-
Putting on Ears
June 11, 2013 | 20 comments
-
My Grandfather, Aaron Homnick (1893-1969)
May 29, 2013 | 4 comments
-
That Is What We Do
May 14, 2013 | 108 comments
-
Shame Old Shame Old From Obama
April 19, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Cut Out the Chase
April 5, 2013 | 83 comments
A Further Perspective
Rush Was Right(er)
The things Wall Street did because of government — and only because of government.
The spectacle of Goldman Sachs being hammered for “unbridled greed” by the United States Senate on Tuesday was good for a horse laugh. Those headless horsemen who spend untold trillions without reins are missing a bit more than just a bridle. And crass insouciant hubristic callous indifference trumps greed on my list of deadly sins any day of the week.
Rush Limbaugh used his program to level a withering critique of Congress for being less than frank about its own role in the creation of the subprime mortgage. Most of those ruinous investments we have been hearing so much about involved loans given for houses under pressure from both Houses. The government had been promoting home ownership by leaning on banks to lend to people who could not reasonably be expected to pay. There was a chance those loans would be repaid, but only if every variable lined up perfectly: homeowner retained his job, house retained its value and all parties behaved responsibly. The moment the bubble burst, the works were gummed up all around, hurting everyone including Wall Street.
Limbaugh pointed out that a familiar pattern is emerging on a number of fronts including health care. Government mandates certain activities the market resists, thus distorting the market until it collapses, at which point government steps in to save the market — or to save society from being pinned beneath the falling market. The perpetrator gets to blame the victim, then gets to kill again; after all that, it demands to be congratulated as a savior.
All these observations are valid, but there is a surpassing irony here which fascinates. Namely, the Goldman Sachs guys and other Wall Street types were not only innocent bystanders and sometime victims of government policy here, they were actually hurt in a heroic attempt to save that policy. Goldman Sachs gained nothing by selling these derivatives. They mainly did it in a spirit of misguided idealism, trying to help the government help poor people.
I kid you not. Just think about it.
These derivatives are complicated investment vehicles, but they are something like a credit card company where the guy with perfect credit is charged nine percent, medium credit twelve and bad credit fifteen. In the end each segment produces the same 9 percent, because all the first group, three-quarters of the second group and three-fifths of the third group wind up paying their bills. In the same way investment packages were created with, say, fifty percent good 4% loans and fifty percent bad 8% loans in an effort to average out at the 4% return. When the bad became horrible, this calculus broke down.
The point remains that neither Goldman nor any bank needed to bother with this process. Wall Street had plenty of products to sell. The banks could have kept the loans in-house and then turned to the government for relief if the delinquency rate became excessive. Instead they all tried to minimize the impact of the poor people paying poorly by blending their loans out into a large mix. In essence, they were creating camouflage for Barney Frank and his buddies to keep churning out these mortgages without it being too glaringly obvious how insolvent they were in reality.
I know most people find this hard to believe and the brokerage houses are not even voicing this defense themselves, but I am convinced it is the ironic truth. I have had these Collateralized Debt Offerings explained to me by a number of major players and in each case they are stumped by this question: “What possible benefit does Wall Street have by selling a subprime mortgage more than any other?” There is only one answer: they were carrying the water for politicians they believed were doing something nice for the less moneyed segment of society. Far from unbridled greed, they were engaging in a form of compassion (or a complex assuaging of their guilt feelings over being too successful).
Anyone who has worked on Wall Street will tell you it is as uncool to be Republican there as in Hollywood. In 1996 I worked as campaign manager for Rob L. Verga, who ran as a Republican against Charles Schumer for his House seat. Rob worked for Bankers Trust where all his coworkers ripped him for being Republican. His bosses clamped down on his schedule, preventing him from having the time to mount a reasonable campaign.
If I am right, Rush is even righter. These executives now being pushed under the bus were in fact the Designated Derivers trying to steer the runaway train the Democrats had drunkenly launched into motion.
About the Author
Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he speaks at the Rally for Religious Freedom in Miami on June 8, 2012.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (212) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jay D. Homnick
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/29/rush-was-righter
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Kitty| 4.29.10 @ 6:32AM
"Government mandates certain activities the market resists, thus distorting the market until it collapses..."
Don't forget this is all on purpose so the public eventually will be forced to accept a socialistic form of government.
...
Alan Brooks| 4.29.10 @ 3:27PM
I go with George Will the genuine conservative-- not Rush Limbaugh the rightwing entertainer-- America as a WHOLE has no virtue, not merely its government.
I'm not ashamed of America, I'm ashamed of its lowest-common-denominator-politics.
Alan Brooks| 4.29.10 @ 5:16PM
The Derb had a good point: "Rush [isn't protecting us from the mob] Rush IS the mob".
As leading entertainer, yes; as leading light, no.
stmichrick| 4.29.10 @ 11:02PM
Alan
Why don't you explain WHY, in this case, Rush is not a 'leading light' or is just a mere entertainer. Cheap shots impress no one here, as you can see. Try to deal with the substance of his argument.
Fact is, the man is both a 'leading light' AND entertaining, which is why he cannot be ignored by Obama, Reid or leftists like yourself. You assume that elRushbo's flamboyance and use of humor is proof of intellectual shallowness. Save that for Bill Maher or Schultz.
Rodman| 4.30.10 @ 2:41AM
Rush is not a 'leading light' of anything, besides duplicity, hypocrisy and ethical bankruptcy. He is totally self-serving, amoral and his standards shift entirely depending on who is in office and whether Rush supports them and their views.
I defy you to find one standard, one principle that he holds to, aside from compliance with his political beliefs.
Go through one program, just one. Write down the assertions he makes and the quotes he reads. Then check them for accuracy. I guarantee you will find 75% of what he says in a daily program is either blatently false or deliberately misrepresented.
He lies, defames, slanders and deliberately mischaracterizes the views and statements of those he detests so he, and his listeners, can better detest them. That his barrage of divisiveness is seen as 'entertaining' to some is just a commentary on our growing national appetite for his sort of intellectual pornography.
The media we have available, including talk-radio can be a tremendous asset to democracy, but only as long as we hold the voices on that media to a high standard or integrity and accuracy. We don't do that though, and as a result this same media is a vice, a destructive pathogen tearing our country apart for the sake of ratings and the money they bring.
Diogenes| 4.30.10 @ 12:04PM
Please refer to the Sacramento accounting firm charged with assessing Limbaugh's factual accuracy. You being so intellectually able, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding the name of the firm. When, and if, you do you will find, as have I and innumerable others, that he is nearly 99% accurate in his facts.
As to his political beliefs, to which other principles do you refer? How 'bout his devotion to free market capitalism or individual liberty and responsibility? Are these principles not worthy of your consideration or are you simply so ignorant of Limbaughs's actual literary and oral body of work that you can only present leftist talking points unsupported by fact?
rodman| 5.4.10 @ 3:36PM
Classic! You ask me to do your research for you, attempt to shame me into doing it by staking my intelectual ability on finding your source, then proceed to assert facts you can't proove.
No wonder you don't see Limbaugh's hypocrisy.
If YOU provide a statistic it's YOUR job to support it - not mine. Do your own research!
Regarding Rush's principles; First political beliefs are not principles. We don't and probably can't all share political beliefs but whether we believe in small government, big government or no governement - we CAN and should all agree that our discussions should be based on the facts as well and clearly as they can be revealed. What good can come from resolutions arrived at by a debate of myths and self delusions?
Does the truth matter? That is an issue of principle. Do we have the right to deprive others of rights we treasure for ourselves? That is a question of principle.
Do universal rights exist, or are all rights subject to the limits of legal technicalities. Again - a question of principles.
These are the a-political beliefs about what is right and what is wrong that should define our political and social views.
Rush's principles are plasitc, totally amorphous - waiting to be poured into the mold required to suit whatever he is advocating or defending on a given day.
Is it right to lie? To profit by lying? To destroy other's livelihoods solely because they are powerless to protect themselves. Is it right to rape? To steal? To Kill?
Well folks - that all depends on who is doing it!
To your point though, even his political views are conditional:
His belief in Judicial activism depends on what issues are being advanced, or set back.
His belief in fiscal responsibility depends on whether he's attacking Obama's deficits or defending Reagan's or Bush's.
His belief in dissent depends on whether he's attaacking the Dixie Chicks for speaking out or defending Tea-Baggers for threatening congressmen.
His belief in consumer spending's ability to raise the economy depends on whether he's talking about a million-dollar tax break for one person or a thousand-dollar tax break for a thousand people. The total amount of money is the same, but Rush is convinced the million-dollar break will help the economy more.
His belief in torture depends entirely on who is being tortured.
Presidential powers? Those depend entirely on who is president. Bush's unitary presidency and assertion of executive authority ABOVE constitutional rights, was fine. Obama? Well Obama's a despot, a tyrant, power hungry and obsessed with establishing himself as Monarch. How this is known is unclear - but Obama has yet to do anything approaching what Rush defended Bush for doing.
Rush assumes the mantle of defending Christianity, while he advocates the contradiction of every principle tennent of Christian theology. Above all - he advocates a relativist view, in which the suffering of others is less important than our own. That even an inconvenience endured by Americans is worth the loss of freedom, homes and lives by others.
In listening to his program you are confronted with the reality that his view, in essence is that there is no higher purpose, no nobler impulse than the pursuit of money. Everything else, up to and including human life and dignity is subservient to that, primary ambition. The political advocacy he engages in is solely directed toward that same single, higher purpose.
That is what I mean by the absence of principles.
Get back to me after you've done your research.
Rodman| 5.8.10 @ 5:55PM
OK Diogenes:
I've done your homework for you. The firm you refer to is an asset management firm in Roseville, CA (near Sacramento). There is not a word about 'opinion auditing' on their website. Tom Sullivan, the rumored founder of the Sullivan Group is an old pal of Rush's, a host on Fox Business network and an occasional stand-in host for Rush. If the audits did exist they would hardly be reliable.
But listen to how Rush portrays the audit: "almost always right 98% of the time." That means absolutely nothing. The 'opinion auditing' firm that rates his accuracy is a fiction, an absurdity he's created to parody actual fact-checkers, to sneer at the idea of accuracy and the nobility of truth and to further rub your noses in the fact that you believe his B.S.
Did you seriously NOT catch that "almost always right X% of the time" is meaningless? You thought there was an actual opinion audit?
What's funny is that once he pulls his finger out of your eye, you'll smile admiringly and ask for more.
Publius| 4.30.10 @ 6:13PM
Unfortunately for you, we actually know this is not the case. Unlike your opinions, Mr. Limbaugh's are subject to audit and he always has the goods. You on the other hand don't seem to have any facts, just charges to make. Like most liberals, you would like to think you are smart enough to distract people from the facts of what is being discussed so that accountability for 45 years of failed liberal social welfare policies doesn't have to be brought to the van of the discussion of what really needs to be done.
If you really had something to offer, we would be able to go places with you, but the reality is that, like liberal social welfare policies, liberal economic policies are not sustainable in nature because:
(a) you have to believe that liberal economic policies are not subject to the laws of mathematics; and
(b) you have to believe that Rational Choice Theory is optional - being played out when liberals deem it agreeable and being inconsequential when liberals deem it not to be agreeable.
Like gravity, the laws of mathematics and Rational Choice Theory aren't optional; they are omnipresent and immutable and that is why liberal economic policies actually fail.
The same is true with this banking reform package. There is nothing defensible in this bill, but if you would like to debate the matter, I will be more than happy to demonstrate to everyone on this board your lack of understanding of commercial banking systems, credit allocation and economics.
Please, by all means, school us by demonstrating your knowledge of these matters. We're waiting and this is your chance to put your chips on the table and demonstrate the efficacy of your claims. My money is on your silence as your ego would never stand the thrashing you would otherwise be forced to endure because I don't think you know anything about this matter.
Rodman| 5.4.10 @ 2:36PM
You invested all of 1 sentence in actually addressing the point at hand. Then you shifted, via an assumption that I am a Liberal, into an attempt to discredit my statement by discrediting the straw-man version of Liberalism you've fabricated for your own convenience.
My 'Liberalism' and/or Liberalism in general have nothing to do with whether Rush is a liar or not. All that matters to that point is if what Rush says is accurate or if it is a manipulation, distortion or outright misrepresentation of the facts.
I contend that Rush is dishonest and deliberately manipulates the facts, to which you responded the Liberalism requires the selective application of the Rational Choice Theory.
Touche!
Your attempt to divert, distort and discredit me is disappointing, but shouldn't be surprising coming from a Limbaugh defender. Of course it's also required. You can't seriously defend Limbaugh's track record, so you attack me.
Back to the point:
Limbaugh accused the Union of failing to protect the 29 Miners that died in West Virginia last month. When alerted to this misrepresentation 'during the break'
he then added another lie, claiming that Massey had been forced to rehire 85 Union Miners so therefore the Union WAS responsible for safety in the mine. The problem is - Massey was ordered to rehire the miners , in ANOTHER MINE, 52 miles away. Massey and Massey alone was responsible for safety there. From Rush; no retraction, no apology, no concern.
Rush claimed you cannot read a speech or letter by George Washington without finding a reference to God. Far from the truth.
He also claimed that there was 4.2 Billion in the Stimulus bill for ACORN. Also not true, not even close? Was there a retraction, correction issued? No!
Again, I have never had to listen to him more than 5 minutes to catch an outright lie or deliberate distortion. He must somehow cram all his accuracy into the commercial breaks.
This is all not to mention the serial distortions Rush's assertion of his own, unproven and unprovable opinions as fact. Gems like "This is the Obama recession" quoted some 3 months into the Obama administration - BEFORE his first budget was implemented.
BTW - By 'thrashing' did you mean like that 'thrashing' you gave me about Liberalism failing 100% of the time.
(http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/15/liberal-vs-conservative-a-diff)
Seems you disappeared over there once some hard facts came up.
Rodman| 5.8.10 @ 3:43PM
@ Publius,
Remember this?
Publius| 4.17.10 @ 6:32PM
And yet you would be wrong. Mr. Obama's undergraduate grade point was lower than Mr. Bush's grade point - and, oh by the way, Nazis were (and are) socialists from the political left. You guys think you are so smart, but you spew things that are so stupid. When you get some facts, come on back and I'll thrash you again. It's a fair division of labor; you say stupid things and I make you look even stupider.
Reply to this
rodman| 4.19.10 @ 1:29AM
@ Publius. Your arrogance and posturing don't quite fully compensate for the total lack of substance in your comments.
Regarding the GPA - your sources are?
But, if your going to say that grades matter, let's look at Sarah Palin, John McCain and Dick Cheney, shall we?
Cheney: flunked out of Yale then joined community college and completed a masters to avoid the draft.
McCain: Bottom of the class.
Palin: 6 different colleges, finally a BA in Communications. No grades released.
Obama: Magna Cum Laude at Harvard Law. (Sure, lot's of stupid people can do that - it's not really challenging like a communications degree from Idaho.)
It's also very unlikely that Obama gets into Harvard Law without a GPA over 3.3 That would put him a bit above Bush's cumulative GPA of 2.7.
That was over here: http://spectator.org/archives/.....ive-a-diff
You accused me of stupidity there, as you do here but you can't step up with any fact of your own, just more conjecture and generalizations. Is your inability to support your contentions how you plan to make me 'look stupider'?
Still waiting for that 'thrashing' you've promised me, twice......
MattZ| 4.30.10 @ 8:31AM
Is this a serious comment?
I can never tell on this site.
MZ
CB| 4.29.10 @ 6:36AM
Rush reminds me of Jack Bauer in the tv series 24....seems like everybody is against him, but when the day is done, he is right. It just makes you wonder why nobody realizes that from the get-go...
Keith I| 4.29.10 @ 7:09AM
As a listener since 1991 I find it difficult to imagine what we would be going through right now if Rush (and the dozens of progeny that his success helped to create), wasn't here. Who would have assumed that role, fifteen years before the widespread usage of the internet as a forum for information sharing? Rush jokes about "talent on loan from God" (with a seldom spoken "but aren't we all?" disclaimer)...... Makes you wonder.
big bob| 4.29.10 @ 7:40AM
Rush represents the truth. Anyone who has spent a life time avoiding the truth can't stand the person who brings reality back into their sensibilities. Otherwise, we would be hearing about how Rush has been "prescient and visionary"....which he is!!!
RAMIII| 4.29.10 @ 1:55PM
What many of our elected officials (and those who enable their dangerous behavior and policies) need is an INTERVENTION. This will happen either by the American Voters or God -- neither will be pretty.
An Intervention never, ever is pleasant nor easy, but when conducted to arrive at the truth (in a quagmire of lies) it is very liberating. (Pun intended)
Vasu Murti | 4.29.10 @ 12:17PM
I'm afraid I have to agree with Al Franken (author, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot) on your assessment!
Animal liberation has its antagonists. "I'll tell you what the environmental movement is in this country today, folks," insisted Rush Limbaugh on an April 22, 1993 television broadcast, "It is the modern home of the socialist/communist movement in America." According to Limbaugh, the "real mission" of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) "is destroying capitalism, not saving animals." (The Way Things Ought to Be, p. 108)
The reality? As an integral part of a secular moral philosophy, ethical vegetarianism and purchasing only cruelty-free consumer products are comparable to economic boycotting -- a political tactic used by liberals and conservatives alike.
In The Case for Animal Rights, Dr. Tom Regan observes: "The rights view is not antagonistic to business, free enterprise, the market mechanism, and the like. What the rights view is antagonistic to is the view that consumers owe it to any business to purchase that business's goods or services. The animal industry is no exception."
According to Dr. Regan: "The rights view's denunciation of standard toxicity tests on animals is not antibusiness. It does not deny any manufacturer the liberty to introduce any new product into the marketplace, to compete with the others already there, and to sink or swim in the waters of free enterprise.
"All that the rights view denies is that the toxicity of any new product may be pretested on animals in ways harmful to them. Nonanimal alternatives are not ruled out by the rights view. On the contrary, their development should be encouraged, both on the grounds of the public interest and because of the legitimate legal interests of the manufacturers.
"Nor is the rights view antiscientific," concludes Dr. Regan. "It places the scientific challenge before pharmacologists and related scientists: find scientifically valid ways that serve the public interest without violating individual rights."
Abolitionists are almost always accused of being anti-capitalist by the very industries they attack: "(The abolition of the slave trade) would be extreme cruelty to the African savages, a portion of whom it saves from massacre, or intolerable bondage in their own country, and introduces into a much happier state of life," claimed James Boswell, an 18th century pro-slavery writer.
According to Boswell: "...the anti-slavery crusade...the ranting of a handful of moralistic bigots, (which attempted)...to abolish so very important and necessary a branch of commercial interest, must have been crushed at once had not the insignificance of the zealots who vainly took the lead in it, made the vast body of planters, merchants and others, whose immense properties were involved in the trade...suppose that there would be no danger."
Social progress means change. The invention of the automobile and the end of the Second World War brought about radical change in the work place. Anti-abolitionists claimed that the end of human slavery would bring with it the collapse of the economic structure of the Southern United States. In his book, The Status of Animals in the Christian Religion, author C.W. Hume noted:
"The major cruelties practiced on animals in civilized countries today arise out of commercial exploitation, and the fear of losing profits is the chief obstacle to reform."
"In the eighteenth century," observes Keith Thomas in Man and the Natural World, "it was widely urged that domestication was good for animals; it civilized them and increased their numbers: "we multiply life, sensation and enjoyment." The Reverend William Jones wrote in 1801, "(It was) best for the beasts that they should be under man."
This supremacist thinking has its roots in Aristotle, who wrote:
"...for all tame animals there is an advantage in being under human control, as this secures their survival. And as regards the relationship between male and female, the former is naturally superior, the latter inferior, the former rules and the latter is subject.
"By analogy, the same must necessarily apply to mankind as a whole. Therefore all men who differ from one another by as much the soul differs from the body or man from a wild beast -- these people are slaves by nature, and it is better for them to be subject to this kind of control...
"Assistance regarding the necessities of life is provided by both groups, by slaves and by domestic animals."
"Limbaugh's chronic inaccuracy, and his lack of accountability wouldn't be such a problem if he were just an obnoxious entertainer, like Howard Stern," observes Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), an independent media watch group. "But Limbaugh is taken seriously by 'serious' media: In addition to repeat "Nightline"'' appearances, hes been an 'expert' on such chat shows as "Today," "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour," "Charlie Rose," and "This Week with David Brinkley."
"The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Newsweek have published his columns.
"At the beginning of his first book, The Way Things Ought to Be," observes FAIR, "Rush Limbaugh hails "wholesome family values" as the key to a decent society. But Limbaugh's recurrent "family values" rhetoric is frequently contradicted by his actions.
"While criticizing premarital sex and ridiculing liberals for saying cohabitation is the same as marriage, he's lived with girlfriends before marriage. He denounces others over profanity and pornography, and then uses expletives in interviews with Playboy and Penthouse (and lies when questioned about it by fans).
"He gleefully does a radio commercial for Hooters -- a restaurant chain that promotes itself by emphasizing its waitresses' breasts -- in an ad making light of the "shameless exploitation of women." He warms up his in-studio TV audience with a joke about prostitution. He extols the Ten Commandments, and then defends breaking the commandment against bearing false witness, as long as the untruths are told to the U.S. Congress.
