PS: Note that “Leach” is Jim Leach, the so-called “Republican” who delivered a speech at the DNC endorsing Barack Obama. Maybe that’s why Obama didn’t bring up the silly Gramm-Leach-Bliley talking point.

Again – if you have your mind made up about something, you can walk backwards and find “facts” to support your position. When you look at history and try to connect the dots, often times you will come up short in that approach.

A statement that could apply to anyone who believed that ENIAC was the first computer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff%E2%80%93Berry_Computer

John Vincent Atanasoff’s and Clifford Berry’s computer work was not widely known until it was rediscovered in the 1960s, amidst conflicting claims about the first instance of an electronic computer. The ENIAC computer was considered to be the first computer in the modern sense, but in 1973 a U.S. District Court invalidated the ENIAC patent and concluded that the ABC was the first “computer” (see Controversy).

Have fun.

It’s easier for both parties to put the blame at the feet of Bush – for right or wrong. There’s plenty of blame to go around up and down both sides of the aisle, and nobody really wants to shine a flashlight on that aspect right now – McCain included.

It’s the same reason why McCain doesn’t push the 2005 reform point harder. Yes, he got on board with that bill – but when you actually look at it, it would have done very little to prevent the mess we’re in. By the time it would have been enacted in late ’05 (and btw – it was killed in the republican controlled committee) we were already so far down this hole there was very little turning back. It’s also a leap of logical faith to assume that the oversight bodies would have had the forward looking ability to actually put a stop to what was going on, and also a HUGE leap of faith to think that Fannie and Freddie were actually at the center of this mess – they weren’t.

Traditionally fannie and freddie had a more active and controlling role in the market, but after the 99 deregulation that was no longer the case. They were essentially on-par with the investment banks at that point, and lost a lot of their influence over the market. This is seen by the fact that leading up to this – Fannie and Freddie were losing marketshare to the big investment banks, as their guidelines did not permit them to dabble in these toxic loans. It was only after they were at risk of becoming completely irrelevent that they got involved and started taking on some of this debt.

But again – all of this goes back to assuming that anyone in government would have had any idea to step in and say ‘this isn’t smart’ and put an end to it. Considering you could turn on the TV or the Radio at any time 24 hours a day and get bombarded with these loan adverts, it was right out there in your face, and still nobody saw it – i find it hard to believe that would have been the case.

You can make the argument that there was pressure from the government, or from various groups to partake in these loans – but i just don’t find that to be a very credible line of attack. Some of these lenders themselves have said the reason why they loosened up their standards the way they did was simply to compete. If there was some greater plan, that wouldn’t be the case – and certainly these guys wouldn’t have had to go through such extraordinary steps to hide this mess in complex products, under a mound of paper.

So again – the deregulation of norms that have stood since Glass-Steelgall (1933) opened the door for this stuff to take place, and everybody pretty much looked the other way while it happened. That’s why you’re not seeing a harder line about all these supposed dots that can be connected back to the dems about where the blame lies. As many dots as there are pointing to the left, there’s just as many pointing to the right. It was a universal failure of government.

Thank you.

Moe Lane

PS: By all means, provide us with the quoted text where Obama’s business tax plan cut is based on profits, not taxable income. In fact, do that in your next post on the subject.

Blam.

Maybe Brokaw ate a manwich beforehand to enhance his ability to act in a manfully manner.

The philosophical difference expressed in the debate was quite clear. BO implied that progress toward energy independence and alternative energy would be made IF AND ONLY IF government were in control of the research and investment funds. Mac said government has a role in basic research (arguable) but should not tax investment capital away from the private sector. Is there a non-socialist reader who would not prefer Mac’s position?

This is a losing argument. It was used as an analogy.

The fact this is the best you have to combat Obama shows how desperate you’ve become.

It’s sad that conservatives like myself need to identify with Obama, a democrat, to trust we’ll see fiscal responsibility.

Also, why can’t McCain sit still during the debate? Why was he lurking around in the backround like an Iguana?