Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/24/2009 5:35:43 AM PDT by Shellybenoit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Shellybenoit
Why????

Because he thinks they have a really cool name.

2 posted on 06/24/2009 5:44:12 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Barak Obama: Pontificator in Chief and Poster Child for the Peter Principle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Shellybenoit
Will anyone ask Mush-Mouth about THIS?
3 posted on 06/24/2009 5:49:23 AM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Shellybenoit

re: “Why he fought so hard to squash regulation or why he pushed Fannie and Freddie to get involved with making loans to people who could not afford them?”

This author is incompetent. Barney never, ever squashed regulation of anything. To PUSH for something the way Barney did is in fact regulation. The author makes the false assumption that regulation is only regulation if it is the kind of regulation he prefers.

This intellectual dishonesty is rampant. Enron is said to have exploited an de-regulated energy market. That is blatantly false. What happened was that the regulations changed from one regulatory approach to a different regulatory approach. Enron tried to exploit the gap between the two different approaches that existed.

The same is true of CA under Greyout Davis. Californika shifted from one type of regulation to a different type of regulation and created its own disaster.

The same is true of banking. Previously many banks were state regulated. That shifted to being Federally regulated. Those two disparate regulatory systems created an opportunity to exploit the gap.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley and other Clinton era activity was not de-regulation. In fact the regulations increased. But it was a drastic change from one set of regulations to a totally different set of regulations. The new regulations were more complex with more loopholes to be exploited.


4 posted on 06/24/2009 6:00:45 AM PDT by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Shellybenoit
For an eye opener, go back and re-read that post the other day where Krugman insists that the Fed inflate a "housing bubble" to cover the impact of the dotcom crash. That was in 2002. Is that what happened? Sure looks like it. Then we have folks like Dodd who get briefed on "we are letting the air out of the balloon" and dump stocks the week before things crash. IMHO this is clear evidence of gummint corruption on an astronomical scale. Indeed, trillions is truly astronomical. 10 to the 12th.

Μολὼν λάβε


5 posted on 06/24/2009 6:03:29 AM PDT by wastoute (translation of tag "Come and get them (bastards)" and the Scout Motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson