Gary Hart: Obama Should Blame GOP for Economic Collapse

Gary Hart was a groomsman at John McCain's wedding to Cindy Lou Hensley, so he knows a thing or two about the Arizona Senator.

On the day of Sarah Palin's visit to Colorado, Hart--who represented the Centennial State in the Senate for twelve years--had a message for Palin and McCain: now is not the time for political ignorance to be rewarded.

"It's more than a little concerning that one of four people who may take up the highest national office is unwilling to engage in any serious questions or real discussion," Hart said on a conference call organized by the group ProgressNow. "I hope that this attention she is getting now is a bubble of sorts. Given the financial markets and what has happened just this weekend, stakes are even higher than they were 72 hours ago. This is not just another national election."

Hart said his longtime friend had shed his maverick persona and cast his lot with Palin and the right-wing base of the Republican Party. Now, belatedly, McCain is trying to get his old image back. "Yes, he's claiming again to be a maverick," Hart said. "That's the problem with political advertising - it's all just 30 second soundbites. No real discussion. The proof is in the pudding. In this case, the pudding is down-the-line voting along with the Bush administration."

And, with the race locked in a deadheat and the economy imploding, Hart had this advice for Obama:

"I've been advocating, publicly and privately, that he make this a transformational election. There comes times in this country's history - we saw it in '32 and '36 of course, and also in '48 with Truman and '60 with Kennedy - when voters are forced to face the fact that we must do things, economically, in foreign policy, fundamentally differently."

"Obama's change message right now is, 'get rid of those who have mismanaged and put in people who will manage better.' He needs to wrap that up and step beyond it."

"This is transformational politics. He must lay the burden of this economic collapse at the feet of the whole Republican Party, where it belongs."

Here's what Obama said today:

Today offers more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store. For eight years, we've had policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans. The result is the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.

I certainly don't fault Senator McCain for these problems. But I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It's the same philosophy we've had for the last eight years – one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It's a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise; one that says we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore economic problems until they spiral into crises.

Now, maybe it goes without saying, but Obama never blames Republicans, explicitly, for the mess they've made.

Comments (76)

1. What is up with all the Monday morning quarterbacking? Can the establishment Democrats please shut up?

   Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 3:50pm

2. "Gary Hart was a groomsman at John McCain's wedding to Cindy Lou Hensley, so he knows a thing or two about the Arizona Senator."

   Ha! Really? So being in someone's wedding years and years ago means he "knows a thing or two about" McCain? I sure hope some of my bridesmaids don't tout the same...especially since some of them were from hubby's side and not my first choice ;)

   "Now, maybe it goes without saying, but Obama never blames Republicans, explicitly, for the mess they've made."

   Maybe he realizes that nothing is all just one party's fault and saying such things might backfire...

   Posted by jayneslilsis at 09/15/2008 @ 3:53pm

3. So you guys are FOR rewarding political ignorance then?

   Why am I unsurprised

   Posted by leftofcenter at 09/15/2008 @ 3:55pm

4. Posted by RedRiver_. at 09/15/2008 @ 3:59pm

   The U.S. Congress sets mortgage loan policies? Interesting. And turning a government entity into a private corporation apparently counts as a left wing liberalization.

   Think you need to check your tin foil hat, my friend.

   Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 4:05pm

5. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/15/2008 @ 4:03pm

   Cuomo is to blame for the housing crisis? Red River, is that you? Did you do something to LVL? Or is this what Obama syndrome looks like?

   Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 4:07pm

6. "Today offers more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store. For eight years, we've had policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans. The result is the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."

   What foolish pandering. The sad thing to me is maybe Obama thinks this is actually the truth. I wonder if he can explain to us how the Fannie Freddie "bailout" protected consumers. Secondly, does he know he's putting Rubin in the cross-hairs?

