GOP Candidates Seek to Pin Crisis on Govt
Interesting article in Bloomberg looking at the GOP candidates who have decided to get off of the reality train:
“The leading Republican candidates for president have embraced an explanation of the financial crisis that has been rejected by the chairman of the Federal Reserve, many economists and even three of the four Republicans on the government commission that investigated the meltdown.”
There are lots of details in the article, discussing the facts.
I was looking for someone to vote for other than Obama in the next election. I hoped Mitt Romney might be that candidate. But reality has left his presidential campaign — He just lost my vote . . .
>
Source:
Romney-Gingrich Bid to Pin Crisis on Gov’t
David J. Lynch
Bloomberg, Dec 21, 2011
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-21/romney-gingrich-bid-to-pin-crisis-on-government-ignores-culprits.html
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
December 21st, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Principled abstention is the way to go. A large enough bloc of non-voters will eventually force someone to adopt a platform that will bring a bunch of them under the tent. A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for the status quo, which sucks right now in so many ways.
December 21st, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Romney says Obama is a socialist bent on redistributing wealth, meanwhile he declines to take a clear stance on payroll tax holiday. Raising taxes on working people is apparently not redistributive, nor does it strangle supply side miracles. Grover Norquist is A-OK with it too – apparently, only raising taxes on rich people violates the sacred oath.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/the_point_at_which_mitt_romney034234.php
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/21/393843/romney-payroll-tax-refuses/
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Norquist-Republicans-Obama-Payroll/2011/12/15/id/421110
Given the ’53%’ rhetoric, they clearly don’t even know the payroll tax exists, apparently they thought everyone lived on carried interest.
Meanwhile, Wallison emails Nocera after Fannie/Freddie charges, and says, see, it was all their fault, I was right all along!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/opinion/nocera-an-inconvenient-truth.html
December 21st, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I would agree with BR on this. As each day passes this party continues to disappoint me. The GOP has turned into a sideshow that only looks to appease the “far right” and has isolated it’s more moderate supporters. The “Blame Big Government” argument is getting played out, and I think most of us acknowledge that while it did contribute to the crisis, this was only a small piece of the proverbial pie. The party needs to come back to reality and look at the other contributing factors to the crisis (e.g. securitization, leverage, off-balance sheet financing, lax regulatory environment, ratings agencies, increased risk tolerance in search of higher yields…and the list goes on). The party is in desperate need of a new theme, because most voters are sick of the current one. Unless things change, this Republican will capitulate and abandon the party once and for all.
December 21st, 2011 at 2:55 pm
The thought crossed my mind to vote for Ron Paul if he actually got the R nomination… but I probably couldn’t make myself actually do it. I’ll vote for the lesser of the evils… again.
December 21st, 2011 at 2:57 pm
BR, if you were to launch a grass-roots campaign, I think you might stand a decent chance of becoming president … at least until the photos emerged showing you dining on roast infants, with child slaves tossing bundles of currency into the Big Picture fireplace to heat the room …
You’d still have my vote …
December 21st, 2011 at 3:12 pm
@MidlifeNocrisis … I suspect that you, like me and millions of others, have been voting for the “lesser evil” for a Very Long Time now. How’s that been workin’ for ya?
I’m considering adopting a different strategy — voting for the most damaging candidates I can identify, in every federal election/primary.
The thought here is that this nation needs a shock to the system, perhaps a Caligula-style monster in the White House would wake people up to the fact that government is too important to be left in the hands of the politicians. Better to wreck the nation immediately than to allow it to continue to gain speed as we hurdle toward the edge of the cliff …
The downside to this is the possibility that if the series of elected officials to Congress and the White House over the past many election cycles have not been bad enough to induce change, there is the possibility that this nation is beyond help. But then this approach works there as well.
December 21st, 2011 at 3:14 pm
It’s primary season, where crazy things happen (remember Obama’s minions playing the race card against Bill Clinton and the Hillary Express?). Don’t trash any candidate too early.
It’ll get serious when the baby kissing and rush towards the mythical center begins, sometime in mid-2012.
Then, in January 2013, back to the same bull shit and more agendas to posture for the next election.
December 21st, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Lets be real ,all these candidates are brought and paid for by the machine. And 99% of us our not part of the machine. These guys are big bunch of pussies starting with BHO and all the GOPers. I”m voting in 2012, I”m voting for myself.
December 21st, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Pandering for donations is a normal political tactic. After Obama ,we should realize what they say wont influence how they govern.
December 21st, 2011 at 3:27 pm
I’d say that that Republican party is now simply the kook party.
I’ve wondered – how can party leaders let this happen? But then I realize there are no longer any party leaders. Each candidate’s individual money donor base is an island unto itself. There is no ‘accountability’ to any sort of party leadership… and this exactly mirrors the fact that Congress itself no longer has any accountability to the country, only to its sponsors.
