Posted on 05/06/2016 8:58:49 AM PDT by Biggirl
Good Morning/Afternoon!
How interesting. No info at all?
Then there's TPP, 6,000 pages of secret legislation Congress has already been paid to pass. But it's got global oversight, U.S. restrictions while others free, horrible stuff. And Ryan's all-in as this article with Cruz shows:
Ted Cruz joins the establishment
If we can get enough out on TPP, we can nail Ryan.
LOL! Who knows - maybe brother Dave is under HIS thumb!
“Why would Rush push 3rd party since he just predicted a Trump landslide?”
It’s his Evil Twin, Mush Limbaugh. Loyal toady of the GOP establishment.
Rush, I mean Mush, has always been someone the movers and shakers in the upper reaches of the GOP can count on when the chips are down to herd the sheep into the proper pen at voting time.
Caller is bringing up Dave Brat’s beating of Eric Cantor. Rush, Mush, is behaving as if it’s not something that looms big in his mind regarding Trump. But then no one that Mush hangs with would have been in favor of knocking off the vile Cantor.
And the Cruzers around here haven’t stopped their bashing.
It ain’t over so we best not be fooled.
“You know, I don’t remember the Rubio-pushing! “
Good grief. That’s one of the all-time great bromances. I dunno how you ever missed it.
It’s still simmering in the background so you may get another chance.
Hannity is another one with an unhealthy affection for the foamy one.
Mr. Haney is a perfect description, and even better, millenials and gen-x’ers have no idea what we are talking about. They have their codes, we geezers have ours.
The 1929 Crash is what people often focus on but it’s really not what caused the Depression. The culprit was the collapse of the banking system, which is far less known except to economic historians. It doesn’t have the attention grabbing cache of a good stock market crash. A banking collapse is more like watching a slow motion mud slide.
The Keynesian response by Hoover and FDR gets greatly exaggerated, mostly because the government’s portion of GNP back then was less than 10%. More like 5%-6% at the beginning. By contrast, in the post-WWII era, government’s portion of the GNP has never been below 15%. 18%-23% has been typical IIRC.
There simply wasn’t a massive amount of government spending because the starting point was too low. It was way more than what people had been accustomed to, but it’s astonishingly low compared to what we think of as normal in our lifetime. The heavy gov’t spending in the runup to WWII was the jump start that finally gave many people their jobs back. People like to bitch about it but gov’t spending does serve as a stabilizer during times of serious recession, when private firms will logically be cutting back and laying people off.
I haven’t read Schlaes’ book but I’ve heard interviews with her about her subject. She likes to equate the depression of 1921 with that of 1930, but there was no systemic banking collapse in 1921. And that is a huge difference. The only other time that we have had a major threat to the banking system is during our recent 2008 financial crisis. Bernanke is a student of Friedman and Schwartz’s writing on the ‘The Great Contraction’ and he implemented the policies that the Fed failed to do in 1930-33. That, and the existence of FDIC, may well have protected us from something far closer to the experience of the 1930s.
The vast majority of economic growth during Dubya’s term was housing and housing related. In California there was a one-to-one correlation between home equity withdrawal and consumer spending. This data was available at the time and was a red flag to anyone who thought that consumer debt and real estate appreciation couldn’t go on forever.
It was also a warning that we were in a bubble. Bush allegedly has a degree in finance IIRC so this should have caught his attention.
TARP or something like it was necessary or the banks holding that paper would have been bankrupt. And while that would be an acceptable outcome in normal times this was far too widespread to let it play out. The real problem with TARP is that Bush didn’t make sure that there was protection for the taxpayers built into it, which could have easily been done. The Swedes had gone through this a decade before and the model was there to use, it wasn’t something unknown.
That's my thought, also. Rush, Ryan, Sowell, Levin, Beck and the rest of the elites are doing everything they can to undermine Trump. We wont' allow it!!!!
Only 130 posts today, compared to Wednesday’s nearly 600. Most anti-Rush. Maybe not anti-Rush, but definitely not happy with him.
I was waiting for the whole thing to collapse after 09, and I will say this about those who are manipulating the financial system: they are good. How they kept this afloat with Obama adding 10 trillion in debt is beyond me.
“Only 130 posts today, compared to Wednesday’s nearly 600. Most anti-Rush. Maybe not anti-Rush, but definitely not happy with him.”
Looks like people are moving on from Rush. I just check into this thread to see what he is up to. I see no reason to tune into his show.
I didn’t have a problem with TARP other than the shortcomings you explained. Just was pointing out the real problem in my reply to post 34.
I'm a Trump supporter. But I recognize Trump has a lot of warts. And I will also admit that Rush wasn't as vocal about Cruz's shortcomings as he was of Trump's. But some folks had blood coming out of Rush's eyes and other places when there really wasn't.
I've long said Rush and other conservative hosts were pro Trump early on when it appeared Trump would thin out the elites. But later when most expected Trump would fade, he only got stronger and I think that is when Rush and some other hosts began discussing Trump's warts or going full throttle, ala Beck and Levin, anti-Trump. To a large degree, they propped up what became their monster.
Never hurts to be alert.... the world needs more lerts!
“I believed at the time that TARP would subsidize failures that should not be transferred to taxpayers.”
The crime is that it could have been done without transferring the losses to America’s taxpayers. Sweden did it with their largest bank. The management was fired, the stockholders took the hit. They appointed a gov’t administrator who ran the bank until it was straightened out enough to sell it back to the private sector. It didn’t cost their citizens a cent. Bush’s team must have known about this if I did, it’s their job. I suspect that they were far too cozy with the people who would take the hit if we used the Swedish model. An ugly case of cronyism that screwed the American public. And we had experience with something like this ourselves in the S&L crisis less than 20 years earlier.
Ah, okay I missed that. Had to go back and read it.
All of which makes me wonder about the results of The 0 calling those "manipulators" some morning with instructions to shut down the Bubble Machine....or if they'll just be left in place as insurance against too-vigorous investigation into the real destination(s) of all that money.
(That's not a tinfoil hat talking. I grew up outside of Chicago and view these sorts of things as almost expected practice...although the scale IS pretty eye-popping.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.