"While paying lip service to "family values," concludes FAIR, "his comments about women are often crude, lewd, and lascivious. It's estimated that some 25 percent of Limbaugh's audience are Christian conservatives -- which raises questions: For Limbaugh, is the rhetoric about "family" and "tradition" merely a means to attract that audience? And for his conservative religious followers, is Limbaugh's prurient talk excused as long as he affirms their political and social prejudices?"
"When I listen to Limbaugh, as I often do," observed the late Texas political commentator Molly Ivins back in the mid-'90s, "I find he consistently targets dead people, little girls, the homeless, and animals -- none of whom are in a particularly good position to respond. It is the consistency of his selection of helpless targets that I find so appalling.
"On his TV show in 1993, he put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and said: "Did you know there's a White House dog?" And then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old and as far as I know had never done any harm to anyone...
"I also think he has a somewhat cult-like effect on his followers. They listen to him for three and a half hours a day on radio and television. I am in a position to assure you that David Koresh did not talk to the Branch Davidians that much. But that is precisely what cult leaders do: They talk to their followers hour after hour after hour."
Mark in Idaho| 4.29.10 @ 12:36PM
Waaaaay too much Kool-aid in your drink, pal. You need to listen to what he says, and stop concentrating on what you can do to discredit the man.
Tom| 4.29.10 @ 12:57PM
Al Franken is a buck tooth moron.
Have some more Kool Aid.
Publius| 4.29.10 @ 1:49PM
Thank you for this way too long non sequitur.
Publius| 4.30.10 @ 6:19PM
Now what are the odds there would be two people with the Publius handle on this site. I'll stop and you continue. I'll be "Clinton" and you be "Publius" as people are bound to be concerned and confused.
On the other hand, I would have said the same thing...
Mr. Mojo Risin| 4.29.10 @ 2:29PM
Convolution taken to its most ridiculous and drawn-out conclusion... Mojo Shakespeare---
Robert| 4.29.10 @ 2:52PM
While no one is going to support cruelty to animals, especially when unnecessary, history shows over, and over, and over, and over that those who say they want to treat animals like people (including recognizing rights with them) really have an agenda of treating people like animals.
Bill J| 4.29.10 @ 10:23PM
Millions listen to Rush every weekday. Mere thousands listened to Al franken every day on his radio show. Liberals will tell you this disparity is because conservatives need to be told what to think, but liberals don't. That's BS, Rush reinforces what conservatives already think & liberals didn't know or care that Franken had a radio show!
Rush is a conservative icon and Al is a liberal joke. If Rush ever decided to run for the U.S Senate, He would win in a landslide with no need for a recount, much less multiple recounts!!
rodman| 4.30.10 @ 1:51AM
Very true, millions listen to Rush and Franken did not do well. Same goes for Fox vs. Olbermann. But what does that prove?
The Nazi party had millions of members, the White Rose, had just a few = maybe a dozen. Does that make the Nazi's right?
The number of followers to of a message or a messenger prove nothing about the truth or worthiness of that messenger or their message.
Rush is a demonstrable hypocrite, a liar and a usurper of Christian values. The fact that millions hang on his every word proves only that millions love being lied to about those they detest.
This should surprise no-one.
ds80| 4.30.10 @ 12:58PM
What does it prove? It proves Franken should keep wearing those diapers. You would do well to don a fresh pair yourself, crybaby.
Boo-hoo-hoo! Oh woe is you! Conservativism has found it's voice, and you are so a-skeered.
Rodman| 5.8.10 @ 2:42AM
Well said. You've totally convinced me - the diaper part really hit home. Of course Rush is right and all the lies he tells, well that's just the bitter Left, fabricating reality to debunk what rush will say next week or in 10 years.
I realize now that the stats and comparisons Rush ad-libs on his program are way more reliable than the ones you could look up at say, government statistics websites.
More importantly your slam of Franken totally proves that popularity = truth.
I should have known, thanks for setting me straight.
BTW - What are you, 11?
Clinton| 4.30.10 @ 6:24PM
You would have to tell us. Of course, if you were right, his audience wouldn't grow each year - he'd be like Barack Obama and as soon as people figured out what a liar he was his support and popularity would decrease just like Barack Obama's has. That not being the case, it would appear you are not correct. Now we could be wrong, but Mr. Limbaugh has been the most popular talk radio host for quite some time and Mr. Obama is not likely to be President past 2012, so who are we to believe? I mean, you are a smart guy Mr. rodman and your promise is that people who lie can't sustain their message. We see the truth of this with the National Socialist movement (your predecessors in Germany) and we see it with Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama, yet it doesn't apply to Mr. Limbaugh. I guess that means your hypothesis about lying may be correct - Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama are certainly proven liars - but not true about Mr. Limbaugh. But thanks for playing; like all liberals, you don't think about the unintended consequences of what you say and do, so it is quite easy to expose the derangement the pathology of liberalism has inflicted upon your mental facilities. Please, continue.
Rodman| 5.8.10 @ 2:35AM
I'm not sure if you're responding to my comment or perhaps confused it with another one. I said nothing about a theory that 'people who lie can't sustain their message'.
What I actually said was that popularity doesn't prove truth. That many lies, and liars are very popular.
Lies go on as long as people want to believe them and the liars grow ever more popular until some sort of critical mass is reached and the followers start throwing their neighbors our of windows.
It sounds like you're getting close.
You like Publius above, have opted to attack me for being a Liberal (which I'm not) and then attack my statements about Limbaugh by stroking your magic lamp of Liberal bashing cliches. You have taken it one step further - constructing a witless argument based on a point I didn't make.
Why is it that you guys can't just discuss an issue on it's own merits? Why is it that you so often have to throw in the 'like all liberals' garbage and construct your ceremonial straw men to be torched for your own delusional gratification?
My statement is not about Liberalism or Conservatism, it's about lies and truth.
I demonstrated and can add, many, many points to that, that Limbaugh is a duplicitous liar. And you counter with 'the derangement the pathology of liberalism has inflicted upon my mental facilities'?
Those words, coming from you, with your response to a hallucinated argument, are not only pointless but more than a little hypocritical.
al barta| 4.29.10 @ 11:57PM
Wow, that's seven minutes of my life that I will never get back....
GavInTucson| 5.3.10 @ 11:37PM
Vasu, in all the endless quoting you've done here, I can't help but wonder, do you have any original thoughts of your own?
Red Yankee| 4.29.10 @ 2:32PM
CB, right on about that. Like this guy or not he is usually right on his assessments and statements. If someone makes fairly accurate assessments of current politics, people would listen to him regardless of their persuasion or ideology. That's why Rush has a huge listener base and is so popular.
SC Mike| 4.29.10 @ 7:07AM
"What possible benefit does Wall Street have by selling a subprime mortgage more than any other?"
It was a volume thing: pension funds and other institutional investors worldwide were in the hunt for yield. It was the volume and tremendous demand that fueled the use of these instruments.
big bob| 4.29.10 @ 7:37AM
This is "right" on the money. I have worked on Wall Street for 25 years and have had opportunity to be involved with derivatives, though not in large volumes. These bankers got numbers from FNMA and Freddie Mac that were completely torked and fraudulent. Who had time to sit around making sure they were correct? This essay correctly characterizes what happened. And now, our esteemed idiot politicians who are "reforming" the system were the ones who got us here...It's similar to the Titanic buying lifeboats from a screen door company!!
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 2:16PM
What a joke! You're supporting the very people that cajoled or paid the politicians to change the regulations that allowed this crisis to hit, and then blaming the people who tried to allow free enterprise to flow - but greed got in the way. Wall Street needs chains and handcuffs on their wheeler-dealings, especially when they place us all at risk. And, the market will not do that on it's own - most people have no idea what these snakes in the grass are doing. Greed is a powerful motive, and it needs to be checked. But, I realize y'all on here are against anything the Government does, 'cause Rush Loudmouth tells you that you should be. This guy's arguments have holes you drive Rush Loudmouths through. But listen to the echo chamber at your own denigration.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 4.29.10 @ 4:22PM
Indeed, I believe you are correct; Greed does need to be checked when it infringes upon the civil and property rights of other citizens.
The main problem was that those who were put in place to regulate the market, the SEC, were asleep at the switch; Or so we've been told. I'm sure there were amoral people on Wall Street who were looking to make a quick buck, and I'm very sure that the Statists in our government were willing to look the other way while the market crashed. As I believe one of the Emmanuel brothers said, "You can't waste a crisis."
Whether this article is completely factual or not, it highlights a point in my mind. Where the government failed to regulate the market before, perhaps we should attempt to re-affix a steady eye on things like derivatives and make sure they're more clearly traded in the market.
Government is wont, at its leisure, to do the bidding of the people. A populous movement has been generated in this country that has as its aim to target Wall Street. If we allow the Dems to oblige in the manner of the Statist, we could have some serious problems down the pike. Some of their ideas seem fairly decent -- Who wouldn't want a bank to insure itself against failure? But we must remain vigilant.
Purpleguy| 4.30.10 @ 4:16PM
Not bad. I'm not sure the SEC was asleep at the switch as much as they were not trained or qualified to oversee what was happening. Missing the Madoff scandal when they were even warned makes no sense.
There are some common grounds afterall when everyone gets off their ideological high horses and common sense prevails.
I really am a "purple" guy, and can see both sides. It's just the self-righteous dittohead crowd that rankles, and they need to think, not react more. The left has the same problem, by the way, and Huffington Post readers aren't thrilled with me sometimes either!
Clinton nee Publius| 5.1.10 @ 12:07PM
It rankles because Mr. Limbaugh is correct on policy matters and correct in pointing out the reality of liberal economic policies and social welfare policies. He's not pointing out that they have failed 100% of the time - even though liberals have tried for more than 45 years to make one of them a success - he's pointing it out because we know we cannot continue to subsidize programs that can't be made to work because they sit upon a foundation of economic and philosophical jello.
The reality is that government spending - as it applies to the structure of our economy - can only make our economy worse off than doing nothing at all, because; all spending has to have a source and all government spending MUST come from the private-sector economy. This means every attempt to alter the momentum of the economy fails because it has to hurt the economy in order to then try and help the economy. Liberals choose to ignore this undeniable fact of life (and the attending law of mathematics known as the "Mathematical Law of Subtraction" - tricky one that subtraction) because liberalism isn't about sustainable economics, it's about using the color of government authority to cease wealth from those who create it and turn it over to those who only consume it. This is the reality and that's why liberals hate Mr. Limbaugh; his refrain has been consistent and - as far as liberals are concerned - the hateful truth of the liberal disease.
