A Question for you Pro-Heathcare Reformers

[Centexfarmer]

If you need another hand to defend that ranch, just holler. I'm still a pretty good shot at 200 yd with the old 303. Not too bad with the .300 Winchester, either.

Well I've already stated that you're welcome to join me.

In addition to your skills with firearms, how are you at gardening, canning, and cooking?

Because I'm pretty sure at that point that "Health Care Reform" will be on the barter system.

 

[Centexfarmer]

add Ambrocious to the compound

My best-friend since middle school is himself a disciple of Alex Jones, and unlike Ambrocious he's agreed to contribute to his own keep here.

and i see a another waco on our hands

Don't get me started!

 

[JB3]

Thanks, Kulin.

Maybe if NickCole is reading this, he might realize that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act really was the seed of it all, and I personally want to break Bill Clinton's fingers for signing it. As for Phil Gramm? (I have my eye on that rotisserie. "Hey, y'all, you wanna go hog swillin'?)

Apropos the China bubble? Yeah, that's effin' scary. We're not out of the woods by a long shot, are we?

Since you seemed to completely ignore it, I'd suggest you read the link Opinterph posted.

Though Clinton added the last nail to its proverbial coffin, efforts to negate Glass-Steagall began (and then continued through) about a half-dozen presidential administrations before his. The history is worth a review.

The Long Demise of Glass-Steagall​

I presume “ObamaCo” is not synonymous with Barack Obama. It seems that Mr. Obama derided the lobbyists and a lack of appropriate regulation. Maybe you can provide a link where he blamed President Clinton?

 

[CoolBlue71]

You sound like a Sarah Palin Republican: selfish, uncaring....

I'm always delighted by dishonest folks like yourself who deliberately leave out key text with purpose of manipulating a message.

 

[NickCole]

NickCole, you are assuming that I have bought into some kind of propaganda that Obama has laid out for us.

Not assuming; I can read it in your post. What you're saying is what ObamaCo put out through their channels. It serves their purpose but it's misleading at best.

The truth is that the events in question began to unfold long before he was elected. In fact, they began to unfold while I (and you) was still a Hillary supporter, and thought Obama was an inexperienced hack. So please don't include me into that brainwashed crowd.

Of course the events began to unfold long before Obama was elected. So what?

What I'm referring to is the events of September 18, 2008. You seem to be wellversed enough for me to omit recounting those events. All concerned believe that, on that day, we came perilously close to a complete financial meltdown.

Yes I know what happened in Sept 2008 and afterward. It's overly dramatic, in line with faux NoDramaObama (which is really hyperdramatic eagerness to make everything now HISTORIC! and UNPRECEDENTED!) to say it shook the world to its very core and that we came close to oblivion. It was an economic crisis; they've happened before and they'll happen again. And Obama's economic and financial policies guarantee the Again will be sooner rather than later.

Apropos the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, an analogy is at first in order. It has always been against the law to take out insurance on your neighbor's property. But in fact that's exactly what was effected when that repeal was enacted, because of the situation involving credit swaps. Shady companies could write loans, but no longer had to take the risk, which resulted in a most egregious conflict of interest. (Using the insurance-on-your-neighbor's-property analogy, you'd have good reason to burn down his house, wouldn't you?) This situation involving the mortgages' credit swaps was responsible for the meltdown, because it directly encouraged the bad loans to be written in the first place.

See, this is the ObamaCo meme. And it's wrong.

Credit default swaps were invented in the 1990s, I remember it. A friend of mine was on the first swaps desk at JPMorgan. Being invented in the 1990s, they weren't a part of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and weren't affected the way you suggest by its repeal. What allowed gambling on credit defaults was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

And none of this had anything to do with Obama.

The fact that a year and a half after the collapse Obama STILL has not put through substantive regulatory reform has everything to do with Obama. A few months ago, in another Obama Photo-Op Shill Moment, he pretended he was going to, even trotted out old Paul Volker. But of course his Really Big Show wasn't followed with actual regulation he promised.

I, too, would like to see a re-enactment of the Glass-Steagal Act.

Where's all the urgency of Oblivion! Shaken To Its Very Core!!! Why the hysterical panic words over what happened in the absence of Glass-Stagall a year and a half ago and yet a mild mannered "I, too, would like to see ..." over the absence of Glass-Stagall type regulation today and going forward? Don't worry, that's a rhetorical question. It's why I know you'd have been one of those who brushed aside my criticism over what was happening in the late 90s and 2000s leading up to Sept 2008.

It's very easy to repeat the meme that Clinton was foolish to sign Gramm-Leach-Bliley and in your opinion it renders null and void all his good economic achievement, as if you disapproved of it at the time. The kind of insight you do or do not demonstrate today is the best indicator of what you would have done or supported or opposed in 1998 or 2000.

 

[Centexfarmer]

It's very easy to repeat the meme that Clinton was foolish to sign Gramm-Leach-Bliley and in your opinion it renders null and void all his good economic achievement, as if you disapproved of it at the time. The kind of insight you do or do not demonstrate today is the best indicator of what you would have done or supported or opposed in 1998 or 2000.

Yessir! Hindsight is Always 20/20.

I appreciate your frustration, as much I'm frustrated by the fact that the first $80 BILLION dollars for Bush43's Iraq war was such a hard pill to swallow, and now we're talking about TRILLIONS for Obama's plans as if it were nothing more than pocket change.

And suddenly the "fiscal conservative/less government" types are having tea parties.

For some reason Don Quixote comes to mind throughout this entire ordeal.

 

[NickCole]

Since you seemed to completely ignore it, I'd suggest you read the link Opinterph posted.

At some point it begins to seem like willful ignorance.

 

[JB3]

NickCole (and CentexFarmer), please don't attempt to tell me what I'm thinking, because you're apt to be mistaken.

I haven't read Opinterph's cite yet (but will) because I assessed it to be a history of the deregulation movement. In embryo, I'm already familiar with that chain of events, which did indeed begin with Jimmy Carter taking baby steps, but pushed through like a maelstrom beginning with Ronald Reagan.

I supported this deregulation movement at first, and supported Ronald Reagan and his endeavors, my being a Reagan Democrat. But seeing what happened with the S & L crisis changed my mind about deregulation; I've been leery of it ever since.

I was leery of it, too, when the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was signed in 1999, but I didn't understand the enormity of what was taking place.

I'm going to read Opinterph's cite, to get a better grasp of the details.

Finally, NickCole, who signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act? Bill Clinton! You're making him look even worse than he already looks.

You refuse to be an Obama sheep . I say, "Good for you!" I detest sheep thinking, which is one reason I admire our Kulindahr so much, and detest Republicanism with equal vigor. (It's a prerequisite to think like a sheep to be a Republican.) Even though you think otherwise, I'm an Obama supporter but not an Obama sheep. In recent weeks, I have mentioned my displeasure with him on several occasions.

But I, likewise, refuse to be a Bill Clinton sheep, even though I'm a Democrat. He fucked up! When are you going to admit that?

If you didn't read it then why the fuck are you still commenting? Opinterph provided a source that disputed your assertion. Yet, even after admitting you didn't read it, you still stand by it. Maybe NickCole is right; you ARE choosing to remain willfully ignorant.

 

[NickCole]

But I, likewise, refuse to be a Bill Clinton sheep, even though I'm a Democrat. He fucked up! When are you going to admit that?

In my post to you above, in addition to telling you I'd criticized Bill Clinton at the time, I wrote to you: "Clinton made his share of mistakes and IMO signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley was one of them."

I thought it was a mistake back when it happened, I said so then, and I now say it was a mistake.

Let me know which part of that you don't understand.

 

[JB3]

I think I already answered that question, Droid—I assessed the link as a history of deregulation. Are you deaf?

Except you didn't. You discussed the use of an article you hadn't read and continued with a point that the article refuted. Are you as brashly and willfully ignorant as you're making yourself look on here?

 

[Centexfarmer]

NickCole (and CentexFarmer), please don't attempt to tell me what I'm thinking, because you're apt to be mistaken.

You may not be aware of this but I love you like a fat kid loves cake!

And in case you're not familiar with that type of love, it's unconditional.

So how you were able to deduce that I was in anyway attempting to tell you how to "think" is a complete mystery to me.

I haven't read Opinterph's cite yet (but will) because I assessed it to be a history of the deregulation movement. In embryo, I'm already familiar with that chain of events, which did indeed begin with Jimmy Carter taking baby steps, but pushed through like a maelstrom beginning with Ronald Reagan.

I supported this deregulation movement at first, and supported Ronald Reagan and his endeavors, my being a Reagan Democrat. But seeing what happened with the S & L crisis changed my mind about deregulation; I've been leery of it ever since.

I was leery of it, too, when the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was signed in 1999, but I didn't understand the enormity of what was taking place.

I'm going to read Opinterph's cite, to get a better grasp of the details.

Finally, NickCole, who signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act? Bill Clinton! You're making him look even worse than he already looks.

You refuse to be an Obama sheep . I say, "Good for you!" I detest sheep thinking, which is one reason I admire our Kulindahr so much, and detest Republicanism with equal vigor. (It's a prerequisite to think like a sheep to be a Republican.) Even though you think otherwise, I'm an Obama supporter but not an Obama sheep. In recent weeks, I have mentioned my displeasure with him on several occasions.

But I, likewise, refuse to be a Bill Clinton sheep, even though I'm a Democrat. He fucked up! When are you going to admit that?

I just read Opinterph's link.

My original assessment of his link was pretty accurate: a deregulation trickle started in the 1970s, followed by a veritable flood in the 1980s.

Specifically speaking, however, Alan Greenspan, who'd been involved with JPMorgan, all by himself, completely arbitrarily, opened the final floodgates in 1998, culminating with the repeal in 1999.

Goddamn him!

One thing that I learned from Opinterph's cite is that maybe the chairman of the Fed has way too much muthafuckin' power. I think his role in the country's economy needs to be reevaluated.

I don't think any one man should have his finger on the world economy's nuclear button, so to speak.

You do realize that the Federal Reserve is in no way supported by or Authorized within any amendment of our U.S. Constitution don't you?

I'm just saying.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well I've already stated that you're welcome to join me.

In addition to your skills with firearms, how are you at gardening, canning, and cooking?

Because I'm pretty sure at that point that "Health Care Reform" will be on the barter system.

Gardening is one of the things I do as a handyman, along with plumbing, roofing, basic wiring, simple carpentry, and landscaping with defensive elements.

Cooking I'm tolerable at. Canning... it's been years!

 

[Kulindahr]

Thanks, Kulin.

Maybe if NickCole is reading this, he might realize that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act really was the seed of it all, and I personally want to break Bill Clinton's fingers for signing it. As for Phil Gramm? (I have my eye on that rotisserie. "Hey, y'all, you wanna go hog swillin'?)

Apropos the China bubble? Yeah, that's effin' scary. We're not out of the woods by a long shot, are we?

It's kinda like a house of cards: one section can get shaky and not pull the whole thing down, but if another section goes before the first one is back to strength....

The only thing I can think of that would really give the US smooth sailing would be if NASA caught a solid-gold asteroid about a klick across and Congress used it to pay down the debt, then a pure nickel-iron one that we could use for a low-cost steel source for the next twenty years.

 

[maxpowr9]

It's kinda like a house of cards: one section can get shaky and not pull the whole thing down, but if another section goes before the first one is back to strength....

The only thing I can think of that would really give the US smooth sailing would be if NASA caught a solid-gold asteroid about a klick across and Congress used it to pay down the debt, then a pure nickel-iron one that we could use for a low-cost steel source for the next twenty years.

You're implying the congress would be fiscally responsible. If they found an asteroid like that, they would blow the money on searching for more gold asteroids, only to come up shorthanded.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm always delighted by dishonest folks like yourself who deliberately leave out key text with purpose of manipulating a message.

Now you're like McCain: lying.

There wasn't any dishonesty, because there wasn't any text left out: I quoted your entire post.

You flat out said you didn't care about other people, specifically the person to whom you were responding. So now it's CoolBlue = McCain/Palin.

 

[Kulindahr]

I just read Opinterph's link.

My original assessment of his link was pretty accurate: a deregulation trickle started in the 1970s, followed by a veritable flood in the 1980s.

Specifically speaking, however, Alan Greenspan, who'd been involved with JPMorgan, all by himself, completely arbitrarily, opened the final floodgates in 1998, culminating with the repeal in 1999.

Goddamn him!

One thing that I learned from Opinterph's cite is that maybe the chairman of the Fed has way too much muthafuckin' power. I think his role in the country's economy needs to be reevaluated.

I don't think any one man should have his finger on the world economy's nuclear button, so to speak.

The entire fed has too much power. Its representatives tell Congresscritters they aren't answerable to Congress, and as far as the research I've done says, they're right. It may not be what the conspiracy-theory types say, a system of private banks, but they sure can manipulate things for the private banks and really aren't answerable to anyone.