December 21st, 2011 at 3:51 pm
I don’t think primary season speeches are a good reason to reject any candidate.
Everyone knows that politicians play to the base during the primary and then play to the center during the election. Mit Romney is playing to the far right and trying to pick up a few Tea Party votes.
Obama did something similar four years ago. He ran to the LEFT of Hillary in the primary, then turned out to be pretty moderate once in the White House. Welcome to two party, mass-media politics….
Ignore what he says. Watch how he votes. And how he leads.
December 21st, 2011 at 3:54 pm
I’d argue one of the major problems we have in politics is that so many people vote on the basis of one issue only. The most obvious example of this is the anti-abortion crowd. Many of these people vote Republican simply because they’re anti-abortion, despite the fact 99.99% of the rest of their policies positively screw just about everyone, including themselves. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples on both sides, Republican and Democrat.
So I hate to hear you say you won’t vote Romney simply because of this issue. Unfortunately I think he’s a moderate without the courage to not play crazy on t.v. Then again I thought McCain was a moderate too, but even after he lost he kept playing crazy…
December 21st, 2011 at 4:01 pm
McCain’s role in the recent Defense Authorization Act should lead to his immediate impeachment together with Graham, etc. As for voting – who wrote the great book “Don’t vote, it just encourages the bastards?” Ron Paul is the only candidate who gets it and all the governmental parasites will never let him run so as usual I will just write in myself secure in the knowledge that at least one vote isn’t bought.
December 21st, 2011 at 4:05 pm
BR, why not consider Ron Paul?
I am not sure why you were so into Mitt Romney. There are no real differences between all the candidates except for Ron Paul. They all work for the banks and big corporations.
Ron Paul is only guy with a good idea what’s going on. At least, I am convinced that he really wants to turn the US around before Ben Bernanke and the banksters bankrupt the US.
December 21st, 2011 at 4:15 pm
try Huntsman
December 21st, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Please. Ron Paul is an economic idiot. And the fact that 64% of the public thinks that big government instead of a lack of government regulation is the cause of our economic problems shows that they are a bunch of economic idiots, too. This country is beyond hopeless.
December 21st, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Concerned Neighbour ;
I would guess for many that is a religious issue and a “non-negotiable”, no matter what other baggage and idotic ideas a candidate may carry..
December 21st, 2011 at 4:26 pm
@realgm,
Seriously, Paul’s economic plans are not based on reality. Going back to the gold standard at this juncture is absolutely insane. It would greatly limit the governments ability to steer the economy out of a recession an was a major reason why many countries were stuck in the great recession (sure WWII helped). This is not the time for a gold standard.
Please listen to “why we left the gold standard”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/27/135604828/why-we-left-the-gold-standard
December 21st, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Chillax people, it’s the Al Davis primary rule of the jungle: Just win Baby!
December 21st, 2011 at 4:31 pm
not sure that i could ever vote for a libertarian after reading what they really believe. democracy isn’t one of them. and freedom is really only for the top 1%. the rest of us, not so much
December 21st, 2011 at 4:31 pm
And for those considering Ron Paul, do you really want someone in that position who would benefit from the destruction of the US dollar? Just look at Ron’s financial disclosure forms …
http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial-pdfs/2008/8138642.pdf
One can applaud the man for putting his money where his mouth is, but not necessarily a politician.
Those individuals should, IMHO, be required to divest themselves of all investments, placing it all in cash, as represented by a laddered portfolio of 90-day Treasuries, for the duration of their terms in office.
But that might get in the way of those who go to Washington to get even richer …
December 21st, 2011 at 4:36 pm
BR: “reality has left his presidential campaign”.
“left”?
December 21st, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I used to think it was a hoot that we replaced GWB with a man whose middle name was Husssein. Now that Obama continues to embrace some rather heavy-handed legal notions in the name of national security, I’m not so easily entertained.
Yea, I know, I’ll probably vote for him again in the general election, given the alternatives. However, he’s not getting my vote in the primary. I’m writing in Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren just to remind him there are some well-deserved alternatives in his own party. Besides, I’ll feel a lot better doing so.
December 21st, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Barry,
Romney might govern the way he did in MA – which might not be much different from Obama. Plus, some people think that only a Democrat could get away with damage or destruction of Social Security and/or Medicare.
But, since Romney seems quite willing to say ANYTHING, like most of the other candidates, to get elected, he is not currently giving us any reason for ‘hope’.
All the candidates, except possibly Ron Paul, are owned and operated by the super rich, lobbyists and large corporations. Voting for any of them is a vote for more misery for the country.
Most likely, nothing good will happen until things get much worse. Let’s hope that day comes sooner rather than later.
