Well, at least about this one thing:

She and I are quite sympatico — at least when it comes to criticizing the Bush troika (Bush/Paulson/Bernanke) for the absurd bailouts of failed banks:

“The Bush administration … was embracing a kind of ‘bailout socialism,’ ” wrote the Minnesota congresswoman, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination. “It was painful to find out John McCain too favored the TARP bailout. … Here was no ‘maverick’ moment. The same disappointing stance was taken by the Republican leadership in the House.”

“I knew there was no way I could vote for it, because I couldn’t find authority for it in the Constitution,” Bachmann continued. “As a constitutional conservative, I put principle over party.”

Michele Bachmann says Bush, GOP embraced ‘bailout socialism
Seema Mehta
Los Angeles Times November 20, 2011

Category: Bailout Nation, Bailouts, Politics

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

43 Responses to “I agree with Michele Bachmann”

  1. lalaland says:

    Ok I’ll say it: even a broken clock is right twice a day. I wouldn’t spend too much time associating with crazy people Barry – you’ve got so much going for you, and you seem like such a nice boy.

  2. Frilton Miedman says:

    Hilarious moment for me, when Boehner asserted that “Obama’s” bank bailouts were a failure, then someone pointed me to a Youtube video of Boehner in tears begging the GOP to go along with the bailouts in the Fall of ’08.

    I’m of the school that the bailouts were necessary, but I’m livid that no conditions were set as a prerequisite, the TBTF’s should have been broken up or nationalized, then resold to smaller regionals.

    Instead, we gave them money to pay themselves record breaking bonuses from “prop” trading, HFT, dark pools and loads of economically useless market manipulating bullshit that only served to take away even more from the economy.

    The AIG bailout was nothing but a means to funnel our tax dollars into insurance payouts to the TBTF’s to cover their fraudulent bets to begin with.

    In the end, I suspect we’d be better off if we’d just taken that money and paid down a percentage of all mortgages to help in consumer deleveraging, stabilize consumption.

  3. Mike in Nola says:

    It was a “no brainer” for her.

  4. gman says:

    At the time I was for the bailouts, if not in all the details. I was unaware of the Swedish route at the time. In retrospect it would have much better than the “let the house burn down the city” route of most Republicans and the Bush/Obama route of rewarding the arsonists.

  5. Moss says:

    There are an awful lot of things not authorized in the Constitution.
    It is amusing that she uses that document as the basis for being against it.

    Twit is what comes to mind.

  6. hammerandtong2001 says:

    Well, I agree with her, too. That three-page memo which was waved in all our faces three years ago was quite a spectacle.

    How about a friendly wager?

    Now that those “segregated accounts” at MF Global are shown to be “somehow” short of only $1.2 Billion, which of course happened during the firm’s implosive slide towards bankruptcy while they paid their London office $millions during their last week of solvency, I’ll bet my boots those 30,000 retail customers never recover all their “guaranteed” cash and cash equivalent assets, held in their “sacrosanct” custodial accounts. They’ll be lucky to get the 40% being promised now!

    Want to jump in on a parlay?

    No one gets convicted of anything and no one goes to jail. Ever.

    Any takers?

  7. Edoc says:

    Barry, you believe the banks should have been put into receivership! I don’t disagree on this point, but being anti-bailout is about all you and Michelle agree on. There was no way that a Swedish-style receivership would have flown in this country. Certainly not under Bush, and certainly no way under Obama. And there’s no way in hell that Bachmann or virtually any other so-called conservative would have supported that approach. There’s what’s known as politically feasible, and then there’s fantasy-world, and I prefer to count you among the former!


    BR: Yeah, my headline was a touch tongue in cheek

  8. primo foola says:

    Yes – no more bailouts. ( Now that an entire generation of scoundrels has exited with billions in bonususes). – NO MORE.
    So , lets say, Shitibank goes down, a trilion or so in bank balances are – “disapeared”. GDIC aint got no Trillions. Congress sez “NO MO Bailouts”. Thats where we be goin.

  9. primo foola says:

    Guck that.Ma damn “G” key done gooten involved wid ma damn “F” key. FDIC dammit!

  10. jomp182 says:


    What if we had let LEH, AIG, GS,GE,MS,MER,BAC,C, and others go Swedish? Wouldn’t that have been too much to handle? To where do you think the popular indeces would have fallen? …..and how many retirement accounts would have been devastated to the point that people bailed out at lows? You mention it would have been painful…..I think supremely so. Are we that bad off now? I don’t see bread lines where I live. People have had a chance to reassess their tolerance for pain. Are we not better off now than what would have been? I don’t have the answers….but like thinking from the other side.

  11. primo foola says:

    NO MO BAILOUTS – for da peasants. Coz dem peasants have so – called bank and broker balances – dey tink of it as “money”. It aint.
    What is the FDIC? How much money do they have? Will congress give them more money if they need the Trillions that they will as JPM,C and BAC are revealed to have negative book equity?
    Why is Granny with her zero interest bank deposit at risk ? Anyone?

  12. EMichael says:

    I won’t say she couldn’t find the Constitution if it was stuck in her butt, but that is not the problem here.

    As mentioned earlier, without the restrictions placed on the banks(which they would have never gone with), going Sweden was the only other option. I am still up in the air with that, as much as I hate the actions of the banks since.

    TBTF is reality. And unless it is changed, nothing else will.

  13. primo foola says:

    Honest “non-psychopath” public servants would have done the following in 2008:
    1. Provide a blanket US Govt guarantee on all bank deposits.
    2. let the chips fall where they may.

    They did not do that- because ……….”MOTHER……MOTHER……”

  14. RW says:

    If Representative Bachman had a better research staff or a better head for facts (never mind a better head for constitutional law) she would have known there was already a term for what she wanted to condemn: Lemon Socialism

    “Lemon Socialism” is a pejorative term for government support of private-sector companies whose imminent collapse is perceived to threaten broader economic stability. Some assert it is not a subcategory of socialism per se; rather, it points to a corruption of free-market capitalist systems, which would normally allow defective companies (“lemons”) to fail. The most common government interventions that earn the term involve infusions of government capital, as in bailouts, and may include some government control over company decision-making, as in nationalization. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 in the United States has been cited as an example of lemon socialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_socialism

    Contra Ms. Bachman, It was not the bailouts in and of themselves that were wrong — there was a full-scale credit crisis going on, the TED Spread had already passed 400 and systemic collapse was becoming inevitable in the absence of a full-throated “lender of last resort” — it was what was associated with that bailout including the unwillingness to use TARP funds and federal authority in organizing an orderly liquidation of the largest insolvent banks and the DOJ’s unwillingness to investigate and prosecute the multiple and very large scale control frauds associated with the origination and securitization of asset-backed securities.

    NB: hammerandtong2001, no takers here.

  15. jaymaster says:

    I wish she would hook up with Bob Turner, who won Anthony Weiner’s House seat.

    Can you imagine a Bachman-Turner ticket?

    Takin’ care of business, baby!

  16. primo foola says:

    Its real simple. The deception has to stop. The primary deception is Granny and her checking account. Granny dont no nuttin bout no european debt, sub prime mortgages or derivatives. Granny thinks its a convenient alternative to keeping her money in a biscuit tin.
    Now then. JPM takes granny’s deposit and levers it 50X to make a bet on slovakian double fuked up hoochamakits. If JPM loses – it aint got Granny’s money no mo. It aint right . It just aint right>
    Sooo…. the FDIC sez – OK Granny – here be your monay. Dey good!! Sometimes the FDIC may … well .. run out of da “monay” – den wut?
    Why? If Granny wanted to invest in Dimon and his Crazy schemes she should do so in the light of day through the Dimon Mutual Fund. And get paid well for the risk.
    SEPARATE “CASH” and “INVESTMENTS” – Do it Now. cash is govt T-Bills. Investments are Dimon pipe dreams – totally different things. FDIC – why?