   "Folks in Washington and Wall Street not minding the store." Forgive my language, but that's fucking insulting in its ignorance.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 09/15/2008 @ 4:20pm

7. Cuomo resigned as HUD Secretary in 2001 when George W. Bush took office.

   In September 2004, Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker warned of an epidemic of mortgage industry fraud that could become "the next S&L crisis." ---------Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/15/2008 @ 4:10pm

   So, LL....with SEVEN YEARS since Cuomo left...and FOUR YEARS since Swecker's warning...

   why didn't George W. Bush fix it? Seems between 2003-2006, he had a friendly Congress?

   Or was he more interested in "other things"?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 4:27pm

8. What about Gramm's role? http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

   and all those who rail about the socialist left...this administration has done more to socialize the housing industry than anyone!

   Posted by beefydaddy at 09/15/2008 @ 4:44pm

9. Hart has it right.

   Check out Corzine on the crisis:

   video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=902d6174bb463329bcd1b8f89df981e73627bba7

   Might be a strong Sec of Treasury for Obama, as he knws the scams & wants to re-regulate & rebuild infrastructure.

   Posted by sloper at 09/15/2008 @ 5:00pm

10. "and all those who rail about the socialist left...this administration has done more to socialize the housing industry than anyone!"

    And numerous other sectors of the economy as well. Conservatives love the nanny state as long as it works for them. Free markets for you, welfare state for them.

    Posted by onthehelm at 09/15/2008 @ 5:00pm

11. The fact is, both parties are responsible for the current economic meltdown, from de-regulation of the airlines and trucking industry under Carter (egged on by Ted Kennedy and staff) to the de-regulation of the financial services industry under Clinton (pressed by a Republican Congress), not to mention NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. George W. Bush returned to his collegiate role as a cheerleader for these policies and has allowed them to run to their logical conclusion. And while Democratic Administrations have bought into this logic, one must admit that it has been the Republican Party and the Right that have been the engines pushing these policies through for 30 years (remember that NAFTA passed with far more GOP votes than Democratic ones).

    There have been a few voices in the Democratic Party opposed to some or most of these policies (mostly on the left, but including some economic nationalists and populists on the Democratic right like Fritz Hollings), and even fewer in the Republican Party ("Main Street" Republican Bob Dole disparaging the giveaway of the people's airwaves in the re-working of telecommunications law in the 90's). The problem is, the Dems have nominated another centrist Democrat for President, with an economic team committed to using the same old free trade, smaller government (see the stats on the federal workforce that Frosty Zoom posted last week) and financial deregulation play book. Obama should be trashing Robert Rubin, but that will never happen, not just because he needs the Clintons, but because Obama and Rubin are essentially of one mind on the economy.

    Posted by cka2nd at 09/15/2008 @ 5:10pm

12. By the way, while Andrew Cuomo's stint at HUD deserves serious investigation (it was like the Candyman coming to visit when he would do his tours around here), the housing mortgage crisis has, as predicted, spread well beyond the sub-prime field. This is a classic case of an economic bubble, aided and abetted by both the Clinton and Bush administrations but especially by the Federal Reserve and Alan Greenspan.

    I think it was Harper's Magazine that had an excellent piece a few months ago on why the U.S.'s modern capitalist economy, based as it is on finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) REQUIRES financial bubbles, one after the other. For centuries, when economies were based on manufacturing and the trade in goods, the response to a collapsed bubble and its economic ruin was to pass laws and promulgate regulations that prevented the next bubble for decades. Now, the owners in a FIRE economy make there money on runaway speculation and the bubbles that always, always come with it.

    Posted by cka2nd at 09/15/2008 @ 5:23pm

13. LVL and RED play the same game as usual. BLAME THE LEFT! Ignoring the fact that they controlled the House and Senate for a long time and have had ample time to solve this problem. Looks like Bush was more content to ignore it.

    RARR! SNARL! BLAME THE LEFT!

    Gah you guys need to get some new talking points. This one is getting old.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 5:36pm

14. Good to see the return of CKA II.

    I always enjoy the thoughtful and insightful posts.

    I'm quite firmly convinced that Obama could be cruising along reasonably well right now had he not taken the radical right turn after clinching on June 3rd. But that's probably a bit like expecting pigs to fly --it was never in him to take a seriously progressive path as his unfiltered story would have told anyone paying attention.

