was a systemic failure that can't be pinned on any one actor.

If Obama's right about one thing, it's that our "charge now, pay later" lifestyle isn't sustainable in the long term. Sadly, those lessons are as relevant to government spending policies as they are to the rest of us plebs.

OK. Great. Before we move on, can we catch up a bit? For 2 months now, we've heard the argument that Gates was a choice that we should trust Obama on and give it time.

As soon as Obama said he wanted plans made immediately for shutting down Guantanamo and relocating those that the gov actually wants to imprison on US soil, Gates moved to fast track certain prosecutions, like one of the planners behind the USS Cole attack. There are good arguments that having been tried in courts martial would be of no consequence if Obama changes the entire process. I don't believe double jeopardy would apply in those cases. But, is it a court martial? The Bush admin was adamant that it would be some kind of kangaroo court that they would make up. Many misunderstood the proposal, thinking military justice is good justice, that they never were going to be tried that way. So, what is he moving ahead with exactly?

In the meantime, Justice has been so put out that they are thinking of withdrawing the charges, until a later time. Right now, they're asking for military execution. How does it make any sense that it is for the sake of those aggrieved sailors and their families that Gates is taking action that forces Justice to withdraw their prosecution? Does he want to carry out the execution before Gitmo is shut down? Whatever he's doing, I think the first one we gave Obama a bye on was just as bad, if not worse, than everyone said he would be. I know; more time, more trust. Like Obama said, the time is now to change direction.

Update: checking my facts, I see that, today, Justice was forced to drop all charges rather than let Gates determine policy. If I were Obama, I would have a rather frank talk at the next cabinet meeting, and if Messier Gates were not extremely apologetic and concrete about what he was thinking, I would not hesitate to put him before a court martial. Great that yesterday Obama had a great discussion on a new direction. Too bad that instead of working toward that end, today, he had to meet with the 9/11 and Cole victims to reassure them that the rhetoric about the Justice department playing politics with Guantanamo was baseless.

At least it validates what every post has been saying about the Republicans still saying the same stupid things, to the point of parody. I mean what kind of thicky does it take to simply say that it is unacceptable for Justice to play politics with the War on Terror, statement unadjusted for history, flat out? Now that the Brits have made a 180 in language and Obama doesn't favor the phrase, doesn't just saying "War on Terror" mean you don't get it? At least now we know that Gates' selection wasn't a cunning plan.

Sorry, but apologizing to the victims' family instead of sticking the toe of his shoe up Gates' arse, is the opposite of whup-ass. So, are lefties using the right's violent rhetoric now? Would we have said that about Carter? Does that make Obama better? Are we only going to get posts and meaningful debate on subjects when the jury is still out, unless the outcome is one the Party wants emphasized?

Vincent sez: Well, a lot of people have argued that the credit crunch happened in large part because the government was leaning on lenders to offer home loans to low-income people that simply couldn't pay their mortgages, banks went on a high-interest lending spree, and a lot of people who're financially ignorant took loans that were beyond their means.

Yo Vincent, you conveniently forgot the other part of this election-campaign GOP talking point, namely, that it was low-income people OF COLOR who cratered the world economy.

Not speculators.

Not the folks who cooked up bizarrely complex financial "derivatives" that enriched themselves while not actual producing anything. (Weird, isn't it? Remember the days when the point of an economy was to actual produce goods and services?)

Not a nearly complete absence of oversight and regulation.

Not the maintenance of imperial armed forces.

Not wars of choice predicated on lies and deception.

Nope, we were bankrupted by melatonin-enhanced poor people.

You must have missed the last page of the fax coming in on your direct line to the RNC, Vincent.

By the way, it would sure be nice if all the folks who were slamming Jeff Merkley last winter and spring would have a look at what Senator Merkley is saying about the president's proposals. Excerpt:

"Funding the protection of our forests isn't the only thing critics are calling wasteful spending. They are attacking funding for Amtrak, which is underfunded, has recently increased ridership, and is a major economic engine of the East Coast in particular. They are attacking funding for public computer centers at community colleges, programs which create jobs now and provide workers with the skills they need to compete in a technology-driven economy. They are even attacking funding for flood reduction projects off of the Mississippi River - just three and a half years after Hurricane Katrina and inadequate levees led to devastation in New Orleans."

"Whether motivated by a knee-jerk opposition to anything the government does or a desire to play politics and try to give the new Obama Administration a black eye, the opponents of this bill are opposing job creation and repeating the mistakes that led to the Great Depression. Economists across the political spectrum recognize that government spending is vital to create economic activity in a recession, and many even say the price tag is too low. Whether it's logging to reduce wildfire hazards, teaching children, laying new light rail tracks, or preventing floods along the Mississippi, people will be paid to do these jobs - that's not wasteful spending, that's the whole point."