December 21st, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Gentlemen,
We have, with low voter turnout, an unprincipled refrain from voting. So if we add a few principled people who with to refrain from voting in the hopes that “something positive will happen” I fail to see what the difference might be. Both the democratic and republicn parties are full of “kooks”, “idiots”, unprincipled louts, and what have you. I do not see that either party offers a cogent soultion to the future of the country. Taxes, no taxes, bail outs, no bail outs, it depends on who you are and how much you give to your party. There is a very good reason why large corporations sponsor congressmen and senators from both sides of the room. We can trash both parties till the cows come home but what good would it serve?
As I see it, we could keep Obama in office and hope he makes good on his promises of change. Unfortunately, the current changes are anything but good. We could elect someone like Romney and hope that they know how an economy works and what to do. But I have my doubts about him and most of the others. Ron Paul at least appears to be honest as does John Huntsman. As I recall, very few presidents or candidates for that matter really knew much about economics and how economies actually work. I lump them in with most mainstream economists including Krugman.
No matter what “solution” you might suggest, there will always be dislocations and problems. Life is not an equation where one fills in the variables with the correct numbers and the correct answer pops out a the end. I would suggest that we try to elect the most honest people we can regardless of their party affiliations or lack there of. One shudders that had not the district boundries changed we would have seen Barney Frank re-elected.
As for the economy, well, I am sure that many of you may not share the opinion of a few that we are in a depresson and that the worst is yet to come. The world has far too much debt and debt service. Yes, many do not believe government debt is dangerous but the examples of what high government debt can do to a country are far too numerous and a matter of historical record. This time it is not different. The consumer is over leveraged and no amount of trying to create jobs will change that. The world must simply deleverage and take the pain. It will not matter who is in office, there is nothing that can be done to stave off the coming deleveraging. You might as well as vote for an honest man.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:01 pm
constantnormal – are you really talking about RP and the destruction of the US dollar with a straight face? Considering the 97% decline of the purchasing power of the dollar since 1913 I think the Fed can handle its destruction all on it’s on.
Hey BR, you ever check the ip addresses of the posters here? Any come from a Fed branch? There are about 17,000 fed reserve employees that definitely don’t want to see someone like RP win. Ever notice the rabid defense of the current monetary status quo whenever a thread threatens Fed power?
December 21st, 2011 at 5:07 pm
“reality has left his presidential campaign”
That’s all? That’s the reason?
What if he ran the United States like he ran the companies acquired by Bain? We’d have bankruptcy and loss of jobs. But at least Willard would personally be richer.
But what if he ran the US not like Bain subsidiaries but like Bain itself? Well then, which subsidiaries (States, Cities) would he drive into bankruptcy and joblessness while enriching insiders (in this case, perhaps the executive branch)?
Or maybe he’s run the US like the ran the Olympics : relying on a 1.5Billion dollar bailout from the feds to make it “profitable”? Maybe as president he would just request big platinum coin valued at $2Trillion from the Fed every year and use that to declare that under his stewardship the US was no longer running a deficit.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Gary Johnson is someone that you should consider.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
He was the governor of New Mexico and is from the libertarian side of the GOP.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:18 pm
As those of us who are old enough to remeber the Bush administration know, if you care about the deficit or the economy, you can’t vote for a Republican for any level of federal office.
Maybe someday, we’ll enact an income tax cut that actually does increase revenues. And maybe someday, we’ll see a movement conservatism and self-described “conservative Republicans” who don’t militantly support a president who turns surpluses into deficits and works to expand federal and executive authority at every step. And maybe the current president actually will go on an “apology tour” about America. And maybe we will be able to invade & occupy countries into stable democracies that love us. And maybe someday “regulatory uncertainty” and costly regulations actually will be a main cause of problems in the economy. And maybe there actually will be a global conspiracy to manufacture concern over climate change. And maybe someday we actually will enact a stimulus bill that doesn’t create a single job and doesn’t contribute to economic growth. And maybe we actually will see every Muslim in the world work with the secular left to create a worldwide pro-homosexual sharia law.
At that time, it will be a grand idea to vote Republican, for their leading politicians’ pronouncements will all have been vindicated.
Until then, no one who cares about policy can vote Republican. A sad fact, a very bad thing for America.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:19 pm
MrBean,
Your comment about Krugman must mean you don’t read his blog; he’s been right about everything for so long it’s a sick joke that no one in power listens to him. History will show that he was a voice crying in the wilderness as we circled the drain. And I’m sorry, but creating lots and lots of new jobs will take care of the consumer’s debts just fine, thank you.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Unless the OWS movement morphs into some 3rd party political avenue (maybe the Justice Party) i’ll stay home this year. After campaigning for Obombya in 08, i “won’t get fooled again.”
If you’re anywhere where the sky is clear tonight (maybe out west) you’ll get to see a rare occurance if you care to:
http://news.yahoo.com/rare-sight-see-7-planets-night-sky-week-192704252.html
December 21st, 2011 at 5:26 pm
RugbyD,
Principled abstention is ABSOLUTELY NOT the way to go. If even 10% of voters cast ballots for a non-Republocrat candidate, even if spread across many names, politicians would treat this as a shot across the bow. Activity causes change, not passivity.