    Are you listening Nation mag?

    Anyhoo, back to the gutter!

    Slogans for use at anti-McCain rallys:

    Hey America: "Think outside the bun"

    "If you enjoyed it when Dubya shot us in the foot, you'll love it when McCain finishes the job"

    etc........

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/15/2008 @ 5:39pm

15. I wanted to second b_kool_66 regarding cka2nd. On point and interesting commentary, as usual.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 5:48pm

16. There is the smell of desperation among Demos...the public has ceased to give credit to all the fancy help given to Magic and he, along with his cheering squad in the MSM, are in meltdown mode!

    Posted by SoHAPPY at 09/15/2008 @ 6:18pm

    Really? I got the opposite. But considering you have been saying this since the campaign started I guess it doesn't mean much.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 6:28pm

17. Posted by SoHAPPY at 09/15/2008 @ 6:18pm

    Oh by the way Happy. Are you still recommending AIG? Saw it dropped 6 points over the weekend?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 6:29pm

18. Mannn troll city! They just wait in line on new articles.

    Anyway, I am sure their evolution-denying Hagee-Cheney-Limbaugh-W-doctine-lovin' advice for Obama to not to listen to someone else's advice is really wise.

    Posted by winyahn at 09/15/2008 @ 6:35pm

19. The Federal Reserve added $70 billion in reserves to the banking system...

    Today. Ripped from today's headlines. This is the problem. The Federal Reserve is creating money out of thin air to bail out the banks. That is the primary purpose of the Federal Reserve.

    Those rising prices? Guess what, the prices aren't going up. What we are seeing is the sinking value of the dollar as inflation eats away at all of us.

    Make no mistake, inflation is a tax, a hidden tax. And the crime of all of this is non-partisan. Our socialist financial system is working exactly as designed. And there's no way to stop it.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/15/2008 @ 6:38pm

20. Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/15/2008 @ 5:39pm

    pretty good!

    Sportsfacemen for Cheney-McCain

    Another Gated Community for McCain

    McCain-Palin for Smith-Barney

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Cheney... "I know I yelled DUCK, but I didn't mean..."

    Posted by winyahn at 09/15/2008 @ 6:40pm

21. Posted by freiheit1 at 09/15/2008 @ 6:38pm

    Good point on the Fed. Seems like these bail outs keep happening on Sundays?! Anyway I totally agree with your comment. As would any true conservative (not meant as a dig at all). I'm also conservative when it comes to air, water, natural resources - the conserving thereof.

    Posted by winyahn at 09/15/2008 @ 6:43pm

22. Hey HAPPY:

    Yo do realize that one of the main reasons you can't trust the books is due to the Bush administration outright refusing to enforce regulations, right?

    Or is this, in your delusional little mind, "another fault of the libs!!! ZOMG!!!"

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/15/2008 @ 6:43pm

23. Even more....I took down 1,000 shares more today...but now, In concede it's more speculative than investing. No books can be trusted, even a stodgy insurance co., oh, well.... Posted by SoHAPPY at 09/15/2008 @ 6:40pm

    I'm thinking about buying into it. I think it has hit bottom at this point and will probably go back up.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 6:47pm

24. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 6:28pm

    CC, off topic, but I came across news you're starting a business? I'm a life-long cycling fanatic, with two kids considering UCLA next year.

    I wish you the best of luck and you can count on my business after you open, if I'm even near UCLA.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/15/2008 @ 6:56pm

25. Posted by jorcheim at 09/15/2008 @ 6:43pm

    Jorcheim, do you think the Rebublicans alone are to blame?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/15/2008 @ 6:59pm

26. FREIHEIT:

    No, not at all. Actually, and you should know this already, I blame the fact that both parties have become whores to Wall Street and other moneyed interests. It all boils down to this. So long as money is allowed to exert such a profound force on the levers of power, we all will be held in thrall to interests which run precisely contrary to the interests of the body politic at large.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/15/2008 @ 7:04pm

27. HAPPY:

    Regulations mean nothing if they aren't enforced. We all know that.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/15/2008 @ 7:05pm

28. If anyone is interested in the REAL reasons for the collapse of the global economy read "The New Golden Age" or "Greenspans Fraud" by Ravi Batra. I know reading is out of fashion nowadays, but give it a try.