Purpleguy| 5.2.10 @ 12:03AM
Actually, we don't hate Rush Loudmouth - he provides a service. He gets the less intelligent all riled up and so hysterical about nothing, that the rest of the country will have nothing to do with it. Of course, HE doesn't like taxes, since he pays a lot of tax, but he's convinced the yokuls who pay next to nothing in taxes that it's their duty to fight for lower taxes, less government and let the less among us fend for themselves. Nice creed y'all have. Very Christian of you. Loudmouth is consistent though - consistently wrong in his conspiracy theories and innuendos that y'all lap up like Kool-Aid. How soon y'all have forgotten that he supported George Bush and his fascist policies ... He tells you what he thinks you want to hear and laughs behind your back all the way to the bank - or is that the drug dealer?
The Economic question is valid though, and we will either raise taxes or reduce benefits; there aren't a lot of choices. So either pony up some more money kids, or throw Grandma in the street and off of Soc Security and Medicare. I prefer you pay up and shut up and be glad you live in a country where you have such a high standard of living and you can pay more than your fair share to help those that can't. That isn't a statist view, that's a Democratic Republican view. God Bless America!
GavInTucson| 5.3.10 @ 11:48PM
It's interesting toward the end how you mentioned "throwing Grandma out in the street." We as Americans did something very Christian before the days of Medicare and Social Security... we took care of Grandma ourselves.
Did the idea of taking care of your Grandmother even enter into your thinking, or are you too lazy and would rather let the government "take care" of her?
Carol| 4.29.10 @ 7:46AM
Rush is a gift from God.
Rush can tell the truth while adding humor to it (thank God). But Rush is a fountain of truth that should be heard by all the people out there so they realize the real criminals are the Democrats - from Obama on down.
He along with Barney, Dodd, Waters, and the rest of the human slime should be doing time for screwing up the best nation in the world - probably never to be put back together again.
How can we fight this? It's so maddening that the libs are so stupid thinking Wall Street are the only bullies in the room.
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 2:19PM
Honey, I sure hope you're attractive, 'cause you ain't got nuttin' upstairs. No one says that Wall Street are the only bullies in the room. But they sure have profited from all our woes, now haven't they?
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 4.29.10 @ 4:25PM
So did the many Democrat-affiliated individuals working at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. I could only wish they would be thrown in the clink, with a shiny new pair of steel bracelets.
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 11:25PM
Agreed - throw 'em all in jail. D's or R's don't matter when greed takes over.
GavInTucson| 5.3.10 @ 11:49PM
For once, I totally agree with you.
GavInTucson| 5.3.10 @ 11:50PM
... and only under the caveat that a law's been broken. We don't lock people up for being stupid.
Bill| 5.3.10 @ 10:42PM
Uh, no.
Lehman brothers is gone, Citigroup and many others are on life support. 100,000 employees have lost their jobs. Yeah, Wall Street really profited.
Dean| 4.29.10 @ 8:08AM
C'mon. Goldman Sachs and the other large banks on Wall St. have to take almost as much blame as Congress. It wasn't their "idealism" that led them to make risky loans, it was their greed.
Fab Tourre, the 29-year-old trader at Goldman, knew he was selling garbage bonds yet he continued to market them as opportunities for great returns to Goldman's clients.
I firmly believe that Frank, Dodd, et al were clearly the main cause of the downturn. However, the big banks and many hedge funds (J. Paulson) recognized the downturn and saw an opportunity to make money as a result. Consequently, there is a lot of blame to go around and Conservatives have to make sure we don't allow our anger with Congress to cloud our judgment regarding others who allowed their greed to run rampant and damage our economy.
We have to have financial reform as Wall St. has proven it can't be trusted to control itself. I just wish we would wait on it until the voters finish Congress Reform in November.
Indiana Alex| 4.29.10 @ 8:35AM
If someone correctly assesses the market, and makes money off of that assessment, they shouldn't be blamed as the cause.
Thier sales techniques may be borderline, but at the time, a bet against the mortgage market was seen as a long-shot.
GavInTucson| 5.3.10 @ 11:55PM
Exactly. Betting against something doesn't cause it to fail.
If John Q. Citizen takes out a mortgage that he can't afford, me betting that he'll default doesn't cause him to fail, only John Q. Citizen can do that.
JP| 4.29.10 @ 8:48AM
Dean,
What are you talking about? Everyone knew the risks. As a matter of fact, most people thought this was a great idea (ie spreading the risk instead of pooling it). The yeilds were great as long as a)real estate values continued to rise and b) interest rates remained near 0%.
You seem blissfully unaware that of the fact that it was the nature of the mortgages themselves that were the problem and not the proudcts they were bundled into. And the customers weren't Joe and Mable from Ditchweed Iowa, but mutual fund managers, hedge fund managers, and pension fund managers. These guys just don't call some 29 year old broker and put in a buy order based on a cold call. The demand for these derivatives were so great that everyone from New Delhi to Moscow wanted in. It was thier greed that ignored the risk -not Goldman's.
This crisis has its genesis in Congress and the Fed. Without whom there would not have been so many high risk mortgages. So, yes you can partially blame the mortgage brokers (who sold the mortgages as fast as they could write them), the mortgage companies who passed on the risk to Fannie and Freddie, as well as the customers who bought homes they couldn't afford at adjustable rates. As a matter of fact, fraud on the part of consumers was a big problem in places like California and Nevada. In California alone, about 30% of the foreclosures involved illegal aliens.
But to pin this on Wall St is a bit much. There would have been no demand for these derivatives if Congress hadn't created the conditions in the fist place.
owyheewine| 4.29.10 @ 10:28AM
Does that mean the buyers were from Ditchweeds, NY, or Podunk, GB?
R Martin| 4.29.10 @ 8:56AM
Reinforcing the stereotype of a greedy Goldman Sachs (or Wall Street in general) is work for a lazy mind. The large investment banks, such easy targets for populist ire, are nowhere near as culpable as Congress for the financial crisis. Not even close.
Be careful what financial reform you wish for, and don't forget the critical role Wall Street has played for more than a century in the economic engine which has made America enviable.
Publius| 4.29.10 @ 2:15PM
Spot on R Martin. The attacks launched on Wall Street, (mostly by democraps) is nothing more or less than playing the 'Class Warfare', 'Class Envy' card, which of course is modus operandi for the marxist party the democraps have become. The interrogation of Wall Street bankers is nothing more than a Stalinist show trial. An attempt to deflect from their own complicity. I well remember back in Sept/Oct of 2008 when this all broke, CNS News asked Barney (the marf lip) Frank if this financial collapse wasn't about forcing banks to give loans to people who were poor risk at making the payments. Ol Barney answered, no it's about 'subprime lending', LOL. You can look it up. Republicans tried several times to reform Freddie and Fannie between 2000 and 2008. Federal regulators tried to sound the warnings of the impending insolvency of Freddie and Fannie. Both were stone-walled by democraps accusing them of being racists and wanting to hurt the poor.
Dean| 4.29.10 @ 9:53AM
Alex, JP and Martin,
Just to be clear, first and foremost, I blame Congress (including Sen. Obama) and George Bush for this false idea that everyone should own a home, ability to pay be damned. Their shortsighted, feel-good policies nearly caused a depression as mortgages were given to anyone with a pulse.
However, Goldman and the other big banks knew they were sitting on garbage and they continued to sell it. They packaged up the bad mortgages and told their clients these were good investments. In many cases, the rating agencies (who are also at fault) showed them with AAA ratings. No one, no matter what their resources, could go through every mortgage in these deals and know how likely they were to fail.
How is this different from a fast food restaurant that knows they have bad meat, but still sells it?
If you've not read it, read Michael Lewis' new book, "The Big Short." By page 33 you will go, how in the world did anyone think this was a good idea. It was clear, early on, that disaster was around the corner, but the people closest to it just turned a blind eye as they continued to rake in billions, while our 401Ks got absolutely killed.
I still want financial reform and I think the plan the Republicans are trying to bring to the floor is a pretty good fix.
R Martin| 4.29.10 @ 10:35AM
a) You don't know what Goldman "knew" and b) you have no idea what Goldman "told" their buyers about the investments. In any case, a seller of a $150 million investment expects the buyer to analyze the deal, consider its pricing and make an informed decision. Do you think the investment committee of the buyer who approved the purchase said to their in-house guy proposing the deal, "What does Goldman think about this?"? No, that's not how it works. Buyers do their own analysis, no matter how complex the transaction.
JP| 4.29.10 @ 12:04PM
Dean,
That's the misconception of the average Joe has concerning derivatives. Funds managers do not need to be told the risks, for they know all derivatives carry huge risks. Again, the yields early on were so attractive that buyers from all over the world (including the governments of Iceland, Ireland, Greece, and Italy) wanted it. This drove the price of the products up even more. Which, in turn put pressure on everyone to create even more mortgage securities. Which, put upward pressure on the real estate markets across the board; which, in turn caused even more infalted asset valuations; which, in turn allowed home owners to take out second mortgages and cash out thier equity; and those 2nd mortgages got bundled as well.....a person with bad credit could cash out say $100,000 of his equity (some mortgage companies even allowed for 120% cash out) at adjustable rates.
And all of this craziness was predicated by a)Congress and b) the Fed. People and organizations bought into these derivatives not because there was no advertised risk, but because they paid out excellent yields. It is the same irrational behavior that had people buying into Pets.com in 1999 at $450 a share even though the firm was losing money hands over fist.
Dean| 4.29.10 @ 1:25PM
R & JP,
Good points, but how do you think investors would have reacted had they been told that the person who put the bonds together for Goldman to sell was shorting them? They likely would have run as fast as they could and have never done business with Goldman again. Now, if Goldman didn't know, they were derelict in their duty to their clients. Cripes, they were shorting these same things.
That being said, clearly there were a very large number of companies doing very similar things that caused the crash, so Goldman wasn't the only one.
Also, JP, your comment on the demand for these derivatives is well stated. My problem is that those who deal in these daily had to know the risks were growing exponentially, but they continued to package them up and sell them.
Now, why do I believe we have to have some financial reform (other than Wall St. has proven it can't control itself)? There has to be a better means for the valuation of these assets. The current approach is clearly flawed. The idea that Ican sell a mortgage and it somehow increases in value is insane. I get how the derivatives markets work. It has worked very successfully in spreading out risk for decades in the commodity markets. The difference is that the payoffs are shorter and the assets being sold are much easier to valuate (for example, all wheat is essentially the same thing; you can't say that for mortgages).
Therefore, and I wish I could take credit for this, but as David Brooks said in the NYT earlier this week, but Goldman is either Smart and Sleazy or Dumb and Decent.
My thoughts--a combination of both.