You wrote “A large enough bloc of non-voters will eventually force someone to adopt a platform that will bring a bunch of them under the tent”. Something like half of eligible citizens in the United States don’t vote, so how much larger do you think this bloc needs to be? Politicians cater to voters, not non-voters.
I agree with you that “A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for the status quo”, and this is why it is necessary to actively vote for someone different, even if that means writing your own name on the ballot. Failing to vote means letting your fate be decided by others (i.e., non-thinking ignorant Republocrats).
December 21st, 2011 at 5:27 pm
OT:
I really don’t like the way that this chart is trending….. Especially after last night’s ECB’s hand job….
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/!TEDSP:IND/chart
December 21st, 2011 at 5:30 pm
First, we need t0 (a) get “the money” out of politics, (b) institute a system of proportional representation.
But since neither of those will happen soon (and probably not in my lifetime), this is my stand for 2012.
I will not vote for Obama or any of the mainstream Republican candidates.
I will consider 3rd party candidates, such as Bill Still (still2012.com), should he become the Libertarian candidate.
I will also consider out of the mainstream Republican candidates, such as Buddy Roemer (buddyroemer.com).
In the end, I will probably be writing in my vote: Bernie Sanders.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:31 pm
No one to vote for on the Republican side or the Democrat side! Obama owned the world when he came into office and look at what he got accomplished….a National Health Care system that doesn’t work and didn’t even fix the old system and noting else. Sorry but I am not vetoing for the lesser of two evils any longer, I’ll waste my vote on Americans Elect or my own write in candidate. In the current political landscape of Congress/Senate, even with four more years of Obama, he will not get anything of substance accomplished not until American pull there head out of there ass and get some moderates in office who put the country first and not party politics. I see the good policies on both sides where the answer to most problems being at balance of government oversight, taxes and every other issue. To many ideologues with the mind set of my way or the highway.
Does it really matter anyway, with the money in DC and bought politicians…what do you really get in return for your vote??? I am not sure any longer??? Get money and religion out of politics and we’ll be better off!! Good Luck with that one, as said prior by others….let me know how four more years of Obama works out for you!!! We are years if not decades from evolving to a practical/rational level of politics in this country!
December 21st, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Let’s try again…. Hit the link and go to interactive…..
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/!TEDSP:IND
December 21st, 2011 at 5:39 pm
To ancientone, who said about Krugman: “he’s been right about everything for so long”..
First thing first,I do not read his blog regularly, but I have been reading him off and on (more off than on) for at least 15 years. In one of his recent interviews (within the last 6 months, but I do not recall where the source was, may be PBS News..), he said, “I admit I was wrong on this”, then he laughed and said, “you know, I am not right all the time..”.
I think we have a paradox here, if he’s “right about everything”, then his own statement of “I am not right all the time” is contradictory…, unless “for so long” is less than 6 months.. hmmmm..
December 21st, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Willard Romney does not have a clue how the national American economy works or comprehend what country he is living in. He recently said this:
“In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others. And the only people who truly enjoy any real rewards are those who do the redistributing – the government.”
What planet is this man orbiting ?
December 21st, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Reelecting Obama would be tantamount to giving Boy Bush a fourth term.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:49 pm
What makes me weep for the republic is that I can remember a time when Republican party – agree with it or not – actually had some intellectual horsepower and gravitas, in the form of guys like Kissinger, William Buckley, Dean Rusk.
This used to be my party. Now it’s a crazy cult.
I am supposing everyone has seen the quiz where you try to pick whether it’s one of Newt’s Big Ideas or the evil scheme of a comic book supervillain? I got 50%, a comic-book enthusiast got 60%.
http://supervillainornewt.com/?page_id=9
December 21st, 2011 at 5:50 pm
BR I lived under a Romney administration in MA. I worked with one of his kids. Believe me, there’s no way I’d vote for him for President. And I’ve been a registered Republican in MA since I was 18…which is before it was fashionable anywhere. And where/when Republicans were nice old capitalists that minded their own business about people’s personal lives and were fiscally conservative and business friendly. None of them were “evangelical” anything either, btw, just stodgy old New England Puritans.
What I cannot countenance in a leader, be he a CEO or President of the US is wishy-washiness. Lead dammit. Don’t change your opinion to pander, don’t change it to win, lead by being who you are even if it isn’t popular. Lead. Romney has demonstrated that he’s NOT a leader. And if he is “just trying to win a primary” then this is even worse in my book and he certainly doesn’t deserve the highest office in the land. Period. The man has absolutely no balls or personal integrity. None. And the rest of the party is now certifiably crazy.