  17. b_thunder says:

    Please, just read again what she said: “…I put principle over party.”
    So it wasn’t her analysis of economic principles such as moral hazard, and it wasn’t her conscience guiding her to protect the “little men” instead of Lloyd Blankfiens of this world.
    Oh, no. Her opposition to TARP originated from the same stubborn, blind and ignorant belief in certain “principles.” This is the same belief system that causes her to oppose HPV vaccinations! And that the taxes cannot be raised. Ever. And that the “pray away the gay” circus (which she would call ‘therapy’) actually works! ANd that there’s no climate change. And that’s jsut the beginning of her “principles.” These are the principles that she will never abandon or modify, regardless what the scientist will tell her.
    Are you “catching my drift?” If anything, this proves one more time that she’s totally inflexible, uncompromising, “black and white, no gray areas” person/politician. Having her as a Commander in Chief is….well… a very scary thought….

  18. Bill Wilson says:

    I wonder if McCain could have won that election if he’d voted against the TARP. Remember when he wanted to cancel a debate so that he could return to Washington and lead the push for a bailout. That was silly.

    McCain’s economic plan was to buy mortgages in the hopes of pushing real estate prices back up. That tells you why he supported a bailout over some kind of resolution authority. You support a bailout because you think it can turn the economy around quickly. To support a resolution authority, you have accept the fact that things will get worst before they get better. I think that’s why the TARP passed. As a country, we’re addicted to the quick fix.

    One more thing, why is AIG still a company? Weren’t we promised that AIG would be broken up and sold off?

  19. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    So, she didn’t find any authority in the Constitution that allowed banks to be bailed out. Is she ready to openly criticize all of the other unconstitutional/nefarious shit her party did during the Bushco years, or did Jesus tell her husband to tell her to only mention the banks?

  20. algernon says:

    Many of you are being pretty mean to someone who had the courage to stand up against the overwhelming consensus of Republicans & Democrats for the bail-outs. Easy for you to talk tough from the anonimity of your cute email handles.

    Lemon socialism is easily a better term than crony capitalism [which after all isn't capitalism at all].

    Economic fascism might be more apposite though. The intermingling of private & govt interests (that characterizes economic fascism) has none of the pretense of altruistic redistribution that socialism usually hides behind. Indeed, the Fed consistently screws the simple salt of the earth retirees stuck with their CDs or Treasury notes for the benefit of the most profligate banks.

    I dare say most people have lost sight of how fascistic is our system of govt provision of money, which only exists via suppression of market alternatives. Who would accept money backed by nothing if they had the choice to deal with money backed by something?

    BTW, Ron Paul also opposed the bail-outs. It is a secret, well-kept by the MSMedia, but he also is running for Prez.

  21. jadogsl says:

    Barry -

    You’ve found the common ground between OWS and the Tea Party and …. The silent majority,
    Repubs and Demos are hoping and praying that the rest of us don’t figure it out and start a Third Party based on integrity and meritocracy …. All other superficial issues ( you know those ‘value’ issues that those in power want us to focus on ) being set aside and start a new American revolution

  22. budhak0n says:

    Uh Oh. Here come the “revisionist” historians.

    About as much help as that nephew or niece you all have who believes he or she is really writing a movie script not spending weeks playing Battlefield 3.

    Bachmann’s stance is great. It’s a nice commentary. It also happens to be irrelevant at this point.

  23. romerjt says:

    Has everyone heard of Americans Elect, http://www.americanselect.org/
    the internet effort to place a 3rd party candidate chosen by “the people” on the ballot in all 50 states? They claim they’ve collected over half the signatures needed. Just heard Ron Paul wasn’t running for his seat in HR . . . what if . . . . . . and then what if . . . remember when the house of Rep chooses the president each state gets only one vote . . . I’d love to see this if I didn’t live here.