If you still think Merkley is a cipher, a pushover, you're in denial.

Damn, I meant to tell Vincent we were bankrupted by MELANIN-enhanced poor people :-O

Carla,

Your take on the lending practices is absurd. But never mind.

mp97303, "Has anyone heard the Republicons ever explain how THEY think the economy got to this place?"

Yes many have but since you have not heard any of them I wonder where you have been?

Those lax lending practices, originally intended to help low income earners become homeowners, unfolded onto the rest of the home buying market allowing people of all income levels to buy or refi more than they could afford.

It got way out of hand at all levels. Once the market faltered it all came tumbling down.

With the bundling and resale of mortages the potential for a bigger collapse grew, and we know the rest.

But the bigger problem that created the environment where oversight is impossible is the size of government becoming so big it can't possibly handle the most important tasks.

Look around and see the massive bureaucracies fail at every opportunity.

I know you all like to blame Bush for everything be there is no CEO for our massive government.

Not Bush, Gore or Obama can run the bureaucracies. The mission creep has led to dysfunction across the board.

The bigger the problem the more likely government will make it worse. We're witnessing it big time right now.

Prescription drug coverage without means testing? OMG what were they thinking?

Even Katrina was a lesson in government dysfunction at all levels. It didn't matter who was president.

We essentially have the same size of leadership oversight that we had 100 years ago. Yet the government they are charged with making work has multiplied many times over to a point where our elected officials haven't the slightest idea what is going on.

ANYONE who has interacted with legislators or congress knows they are overwhelmed and out of touch on many issues, programs and government agencies.
There is no chain of command, no authentic oversight and no accountability. Just a big friggin political mess with the massive government running amok. Great. It should be no surprise that we're facing a collapse?

With this current calamity and stimulus response not a single member of congress has any idea where most of that money will ultimately end up or how much will be stolen or wasted. And our politicians, of any sort, will never be able to reign in and manage well this massive thing we call government. You think liberal ideals can do the job? Oh please. Give me a break. Where's the model for that, on any level? The City of Portland? San Fransisco? California? New York? Chicago?

All Obama's speech did yesterday is give the middle finger to Republicans and those who didn't vote for him. They aren't his "constituents".

Big deal. A partisan speech, wow how refreshing.

TA, I agree with you that Obama opening the can of "whup-a" was quite refreshing. Regarding the bank bailout already passed, the new issue of the Economist magazine speculates that Messrs. Geithner and Summers will be presenting a proposal to Congress next week basically (1. recommending that the American taxpayer eat the rest of the toxic assets that they are already 33% on the hook for now, and (2. that these same banks will essentially be able to scrap the mark-to-market asset pricing system now and historically in place in favor of (a. placing any arbitrary value on their assets that they wish and (b. doing it whenever they feel like it, and not doing it whenever they feel like that. In other words, "lemon socialism" at its finest. So, I hope Obama will save a little "whup-a" for two of the people who represent him (and, unfortunately, Goldman Sachs)in the national Treasury Department....

In the end, it came down to those Yankees, the patriots who began this great social experiment of a country. Contrary to popular belief, the South is not the home of patriotism, it is the northeast, with all their organized laborers and vaunted schools of higher education. These were the people who brought it home. In the election, it was a clean sweep for the Democratic Party in new England and the Mid-Atlantic states. They were not just Blue for Obama, every Republican running there lost, incumbents and wannabees. So it is no suprise that when push came to shove, the Senators from Maine and Pennsylvania knew that they could kiss their reelection good-bye if they placed their loyalties in their party and not the people that vote for them.

Oh yeah buddy, showed those Republicans a thing or two, yessiree. 42% tax cuts, remind me who won in Nov. Try reminding me why it mattered to vote. Really swell, I get to have Republicanism and the thrill of arguing a Constitutionally guaranteed right with my party? OK, now remind me why I put any effort whatever into this shit.

t.a. barnhart:

and not one person has a thought on Obama starting to let it rip on the Rs? he gave them their rope, and now he's about to use it.

Bob T:

What's there to say, except that it's interesting to see so many former believers in "Question Authority" stickers, and in the view that dissent is the best form of patriotism, insisting that everyone vote for this massive pork barrel bill without reading it or having much of a debate. That sounds like just a much larger version as the same old game. Wow, what change.

t.a. barnhart:

me, i'm excited to see him go all TR on the bastards.