R Martin| 4.29.10 @ 2:41PM
Dean, you seem to be a reasonable sort and genuinely interested in this subject, so I'll help you out. The instruments which are the subject of the SEC action against Goldman are Synthetic CDO's. That means they are not backed by real assets but by references to real mortgages. Accordingly there is Always a long and a short when these deals are marketed. The buyers were big boys, they knew this, so disclosure was not and should not have been an issue in the transaction.
As to your comment below about Goldman people moving into public service, that's because they have good people who are sought-out for their expertise. Goldman is often the target of criticism, because their success and market presence is envied by many. They don't need your sympathy but neither should they be a scapegoat. And they do not have to ask forgiveness for pursuing self interest.
bill| 5.3.10 @ 11:23PM
Dean,
In this instance did not Goldman take the side against J. Paulson and lose over $90 million? One hedge fund manager guessed right and the other plus goldman lost. Aren't there 2 sides to every trade? don't hedge fund, mutual, and pension fund manages seek to balance risk and reward to maintain a diversified portfolio that will grow? They knew the potentil risk and the potenital reward Without speculators there is no pricing mechanism or market..
Dean| 4.29.10 @ 1:29PM
One more thing. Why do I blame Goldman more than other Wall St. firms? It feels really sleazy that so many of the people trying to fix the mess and now working for the White House and the Fed are from Goldman.
It certainly appears as though they found a way to protect themselves while taking down their competitors with the help of the White House and Congress.
However, if anyone can make Goldman Sachs a sympathetic figure, it is the US Congress.
Publius| 4.29.10 @ 2:29PM
Since Klinton had his AG Janet Reno and HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo tell the banks they would adhere to the CRA (Jimmah Karter), or face prosecution, the banks had little choice. The few banks that didn't go along with the program were attacked by ACORN. First the democraps charged the banks with racism, calling it 'discriminatory lending', then in 2008 when the bubble caused by this policy, burst, they quickly began calling it 'predatory lending'. That the democraps were both culpable and hypocrites was lost on a fawning media. Well, yeah, they're more than just fawning, they're in the tank.
Publius| 4.29.10 @ 2:41PM
Actually Geo Bush tried to reform Fannie Mae, as Regulators were warning of Fannie's impending insolvency, but was accused by the 'rats of only wanting to hurt poor people. I think that was in 2004. In 2005 the House Banking Committee heard testimony by a Federal Regulator, and based on that testimony republicans advocated reform, but both the Regulator and republicans were accused of being racists and that it was nothing more than an attempt to 'lynch' Franklin Raines (CEO of Fannie Mae and a black). Of course there were several democraps who had been running Fannie Mae and cooking the books and taking huge bonuses. One was Jamie Gorelick, later Klinton's deputy AG. In 2006 John McCain advocated reforming Fannie Mae. All attempts were thwarted by democraps with accusations of racism.
Curly Smith| 4.29.10 @ 8:12AM
The Credit Card analogy is good, but it's missing a key component - namely that the "bad" loans were backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Treasury. Those sub-prime loans were bought and guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both government run enterprises. Goldman Sachs, among others, created high-reward financial instruments from what appeared to be no-risk mortgages. There really wasn't any way that the institutions could lose money... the base loans were guaranteed so it didn't matter if the loans weren't any good. Ultimately, the taxpayer would be responsible for making the financial institutions "whole".
Then when things went south TARP was borne, both as recompense for the bad loans and hush money to keep the Wall Street firms quiet about Fannie, Freddie, Barney and Chucky. The whole mess is nothing but the unintended consequences of very bad public policy. But don't blame Congress, they don't set public policy or spend money or oversee intelligence... unless they can claim success.
Pingback| 4.29.10 @ 8:36AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Rush Was Right(er) [spectator.org] o links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
JimH| 4.29.10 @ 8:48AM
Part of the collapse was that in the hunt for a higher return so many of thee CDOs and similar intruments were bought on margin. After all what could the risk be? These instruments were highly rated, the government backed the underlying mortgages and housing markets never go down. Right? It was the reverse leverage of the margin purchases which was the problem.
JP| 4.29.10 @ 8:57AM
JimH,
This is where the Fed comes in. Usually the first sign that a market bubble is near peak is the amount of the money going into it bought on margin. If interest rates are low, insitutional investors will simply borrow large sums because the Fed has priced risk so low. If the investment goes sour, the borrower is only out the amount he borrow plus a small sum of interest he owes.
This is where Greenspan miscalculated. He kept interest rates near 0% almost to the month he stepped down. Investors who buy and sell derivatives are really nothing but sophisticated gamblers. When risk is low they will play several high risk games at once in the hope of striking it big. Whether one takes a long or short option is immaterial. As long as the risk is priced low he is in as long as he has cash to play with. Now imagine not just Wall St investors, but investors in Frankfurt, London, Hong Kong, New Dehli, Sydney, Tokyo, and Bahrain all with huge sums of cash getting in on the game. This house of cards had its genesis in the Beltway, not Wall St.
2Anglico| 4.29.10 @ 8:55AM
Do you think for one minute some silly new 1300 page law will stop people from cheating? Do laws against robbing liquor stores stop liquor store robberies? The open and free market solves all the problems. You screw people and lose their money? You go broke! But today, Uncle Sam steps in and props you up with CHARITY taken from our pockets. Charity is not authorized by the constitution, according to James Madison.
Since there is no risk of failure, GM, Chrysler, big banks, et al, keep on taking risks they would not take WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. Let them fail or succeed WITHOUT government intervention.
Conan the Grammarian| 4.29.10 @ 9:39AM
This is actually a funny joke, but the English is atrocious. Where did you learn English?
2Anglico| 4.29.10 @ 12:13PM
This is a message board not a 7th grade English class.
Publius| 4.29.10 @ 2:45PM
I think Conan put his post in the wrong spot.
2Anglico| 4.29.10 @ 4:06PM
If so, he is forgiven. Half the time I try to post here the home page reloads without posting my comments. I am trying for brevity.
Publius| 4.29.10 @ 4:20PM
Well, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Margie| 4.29.10 @ 4:25PM
There was a Ping ad there earlier that he was responding to that had a joke in it, I saw it. Same thing happened to me, earlier today. I commented to a Ping ad and then it disappeared and my post ended up looking like a reply to someone's post! Glitches I guess. Or goblins.
Publius| 4.29.10 @ 4:44PM
"Half the time I try to post here the home page reloads without posting my comments"
BTW, that happens to me alot here too. Always after I've lost my internet connection and returned. Can't make a post again until the next day.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.29.10 @ 9:39AM
Guys,
You know...I'm sorta' honored to be in on the day to day conversations with ya'll. The article by Mr. Homnick was splendid, and the comments here remind me once again how many truly bright folks drop in with different "lenses" ...different takes...
different perspectives.
The comments above also remind me yet again how many sharp "lurkers" drop by often. Our conversations are joined by a LOT of folks we never hear from...or rarely hear from. Thank youall for joining us and carrying thoughts with you into your days.
S_in_Severn| 4.29.10 @ 9:51AM
As bad as the CURRENT crisis is right now, it can still get worse. We put $100.000 DOWN on the house we 'own' with the bank back in 2005 when we were transferred to the Baltimore-Washington D.C. region. We thought we were smart to go a more traditional route. We have seen nearly all our equity evaporate, others around us are already upside down because they did not.
It can still get worse.
ds80| 4.30.10 @ 1:14PM
Yep. Huge amounts of commercial real-estate debt must be turned over, soon. The bulk of option-ARM resets have yet to occur. Greece is frighteningly a pre-cursor to what looks like might happen here.
Which will be small potatoes when the bullion banks (JP Morgan, UBS, HSBC, ... sound familiar?) are short-squeezed: they have "loaned" out 100 times more gold than they have. All it will take is for some big players to demand physical delivery ... gold will go through the roof and the dollar will be worthless.
Tim*| 4.29.10 @ 10:36AM
Follow "The Wall Street Croupiers " Money Trail !
Chuckie Schumer's Sugar Daddy Was John Paulson ,Who's Hedge Scam with G-S fleeced G-S Investor Suckers.
G-S Money is still goin' to Democrats 2 to1 for The 2010 Election Cycle.
Margie| 4.29.10 @ 11:01AM
We love our el Rushbo, the man with the talent on loan from God.
The Truth Detector and Dr. of Democracy. The all-knowing, all-seeing, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, Ma-Ha Rushie.
Rushes wages war against the ideological Left along with us, everyday. He says what I'm thinking even better than I can!
God bless you, Rush!
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 2:26PM
Oh, please, sweetie, gush all over him if you must, but not here ... I'm eating lunch. He doesn't wage war, he entertains a bunch of airheads that don't check his facts and believe him hook, line and sinker. He laughs at you all the way to the bank. He is often wrong, usually rude and obnoxious, and a drug addict to boot. And, you "love" the bombastic, bouncing, blowhard? Get a life.
Publius| 4.29.10 @ 2:52PM
I think he was wrong once 10 or 15 years ago. He is only obnoxious and rude to the tender sensibilities of leftwing anti-Americans and girly-men. I'm guessing your lunch is tube sandwich.
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 11:23PM
Ha! Know all about tube sandwiches do you? Interesting you would know that... says more about you Chuckie than me.
Bydand76| 4.29.10 @ 3:19PM
Whatever, Purple-douche,
You wouldn't last a second against Rush should you be lucky enough to debate him.
All you are is a mealy mouth little worm-tongue (LOTR REF.) who spouts nonsense and invective.
Kinda like "Liberal Reader" (which is who you really are!)
I got to meet Rush Limbaugh when I was deployed (Afghanistan) and trust me the guy is genuine. He is a very articulate, smart human being who is hyper-focused and curious about everything that goes on around him. He is also one of the most humble celebrities I have happened to meet as well, kind of like Al Franken to be honest with you ( I wonder if there is a connection?) but I digress.
Do you seriously think he would have lasted as long as he has without a vast knowledge base to draw upon? Influenced as many people as he has without knowing what he was talking about?
C'mon, be honest with yourself at least! Rush started it all.
Rush is an entertainer make no mistake about it but he at least tells you that up front.
I thought you douche-bag libs were supposed to be tolerant of other peoples problms? Where is your compassion now?
How about this? Try listening to him for a week and then re-evaluating your opinion ater you have actually listened to what he has to say?
I bet you can't do it!
Pro Libertate!
Curtis Rasmussen| 4.29.10 @ 5:47PM
Bydand76, I thought the same thing about the troll.
The troll is the purple (guy) and scarlett whore of Babylon astride the 7 headed beast, each head bearing the name of a false moniker. Out of her golden chalice spills her vile filth that fill many threads.
No one is fooled by the troll except herself. We all know that one moniker frenzied nutbag is behind alot of the troll problem here.
I don't listen to Rush, more power to him if he annoys the trolls. I don't remember past conservative leaders hammering liberals like the verbal battering inflicted upon conservatives by those in power today.