I’ll say it again: the Republicans just gave the Democrats the best Holiday present ever (yes Holiday like this country, this time of year isn’t “Christian only” it’s diverse) with a big beautiful bow on top. The next election cycle.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Barry,
You wrote “I was looking for someone to vote for other than Obama in the next election”. A Republican nominee is not your only alternative. Since you live in New York, and since that state is practically guaranteed to fall to the Democrats in 2012 (barring extraordinarily different circumstances), you are especially free to send a powerful message and vote for a non-Republocrat.
December 21st, 2011 at 6:02 pm
My state allows you to vote in either party’s primary regardless of your affiliation. My strategy will be to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, in the hope of seeing Obama forced to respond to questions about the NDAA’s potential for infringement on personal liberty, the endless wars, etc.
December 21st, 2011 at 6:02 pm
dougc,
“Reelecting Obama would be tantamount to giving Boy Bush a fourth term.” That’s why this particular Republocrat should be referred to as Barack W. Obushma.
December 21st, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Joe Friday, that’s an easy question! What planet is Mitt orbiting? Kolob!
December 21st, 2011 at 6:26 pm
“Lesser of two evils” is a canard. No candidate will mirror a single person’s views exactly, and politics and our form of government being what it is, the “right” way/vote/action isn’t always tenable if it exists at all.
There is plenty I disagree with on both sides of the aisle but there is a clear, discernible difference between the two even if it appears there is little daylight between them at times. Only the myopic and cynical fail to realize this.
More troubling, based on the comments here and elsewhere, is the implication that any one person can right every wrong in this nation without obstruction – and do it in four or eight years. You read the news, right? We’re electing a leader, not a king or a wizard.
December 21st, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Don’t forget that Fox News has the highest number of viewers among propaganda outlets. This fact accounts for the misinformed masses. The best thing that could happen is for Murdoch and his machine to have its license revoked.
December 21st, 2011 at 6:50 pm
A vote for ANY Republican would be a Vote for the Return of the Incompetent.
Did you already forget Greenspan?
Did you forget the kind of SEC head we get when a Republican is President?
You of all people know what kind of rampant Fraud a Republican President allows on Wall Street.
Come on Barry.
Your statement is incredulous.
December 21st, 2011 at 6:54 pm
As for Mitt.
You have to remember he’s running either for or against 100 Million Dollars of Koch Money,
among other right wing nut Billionaires who now screw with Republican Politicians.
You’re now living in the age of the Idiot Billionaire’s Destroying America.
December 21st, 2011 at 7:12 pm
All politicians lie. Some are liars in their essense-congenital. My initiation to political lies was J.F.K.. I really believed his ” missile gap” attack on Ike. It was a bunch of garbage, helped J.F.K. get elected though- and revved up the cold war. He gave the Special Forces their Berets and put them to work in R.V.N.. The J.F.K. cohort is still making the case that he was making plans to end the war when he was shot- or maybe after he was shot. It never ends. When I got drafted into the crusade the Green Beanies had been so shot up that they were filling their ranks with anyone who had airborne training.
I should have stuck with Ike- “you wind him up and he plays golf for 8 years.”
Obama also is not the man I thought he was. Who is next? Does it matter?
December 21st, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Eight years of GOP nonsense, tax cuts with no thought or plan for the deficit effect. Medicare part D, “Mission Accoplished” etc… and you want more of that? ROFL!
…how those Job-Creators did such yeoman’s work on job creation when they had those Bush tax cuts? And You want to give them more? How the economy roared under their tax cuts? And you want MORE?
Are you GOP genuflectors off your rockers? You want more of the last decade? And you think Obama is bad after he put us on course to at least non-Depression?
You GOPers are nuts.
December 21st, 2011 at 7:48 pm
constantnormal Says: “And for those considering Ron Paul, do you really want someone in that position who would benefit from the destruction of the US dollar?”
At his age, do you really think Dr. Ron Paul is in it for the money? He does not even participate in the congressional retirement plan.
ancientone Says: “Please. Ron Paul is an economic idiot.”
Dr. Ron Paul had the economic insight to invest in precious metals over a decade ago. He probably understands the economy better than anyone in Congress.
I realize there are some commentators out there who’s sole mission in life/job is to bash people, but you guys need to bring better game if you’re going to post on a financial blog.
December 21st, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Hey Barry,
Do you realize the search function on your blog is dead?
I like to use it to recall some of the great stuff you’ve posted on various subjects.
December 21st, 2011 at 8:50 pm
“Dr” Ron Paul is in it for the power like Mr.George HW Bush still can kill off candidates like Rick Perry.
Paul’s as much a TBTF advocate as anybody just as we had TBTF 100 years ago and indeed during the long depression, failed…………….until we were bought by Wall Street bankers who provided cheap gold from Alaska while the government allowed labor to negotiate for higher wages.
The fact is, the savings of the invester class were to high by the late 90′s. While they were snotily crying over Clinton’s “high” tax rates, they were racking money in hand and fist. If anything, taxes(mostly capital gains and dividends) should have been raised some and government spending increased into the real economy.