Bob T:

Whoop-dee-doo. This love affair with Teddy R is more a love affair with the mythic TR than the real one. He was far too militaristic for my tastes, to name one thing. And as for his campaigns for regulations on big busines, even that is far different from what you guys think it was. But myths serve a purpose for some people, so you just go right ahead.

Bob Tiernan Mult Co.

There are indeed multiple culprits in the financial crisis, but to deny that government policy policy played a critical role in the creation of toxic debt is mistaken.

A corrupt ethic of entitlement exists right through this society; it affects decisions by business people and by consumers. It turns responsible self-interest into greed, sharp practice and irresponsible decision-making.

Greed and wishful thinking resulted catastrophic decisions by financial services experts who should have known better, or did and acted anyway. But greed was also manifested in the business people who got on the GSE gravy train and milked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through deceptive accounting practices and outright plunder, all in the name of helping the little guy. But even if the corrupt officers and allies of Fan and Fred had been more honest, government interference in the market would still have produced dangerously distorting effects.

An inconvenient truth for those who keep squawking about deregulation is that the Republican president called for greater regulation of the GSEs, dating back to the begining of his administration, warning of systemic risk. He was resisted tooth and nail by Democratic supporters of Fan and Fred, and of government's role in easing lending standards.

The Republican party is displaying what a cynical, morally degraded entity it is. This is the party that was going to use the "nuclear option" to get rid of the filibuster. Now they are going to use it on every policy initiative. They take their marching orders from a decayed degenerate drug addict, Rush Limbaugh, and according to one of their Congressional leaders, Pete Sessions, they intend to use a "Taliban-like" insurgency to undue the election results. They are engaged in a cynical game of claiming bipartisanship while undermining the American economy and legislative process in the words of their dear leader, Rush Limbaugh, "Hoping Obama will fail." Now that they have destroyed any illusion that they are bipartisan or put "country first" it's time for Obama and the Dems to make every day a kick ass day, reminding Americans how the Bush regime and the Republican party destroyed America.

The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980)--allowed banks to merge. The Garn-St. Germain Depository Insurance Act (1982)--allowed savings and loans to deregulate. The Gramm Leach Bliley Act (1999)--allowed banks to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services that they previously were unable to offer because of the Glass/Steagall Act, passed in 1933 at the height of the Great Depression. The trend in "government involvement" cited above has been decidedly negative. If someone wishes to chime in that Bill Clinton was at least partially responsible for Gramm/Leach/Bliley, they regrettably are correct, since Clinton signed the bill. But I, at least, am under no illusion that excessive government interference in the "marketplace" played a "critical" role in "the creation of toxic debt".

Over the last week, we've been treated to hearings involving Securities and Exchange investigators who cite executive privilege in refusing to answer detailed questions about why, for example, investors like Bernard Madoff were allowed to fleece the public with their investment scams over a series of years, whistleblowers who studied Madoff's investments and promises after five minutes were able to detect fraudulent activity. Why didn't the "marketplace" weed out people like Madoff? Why is it always the people who have need of FNMA and FRDMAC services that have to be "responsible"?
Little to no public investigation was ever initiated. So yes, I am highly skeptical of any claim that the former "Republican President" ever tried to regulate anything.

What always fascinates me the most, however, is how, when govt. regulation fails, or is not strong enough or powerful enough to do the job it's supposed to, the first,next and last solution of the people who've run our country over the last eight years has been to eliminate the regulation entirely, or to legislate for its elimination. If it were a national defense issue or a weapons procurement, we would keep throwing good money after bad in an effort to achieve a level of protection that would never be attainable.

Keeping in line with the topic at hand, there's a lot more "whup-a**" to be handed out. I fear, however, that the "corrupt ethic of entitlement" does, in fact, exist, and will likely preclude the necessary adjustments that must be made.

I think that the partisan fingerpointing on both sides of the aisle should cease immediately. Many (if not all) of the problems facing us today built up over the past two decades. Neither party had the political cajones to either stop the issues from getting bigger, or work with their other side to make it better.

We are here NOW. Time to work together to get out of it. I think that the republicans are doing what a minority party should be doing - they are pointing out problems with a gargantuan pork laden bill and they are offering some alternatives. Many here at BO exoriated democrates in DC for failing to do just that during the Bush administration.

Don't fart in the elevator and then tell me its perfume. Trying to pass over pork and special interests as only 1%-2% of the total bill still amounts about $18BILLION dollars. thats real money folks. The rest of it should be means tested to see if it meets the criterion - Does the expenditure put people to work and DIRECTLY impact the economy in a positive way. It it doesn't then jettison it. It doesn't matter if birth control and STD prevention is worthwhile - it is. It just doesn't belong in the single largest public works bill in the history of mankind.