JmsA| 4.29.10 @ 11:20PM
Bydand76,
Well said. However, purpleturd would not learn anything from Rush or anyone else, for he's blind drunk from the leftist kool aid. He serves his purpose, though, don't you think? He continues to demonstrate the delusion which so often afflicts little leftist minds by continually trying to project onto others their own ignorance and anger. I'm surprised he hasn't spouted any of his customary Bush derangement syndrome affliction in this page, though I suspect he will.
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 11:20PM
Hilarious - you can't out debate me, so call me names. Well, sticks and stones, ya know, children. Ted Haggart had a big following until his real proclivities were found out; So did Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition ... Corrupting Conservatism is what you all prescribe to, but you don't realize it. Wall Street your Republican party supports, Insurance Companies, Big Business in general, the "Party of Big Business" has become the Grand Ol' Pedophile Party and you don't even see it. Maybe now you are bucking for Governor of Podunkville Alaska Party with Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin - laughing at you all while she cashes in on 12,ooo, ooo while you soak up her Kool Aid. Ya think you got all the answers 'cause Glenny Becky tells ya so, or Rushbo Limpjaw tells ya so. I listen to them all plenty, and O'Reilly, Rove and Morris... all purveyors of pap to feed you all to keep generating $$$ for them and hatred for you. You find a Conservative spokesman that isn't cashing in on your naivety, let me know. Otherwise, if their making money off your beliefs, don't you wonder if they really believe what they say? You complain about Congress and politicians for doing the same thing, but with the Right Wing Nut Media, you believe them hook, line and sinker, like the sad suckers y'all are. You probably are very nice people, but you are sadly misguided as to what makes America great .. we can only hope that a woman president, a hispanic or Asian president will convince you that you may be wrong. The mirror is not always kind .. sorry.
JmsA| 4.29.10 @ 11:57PM
Debate what, purpleturd? That ignorant rant above? The mere senselessness of it amply refutes it. Besides, I've already refuted your talking points with hard facts, only to witness your repeated pathetic fallacies, ad-hominem, non-sequitur, and red herring-laden comments--like your idol, the One, is often wont to do. Grow up, lest you surpass growing suspicion and finally confirm yourself an ignorant fool. Oh, wait. You've already done that, as many of those posting herein have been bored to read. Have a nice evening anyway, and don't forget: 11/02/2010
Curtis Rasmussen| 4.30.10 @ 1:37AM
Ignore Purple guy Lib Reader, the one who frequently ends her irrelevant rants with a racist paragraph or two. The consistency of her posts gives her away.
Slinking into the racist gutter means her argument is already lost. Ignore her.
Margie| 4.29.10 @ 3:50PM
Little guy,
Who taught you everything you know?
mrreagen| 4.29.10 @ 9:54PM
Gee thats some hard hitting chock full of logic there Purpleguy. Here some back. Your just jealous cuz Rush was fat ,but you are ugly and now Rush has lost weight but you'll never be any better lookin
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 11:02PM
Well, I've read Winston Churchill and you're no Winston Churchill. The line doesn't have quite the same zing coming from an amateur. Sorry, missed the target. Sure, Loudmouth lost weight - meth and ecstasy will do that to ya. Fry part of your brain too, but y'all know that already. Jealous, please, of big. ol', bouncy, big fat idiot, Loudmouth.
JmsA| 4.29.10 @ 11:30PM
Behold the crude comments, not altogether unexpected from those such as purpleturd and his ilk when unable to lucidly counter argue. A classic example of the mob mentality not only so often in display nowdays, but also unceasingly unleashed on those who speak the truth in disagreement with them.
Purpleturd, you claim to have read Churchill. Yet, you don't seem to have gained any of the man's wisdom, or for that matter his poignant and eloquent prose. Could it be that you are lying, as you are so often wont? Don't forget: 11/02/2010
Purpleguy| 4.30.10 @ 9:48AM
You have been measured and found lacking. Your attempt at articulate speech unfortunately lacks imagination and relevance. You claim I used crude comments, but you couldn't help yourself could you? You just couldn't hold it in, your insignificant intellectual power just couldn't keep it in could ya, JismA.
JmsA| 4.30.10 @ 8:54PM
Referring to you as a purpleturd is not inconsistent and thus not lacking in my part given the unmitigated irrationality of your ceaseless rants. You suffer from a diarrhetic disease of the mind; that is, you can't help yourself in spouting ever increasing (crap in, crap out) nonsense, to the tedium of those who happen onto it. Hence purpleturd. Doubtless this stems from your irremediable besottedness with the One. That said, rebutting your fallacious hyperbole does even begin to rise to a challenge, and is thus not only not much fun, but a waste of time. Besides, why should I provide you with any wisdom? It is obvious that you are unable to see the truth were it to grab you by the nose and kick you in the ass, which by the tenor, tone, and essence of your comments, can be easily confused with your obviously misued brain. No doubt this will incite you to spout evermore vilely, demonstrating once again the shallowness and baseness of your mind and spirit. Thanks for "JismA." It's a real nice touch, proof once more of the guttersnipe (in case you didn't know, Churchill was quite fond of the term) essence of your mind. I must admit though, you're a consistent Alinskyite, as you seek to smear those with whom you disagree--and cannot better. 11/02/2010.
Purpleguy| 5.1.10 @ 11:52PM
Wow ... he can string more than 2 syllables together... Maybe you should apply as Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin's writer. She could use some syllabic assistance. For not enjoying our rejoinder, you sure babble on, don't you, JismA? Crude gets as crude gives. So it must be, little mind.
bill| 5.3.10 @ 11:00PM
Barney,
Please make your rants more believable than to a 3 yr. old
Old Soldier| 4.29.10 @ 11:16AM
The whole thing was political theater.
Goldman Sachs being publicly slapped around by Senators they own. The real bad guys - the ones asking the questions. The name-calling and finger wagging - a distraction from Fannie and Freddie and justification for more government expansion.
The innocent Senators will expand the government to protect us from greedy bankers and brokers. They may somehow overlook any reform or oversight for Fannie and Freddie.
Kylie Estwick| 4.29.10 @ 11:17AM
Unfortunately Mr Limbaugh's assertions are in complete opposition to the assessment of every leading economist who has commented on the crisis.
Just because you love to hate the liberals, doesnt make your ringleader correct. I would be very careful about taking economic advice from a radio personality who flunked out of college.
JimH| 4.29.10 @ 11:21AM
How many millionaires have an economics degree? And how many economists are millionaires?
Bydand76| 4.29.10 @ 11:57AM
Whatever Kylie.
Tell you what. I will agree with you when Mike Moore (who is a millionare btw) gives away all of his $$$ to charity and practices what he preach's.
(Capitalism! a love story?) Great Comedy!(SNORT)
So far that douche-bag (Mikey Moore)has been wrong on everything he talks about where as Rush as been proven right 95% of the time!
Hey! I am sure Rachel (mad-cow) Maddow, Chris (tingle legs) Matthews, Keith ( Don't have a good nickname yet) Olbermann, and Bill (Duckface) Maher would agree with you though!
See your not alone in your little mudhole of insanity!
I will take advice from Rush Limbaugh who made himself what he is, over anyone of those phony ass, knee biting, liberal, douchebag, gits, any day of the week.
Bill Gates didnt graduate college either. I bet you wouldn't take advice from him either though now would ya Kylie!
Typical liberal George Soros acolyte! All talk and no substance or intelligence!
Which leading economist are you talking about?
Provide some information with your accusation there Kylie. Slinging phony BS statments doesnt count.
Pro Libertate!
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 4.29.10 @ 4:39PM
It's Keith Overbite, Countdown to No Ratings!(cite to Mark Levin, heh.)
Publius| 4.29.10 @ 4:49PM
Yeah, I like that. Do(l)berman works too. As in Mad Cow and Doberman.
Rodman| 4.30.10 @ 2:01AM
Why is it none of you (including Rush) can make a point without insults and petty put-downs?
It's a poor reflection on your cause. But then your cause has become a poor reflection of itself.
ds80| 4.30.10 @ 1:19PM
'Coz it's entertaining to watch you sputter. You are so predictable. Please keep posting. A laugh a day, ya know?
Rodman| 5.8.10 @ 2:51AM
Ah, yes it's all about 'entertainment'. Now I see why you like Rush, he's 'entertaining. Forget about decency, dignity or honor - as long as you get a belly laugh here and there.
Why step into the ring with a real argument when you can lob spitballs from the sidelines?
What do you care for the idea of real debate, the advancement of ideas or stewardship of the Republic?
YOU, are entertained!
The epitaph on the gravestone of every great society - 'we were entertained'.
Ray| 4.29.10 @ 12:08PM
"complete opposition to the assessment of every leading economist who has commented on the crisis. "
The "leading" what? Do you man the same people who failed to detect the impending recession, and identify the cause, before it happened and who's incorrect economic assessments, estimates, and scenarios were used by Congress, who then chose ignore the impending fall in time to prevent it by reversing the very policies that lead to the housing market collapse?
Also, are you referring to the same "leading" economists who, time and time again, make claims that the "economy is recovering" only to be "shocked" at the next economic downturn, the next dismal unemployment figures, the next stock market decline?
Are those the "leading economists" you're referring too? Well, excuse me if I no longer listen to them. They've more than proven themselves to be, shall we say, less than accurate in their methods and conclusions.
Warrior | 4.29.10 @ 12:22PM
Check Bill Gates college records. Also, see how Warren Buffett started.
Mark in Idaho| 4.29.10 @ 12:46PM
There is an old saying, "if you laid all the economists out in a line, they would point in all directions." Economics is far from a settled science. It is like astronomy, it is the educated guess of someone who has been educated by himself.
History, on the other hand, does tend to repeat itself. The economic theory that you can raise government revenue by increasing taxes - the popular economic theory - was disproven most recently during the Carter Administration. The opposing theory, that you can decrease the size of government and raise revenue by lowering taxes and removing government control, was verified by the Reagan Administration.
I personally don't hate liberals. When a society goes too far right, they become heartless. The problem is, when it goes too far left, as it is now, it becomes brainless. If government is too big, it becomes tyrannical. If it is too small, society becomes anarchistic. There is a balance.
Right now, we are way left, and way big. So, I swing right and for smaller government, towards the balance. I don't want heartlessness or anarchy, but balance. And I think I speak for the vast majority of the people. I doubt that there are more than 20% on either side that want the unbalance.
Tom in Michigan| 4.29.10 @ 1:30PM
You know, this is the second time today I've seen you disparage somebody else's education (Rush here; Sarah Palin elsewhere in today's edition) in an attempt to lend credence to your contentions. I'm curious, just so I can better understand your contributions here; how many university degrees do your possess, in what fields and where were your universities ranked in your respective fields of study?