    Then you would spare me the embarrassment of reading any more posts like many here. Thanks.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 7:11pm

29. Jorcheim, it was a respectful leading question. I am bothered by the title, "Gary Hart: Obama Should Blame GOP for Economic Collapse" and I knew you would add some sanity to the thread.

    Thank you.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/15/2008 @ 7:11pm

30. FREIHEIT:

    I do what I can. :) Thanks for the compliment.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/15/2008 @ 7:39pm

31. Would it be appropriate to bring Ronald Reagan's name and philosophyinto the convewrsation?

    Posted by cumchu at 09/15/2008 @ 7:46pm

32. If you haven't seen it....Tina Fey nails it-

    http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx/?news=330748>1=28103

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 7:55pm

33. I wish you the best of luck and you can count on my business after you open, if I'm even near UCLA. Posted by freiheit1 at 09/15/2008 @ 6:56pm

    Thanks very much Frei.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 7:59pm

34. Lehman's bankruptcy is understandable. In my corp. warrior days, I had done deals with their structured finance dept. back in `96-`97....very risky ultra-leveraged stuff! Posted by SoHAPPY at 09/15/2008 @ 6:57pm

    I'm curious if Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are going to go back up or are just going to stagnate and die. They are pretty low right now. 63 cents on Freddie. I'm wondering if they are worth putting money into just to see if they go up.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 8:01pm

35. Would it be appropriate to bring Ronald Reagan's name and philosophyinto the convewrsation?

    Posted by cumchu at 09/15/2008 @ 7:46pm

    Actually you can lay the current economic crisis entirely at Reagans stinky feet. But not without the help of many others over the past 25 years, both Republican and Democrat. Unrestricted capiltalism is a cancer. So sooner or later the chickens had to come home to roost.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 8:17pm

36. Hey, can anybody say who got more money from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, McCain or Obama?

    Also, while we're on the subject of candidates' houses, can anybody name the convicted felon who financed Obama's house? I know you NYT readers are at a distinct disadvantage in this, after all, that news just didn't fit, so it wasn't printed.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 8:23pm

37. funny, i never see anyone comment on how the major wall street players today are the exact same ones we saw pulling the handles and turning the dials in 1929.

    ha, you'd think the game was rigged or something.

    what we are seeing today is all going according to plan.

    all together now; baaaaaaaaa! baaaaa!

    Now, let's get back to the books we think Palin wanted banned...

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/15/2008 @ 8:27pm

38. The Bush Administration has been feverishly trying to hold the economy together until after the election. And the backlash will have a terrible effect on the next administration.

    So, it adds an ironic twist to this election. If the Democrats want to destroy the Republicans for decades, why not let the Demonic Duo of Uncle Fester and Caribou Barbie win the election and destroy whats left of this country. Republicans and Democrats will be blamed.

    Third Party Anyone!

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 8:34pm

39. Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 8:17pm

    "Unrestricted capiltalism is a cancer."

    REAAALLLLLLYYYYY! So, was it socialism that built this country, the most powerful and wealthy society ever created? Are you speaking to us from some alternate universe, where the Soviet Union succeeded, and where socialist countries don't fail ignominiously and with numbing regularity?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 8:38pm

40. A bit of advice. Don't bother taking all your money out of the bank and hiding it under the mattress or anything. Your cash ain't nothin but trash. You might consider buying Gold to have in your immediate possession. It's a bargain right now.

    But then you have to protect it. And when the neighbors notice that you just bought that last loaf of bread for $200.00. You may be well advised to purchase a gun or two aswell. Which are also a bargain right now...

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 8:51pm

41. Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 8:38pm

    So PONTI, you're a full-out laissez-faire, no pollution regs, no OSHA, no legal unions, no food inspection capitalist?

    or you have a FEW restrictions that you'd support...

    ergo you DON'T support unrestricted capitalism which "built this country"?!??!?!?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 8:51pm

42. Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 8:17pm

    Nope, swing and a miss. Go back to the years just preceeding WWI and the creation of the Federal Reserve.