This is not leadership towards change we can believe in. This is the same tired DC status quo from both parties.

...resounding zero of them voted for the stimulus package...

I don't think they did not support that just because we lost the election - rather it's just that the stimulus package is just totally worthless and puts the nation further into debt then it already is. None of the past "stimulus packages" nor bailouts seem to have done us any good - look at our current position.

"We are here NOW. Time to work together to get out of it."

Yes, and some are actually trying. One commentator said yesterday that for all the complaining of McCain and L. Graham that they weren't consulted, there is a room with moderates of both parties where debate on the stimulus is already happening, and if McCain really wanted to be involved he could have gone into the room and joined Susan Collins et al actually doing the work.

Someone else said there are 2 kinds of adjustments going on. One might be called "Welcome to Washington, Mr. President"--political games on Capitol Hill have been going on for years.

The other is on the GOP side--Obama is being bipartisan by saying "Tell me your ideas. I will listen and if they make sense I will act on them". Republicans have to realize that is more outreach than some presidents have done, but a president who won by the margin Obama won is not required to give the minority everything they ask for.

Someone else said on TV that Obama will never win over Rush Limbaugh Republicans, so he should work very hard with those in the center and forget even trying to work with the Limbaugh crowd who would never say anything nice about him anyway.

@ Kurt

Your notion that the Republican party has anything but malice and ill will towards the Obama adminstration is simply delusion or deception on your part. The fact is the Republicans are a captive of their own ideology that government is the enemy. Yesterday Sen. McConnell tried to tell us that FDR really didn't lead us out of the depression, and government programs like the W.P.A. really didn't help the economy. The Republican Party wants to bring back Herbert Hoover policies.

Why are we now being sickened and killed by our own peanuts? Because Republicans don't believe in government regulation or protecting the public's health and safety. Why did our stock market melt down, why did Bernard Maddow have a free hand to steal billions? Because the Republican Party believes government is the enemy. Nope.. the Republican Party has signed on to Rush Limbaugh's program to bring down the Obama administration and they are going to spend the next four or eight years trying to do it. There is no redemption for those who wallow in their own filth.

I wonder if there is an excessive amount of pessimism about the economy and the job loss. Without a doubt the economy is in a very tenuous position but isn't now the time to believe in our inherent ability to overcome, survive, and thrive?

Instead of wasting too much time figuring out where blame lies (analysis of past mistakes is necessary to a degree) lets spend time developing solutions for ourselves and perhaps more help the people around us.

Now is a time to tighten our belts and push forward believing in our inherent ability to succeed.

http://www.weeklypoint.com/2009/02/06/are-job-losses-accelerating/

What the Dem triumphalists don't want to acknowledge is that Obama and his right-of-center crew are ideologically predisposed toward the RP tax cuts (unless they want to argue that Obama is a fool, which I do not believe). Otherwise, why in hell would they have made them such a prominant part of their non-stimulus package?

We all, even the hope/change worshipers, now understand that the RP was/is not going to support a true spending stimulus. The massive inclusion of tax breaks, therefore, is an anti-stimulus measure.

The Bush/Obama bailouts for the rich will do little other than make future blame bipartisan.

"Has anyone heard the Republicons ever explain how THEY think the economy got to this place? If you did, let me know. I am curious."

Well, a lot of them claim the economy started to go to hell after the Democrats took control of the House in 2007. Seriously.

"I think that the republicans are doing what a minority party should be doing - they are pointing out problems with a gargantuan pork laden bill and they are offering some alternatives."

What "alternatives," exactly? All I've heard them offer is the same old dribble-down tax cut snake oil. Republicans are fixated on tax cuts to the point that they can't even imagine doing anything else. They're like obsessive-compulsives.

Just like the local bailout of PGE Park (Merritt Paulson's $85 million giveaway from the City of Portland), you don't "stimulate" the economy by giving tax breaks to the wealthy.

If the Congress really wanted to stimulate demand, they would focus their tax breaks on the middle class.

Obama is a DINO.

Torrid Joe, I would put the proposed tax cuts to the same litmus test as the spending. If the cuts demonstrate both economic stimulus AND putting people to work in jobs then I would be for them. I'm certain much of them would be jettisoned. Remember that both RR and JFK effectively used tax cuts to stimulate a moribound economy. Just like all new spending isn't bad, all tax cuts aren't bad either.

Bill R. you really need to cease the sensless frothing at the mouth concerning republicans. You are the mirror image of Rush Limbaugh when you act and write in that manner. For the historical record, FDR's mant programs sometimes were at odds with each other. The Great Depression was ended by one thing only - the United States being drawn into WWII. WPA, REA and countless other public works programs helped a country in need, but they did not end the depression.