You don't have to answer of course but, as long as your commentary consists primarily of deriding others' academic curriculum vitae (or lack thereof), would you mind sharing yours in order that we might better understand these seemingly gratuitous insults?
I'll go first: I five university degrees including Masters Degrees in both Engineering and Business Administration. My engineering school is currently ranked in the top 15 nationally; my business school in the top 20 (and, it has been ranked by various sources in the top 10). I also speak two languages, other than English of course (Japanese and German).
I also listen to Rush. I also don’t look down my nose at those whose academic credentials don’t necessarily match mine nor do I presume that those without any particular level of formal education or who didn’t attend schools as prestigious as the ones from which I was fortunate enough to graduate are necessarily ignorant of any particular subject.
Your turn. Thanks in advance for sharing.
Publius| 4.29.10 @ 3:56PM
Rush would admit that it isn't rocket science. Business is the nation's business. It's the engine that drives our economy. The greatest economy on the face of the earth. At least as long as democraps can be kept from power and draining the oil from the engine. If you tax and regulate the hell out of business/corporations, tax revenues dry up as well as jobs. If you penalize achievers and subsidize loafers, the economy takes a big hit. Right now 53% of the populace is supporting the other 47%. Just a couple of years ago it was only 33% who weren't carrying any federal tax load. Naturally, the democraps look at this as "progress." The more people on the public dole the closer we are to Utopia. Utopia: that political and economic situation where all the people in the land share equally in the misery. Since marxism/socialism reduces everything to the lowest common denominator.
Where education is concerned, you and most of your leftist buds find commonality with Hollyweird leftists, who never tire of pontificating on any number of subjects. Even given venues (by likeminded pols) at the UN and Congress to dazzle with their "brilliance." However, there is probably no other group of people in the country that are remarkable for their lack of education and experience. And yes, Reagan was a College graduate. As importantly he was a pro-American.
mrreagen| 4.29.10 @ 9:57PM
Every leading economist? you can't find two economist to agree on anything.
Tim*| 4.29.10 @ 11:44AM
The Goldman Sachs'ers pass in & out of government and grease their buddies.
Aaaaand interesting, how Obama gives G-S a slap on the wrist and does an orchestrated head fake , as he allows two other " Elephants In The Middle Of The Room " FNMA & FHLMC to go on their merry way.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Remember In November !
We Show Up On November 2nd !
WL| 4.29.10 @ 11:59AM
I totally agree with most comments here....
I have been listening to Rush since I was in college in 1999. One of the things that makes him so refreshing is that you can flip the dial and hear him say what you ALREADY THOUGHT...when you heard or read any various headline BEFORE HE SAYS IT. He acknowledges that he is so successful because he "says what listeners are thinking, and do not have the platform to say(paraphrase)."
BUT THAT'S NOT ALL...just about every day, Rush goes into a certain mode, gets on fire, and delivers a diatribe, soliloque, tirade or WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT...that is out of this world great, gets you through one more day against the liberal hoard, and give you HOPE that the last man has not caved, the last stand is YET TO BE MADE, and Reagan's spirit still lives... Angels could not say it better than Rush at these times....
Lastly, after several years of hanging on to every word he says, scrutinizing his ideas, and juxtoposing his thoughts with your own, you find a certain cadence to his thoughts, and THEN YOU UNDERSTAND that he is not only an Entertainer, personality, or voice...but he knows the tempo the Echos of freedom that dance in the hills, he understands a strain of liberty that will not die, and is speaking to the inner strength we all have AS AMERICANS.
Brilliant, simply BRILLIANT...
JUST LIKE PATTON ON A BATTLEFIELD, REAGAN AT A PODIUM, P. HENRY IN THE TOWN SQUARE, REVERE IN A HORSE, and JEFFERSON WITH A PEN...
History books will capture his insight and contribution...to hell with this media that doesn't know its head from it's %$#!!!!!!!!!!!
Publius| 4.29.10 @ 4:07PM
It's also nice to hear the soundbites of what leftists are saying. Leftists in their own words. The stuff the media dumps down the black hole. It's also fun when he plays the soundbites of the lefties both democraps and their media talking about something he said, only completely distorting it or taking it wayyyy out of context. You can say, it's just politics where the democrap partiers are concerned, commies are liars after all, but where the media is concerned, it's absolutely reprobative and scandalous.
Rodman| 4.30.10 @ 2:21AM
So the self-serving sloth of bias in all of us finds resonance in a public voice and that proves the merits of that voice?
The problem is, what 'everybody is thinking' is not necessarily what is true.
The fact that Limbaugh says 'what everyone else is thinking' is not necessarily high praise.
Limbaugh has an atrocious track record with the facts, feeling totally at liberty to fabricate or invert reality as needed to merge with 'saying what everybody thinks'.
I have never, not once, had to listen to Rush more than 5 minutes to catch him in an outright lie. I don't mean some nuanced spin job, but a clear statement of something as fact that is not fact. He claimed that the stimulus bill contained $4.2 billion for acorn. Not True, but I'm sure a lot of people 'were thinking that'. He claimed way back in '04 that "2/3 of people earning minimum wage are teenagers in their first jobs." Not true - in fact at that time the opposite was true - but the claim resonated with the prejudices of his listeners and they didn't care if it was factual or not. A few weeks ago he claimed that Massey Energy had been 'forced' to rehire 85 Union miners in the Upper Big Branch Mine so the failure of safety in that mine that cost 29 men their lives was.... the Union's fault! Of course that too plucked sympathetic strings with his listeners who needed to find someone to blame besides those actually responsible. If not the mine's operator's greed, then what, who could he lay it on? Of course? Unions - we haven't bashed the idea of fair wages and safe workplaces in a while - lets blame the Unions!
The problem? Rush lied. He lied in first saying safety in that mine was a Union responsibility and when that lie was pointed out, that the mine was not-unionized, he added the other lie about the 85 miners Massey had to rehire. Sure there was NLRB order to rehire Union miners but that was in ANOTHER MINE.... 52 MILES AWAY!
Rush's website to this day contains the doctored transcript including his bunk claim about the 85 miners. So much for personal responsibility. He's caught in a bald-faced lie and he just pretends it doesn't matter. In a functional sense, he's right - it doesn't matter. His listeners don't care if what he says is factual or accurate. He is saying 'what they are thinking' and having misconceptions re-affirmed is so much easier than adjusting to a factual reality.
Rush will be remembered, surely, but in a just, principled future where honesty is a virtue, his memory will be only as a opportunistic pied piper who lead conservatism off a cliff and into the sea of historic oblivion.
Enjoy the swim.
Pingback| 4.29.10 @ 12:04PM
Curiouser & Curiouser, Part II : links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
CMD 1969| 4.29.10 @ 12:18PM
We have a modest size, older home and no one is helping us! My income was above the average before retirement and we could have gone for a "classier" abode...but why? A person can enjoy a $80K house just as much as a $200K house. You make it a home! You stuck your neck out and lived beyond your needs...why should I pay!!
Angelo Zenga| 4.29.10 @ 1:18PM
The left despises Limbaugh, because they know he is on to them, and what he says about them is almost always bang on. He was one the first commentator (that I know of) to point to the myth that Wall street is Republican. He did so by simply giving out known information that most of Wall Street donation went heavily to the Democrats.
Purpleguy| 4.29.10 @ 2:30PM
You idiot... donations are made to both parties, but the party in power always garners the most donations, since they are the party that can help the donators. Rush doesn't know zip about economics
J_AZzy| 4.29.10 @ 3:16PM
So Purple,
Should I level the same derision to you that you seem to be perching on the sidelines waiting to insult others?
The party in power ALWAY garner MOST donations. So that would mean for example, in the 06 cycle, the Republicans in power should have taken the bulk of the cash. Well, no. The party in power garnered less in 06.
Only an "idiot" would use a generalized term to castigate another's posting. So best put some meat behind your pompous derision, else you get outed as nothing but a troll.
Bydand76| 4.29.10 @ 3:22PM
J_azzy.
I could'nt have said that better!
Pro Libertate!
mrreagen| 4.29.10 @ 10:01PM
Well there you go again offering your opinion and proving your just a dick
ds80| 4.30.10 @ 1:22PM
^5, Ronaldus. You made my day.
Pingback| 4.29.10 @ 1:30PM
Lindsay Lohan Half Naked and Covered in Blood – Sounds About Right | Pornogys links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lucas Smith| 4.29.10 @ 1:39PM
If you take away RISK....There is no fear of LOSS!
This is simple logic and goes to the heart of the basic fundamentals of the free market. When you hear democrates screaming about unbridled capatalism you wonder to yourself. Who removed the bridle? Answer: Democrates created an organization called Fannie and Freddie in the name of compassion that unbridled Wall Street and eventually led to the housing collapse and all the other incurred damages we are seeing in our economy. You can actually CREATE greed, dishonesty, and corruption even from honest people. Pack mentality. Once greed is accepted then it snowballs out of control. If everyone else is doing something then I guess its probably OK. Most rules are made to keep honest people honest, to make things fair, and to keep people safe. Fannie and Freddie created dishonesty, removed fairness and wiped out the safety of our monetary system. We were robbed by our own Governement whether by accident or by design. I will let you decide which.
Jim Wilson | 4.29.10 @ 2:05PM
This jives precisely without my own view. The reason so many of these guys are liberal is because they're conservative in the bad sense of the word. They live in fear of losing money, and their M.O. is centered on preserving their money or the money of their institution. It's conservative in the way that British entail laws are conservative. So because they spend their whole lives trying to protect already existing wealth, and profit mightily doing so, it's no wonder they're guilty and feel that they need to 'give back' in small ways. If they were movement conservatives or libertarians, they would not live the way they do. Rush is wealthy, true; he could retire to Costa Rica or New Zealand and never worry about politics again. He makes a lot of money, certainly, but it's wealth that DIDN'T EXIST before. There was no AM radio when he came on the scene--he created a vast deal of wealth for a lot of people, and he could retire with the comfortable feeling of having benefited many.
Yet he stays in the fight and takes the constant scorn of numberless detractors including presidents past and present. The difference between his 'greed' and that of corporate hacks who never take a risk without extreme CYA is vast. It's one of the reasons 'conservative' is such a stupid word.
Mr. Mojo Risin| 4.29.10 @ 2:33PM
For what he's wrought, Barney Frank should have something really bad done to him, that doesn't pleasure him...
Robert| 4.29.10 @ 2:57PM
In light of how heavily Democrat Goldman Sachs has proved to be, seeking to prop up big government programs, profiting from selling them short and watching them wipe out in the next leg down of the depression will be all the sweeter.