  24. AtlasRocked says:

    Good call BR. All too often you conjoin Republican with every Republican failure you mention, then when there is a liberal failure you just call it a failure.

    This is a liberal failure – GWB was the oreo cookie of conservatives – conservative on the outside, lilly white whimp on the inside when it came time to make conservative spending decisions.

    Michele should have excoriated him for his other shames he brought to the conservative brand: Raising social spending 3.5X more than war spending during 8 years – yes I got the numbers myself, this isn’t from any blog. Go compare the years 2000 and 2009, the difference in social increases vs defense increase is 3.5 to 1. He also signed a stimulus package with Pelosi – liberals never mention this. It failed to return ROI – but hey things would have been worse without it, right? Hogwash. Of course you live better if you take out a loan for daily expenses. Fiscally – on bailouts, on stimulus spending, on social spending increases – BUSH WAS A COMPLETE FRAUD AS A CONSERVATIVE. He violated all the standard by which you measure a conservative: Balanced spending and taxes. Sustainable, private-sector based retirement funds based on real world interest rates and ROI. All savings has to be tied to real, tangible assets, not in defined benefit programs or wealth transfer from young to old, this is a massively corrupt system in place now, prime grounds for politician crooks to steal from. No stimulus from either over-spending or under-taxing. FAIL FAIL FAIL. BUSH BRAND: Old fashion FDR liberal.

  25. Taliesyn says:

    budhak0n Says:
    November 22nd, 2011 at 5:54 am

    “Uh Oh. Here come the “revisionist” historians. ”

    That’s what *you* say , Cheap trickster , but no hiding behind that meanglless security blanket statement of yours . Just exactly what part of the Cognizant Dissident history that you believe you now sense is being revised.

    “It also happens to be irrelevant at this point.”
    Irrelevant only insofar as your party ever doing anything to help prevent the next one *Out of thin air”..
    Hey, alleged college boy , ever read or at least hear of the adage about “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.” Why does it even have to be explained to you that correctly pinpointing the causes of these
    double recessions within 7 years of one another , the 1st contributing contributing to the 2nd , is necessary if truly interested minds , and not , as you say , gamer-zombies , are ever to understand how to prevent them and it starts with the policies of those in power when all of this happened on *their* watch.
    Case Closed!…except for the ideological idolaters I s’pose.

  26. Did you guys catch this?

    “…the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all.”

    That’s the conclusion taken by researchers at Farleigh Dickenson University on a study they done American’s level of understanding of current events. Similar results have been shown by other studies. This is more important than just adding more fuel to the raging partisan fire we have because to get to the right answers to the big problems we have we need to working with the facts not illusions about them. To have such a widely trusted news source be so consistently wrong, even if it’s ignorantly done (which I doubt), is working against us getting things right.


  27. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    AtlasRocked Says:


    Right. it would seem after 30 years of conservatism, you would understand that EVERYTHING the “conservatives” stand for is fraudulent. (“conservatives” is in quotation marks because even the word — a a descriptor for US political “conservatism” — is fraudulent).

    From wars that will pay for themselves, to the role of religion in American government, to outing one of our spies and then throwing your long-time friend and confident under the bus to cover your tracks, to crony capitalism, to various torture techniques not actually being torture, to the Iraq war and all of the promises “conservatives” made to get us there, to trickle down economics, to our Constitution being “quaint,” the entire “conservative” platform was fraud based.

    Your assertion that, “. . . standard by which you measure a conservative: Balanced spending and taxes . . .” advances the fraud because it fails to mention the borrowing and debt the “conservatives” so love (and after all, deficits are simply deferred taxes).

    Bush was a conservative of the first order.

    I get the feeling you’d throw your on mother under a bus and deny knowing her if it helped you advance an argument.

  28. ilsm says:

    Would Ms Bachman regulate the boardroom as much as the bedroom?

    Seems we missed the usury thing, in the bible.

    Is she saying Calvinism includes the elect taking a beating once in a while?

    Do we expect the next Bachman revelation is “thou shalt not kill” at $3.6M a terrist body count?

  29. amboycharlie says:


    Does that mean you embrace Hooverism, rather than a quick nationalization, reorganization, recapitalization, and reincorporation, as per the Swedish model. You actually agree with Bachmann that we should have let the entire economy, fall into the abyss, just to get back at the banksters? That’s harsh man.


  30. AtlasRocked says:

    @ilsm: I’ve worked as an electronics design engineer for 32 years, and I’ve known a number of stunningly brilliant fundamentalist Christians during this time. One of them won the top technical contributor award multiple times, solely on the basis of some problems he solved while he was a department manager, mostly doing staffing and program management work. In his spare time when he wasn’t managing, he solved some of the toughest problems the company faced. He was a people person and a massive technical force, if any of you out there are engineers you’ll know what an awesome accomplishment this is.

    You, and to some extent Barry – are doing the world a maddeningly stupid disservice by dividing the world up into smart atheists that always make good decisions and ignorant fundamentalists that make bad decisions.

    The worst actors in history are atheists, guys: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Please – lose the religious bias and make advocacy decisions based on ideas that work, not whether the person prays to a God you don’t care for. Science without religion and religion without science are equally dangerous.

    Your belief on whether dinosaurs existed has not one iota of impact on the ability to choose a wise economic course regarding excessive borrowing, or too much war spending, or whether bailing out cronies and crooks is a good idea.

    Religious folks tend to tilt more toward law and order instead of bailouts. We could use a rebalancing there, yes? The rise of liberal America has perfectly correlated with the rise of disorder and unlawful conduct in business. They’re using the same fast and loose re-interpretation of securities and bank laws as they do with the constitution. What? You didn’t think if they reversed the meaning of “shall make no law” in Amendment 1 in the Constitution, that they would do the same thing in banking and securities? Of course they will. No can mean yes in the world of liberal policy. If they say it does.

    We cannot treat the business community as if it’s another welfare opportunity when businesses fail. Laws were broken on a widespread basis and we need to stop the looting and start prosecuting: Securities fraud, real estate transaction laws that violated wet ink signature requirements, the Fed bailing out foreign banks. This is a bunch of crap going on now. It has to stop. Obama and Pelosi spent no time on this massive RICO case.

  31. Robert M says:

    I need some clarification from you on the role of TARP. One, when the FI’s locked up on short term capital loans because no one trusted the others collateral I know TARP was a good thing. Two, Sec 2 giving the Treasury Sec the power to do whatever he felt necessary to improve the economy is a proven good thing as TARP money was used to provide the bridge loans for the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. (What has been lacking is the failure to use it to hammer the FI’s into ….). Three, if your point is it allowed them to avoid dealing w/ their solvency problem, there is nothing like buying congress to continue to be the empire w/ no clothes, i.e. that is the disappearance of FASB 157 and the imposition of mark to make believe of the Emperors clothes, then I am in agreement. Four, is your agreement w/ Michele Bachmann based on the first time you met the harpie or your intoxication of getting over it and having a 17 yr moment-think Michael Douglas meeting Glenn Close for the first time in the elevator in Fatal Attraction?

  32. DrSandman says:

    @AtlasRocked — I’ve tried this tack before. GWB, like GHWB before him and Romney to come, is not now, never was, and never will be a Conservative — which we define by personal responsibility, individual liberty, and protection of private property rights.