When you have one class with so much savings they seek outrageous returns and found RE as a nice outlet. It went to their savings could no longer push the string any longer.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Saw an interview of Romney and Charlie Rose a couple days ago. Taken away from the ^#*!@) debate format Romney came across as more reasonable and logical in his beliefs. Good interview. Look it up.
When all is said and done I’ll vote for Obama. Not as a lesser of all evils but so as to not give a reward and reinforcement to the tactics employed in Congress by the Republicans. Obama is weak but the alternative is to reward evil.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:21 pm
I’d recommend Huntsman too except he’s not crazy enough to appeal to the far righters, he speaks in 12th grade + English and does not generate juicy sound bites for the media to cover – all the kiss of death in terms of his getting the nomination.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Wasn’t Dodd-Frank created to fix failing gov’t policies? If it wasn’t, why wasn’t it?
December 21st, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Frankly, I think the problem is not ideology on the part of the Republicans. I think the problem is branding.
Here’s some suggestions for new names for the candidates that would track higher in the polls than the current ones like Gingrich and Romney:
a. None of the Above
b. Death to Bankers
c. Free Beer
These names would poll way higher than the ones currently on the ballots.
December 21st, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Barry confirmed the 4th point, from the Four Points of Politics:
For better or worse, in democracies such as ours, we, as complacent and disconnected voters, have the right to choose the levels of corruption, incompetence and waste, that we prefer.
December 21st, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Housing bubbles in other countries are not proof that GSEs and the CRA did not cause the housing bubble in the United States. I can use that argument to disprove anything. Was there regulatory capture in every country that had a housing bubble?
I don’t believe that GSEs and the CRA caused the housing bubble. I think it was a combination of the government failing to regulate when it should have, and meddling (the FED, TBTF, and the ratings agencies) when it should not have.
Housing bubbles in other countries are evidence of one thing. The housing bubble was the end of a sixty year credit cycle that ended badly. We are now stuck with too much debt. Can we find a president who will understand that and take the appropriate action? Or will we continue to extend and pretend?
December 21st, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Like the assholes billionaires who can’t make the difference between a meritocracy and a society of the privileged, politicians are absolutely incapable of differencing patriotism and nationalism, two classes of traitors to the well being of the Nation.
December 22nd, 2011 at 12:20 am
Mr. Ritholtz
Sometimes you say something that is truly funny.
“I was looking for someone to vote for other than Obama in the next election. I hoped Mitt Romney might be that candidate. ”
This was one of those times.
December 22nd, 2011 at 12:21 am
I was so disgusted with the local election this fall that I did my first ever write in votes. It felt pretty liberating not choosing the lesser of two evils. 2012 I am voting for Mic Check for president. Screw it.
December 22nd, 2011 at 12:43 am
Our political, judicial, and military system is hopelessly corrupt. I plan on voting for the candidate that will do the most harm with the hopes that their incompetence will help wake up our ignorant and apathetic citizenry. I am now a registered republican (for the first time) and am an avid supporter of anyone but Huntsman and Obama. I am most enthusiastic about Gingrich, Perry, and Paul (in that order).
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
December 22nd, 2011 at 1:18 am
How about a write-in campaign for Hillary? Or even a vote for Bill Still?
Yes these 2 are very different, one has a chance of winning and the other has the mindset to fix up a lot of what’s wrong with this country. Either choice would likely be better than Obumer and the other Repug thugs.
Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same nowadays when it comes to corrupt politics and finding ever and more creative ways to destroy what is/was good about this country.
December 22nd, 2011 at 3:52 am
BR, pray tell, why someone other than Obama? All he’s done to earn your disregard is to save the U.S. auto industry, turn around the banking system with the stress tests, give people who could never get health insurance a fighting chance, create 2.5 million jobs with the stimulus (that’s the average estimate from Macroeconomic Advisors, IHS, Moodys.com, CBO and CEA), take out Osama Bin Laden, and overthrow the government in Libya without a single American casualty while getting our allies to pay for most of the cost. And that’s in 2.9 years. I would love to know what you would have like for him to have accomplished, if not this.
Reading everyone’s comments, I am so amused that someone thinks, for example, that Rick Perry or Ron Paul would be intelligent choices. Paul doesn’t understand central banking and a lot of other things he needs to know to hold high office, such as basic macroeconomics. I wouldn’t vote for him for Mayor of Bigpatch. It’s as the late Christopher Hitchens wrote, the Republican primary has made ingnorance a litmus test.
December 22nd, 2011 at 6:20 am
Instead of all this whining and bitching, how about some realistic suggestions for write-in votes?
They would have to be individuals who:
1) actually exist and are alive — no fictional/cartoon characters (which ought to rules out a lot of te current Repooblican candidates)
2) fit the qualifications to become president (natural-born citizens older than 35, a resident for the past 14 years, who has not already had 2 terms in that office)
3) there exists at least some slim evidence that they are capable of managing a large enterprise, especially one in financial difficulties.
