You always seem so quick on the trigger with a smart-ass answer, that
'glib' thing you do.
The "at least they're dry" remark makes it quite clear you have
neither a clue about 'dry drunk syndrome' nor the effects it has/had
on people in position where this can lead to very bad decisions, or
Let me help you a little:
"Dry Drunk" has been described as "A condition of returning to one's
old alcoholic thinking and behavior without actually having taken a
drink." Or as one wise old drunk put it, if a horse thief goes into
A.A. what you can end up with is a sober horse thief. Or a personal
favorite: you can take the rum out of the fruit cake, but you've still
got a fruit cake!
Those who quit drinking but are still angry about it, wind up living
miserable lives and usually make everyone else around them miserable
too. If it has been said once in an Al-Anon meeting, it has been
whispered thousands of times, "I almost wish he would go back to
You may want to read up on this a little before shooting your mouth
How about the fact that it was Clinton who got rid of Glass-Steagall,
the firewall between banking and the stock market that had been in place
since the New Deal? This was undertaken by *Democrats*.
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
Yes, that's true. But if you think the Dems are mostly/solely
responsible for this, you're kidding yourself. (And I am NO fan of the
Dems or the left at all). Where were both Clinton and GWB when it came
time to enforce the *existing* laws concerning naked short selling?
(Which has been illegal for a very long time and which was going on
regularly during both administrations.) See, I fail to see how more
regulation is going to change much when the government can't be
bothered to enforce the laws already on the books. And THAT, ain't a
partisan thing. Both parties have behaved very badly in this regard.
In truth, Greenspan was more right than wrong even regarding how
markets would punish fraud. Fraud is not sustainable unless you use
force because fraud - sooner or later - collapses. But the government
swine made sure that no collapse was possible: They bailed out the
banks that took insane risk. They bailed out the greedy pigs that took
out more mortgage than they could afford. They bailed out the lazy
union slobs that demanded far more for putting bolts in the bottom of
a transmission than they ever were worth. In short, there's little
point in having market transparency and honesty if every time someone
is about to lose, the government steps in, prints funny funny and
"saves them" from themselves. Markets DO work - efficiently and
mercilessly. They cannot, however, overcome the overweening force of
government when it is applied to thieves, morons, and whiners
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
You're playing something of a semantic game here. Regulation doesn't
mean just having laws on the books: it also means enforcing them. Plenty
of administrations have flouted regulations which were in force either
by underfunding the agency responsible for enforcement, or by ordering
the agency not to enforce. (Bush II with the EPA, Clinton with the SEC
and other fiduciary regulator bodies.)
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
It was the Clinton administration that required banks et al to make
unsustainable loans. When the financial institutions balked - and
demonstrated imminent financial collapse if the new regulations were
followed - the administration came up with an "insurance plan." They allowed
Fannie and Freddie to bundle this commercial paper and take the risks away
from the banks.
When the "balloon payments" of these zero-interest loans came due, the
homeowners simply refinanced their homes at the newer, higher, valuation.
This scheme worked as long as there was a demand for housing (and sufficient
poor people who could be talked into signing papers they couldn't even
read). Eventually everybody in the country owned a house - demand for
The Ponzi scheme then collapsed back on itself.
The legislation was actually written by Republicans, although Clinton signed
it and defends doing so to this day.
Mr. President, in 1999 you signed a bill essentially rolling back
Glass-Steagall and deregulating banking. In light of what has gone on, do
you regret that decision?
FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy
regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for
capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more
stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce
quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter. But I
have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had
anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has
helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of
Merrill Lynch (MER) by Bank of America (BAC), which was much smoother than
it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.
[MB] Phil Gramm, who was then the head of the Senate Banking Committee and
recently a close economic adviser of Senator McCain, was a fierce proponent
of banking deregulation. Did he sell you a bill of goods?
[BC] Not on this bill I don't think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I
on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the
Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it
was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the
Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed
that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more
patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into
the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks
could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term
Sigh. Killing or capturing Osama was never a goal of the United States. Only
in the alternative reality of those who opposed the war was such a thing a
strategy. The legal mindset of the left insists that evil-doers be brought
before the bar. The national integrity impetus of the right says that the
enemy must be vanquished or at least neutralized.
So say you. Ask the 100,000 military personnel still in Iraq if it was worth
Yep, under Bush we had 24 consecutive quarters of economic growth, negligble
inflation, and unemployment as low as four percent. While Bush did run up
the national debt during his eight years by some $800 billion, Obama doubled
that in his first month and is on his way to quadrupling the eight-year $800
billion before his first year is out.
HOPE is not a strategy
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.