Pelosi: Dems have no responsibility for the economic crisis.

RAMSTORIA

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
Pelosi: Dems bear no responsibility for economic crisis
By Klaus Marre
Posted: 09/16/08 04:14 PM [ET]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”

Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Bush’s “mismanagement” of the economy and a lack of regulation that led to the current situation.

“I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi told MSNBC.

When asked whether the Democrats “deserve some responsibility” regarding the economic crisis, Pelosi responded: “No.”

“John McCain said that this is a result of overregulation by the Democrats in Congress,” she added. “Either he doesn’t know what he's talking about or he’s misrepresenting the facts as he knows them. But it’s simply not true.”
Click to expand...

Man I hate Pelosi. Last I checked Congress is in charge of the economy...
 
The Democratic majority is not responsible for creating the economic shitfest the country is in.

They are responsible for not cleaning it up and getting these idiots out of office, and deserve to lose their jobs for failing the American people.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']The Democratic majority is not responsible for creating the economic shitfest the country is in.

They are responsible for not cleaning it up and getting these idiots out of office, and deserve to lose their jobs for failing the American people.[/quote]

You'll be voting Republican?
 
Both parties are to blame. We are seeing the unwinding of massive leverage by not just US financials but many global institutions, leverage that has been building for the past 20+ years under both Republican and Democrat control.

We allowed this situation to happen right under our noses but we didn't care during the 80's and 90's because things were good, the market was going up so no one really cared about the massive leverage. Then the bubble burst....yes we are still working off the same bubble that first hit us in 2000. First it was the equity markets, the dot coms, then the real estate market and now the credit markets. We just keep moving the bubble and excess of our economy from one area to another.
 
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51342

http://www.slate.com/id/2095237/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2718_133/ai_n12938298

The blame is ovbiously shared but Bush's spending is out of control.

This is a pretty good article:
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/...ping-u-s-economy-not-entirely-of-bush-s-maki/

the last time in 60 Years that the USA has showed a surplus in the economy was only one year during Clinton.
It's also notable that President Bush did bankrupt two companies before becoming govenor of Texas. Then he bankrupted Texas. Now look...
 
This is a direct result of years of bank deregulation, specifically Phil Gramm and the republican congress repealing the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.

Previously there was a division between commercial and investment banking. The people who took care of your savings couldnt directly mess with things like the stock market.
 
Yeah, clearly McCain is right. OVERregulation caused this problem.

Jesus. Who can vote for McCain when he and his running mate show such contempt for you by so flagrantly lying to your face and acting like anything he says is not going to be scrutinized?

This guy's beyond the pale. He'll say or do anything to get elected at this point.

The permissions for investment banking and the deregulation that exist today are directly the result of Phil "Nation of Whiners" Gramm and the Republican controlled congress of 1999. You know him; he's the guy who's going to be McCain's treasury secretary.

Seriously, though. How can you read the bald-faced lies McCain tells and still even think about voting for him?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Who's to blame? Government

Why? THEY FAILED

Why did they fail? The Government always fails[/QUOTE]

The government failed because Conservatives are incompetent ninnies who ruin everything and only care about lining their pockets.

Although to be fair sometimes the destruction is not due to stupidity but is intentional instead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KingBroly']Who's to blame? Government

Why? THEY FAILED

Why did they fail? The Government always fails[/QUOTE]

This. ^

But I'm still amused that so many people seem to think the economy being where it is today was somehow not planned for or accidental.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The government failed because Conservatives are incompetent ninnies who ruin everything and only care about lining their pockets.

Although to be fair sometimes the destruction is not due to stupidity but is intentional instead.[/quote]

You totally missed the point of my post. If I wanted to point the blame at a particular person or party for the sake of argument I'd point the blame at Bill Clinton. But I'm not doing that.

Also, the Fed has once again gone overboard by agreeing to pay 80 BILLION for AIG to bail their asses out. Total crap. The market's going to drop another 300 points tomorrow because of this.
 
The current crisis and those of the past few years are unequivocally owned by Conservatives.

Anyone who says anything different is lying and can blow their "huuur Government fails" nonsense out their ass.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']This. ^

But I'm still amused that so many people seem to think the economy being where it is today was somehow not planned for or accidental.[/quote]

Haha we should create a conspiracy theory CAG group. It would make for some odd bedfellows for sure...
 
thrust used to be a closeted conspiracy theorist that was mostly rational and just stood up for level1 on occasion, now he's fully outed and proud of his tin hat.



edit: more on topic -- anyone who tries to pin this on any particular politician or party is pretty myopic. Markets are markets. Nobody is really to blame, but the GOP deregulation certainly made the market volatile. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad decision. The deregulation is a large part of what kept our market resilient to the war and the price of oil. We could be in much, much worse shape than we are. I hate the fuck out of Bush and rarely agree with the GOP platform but they haven't done poorly economically.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']This. ^

But I'm still amused that so many people seem to think the economy being where it is today was somehow not planned for or accidental.[/QUOTE]

level1, you takin' over everyone's accounts?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']This. ^

But I'm still amused that so many people seem to think the economy being where it is today was somehow not planned for or accidental.[/quote]
Well apparently, we took the other pill.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah, clearly McCain is right. OVERregulation caused this problem.