    When I’ve asked for examples of Conservative GWB Bush policy, all the trolls can sputter is something along the lines of,

    A) “He’s an evangelical Christian!” (Does not define Conservatism, though is often correlated.)
    B) “He’s a warmonger transforming the world into America by force!” (Actually a Neo-Conservative, i.e., old-school liberal policy of nation-building.)
    C) “He is bought and paid for by corporations!” (Actually, closely related to corporatism/fascism/Peronism, which is explicitly a policy of the Progressive Left –like Wilson’s WPA and FDR’s CCC– and modern day liberals) and…

    …well, pretty much that’s it.

    When faced with the reality and the data that Bush spent too much, trampled on private property rights (Kelo…), trampled on civil rights, expanded the welfare state, expanded the number of cabinets (DHS), “I had to destroy the free-enterprise system to save it.”, and never once sought to reign in the unconstitutional activities of the federal government, then they will begin to go full Alinsky on your character. (They lost, and that’s the only thing left in their playbook!)

    Good luck. I read for the entertainment value now.

  33. DeDude says:

    The question is what would she have done instead. No intervention as the tea-bagger’s usually put forth (“let it fall”), would have put us into a great depression and caused much larger losses than the bailout. I know Barry and I agree that they should have socialized all those banks and investment banks and “gone Swedish”. But was that also the solution Bachman wanted – or did she prefer a great depression and the associated party for the rich vultures.

  34. Frilton Miedman says:

    Full circle to the post I made above, the bailouts were necessary.

    The mistake was not imposing conditions and penalties while the iron was hot and eliminating TBTF, breaking up the entities that have become so powerful as to be the behind-the-scenes government of our government.

    Have faith, we WILL have another shot at it, as soon as the TBTF’s completely wreck the market, the economy and our living standards for their own gain, we’ll have another shot at it….of course, many of us will be living in cardboard boxes, but we will have another shot at it.

  35. arogersb says:

    If only bailouts and tarp had done half of what they promised they would do. But no. They promised to save the banking sector, they didn´t. Bank failures are still orders of magnitudes of what they were before 2008. Maybe by saving the financial system, they meant saving Vampire Squid & friends. They promised unemployement bellow 8%, they didn´t even come close to that figure.

    Despite being wrong on their most important projections, the bailout crowd still expect us to believe that without all this intervention we would be back to the stone ages. But such claims are pure historical speculation done by a group of people who missed all their projections not to mention that social unrest is already here, precisely because bailouts created rejection of crony capitalism (OWS + Tea Party) and because money printing creates price inflation on the most basic goods.

    On this I am with OWS, Tea Party, Bachman and BR

  36. aiadvisors says:

    Constitutional authority???

    “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;…”

    Since Congress makes the laws, as signed by the President, the observation that Bachmann couldn’t find Constitutional Authority is laughable.

    The bailouts may have been stupid. Congress may have been had. But it was all a constitutionally stupid con job. The end.

  37. aiadvisors says:

    The above refers to TARP which Bachman voted against because she felt is was unconstitutional. The Bernanke giveaways are quite another matter. Let’s not confuse the two.

  38. aiadvisors says:

    In the future, I hope we realize that when a bank becomes insolvent, managment should be ousted with stock and bondholders wiped out. Then it should be nationalized, recapitalized then reprivatized in a manner that the business affairs remain intact as a going concern. Liquidation of TBTF banks is a recipe for a Depression.

  39. arogersb says:

    Unlike 1929 and 1933, today´s deposit are insured by the FDIC up to US$ 250.000. There would have been no bank run, no great depression. Ordinary people´s savings would not have been affected by a liquidation of TBTF banks. They would have taken their 250K out of failed banks and put them into more capable financial institutions, probably allowing those institutions to grow and prosper. Instead these failed entities were allowed to survive while smaller banks are being massively depleted.

  40. DeDude says:

    arogersb; the depression would not have been caused by a bank run, it was the credit freeze. Perfectly good profitable businesses could not get credit and were facing the real possibility of having to shut down because the banks had frozen all credit. When good profitable businesses shut down for a lack of profitability people lose their jobs and stop purchasing and then banks get even more fearful and more businesses close for lack of liquidity etc. That was the downward spiral that we had actual real signs of when they acted to stop the credit freeze. They acted wrongly, but would have been much more wrong to not act at all.