    If you think for a moment what we have on Wall Street, or for that matter on Main Street in the US is "unrestricted capitalism" you are sadly uninformed.

    Starting with money. Chaoszen, answer these questions for yourself. Where does money come from? What is fractional reserve banking? What backs the US dollar? How can the Fed "infuse" $70B into the 'market"? Do you even understand what's happeing?

    Your comments are more emotional than logical. Our entire global financial system is a monopoly, or better put, a cartel.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/15/2008 @ 8:55pm

43. REAAALLLLLLYYYYY! So, was it socialism that built this country, the most powerful and wealthy society ever created? Are you speaking to us from some alternate universe, where the Soviet Union succeeded, and where socialist countries don't fail ignominiously and with numbing regularity?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 8:38pm

    No, Mr. Ignoramus it was regulated capitalism that built this country. Vis a' vis the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 8:58pm

44. Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 8:58pm

    Well, now be fair, chaos...before Roosevelt there was legalized child labor and workers paid pennies for 12 hours shifts....

    and before that there was "free" (unless you were an American Indian) land and slavery.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 9:03pm

45. Posted by Zero at 09/15/2008 @ 8:58pm

    DEBT.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/15/2008 @ 9:07pm

46. Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 8:58pm

    HAHAHAHAHA!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/15/2008 @ 9:08pm

47. Didn't we just get done reading Christopher Hayes on how it was every bit the Democratic Party as the Republican that was responsible for de-regulation? Obama will need to tread lightly here or someone's going to remind him that his main economic adviser, Bob Rubin, was the assassin in the death of Glass-Steagall. Gary Hart should go back to entertaining attractive brunettes and leave political advice to those more familiar with history.

    Posted by john lowell at 09/15/2008 @ 9:09pm

48. Well, now be fair, chaos...before Roosevelt there was legalized child labor and workers paid pennies for 12 hours shifts....

    and before that there was "free" (unless you were an American Indian) land and slavery.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 9:03pm

    Yes, the key words there are "before Roosevelt". That was the age of the robber barons, much the same situation that we have now. Roosevelt pushed this country in a new direction which pissed off the greedy bastards that had their way with the working class. We have gone back in time to a place where there is no middle class. Roosevelt's policies created the middle class and we must strive to recreate those policies in the 21st century. In my humble and proudly emotional opinion.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 9:21pm

49. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 8:51pm

    Of course I believe in regulated capitalism, MASK. Capitalism is the primary wealth generating mechanism upon which this country, but it needs SOME regulation. I just think it needs as little as possible.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 9:27pm

50. Capitalism that is regulated in a sane and rational way produces incentives for people. It gives them hope for a better future. Without hope we despair. Despair creates all sorts of negative results. Poverty, crime, suicide, drug abuse and a host of other negative reactions.

    A blend of capitalism and social responsibilty creates a balanced society. If you look at the results of this blend in the Social Democracies that exist today. Such as in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, France and others. These societies do have their own set of problems, and no society is perfect. But compared to others like ourselves they are light years ahead.

    Why don't we give these models a second look? Because we are stuck in a rut. The rich do not care about the people that sacrifice every day to enable them to exist. They look down on the working class that does the dirty work for them. They play us as fools and then rejoice in their greed. Regulation of their activities allows the majority of us to enjoy a better life.

    Usually this sort of dreamy rhetoric does nothing to change society and the working class is forced to rise up and slaughter the people who covet power and money. So be it then. And if that should happen then the nightmare will begin anew. Unless we evolve beyond it and look to those who have started a new path of living with each other.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 10:04pm

51. RE: Gary Hart ...

    Ah, who is that chicken sh-t Gary Hart. the one to blame is the people themselves who elected -twice- a schmuck like Bubba and who know want to give another schmuck Obama a try.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 09/15/2008 @ 10:14pm

52. Of course I believe in regulated capitalism, MASK.----Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 9:27pm

    "Unrestricted capiltalism is a cancer."