Jesus. Who can vote for McCain when he and his running mate show such contempt for you by so flagrantly lying to your face and acting like anything he says is not going to be scrutinized?

This guy's beyond the pale. He'll say or do anything to get elected at this point.

The permissions for investment banking and the deregulation that exist today are directly the result of Phil "Nation of Whiners" Gramm and the Republican controlled congress of 1999. You know him; he's the guy who's going to be McCain's treasury secretary.

Seriously, though. How can you read the bald-faced lies McCain tells and still even think about voting for him?[/QUOTE]

McCain said there's risk of over-regulation in a crisis, not that over regulation is the problem.

And who exactly was president when Gramm was chairman of the banking committee ?

Bill Clinton

Jesus myke Sanford Weill has the pen he sign the bill with on his fucking wall. It's accompanied by a picture of Clinton and Weil fucking the american people. I can't believe you don't see your own "confirmation bias" in almost every partisan puff post you let fall from your fingers. It's almost sickening. I really thought you were smarter than to believe your Democrats are going to "fight for you !" They poop on you, and you think it's caviar.

Oh yeah, AND - guess who went to work for Citicorp shortly thereafter? Robert Rubin, former secretary of the treasury. His name is probably still on a few of those dollars in your back pocket - at least the ones they let us keep. And look up where Rubin worked before becoming a "public servant". These people are all sucking each others' dicks while we take it in the ass. Doesn't matter if a donkey fucks you or an elephant, it hurts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='bmulligan']McCain said there's risk of over-regulation in a crisis, not that over regulation is the problem.

And who exactly was president when Gramm was chairman of the banking committee ?

Bill Clinton

Jesus myke Sanford Weill has the pen he sign the bill with on his fucking wall. It's accompanied by a picture of Clinton and Weil fucking the american people. I can't believe you don't see your own "confirmation bias" in almost every partisan puff post you let fall from your fingers. It's almost sickening. I really thought you were smarter than to believe your Democrats are going to "fight for you !" They poop on you, and you think it's caviar.

Oh yeah, AND - guess who went to work for Citicorp shortly thereafter? Robert Rubin, former secretary of the treasury. His name is probably still on a few of those dollars in your back pocket - at least the ones they let us keep. And look up where Rubin worked before becoming a "public servant". These people are all sucking each others' dicks while we take it in the ass. Doesn't matter if a donkey fucks you or an elephant, it hurts.[/QUOTE]

Because I always think that weak-kneed Democrat capitulation is perfectly fine, right?

Right?

So, what's a more likely scenario:

Treasury Secretary Phil Gramm under President McCain, or

Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin under President Obama?
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']Never did really understand what was so great about Pelosi... ?[/QUOTE]

Who here said she was great?
 
[quote name='Koggit']thrust used to be a closeted conspiracy theorist that was mostly rational and just stood up for level1 on occasion, now he's fully outed and proud of his tin hat.
[/QUOTE]

I'm frankly surprised at the lot of you. To believe that hundreds of billions of dollars can move around so fast because of oopsies, cascading miscalculations, shitty accounting, or poor oversight is outright naive.

I mean, really. This kind of money that's been lost, added, moved, gained, doesn't happen without intent. Who can possibly buy what the media/economists are selling? Take a step back and look at the big picture.

Now the only question's are who and why. I don't have the answers. But as usual, it might help to start analyzing who has what to gain.

Or, we can stick with pointing fingers at our least favorite political group or party. That tactic has progressed the economy so far in the past 30 years - and it gives Msut77 reasons to keep posting.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm frankly surprised at the lot of you. To believe that hundreds of billions of dollars can move around so fast because of oopsies, cascading miscalculations, shitty accounting, or poor oversight is outright naive.

I mean, really. This kind of money that's been lost, added, moved, gained, doesn't happen without intent. Who can possibly buy what the media/economists are selling? Take a step back and look at the big picture.

Now the only question's are who and why. I don't have the answers. But as usual, it might help to start analyzing who has what to gain.

Or, we can stick with pointing fingers at our least favorite political group or party. That tactic has progressed the economy so far in the past 30 years - and it gives Msut77 reasons to keep posting.[/QUOTE]

You're talking like a crackpot, Thrust... you know despite our differences I read and respect your posts, but this is crazy talk. It sounds exactly like a level1 post: there aren't any firm accusations of anything at all. You're not making any point at all other than you believe this was planned. Like I tell level1, if you're willing to be more specific I'd be willing to entertain your beliefs, but I'm not going to refute broad accusations of "it's all going according to plan."

I will say, though, that it's almost funny how you assert in this case both the media and economists -- professional and academic economists alike -- are somehow working together to hide the truth. It's akin to level1 believing 1,000's of people and dozens of organizations from several different private industries and different branches of government all somehow worked together to blow up their own WTC...
 