Greenspan always seemed a bit slick. Now I know he was a slick operator.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're implying the congress would be fiscally responsible. If they found an asteroid like that, they would blow the money on searching for more gold asteroids, only to come up shorthanded.

I kind of meant to imply that Congress doing that would be as likely as finding a solid gold asteroid.

 

[NickCole]

Fair enough, Nick. I respect that.

I think it's important to remember that we're on the same side, Nick. Our aims towards a better, more livable society are similar, even if the person we choose to implement those changes don't completely coincide.

My partner and I recently agreed that despite Obama's gains, Hillary still would have made a far more prudent choice. She can be a bitch when she wants to be, and in the early days of the Presidency, we desperately needed her experience, her drive, and her unflappable strength; by contrast, due to Obama's rank inexperience we wasted a whole freakin' year trying to be "bipartisan". (LOL! What could he have been thinking?)

I think this is one aspect on which you'd definitely agree.

No we're really not on the same side.

I'm on the side of truth and you're on the side of propping up anti-Clinton propaganda, which began with Republicans and then took on a whole new life with ObamaNation. I'm on the side of Democratic principles and supporting Democrats who apply those principles to their policy, showing the success of those policies and encouraging they be applied today.

Your response to my spelling out your error in using the ObamaCo meme that Clinton signing the repeal of Glass-Stagall was the central reason for the economic criss is a perfect illustration of how effective the efforts to blame Clinton have been on you: "Finally, NickCole, who signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act? Bill Clinton! You're making him look even worse than he already looks." You're obsessed with Bill Clinton being to blame for an economic crisis that happened a decade after he left office. And if you're looking for who planted the seed for what happened, or when the pebble was dropped that began the ripple, it was in the 1980s with Reagan's first treasury secretary, former Merrill Lynch CEO Don Regan, who went nuts with deregulation at the same time Wall Street began changing the relationship between bank and customer.

My original point remains solid: Bill Clinton, while he was one of many who played a part in it, is not to blame for the economic crisis, and the achievements as a result of his economic policy were extraordinary. And Obama's policies are reversing the strides forward for those on the lowest rung of the ladder made during the Clinton years.

 

[NickCole]

Centex, I misperceived your comment about hindsight being 20/20 as a criticism of one of my statements.

Mea culpa.

BTW, thanks for your kind words.

On an unrelated note, that revelation about Greenspan made me madder than a wet hen. A JPMorgan man, singlehandedly, arbitrarily bringing on that kind of change? Reprehensible! Opinterph, by providing me with that link, you may have created a monster.

Greenspan belongs on the rotisserie right next to Phil Gramm. As I said before, it's time for us to go hog-swillin'.

No Greenspan belongs in prison --or the rotisserie if that pleases you-- right next to Bernanke, who Obama kept on from the Bush Administration. You're so eager to go back to pick and choose whom to blame, when the truth is many many people are to blame, and all that blaming you're focused on (which ObamaCo and their media cohorts encourage) keeps you distracted from getting that what's happening RIGHT NOW with Obama's team of Bernanke and Geithner, et al, in cahoots with Wall Street is like what was happening in 2000 except on steroids.

You do not understand what happened or what's happening now, proving that a little information can be a dangerous thing.

 

[Kulindahr]

No Greenspan belongs in prison --or the rotisserie if that pleases you-- right next to Bernanke, who Obama kept on from the Bush Administration. You're so eager to go back to pick and choose whom to blame, when the truth is many many people are to blame, and all that blaming you're focused on (which ObamaCo and their media cohorts encourage) keeps you distracted from getting that what's happening RIGHT NOW with Obama's team of Bernanke and Geithner, et al, in cahoots with Wall Street is like what was happening in 2000 except on steroids.

You do not understand what happened or what's happening now, proving that a little information can be a dangerous thing.

I have to agree that there's no single person to blame. The banking and mortgage crises go hand in hand, and given that you can reach back as far as Jimmy Carter if you're looking to see who gave the snowball a push.

Of course we can't forget the people we all love to hate: the lobbyists who push and prod, the lawyers who write things no Congresscritter can even read, let alone follow, the Congresscritters themselves who vote by campaign contributions rather than what's good for the country or their constituents, the voters who keep putting those creeps back in office....