    REAAALLLLLLYYYYY!----Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 8:38pm

    Hmmmmmm? So you believe in regulated capitalism, but LEAP to attack somebody criticizing unrestricted capitalism?!??!?!

    Does the term "knee-jerk" strike you as familiar???

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 10:24pm

53. Posted by HelenDAO at 09/15/2008 @ 10:14pm

    That reminds me....ONE of the TWO local PUMAs is here....but...

    where's GRITSY?

    Don't think he saw that Tina Fey as Palin skit on SNL and seeing "Palin" and "Hillary" on the same stage and "Hillary" (Amy Poehler) making fun of "Palin" and his head exploded from the paradox, do you?

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 10:47pm

54. Therefore it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November.---Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/15/2008 @ 10:47pm

    Yes....of course, if McCain got his way on economics, we'd be ANOTHER SIX TRILLION in debt...

    which sorta takes the 5 million figure off the table as important!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 10:49pm

55. One more thing...based on your posts it is clear you did well in school and learned everything they taught you...I wonder why you are starving Your parents should sue for a refund....

    BTW,you hold an honored seat in the kook section,complete with a nice bennie with a propellar on top spinning wildly,a red one in honor of the workers prolotariot party.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/15/2008 @ 10:34pm

    Interesting, My parents never spent a dime on my education. I have not been to school beyond the 12th grade. I am not starving. I make about $50,000 a year and am smack dab in the middle of the lower middle class. I am 55 years old. I have two children and four grandchildren.

    I have travelled the world on my own money, beginning in 1973. If the likes of you wants to dress me in a beenie hat with propeller. I am truly honored. It means a lot to me. Really.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 11:00pm

56. or if you refuse to drill for oil, then the oil supply available drops as the users of oil in the world buy more, so the price drops at the pump....

    right Mask?

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/15/2008 @ 10:56pm

    It matters not whether we drill every nook and cranny in the U.S.A for oil. The companies like Exxon Mobile,Shell and the like are multinational corporations. They have no allegiance to our country, even though their names sound familiar. The oil that is drilled anywhere on the planet is sold on the international market.

    It is sold to the highest bidder. Just because it was drilled here doesn't mean it will stay here. Drill Here Drill Now for energy independence is a fraud. All it does is increase the bottom line for the oil companies. If they have the permits and leases to drill the oil it increases their bottom line. Even if they don't drill. Better to keep the oil in the ground.

    The only way to gain energy independence is through renewable energy. We don't have the worlds largest oil reserves. The only countries that can reduce the cost of their oil to consumers within that country are the ones with the largest oil reserves. They hold the monopoly. If we drill here and increase the oil supply. The Saudis will just decrease production and keep the price where they want it. Why is everyone so stupid? It's not that hard to understand.

    It's just basic economics. Jeez..

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/15/2008 @ 11:40pm

57. CCC, What type of business are you opening up? Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/15/2008 @ 8:42pm

    Bike shop. Repair and retail.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 11:42pm

58. Does it depend on who is going to be running the place, or held accountable? Are they going to pay those jackasses millilons before the red ink dries? Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/15/2008 @ 8:41pm

    Probably.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 11:44pm

59. Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/15/2008 @ 10:56pm

    Yes. McCain is going to spend less money, just like George Bush (either of them) spent less than Clinton. Oops.

    Or like Ronald Reagan spent less than Jimmy Carter. Oops.

    Care to point out any Republican administration in the last fifty years that actually spent less than a Democrat?

    Oh yeah, it's all Congresses fault. Particularly when we recognize how much of the current government interest expense is from military conflict or preparations for it (anyone remember Vietnam, Star Wars, Death Squad Democracy, Iraq War I? - I do.)