I don't think the media, nor most economists, are collaborating in some big scam to keep everyone hoodwinked. I think they are reporting the information as they know it to the depth that they can see.

I'm just too jaded to think that billions up on billions of dollars don't start moving (note: money is never lost, it's always someones gain) around in such a short amount of time for no reason other than a bunch of miscalculations and bad gambles. That's really the extent of my big conspiracy theory.

A question nobody seems to be asking is simply: Where in the fuck is all this money going? Money doesn't disappear, it transfers ownership.

If you find yourself with too much time on your hands sometime, you can watch this video Part 1

Part 2
to get a background on why I think the way I do, complete with hundreds of years of examples and proof (it's a video from the mid 90's). I don't expect you to watch though, as it's way long and I think you're, understandably, too cynical to watch with an open mind. It took me 5 days of minimized listening at work in bursts to finish it.

It's not a political video. It's not from infowars. It's not from Alex Jones. It doesn't discuss secret societies or the illuminati or reptilians. It's simply a history lesson and educational discourse on fractional reserve banking.

I leave you with a quote from the beginning of that video by an economist:

"I can tell you right now that there is going to be a crash of unprecedented proportions. A crash like we have never seen before in this country. The greatest shock of this decade is that more people are about to lose more money than at any time in our history. But the second big shock will be the incredible amount of money that just a relatively small amount of people will make at exactly the same time. You see, in periods of economic upheaval and economic crisis, wealth is NOT DESTROYED. It is merely transferred. "

That really sums up my big conspiracy theory. The badges on my tinfoil hat don't permit me the requisite conspiracy rank to offer up lists of reasons and perpetrators. Maybe level1online can entertain us with some of that....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Koggit']You're talking like a crackpot, Thrust... you know despite our differences I read and respect your posts, but this is crazy talk. It sounds exactly like a level1 post: there aren't any firm accusations of anything at all. You're not making any point at all other than you believe this was planned. Like I tell level1, if you're willing to be more specific I'd be willing to entertain your beliefs, but I'm not going to refute broad accusations of "it's all going according to plan."

I will say, though, that it's almost funny how you assert in this case both the media and economists -- professional and academic economists alike -- are somehow working together to hide the truth. It's akin to level1 believing 1,000's of people and dozens of organizations from several different private industries and different branches of government all somehow worked together to blow up their own WTC...[/QUOTE]


You need to do some research on the federal reserve act of 1913, the Glass-steagall act of 1933, and it's repeal by Bill Clinton and the conspiratorial republican congress in 1999. Glass-Steagall was probably the best stop gap law ever signed by Roosevelt and it';s repeal is directly responsible for the banking and investment crisis we have today. Why isn't it talked about? Probably because 1 in a hundred people could even begin to understand it, or this current investment crisis that's happening now. It's just easier to blame bush and resume blanking-out rationality.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

The argument for preserving Glass-Steagall (as written in 1987):
1. Conflicts of interest characterize the granting of credit – lending – and the use of credit – investing – by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act
2. Depository institutions possess enormous financial power, by virtue of their control of other people’s money; its extent must be limited to ensure soundness and competition in the market for funds, whether loans or investments.
3. Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.
4. Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).
The argument against preserving the Act (as written in 1987):
1. Depository institutions now operate in “deregulated” financial markets in which distinctions between loans, securities, and deposits are not well drawn. They are losing market shares to securities firms that are not so strictly regulated, and to foreign financial institutions operating without much restriction from the Act.
2. Conflicts of interest can be prevented by enforcing legislation against them, and by separating the lending and credit functions through forming distinctly separate subsidiaries of financial firms.
3. The securities activities that depository institutions are seeking are both low-risk by their very nature, and would reduce the total risk of organizations offering them – by diversification.
4. In much of the rest of the world, depository institutions operate simultaneously and successfully in both banking and securities markets. Lessons learned from their experience can be applied to our national financial structure and regulation.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's just easier to blame bush and resume blanking-out rationality.[/quote]

Looking at McCain approval ratings, probably not.

Shocked to see you supporting an act of regulation.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You need to do some research on the federal reserve act of 1913, the Glass-steagall act of 1933, and it's repeal by Bill Clinton and the conspiratorial republican congress in 1999. Glass-Steagall was probably the best stop gap law ever signed by Roosevelt and it';s repeal is directly responsible for the banking and investment crisis we have today. Why isn't it talked about? Probably because 1 in a hundred people could even begin to understand it, or this current investment crisis that's happening now. It's just easier to blame bush and resume blanking-out rationality.[/QUOTE]

Who were you responding to, me or Thrust?

I've already said, both in this and the Lounge thread, that it was due to deregulation more than anything else...
 
[quote name='Koggit']Who were you responding to, me or Thrust?

I've already said, both in this and the Lounge thread, that it was due to deregulation more than anything else...[/QUOTE]

You are probably right.

But why was something not broken "fixed"?

The financial markets, central banking, etc. are way beyond the understanding of average Americans, or even many in congress (most in congress really don't understand who or what the Federal Reserve is). Hence, it's easy to push an agenda through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top