Fuggedaboud whether they are willing to subject themselves and their lives and families to the circus that a public role like this entails, this is only to make a statement to the idiots running both parties.
Suggestions, anyone?
I would have offered up Mitch Daniels, except for a lot of evidence that he too has drunk from the lunatic fountain, and is now spewing the same nonsensical crap as the rest of the Repooblicans.
December 22nd, 2011 at 7:59 am
I’m struck that most of the comments above approach the issue in a very one dimensional fashion controlled by the current item on the top of the docket. Face it, for each of us, our perfect candidate has a constituency of precisely one. Real candidates have to navigate the middle. What’s I see as a deficiency is the start of a transition to the reasonable for someone else. That’s reality in our political system folks.
Could Obama have done more? Sure, and at the same time a sizeable population already wishes he had done much less. Could he have provided better leadership on occasion? Sure, but if you look at results, a lot of outcomes point to a fairly focused leadership style.
Are we better off than three years ago? I’d say definitely yes despite the current situation. Are we out of the woods? By no means.
At the end of the day, we need to deal with the reality we have, not the one we wish we had.
December 22nd, 2011 at 8:54 am
The amazing thing is that Huntsman is so low. He actually is the type of old time reality-based conservative that ran the GOP before the Gingrinch and his sturmtroopers took over that party. It is sad that the sensible “lets-make-policy-not-politics” conservatives have left the GOP to such an extend that Huntsman can only get 1-2% support in their primaries.
December 22nd, 2011 at 11:29 am
“I hope by next year we’ll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,” Barnie Franks said. And he went on to say that “it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.” He then added, “I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/barney_frank_comes_home_to_the_facts
December 22nd, 2011 at 11:49 am
BR has previously pointed out Obama’s failures. I can only add that it always seems that everybody is always getting the drop on him.
While I get a kick out of Ron Paul irritating the crap out of the rest of the stooges, if, by some miracle, he managed to gain the GOP nomination, I’d be done with him.
Voting for either of the two parties is an endorsement of the system, of the way the entities that fund them operate.
Y’all may vote your brain, heart, conscience, ideology, or for the sake of being on the winning side. Doing it your way has gotten us a Court stacked with 4 stooges appointed by one family and, most recently, two space cadets.
If the best I can hope for is that one of the stooges chokes on his vomit so that he can be swapped out for another space cadet, I fear that I’m migrating towards the collective brand of crazy.
I prefer my own. Like the candidates, I vote my dick; Bokolis always votes for myself. While it isn’t practical on the local level, I suggest people also vote themselves or for one of the crackpots on the ballot.
It marginalizes the effectiveness of their money. While they may give corporations more rights than people, we still have the power to affect the effectiveness of corporate money. It is the chink in the corporate armor. God forbid there were more people to buy…
December 22nd, 2011 at 12:27 pm
How is it that in the entire Bloomberg article (which quotes a whole gang of opinions from The Fed) and 70 responses here there is not one single mention of interest rates?
Low Federal Reserve interest rates were the root driver of the real estate mania AND the investor desperation for yield that combined to blow this out of proportion. US Federal Reserve interest rates drive global interest rates, institutional investors were desperate for yield globally, making this a global problem.
To be sure, corporate looters along with GSE execs (whose PRIMARY charter mandate is STABILITY) and investment bankers (whose buddies run The Fed and Treasury and thus were sure of receiving TBTF bailouts) took advantage of the party.
But without those rates being too low for too long it would never have happened. This was not a failure of markets, it was a failure of market manipulators.
December 22nd, 2011 at 12:34 pm
The entire crisis needs to be compartimentalized into what triggered the collapse and the reasons for the deleveraging that lead to the debt-overhang period we currently find ourselves in. The shock which specifically set off the deleveraging that lead to crisis was without a doubt the collapse of the US mortgage market in which fannie/freddie were the largest participators. Other housing markets are completely irrelevent in this discussion because our housing market was the trigger, not their’s. The reasons for housing bubbles in other countries are the same reasons that there was a bubble everywhere – our financial system had gone into overdrive.
If you look at the picture in that context, then it is impossible to ignore the impact of Fannie/Freddie. All of the banks played second fiddle to Fannie/Freddie in the mortgage market. If you lump them all together, in the context of the mortgage market, then Fannie/Freddie were the worst in terms of practices, corruption, governance, and recklessness. And they just happened to be the largest.
Fannie/Freddie did not have a hand in the massive deleveraging that occured post-shock but they were chief among the reasons that the initial shock occurred. They are not a part of the discussion on making our financial system less prone when shocks actually occur but they are absolutely a huge part of the discussion on how to prevent shocks. The former is clearly more important but saying that fannie/freddie did not make a large contribution is wrong.
~~~
BR: I can play MADLIBS with this sort of post — it is squishy data free reasoning that we can substitute any sort of blamee we want, and the argument remains just as valid.
That is the risk with this kind of soft analysis, and it is why Edward Pinto had to fabricate his own bizarre data set, as the actual data denied his thesis.
Sorry, but this analysis loses money in my line of work
December 22nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
I sometimes think W.C. Fields had a point: “I never voted FOR anybody. I always voted against”. The R’s may be clueless but they are no longer the party of the rich as the rich vote overwhelmingly Dem. Of course so do the poor and look how’s that worked out for them in the inner cities. Conversely, the Dem’s have been remarkably inept at taking advantage of the enormous political capital they started with on Jan-20-2009. Unless somehow we take money out of politics (opposed by both parties) little progress on the important problems facing this nation will be achieved. Just saying. Happy Holidays (PC right?)
December 22nd, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I’m not sure why you bother having a blog if you’re just going to use snide quips to deflect any engagement from your readers.
I have yet to see any data contradicting, from you or otherwise, the notion that the GSEs crowded out investment in the US housing market. The only data or arguments I’ve seen you make against GSE involvement is a list of alternative or complementary reasons (depending on your perspective) for the crisis and the fact that there were corresponding housing bubbles in much of the rest of the world. How is it unreasonable to think that, with our financial system’s global interconnectedness, that the GSEs crowding out investment in the US would have impacted foreign housing investment. Tell me how that’s wrong or what data I’d need to convince you it’s at least reasonable.
December 22nd, 2011 at 8:32 pm
cbjohn1;
Here at this blog you don’t really get a response with a “nobody has disproved this assumption that I just pulled out of my own ass” type of “argument”. If you want to make a claim that is not clearly supported by data presented here you sort of have to do your homework. What does “crowding out investment” mean, how is it measured and what dataset and source do you use to support your claim?
December 23rd, 2011 at 5:51 am
@Dedude: Crowding out investment means like when Ford doesn’t take a loan from the government and GM does, all the Ford investors’ ROI gets reduced because a major failing competitor is propped up, and the good ideas Ford had are not allowed to be replicated as quickly and forcefully and profitably as they would had GM been allowed to fail and re-form under bankruptcy laws. The time-effort of an investor making a careful, methodical study into investments is not rewarded – might as well just in invest in corporate bonds instead of trying to seek out the company that will like reward you much more in the future. The time spent trying to multiply your retirement savings is wasted. Citizens instead rely on SS and Medicare, and their government approved crooked, hidden books that fit right in Wall Street’s “fiscal instruments” to “save” money. The effect is to make the government’s hidden-books plans, SS & Medicare, become more critical than a private investor making smart investments into companies run by standard accounting practices, thus tilting the system into ever more illegal and crooked hidden-books-based schemes. Stupidity and “what, me worry?” attitudes are rewarded, Alfred E. Nueman style.
Delco professionals that saved for retirement? The government let their pension program fail, while propping up the union workers’ with more unpaid for debt spread mainly on the younger citizens who have a lifetime of taxpaying in front of them, America’s debt toilets.
That’s how government crowds out private investment, bro. It discourages making the effort to make your dollar count. In the end, a decree to bail out a competitor you didn’t invest in, or to bail out a favored group’s pension while yours dies, adds discouragement and disillusionment to the motivated savers’ and investors’ effort. Just become one of the drones – rely on the debt toilets, our kids, to pay for our retirement and medical care.
They seem to be getting crowded out now don’t they?
December 23rd, 2011 at 11:03 am
@John,
If there’s nobody worth putting in office strictly on their own merits, why vote for anybody? To vote in that instance would send the wrong message. Write-ins are a waste of time b/c they do not convey any sort of message that a voting bloc is available unless it’s a massively coordinated effort (I could see a movement for Hillary, not b/c she wants it, but b/c some Dems may want to send a message).
I should have clarified in my initial statement that the choice is not strictly R/D/abstain. This year offers a prime example of creating a principled voting bloc. Ron Paul running as an I will be a redux of 1996, however, Ron Paul not running at all, assuming he does not get the R nom, creates a bloc that both sides are going to have to cater to b/c they will not vote otherwise, though some may slip to Johnson.
December 23rd, 2011 at 11:21 am
I don’t understand why people DQ Ron Paul because of the gold standard thing. President =/= King. He can’t just decree the end of the Fed and install gold coin presses at the mint. However, he does seem to be the only guy in the room who can and will take power and influence away from the banks as it relates to the executive branch. Combine that with a very strong veto pen and he seems to be the only guy who is wiling to steer us in the right direction regarding our financial policy.
Given the limits on the power of the executive branch and his lifelong commitment to decentralization of power, I can’t find reason to worry that some of his more outlier monetary desires will ever come close to being the law of the land. Therefore, I’m willing to consider voting for him, especially because it’s our best shot at a major realignment of political party platforms, something I think is very necessary with the degree of nonsensical polarization we see now.