    You picked a loser. And now, you want to pick a bigger loser. So much for learning from one's mistakes.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/16/2008 @ 12:07am

60. Fair enough but lose the Marxist crap... It died decades ago and nobody is buying that workers verses the money class where the mere fact one works hard and achieves some economic success that he somehow is the enemy and hates all who makes less.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/15/2008 @ 11:48pm |

    Where there is a strong and vibrant middle class, nobody really cares who is making more money. If an individual has a good idea for a product or service and profits from that, others should look to that as a sign of success and possibly emulate it or invest in it. There is no problem there. But when a class of people strives to swallow up and consume the innovation of others and make it their own without doing any actual real work. That is a problem. Unrestricted and uncontrolled capiltalism breeds that sort of abuse. We are all in this boat together, and some ethics in business practices could go a long way to produce a healthy society.

    Unfortunately, people in a position of power tend to abuse it. Thats why we need government regulation to even the playing field. Do you get it?

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/16/2008 @ 12:17am

61. Zero, sorry, got busy with life.

    Listen, I certainly hope you're not looking for an argument from me because your 9:30 and 9:42 posts are extremely well articulated and I'm in the choir.

    If one examines the reality of fractional reserve banking and understands it, then it is clear the central bank (or better said, the Wall Street banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve) is empowered by politicians to create money out of thin air and loan it out to its member banks as asset for real interest. Banks get the promise, and politicians get the money without the political risk of additional taxation. And we all pay through inflation, as Jefferson described in his arguments against central banking, the most unfair tax of all.

    It becomes apparent that the dollar is a completely fiat currency.

    And I fear those chickens coming home to roost. Because an ignorant public is now looking to the very body that created the crisis to save us.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/16/2008 @ 01:03am

62. Posted by chaoszen

    Hey, I'm sorry my response to one of your earlier posts was nothing but laughter. That was not only unduely arrogant on my part, it was undeservedly rude to you. I hope you'll excuse me.

    We may disagree, but I appreciate your opinions.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/16/2008 @ 01:17am

63. Jomamma, Great talking with you this evening! Safe travels!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/16/2008 @ 01:19am

64. Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/15/2008 @ 10:56pm

    "unless someone is taxed,.....

    ... and as we all know, when you tax the rich, they just make more and grow the economy,......

    ... or if you tax business, they just make more money and grow the economy and the increase in costs are just "eaten" by the companys and not passed on to consumers, so the price goes down...

    or if you refuse to drill for oil, then the oil supply available drops as the users of oil in the world buy more, so the price drops at the pump....

    right Mask?"

    Thanks for summariziing the average lefty's understanding of economics, JOM. The really do believe that raising taxes creates wealth, increasing the supply of oil won't affect the price, money raised by taxing companies is free, coming out of the ether. I would also add there 'zero sum game' view of national wealth, however, where there's a fixed pie that everyone must grab for.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/16/2008 @ 07:24am

65. Just try to explain to a liberal how an enforced minimum wage actually lowers employment opportunities for those on the lowest rung of employability...

    It is a hopeless waste of time.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 09/16/2008 @ 10:25am

66. MAASCH, maybe you and PONTI can explain to us again how we managed to not only SURVIVE, but actually experience a BOOM, when Clinton passed "the biggest tax hike in history" (which hurt the precious "job providers")

    And then explain why there are CAVEATS to your perfect theory????

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 10:40am

67. I do perceive that the Fed is operating as a sort of Banker's Cabal here, even though ultimately they are simply trying to stop a stock market crash that could impact everyone very negatively.

    Posted by Zero at 09/15/2008 @ 7:56pm

    No, Zero, you were right the first time! The Fed, like all other Central Banks, is fundamentally a Bankers Cabal, especially in this day of largely unrestricted Capital flow and flight. All over the world, their primary motive is keeping the cost of Capital down while increasing its profits. How? By keeping labor costs down, no matter if productivity increases or not. And that is another sign of the continued degradation of capitalism: the supposed economic law linking rising productivity to higher wages for labor has been broken over the last 30+ years. We're back to the age of speedup, of "do more with less," all for the same or less compensation as 30 years ago.

    Posted by cka2nd at 09/16/2008 @ 11:11am

68. Good to see the return of CKA II. I always enjoy the thoughtful and insightful posts.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/15/2008 @ 5:39pm

    I wanted to second b_kool_66 regarding cka2nd. On point and interesting commentary, as usual.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 5:48pm

    Aw shucks, guys, you'll turn my head.