  41. 873450 says:

    jomp182 Says:
    “Are we that bad off now? I don’t see bread lines where I live. People have had a chance to reassess their tolerance for pain. Are we not better off now than what would have been? I don’t have the answers…. but like thinking from the other side.”

    – “Are we that bad off now?”
    Posting that question on this forum is a joke. Right? More Americans are living in poverty than ever before. 22% of children living in the USA are growing up in poverty. It is only because of Social Security and Medicare that tens-of-millions of senior citizens aren’t living in poverty. A hollowed out, shrinking middle class, the very foundation this country was built on and its most essential asset, is endangered on the verge of extinction. A disgracefully dysfunctional government is failing to serve the interests of the vast majority of Americans.

    – “I don’t see bread lines where I live.”
    Open your eyes. 46 million Americans on food stamps means you will not be disturbed seeing or thinking about desperate people standing on bread lines and having nightmares every night about not being able to feed their children. Eliminating a military draft resulted in only 1% of Americans (truly the best 1%) actually being called into combat fighting, killing and dying for their country. Telling us to go shopping, buying gas guzzling SUV’s and wide-screen HDTV’s, George Bush wrongfully sent the best 1% to war, wrongfully invading the wrong country. Paying for wars with a credit card billed to our children and banning video of soldiers returning home in coffins meant Americans would not be disturbed seeing or thinking about the horrors and expense of war. Out-of-Sight does not mean Out-of-Mind.

    – “People have had a chance to reassess their tolerance for pain.”
    They did. After concluding captured government and regulatory officials owned by 1% will do nothing to reverse the growing, accelerating inequality destroying their American Dreams, their response is OWS, a genuine grassroots movement spreading like wild fire throughout the country. Ongoing attempts to misconstrue and marginalize OWS in the media along with concerted efforts to forcefully snuff it out in cities and on college campuses clearly demonstrate the movement is successfully striking a painful chord.

    – “Are we not better off now than what would have been?”
    A difficult, hypothetical question. We are only better off now, at least temporarily, than we would be if government did absolutely nothing. Tens of millions of Americans lost everything: trillions of dollars of personal wealth, homes, jobs, healthcare benefits, retirement savings, etc. Millions of them will never recover from their losses. Government is spending trillions of dollars rescuing, sheltering and indemnifying TBTF banks.

    We needed to bail out, preserve, reform, stand up and regulate a stable, functioning, independent banking and finance system. We need the infrastructure. We didn’t need to rescue and reward the overpaid finance industry personnel whose negligentl, reckless and criminal destroyed the global economy. It’s impossible to say where we’d be now if the Bush administration reacted properly beforehand to prevent U.S. style unregulated capitalism running amok from shooting itself in the head. Instead, their unquestioning, dogmatic belief in magical free markets’ inherent self correcting, self preserving instincts resulted in no action being taken until it was too late. Then, they became lemon socialists.

  42. EMichael says:

    AtlasRocked Says:

    November 22nd, 2011 at 9:08 am
    @ilsm: I’ve worked as an electronics design engineer for 32 years, and I’ve known a number of stunningly brilliant fundamentalist Christians during this time. One of them won the top technical contributor award multiple times, solely on the basis of some problems he solved while he was a department manager, mostly doing staffing and program management work. In his spare time when he wasn’t managing, he solved some of the toughest problems the company faced. He was a people person and a massive technical force, if any of you out there are engineers you’ll know what an awesome accomplishment this is. ”

    What in the world does that have to do with the GOP increase of religion in government?

  43. Frilton Miedman says:

    (?) – The lesson learned – that engineers are the top intellectual caste for society and religious engineers are the top of that top?