I am highly skeptical of any claim that the former "Republican President" ever tried to regulate anything.

Your skepticism could be either vindicated or discredited if you bothered to look at the record, which obviously you have not.

I'll take your perspicacity on this point as a guide to assessing your other judgments. Your illusion that you're under no illusion will not survive a collision with the facts.

One other thing: fraud is a matter of criminal law, not regulation.

Yo Kershner, when you have a moment to spare from your endless Democratic blame-a-thon, please explain to me how the Senate rules no longer require a 3/5 majority for cloture. I guess I missed this news item.

Yeah, thanks, Harry, now you can go back to writing your "memoirs" of fighting in the Spanish Civil War.

Jennifer:

Just like the local bailout of PGE Park (Merritt Paulson's $85 million giveaway from the City of Portland), you don't "stimulate" the economy by giving tax breaks to the wealthy.

Bob T:

I'm with you 100% in hoping that plan goes nowhere, but you need to understand that this has nothing to do with "stimulating" the economy and almost everything to do with the elite's ego in needing to have things that a "great" and large city should have. City governments (even ones run by five progressives) will fund this garbage, too, and they also like to do it because it reinforces (in a twisted way) one of their own lines about how "the government has to do what the market won't provide".

Well, no one ever said that baseball needs the massive Mega-million dollar stadiums they now play in. No one. They just need a field. Everything around it should be what the owners could afford and what will be supported by the fan base. This is how it was done until about 80 years ago. We'd still have it today if government had not decided that it needed to be able to have bragging points for having a sports team. Or a zoo. Or a tram. Or a convention center bigger than anyone else has. That owners take advantage of this is hardly surprising, but the only people who can take your money are the politicians, not the team owners.

Part of free enterprise is resisting all of this crap. When we fail to stop drek like Sam Adams or Erik Sten from taking our money for these projects, that doesn't re-define free enterprise. It's just another example of corporate welfare we couldn't stop, given out by so-called progressive politicans who think they know more than we do. And I want to see the PDC gotten rid of. What's the "progressive" defense of keeping it?

I'd like to see any baseball/soccer stadium deal be stopped by voter initiative. This city is supposedly a very progressive city (whatever that means). But I'd really be surprised if there's much of a move to stop this. And it would be no solution to have a stadium owned by the city. That's just as bad, because it allows the team owner to get off the hook of having to provide his own.

Bob Tiernan Mult Co.

Obama is da man! He promised so many things would change the day he entered office and its not happening. Can't you read? He has appointed 23 different new "think tanks" and "groups" to handle every little problem that has popped up. 23 exec. orders for new "commissions" to "look into" this or look into that. Can't the man think on his own? He likes the media, he loves the attention, and his desk is empty, he doesn't go to work until 9:45 in the morning and doesn't know what to do, his cabinet doesn't meet until 11:am and he serves lunch to them all, its like a vacation house without the sand and beaches. (that's from his own staff reports by the way before they get fired) He has handed over the country to Nancy Pelosi who thinks there are 500 million people in the US and Harry Reid who agrees with him on the 57 states we have. "Change" is a comin, you betcha.

He has handed over the country to Nancy Pelosi who thinks there are 500 million people in the US

If everyone made the same life choices as Nancy Pelosi, there would be 500 million people in the US!

This story is off the front page now, so I've no idea if anyone is still following the comments, but I ran across this excellent article in the Spectator today that offers a fairly convincing explanation for the dire economic straits we now find ourselves in. Money quote:

What is required instead is an appreciation of the fact--as much as lawmakers would like to avoid it--that U.S. housing policies are the root cause of the current financial crisis. Other players--greedy investment bankers; incompetent rating agencies; irresponsible housing speculators; shortsighted homeowners; and predatory mortgage brokers, lenders, and borrowers--all played a part...

I'd encourage folks to not dismiss his analysis out of hand.

incompetent rating agencies

I explicitly raised this point and their relation to the mortgage brokers in these virtual pages three years ago and was summarily dismissed, being told what I didn't understand about how the system worked and why that was a conspiracy theory level concern. That was, being told by the ones that would condescend; most avoided such a ridiculous trolling sentiment.

I would love to have that debate again today. The amazing thing would be that the position/tone of the real estate apologists and mainstream Dems would be not one iota different. I'm just a good guesser. I don't see the Reps have any monopoly on not learning and not changing their tone.

<h2>AWESOME !We have no time for in-action ! Go Obama !</h2>