    Posted by cka2nd at 09/16/2008 @ 11:13am

69. Where? I am in LA man times a year...I will support your venture...profit is not a dirty word. Posted by JOMAMMA at 09/16/2008 @ 10:27am

    Either around UCLA or USC. I am sort of hashing out the details right now. My parents, who luckily are real estate agents, are looking for properties.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2008 @ 11:47am

70. I've wanted to say this for a long time. JOMAMMA is a capital "C" capitalist. All wealth is created because the heroic "Super Capitalist" - faster than a speeding competitor, stronger than a government regulator, he leaps picket lines with a single bound - risks his hard earned Capital to start a business and create jobs. And just where does the Capital come from that Super Capitalist (see the proud "C" emblazoned on his chest) uses to build the economy and create jobs? Has it fallen from the sky, like meteors from the exploded planet of Laisezfaire? Or is he imbued with Capital by the star of Gold around which the Earth orbits? Or do the denizens of the bottled city of Moneygrowsontrees give it to him to invest because they're too tiny to be heard in the pits of Wall Street? Help, Super Capitalist! Tell us where your Capital comes from?

    Wait; look there, behind Super Capitalist's green cape. It's workers, slaving away in the steel mills and coal mines, at the sewing machines and computers, behind the counters and the wheel. And look at the minions of Super Capitalist, whipping the workers to work faster. And Holy Mother Minerva, the last time Super Capitalist gave the workers a raise was in 1999, and that was the first one in 20 years! All that profit, all that Capital, and such a pittance goes to the workers while Super Capitalist is able to build not one, not two, but NINE Mcfortresses of Squalitude!!! And buy an invisible jet and an entire parallel system of Capitalist-only airports!

    Could this be Bizarro Earth, and Super Capitalist is Bizarro Super Capitalist? No, boys and girls, this is the real world of Class Warfare, and the Capitalists are waging and winning a one-sided Secret War on the workers. Fight back, workers, Oh fight back!!

    Posted by cka2nd at 09/16/2008 @ 11:54am

71. Posted by cka2nd at 09/16/2008 @ 11:54am

    Only problem is, some think our only hope lies in Super Capitalist's arch-nemesis....Lex Leninist!

    Any chance "Moderate Man" can save the day again?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 12:11pm

72. Strangely absent from all this bickering is the name Phil Gramm. You know, of "whiners" fame. He was the chair of the Senate Banking Commitee in the 90's. In 2000 he effectively eliminated all oversight for the brilliant Credit Default Swap tool. These swaps are great for investors and people with bad credit alike - until the bubble bursts. Let's hope that doesn't happen. We might see a few banks and investment firms fail. Also created what became known as the "Enron loophole" eliminating regulation on energy trading. We all know how that went. Also, McCain's economic advisor until this summer. Good folks all around. Glad Rubin and Gramm are both back in the mix. The finance sector has both parties covered.

    Posted by HAL9000 at 09/16/2008 @ 12:44pm

73. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 12:11pm

    Remind me, Mask...what does Moderate Man stand for again? Does he hold back a little when he uses the lash? Maybe slips the dark wo/man a little cash when "the boss" isn't looking? Is Moderate Man the one that informs us that Super Capitalist is making jobs in Hong Kong and is helping raise the standard of living there? Essentially playing Robin to Batman, or the good cop to bad cop? I'm not quite following how this idea works in this metaphor.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/16/2008 @ 12:56pm

74. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/15/2008 @ 11:42pm

    I need a bicycle. Too bad I'm in GA. Those CA prices are killer.

    Posted by k330k at 09/16/2008 @ 1:56pm

75. I need a bicycle. Too bad I'm in GA. Those CA prices are killer. Posted by k330k at 09/16/2008 @ 1:56pm

    Haha. No bike shops around you?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2008 @ 3:15pm

76. GaryHart, formerly Gary Hartpence, should go back to his Monkey Business boat. It would be nice if he took Tom Hayden with him. I'm tired of these old retreads.

    Posted by jsens at 09/19/2008 @ 6:20pm