Jeff Perren | 4.29.10 @ 3:08PM
"Limbaugh pointed out that a familiar pattern is emerging on a number of fronts including health care. Government mandates certain activities the market resists, thus distorting the market until it collapses, at which point government steps in to save the market"
Rand, following Mises, pointed out that pattern for decades. Progressives and their Congresscritters are as willfully blind to it now as they ever were.
Time to put them on permanent disability, since a guide dog is woefully inadequate in this case.
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 4.29.10 @ 4:51PM
I agree. It is the progressives today that are easily cajoled and led by the Statists in our government. Without true liberal sketpticism or a slightly conservative restraint, they embody all the Statist wishes them to embody, so that they may share his vision of Utopia.
Retire the old dogs, and establish term limits!
Semper Fi!
Pingback| 4.29.10 @ 4:04PM
Want To Get The Right Golf Lessons Thailand? | Golf Swing Tips links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Danny L. Newton| 4.29.10 @ 5:09PM
I can't figure out how the government is going to eliminate risk. Wasn't it the lack of apparent risk or certainty of a certain payoff that create the bubbles in the first place? I would have to see how they make all of this work in a casino before agreeing to more monkeying around with regulation. Maybe states should be forbidden to offer power ball or any lottery involving more than three numbers.
jimbo ellis| 4.29.10 @ 6:51PM
OBAMA IS A MARXIST, PLAIN AND SIMPLE
Dave| 4.29.10 @ 8:29PM
George Will is a twit and a snob.
I will take Rush over Will any day.
Trapped in NYC| 4.29.10 @ 8:34PM
Boy are you naive, what possible reason would they want to sell CDO's? How about they could mark them to where ever they wanted, (not to market) thus making their balance sheets huge and commsions off the charts.
Yes the turned lousy policy into boatloads of cash but they did it for money, not to help out the Dems.
fra| 4.29.10 @ 9:09PM
Hey Robert, you said "no one supports cruelty to animals". I beg to differ, what was little Michael Vick doing?
All incumbents need to go. A bunch of total rookies could do no worse. Politicians all suck the scum off of mossy rocks...now for what I really think!
Marc Jeric| 4.29.10 @ 9:31PM
We should all be thankful to the Wall Street short sellers - they brought this Carter/Clinton/Dodd/Frank disaster to its end before we really bankrupted the country forever.
Pingback| 4.29.10 @ 10:03PM
6 Simple Steps to Organize Your Business Finances So That You Can … | Accountancy Bus links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
WalkingHorse| 4.29.10 @ 11:53PM
The image of Congress-critters holding forth on "financial reform" is comparable to arsonists showing up at a fires they started, masquerading as firemen.
GavInTucson| 5.4.10 @ 12:57AM
That was priceless.
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 12:37AM
Is facebook texas hold em poker free? | Texas Holdem Playing links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 3:20AM
The American Spectator : Rush Was Right(er) capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 3:32AM
The American Spectator : Rush Was Right(er) American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 6:38AM
92 93 94 95 96 Lexus ES300 Hood Support Strut Shock Pair 1992 1993 … | Hood Coachwork links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Yosemeti Sam| 4.30.10 @ 6:41AM
If there is but one reason to lend an ear to Rush
Limbaughs' daily illuminating programs to fellow
Americans - it is his ever alert parsing of the intent and extent of the relentless machinating macheviavellian vampirism of Leftoid cabalist clique claque ideologues/practitioners.
Exposing their cynical carouselled disguises of feigned empathetic egalitarianism while coveting the absolute lifeblood of others' lives - their eclectic freedoms.
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 7:27AM
The Ultimate Whitewater Rafting Adventure in Utah | startrekships | Water Sports Leis links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 9:31AM
What happens to an existing car loan if I were to buy another car? | Personal injury links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 10:27AM
Hannibal Rising Movie Review | SerialKillerSource links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 10:27AM
Hannibal Rising Movie Review | SerialKillerSource links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 11:08AM
Are there health and safety laws on footwear within a workplace such as a shop stock links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 1:43PM
Choose the Right Eye Surgery Centre | Surgery Beauty Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 2:53PM
How do you pronounce? | Locks links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 3:36PM
The American Spectator : Rush Was Right(er) < Read what Young Americans Read links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 11:31PM
When do stores start bringing the new back to school clothes? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ilario Pantano | 5.1.10 @ 3:59PM
Watching Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein testify yesterday brought me back to the day he hired me. It was 1995 and I remember calling my parents from a pay phone in front of the stock market. This son of an immigrant was living the American dream! But after three years of a "results-based" culture that found me trading electricity with unsavory characters like Enron and AIG, I decided to walk away.
It was a decade before we would all learn that tax-payers were the ultimate "hedging instruments," and that hard decision to leave easy money didn’t come without consequences. My 72-year old father is still working today, and at times my family has struggled to keep our home.
In the Marines, we call integrity "doing the right thing when no one is looking," so I never expected that the choice to sacrifice for principle over profit would make me as proud as it does. It's just what we do, and it’s a choice that millions who wear the uniform make quietly every single day. I know the secret ethical consequences of "results only" cultures that lose sight of the greater good and I have rejected them in the past. I have seen the corners shaved and the obligations forgotten.
And this morning was déjà vu: “We are the party of results,” declared Democrat National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine, as he unveiled his strategy for holding the majority. Is your hair standing up? Beyond the looking glass world of the beltway, the results of the recent railroaded legislation of Obama’s administration and Pelosi’s congress has resulted in lost jobs, lost freedoms and lost security. In the 1800’s bleeding a patient by leeches produced results too. With the public still reeling from the monstrosity of the Obama-care bill, Sen. Chris Dodd ("a friend of Angelo’s") is eager to shove through a new leech.
Technical and philosophical arguments by conservatives who share the desire for reform but are fearful of weakening our financial sector by creating a permanent culture of crony capitalism (see Driscoll’s piece on the collusion of government and business [1]) are being called "obstructionist." But wait a second, not only does Dodd’s bill not address Frannie and Freddie, it comes almost a year after the GOP introduced H.R. 3310, effectively making the Democrats the obstructionists! We beat them to the punch with the Consumer Protection and Regulatory Enhancement Act [2]– designed to (1) stop the Democrats’ permanent bailouts for their Wall Street allies; (2) protect taxpayers and create jobs; (3) address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform, the root causes of the housing meltdown & financial crisis; and (4) rein in the out of control Federal Reserve and end "too big to fail."
The fun house distortions continue with the assertion that the GOP is in the pocket of Wall Street banks. Really? With almost 70% of Goldman’s employee contributions going to Democrats, calling the GOP the party of Wall street is as ridiculous as suggesting that the team who introduced a bill a year ago is the side holding up the game. According to the Washington Examiner and OpenSecrets.org, "Campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers" and the New York Times was certain that Bush’s presidency was done as a result. Is Obama’s seven times as done?
As my friend Pat Cadell told me this weekend, "It's time for the Republican Party to show some self-respect and push back against the label of 'party of the bankers'." While this born-again Southerner who left Wall Street for North Carolina agrees with Pat, I also believe that we need to fix a broken system. For example, the problem of a hidden $60 trillion dollar Credit Default Swap (CDS) market that undermines the global economy doesn’t just go away on its own.
Congressman Paul Ryan, (R-WI) and I agree on the need for a market-based platform to give transparency to the CDS market place and to establish pricing-based triggers to warn of institutional danger instead of political-based triggers that can lead to the seizure and liquidation at the will of a bureaucrat. Don’t you want an objective and transparent standard before the government decides to take over your business with 24-hours' notice, as Dodd’s plan proposes?
This time America, you better read the bill.
PANTANOFORCONGRESS.COM
Ilario Pantano is a Candidate for the U.S. Congress in North Carolina’s 7th District. His Republican Primary is May 4th.
Richard Baker| 5.2.10 @ 9:20AM
Rodman:
Name the facts that Rush has fabricated, please. Do your best, if you can.
Rodman| 5.8.10 @ 4:45PM
@ Richard Baker:
Since you seem to have missed it above, I'll post it here again for you:
Rodman| 4.30.10 @ 2:21AM
excerpt....
....I have never, not once, had to listen to Rush more than 5 minutes to catch him in an outright lie. I don't mean some nuanced spin job, but a clear statement of something as fact that is not fact. He claimed that the stimulus bill contained $4.2 billion for acorn. Not True, but I'm sure a lot of people 'were thinking that'. He claimed way back in '04 that "2/3 of people earning minimum wage are teenagers in their first jobs." Not true - in fact at that time the opposite was true - but the claim resonated with the prejudices of his listeners and they didn't care if it was factual or not. A few weeks ago he claimed that Massey Energy had been 'forced' to rehire 85 Union miners in the Upper Big Branch Mine so the failure of safety in that mine that cost 29 men their lives was.... the Union's fault! Of course that too plucked sympathetic strings with his listeners who needed to find someone to blame besides those actually responsible. If not the mine's operator's greed, then what, who could he lay it on? Of course? Unions - we haven't bashed the idea of fair wages and safe workplaces in a while - lets blame the Unions!
The problem? Rush lied. He lied in first saying safety in that mine was a Union responsibility and when that lie was pointed out, that the mine was not-unionized, he added the other lie about the 85 miners Massey had to rehire. Sure there was NLRB order to rehire Union miners but that was in ANOTHER MINE.... 52 MILES AWAY!
Rush's website to this day contains the doctored transcript including his bunk claim about the 85 miners. So much for personal responsibility. He's caught in a bald-faced lie and he just pretends it doesn't matter. In a functional sense, he's right - it doesn't matter. His listeners don't care if what he says is factual or accurate. He is saying 'what they are thinking' and having misconceptions re-affirmed is so much easier than adjusting to a factual reality.
-----end excerpt
Most of what he does is not direct replacement of facts it's the selective cropping of quotes to provide misconstrued meanings and the elaboration on those misconstrued meanings to ridiculous extremes, followed by the attack based on these ridiculous elaborations. The result is a divisive commentary based on assertions of the beliefs of others that have NO resemblance to the truth of what was actually said.
Take the Anita Dunn assassination. Limbaugh used an absurdly edited transcript of her words as the basis for an elaboration that concluded Dunn was an admirer of Mao, a subscriber to his beliefs - which she didn't actually say.
Now I think it's safe to say that none of us would like to have that done to us, about our thoughts and resulting in an assassination of our character. So it's surprising that so many who identify themselves as Christians support this kind of malicious slander by Limbaugh.
Pingback| 5.2.10 @ 1:37PM
Nyhms Warcraft Guides – Now Paying Out $47.00 Per Sale. | Rent My Timeshare links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ffksdj| 7.1.10 @ 2:11AM
beijing massage
shanghai girl
guo | 7.1.10 @ 5:22AM
www.wmvconverterformac.com