Confessions of a Former Republican

[kimmy]

You actually make some sense here, and to be honest, I'm not sure where I come down on this issue. Obama would have us believe CDOs only existed because there was no regulation, but lets be honest, the securities industry is one of the most regulated industries on the planet, even before the 2008 crash!

Yes and no. There's lots of regulations on traditional banks, virtually none on the "shadow banks"-- financial institutions that avoid regulation by not taking deposits or engaging in other activities that would bring them under the regulation that traditional banks are subject to. Read up on the "shadow banking system". This subject is certainly over our heads, but the gist of it is that by avoiding becoming classified as traditional banks, financial institutions can skirt a lot of regulation that traditional banks are subject to.

And again, derivatives were *not* regulated. Alan Greenspan, long-running chairman of the Fed, was a major reason why:

An October 15, 2008, article in the Washington Post analyzing the origins of the economic crisis claims that Greenspan vehemently opposed any regulation of derivatives, and actively sought to undermine the office of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission when the Commission sought to initiate regulation of derivatives. Meanwhile, Greenspan recommended improving mark-to-market regulations to avoid having derivatives or other complex assets marked to a distressed or illiquid market during times of material adverse conditions as seen during the late 2000s credit crisis.[83]

Greenspan was not alone is his opposition to derivatives regulation. In a 1999 government report that was a key driver in the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000—legislation that clarified that most over-the-counter derivatives were outside the regulatory authority of any government agency—Greenspan was joined by Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman William Ranier in concluding that "under many circumstances, the trading of financial derivatives by eligible swap participants should be excluded from the CEA" (Commodity Exchange Act). Other government agencies also supported that view.[84]

In Congressional testimony on October 23, 2008, Greenspan acknowledged that he was "partially" wrong in opposing regulation and stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity — myself especially — are in a state of shocked disbelief."[56] Referring to his free-market ideology, Greenspan said: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) then pressed him to clarify his words. "In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working," Waxman said. "Absolutely, precisely," Greenspan replied. "You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well."[85] Greenspan admitted fault[86] in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected.

Greenspan fought regulation of derivatives for ideological reasons, and admitted that he was wrong.

Look at the CDOs. The problem wasn't lack of regulation. It wasn't. Be truthful. How do I know this? Because both Moody's and S&P had these things as AAA paper. Trust me, if the ratting agencies didn't understand these things, there is no way on God's green earth that some watchdog with an arts degree from Syracuse did.

As eyeball says:

Weren't these bonds rated AAA because that's the rating the issuers went shopping around for?

Is the issue really that S&P and Moody's didn't understand these things? No. They understood.

They didn't give high ratings to junk assets because they didn't understand the risks. They gave high ratings to junk assets

because they knew which side their bread was buttered on.

Have you seen the reports from Moody's or S&P? It's pure gibberish. I say it again, the problem was not lack of regulation. There was plenty of regulation. If you want to be brutally honest, the problem was probably that there is no money in bond rating or regulation. The money's at Goldman. So these dummies at the SEC were frankly in over their heads. And apparently so was Moody's and everyone else!!!

More regulation won't save the financial world from another bubble. Let the market be the market.

Oh, there's money in bond rating. Is there money in regulation? Unfortunately you've stumbled on a part of the problem. The people that politicians can turn to for expert advice are the same people who rake in immense amounts of money from the system. They're not exactly objective. Who do presidents appoint to watch over the financial sector? Well, Dubya and Obama both picked top industry executives to sort out the mess. Guys who made tons of money from things being the way they were, and will make tons more from the industry after they leave public service. The president can get top academics from Columbia and Harvard to provide objective, unbiased analysis... but the top academics get millions of dollars of consulting contracts from Wall Street every year, so they've got a lot of incentive to not be exactly objective or unbiased either.

-k

[Bitsy]

Trust me, I'm not interested in discussing the New Testament in any way, shape, or form; I'm just wondering why you single out the prejudice of those who believe in the New Testament as being more odious than the prejudices of anyone else.

I do not know the teachings of other religions but I do know the teachings of the Methodist church, and my comment is based on those teachings. Your disagreement with my comment is noted but it in no way gives me pause to reconsider my opinion.

[Guest American Woman]

I do not know the teachings of other religions but I do know the teachings of the Methodist church, and my comment is based on those teachings. Your disagreement with my comment is noted but it in no way gives me pause to reconsider my opinion.

Since you don't know the teachings of other religions, your passing judgment on the prejudices of those who believe in the New Testament as "more odious" is be a judgement based on ignorance. That you in no way would reconsider an opinion that you acknowledge is based on ignorance, and that you're comfortable with such a judgment, indicates a pretty strong bias.

[Bitsy]

Since you don't know the teachings of other religions, your passing judgment on the prejudices of those who believe in the New Testament as "more odious" is be a judgement based on ignorance. That you in no way would reconsider an opinion that you acknowledge is based on ignorance, and that you're comfortable with such a judgment, indicates a pretty strong bias.

Believe what you will, AW. The fact that you consider me ignorant and biased matters not to me.

[Guest American Woman]

Believe what you will, AW. The fact that you consider me ignorant and biased matters not to me.

I consider you ignorant regarding other religions based on the fact that you said you were.

I consider you biased because you refuse to reconsider an opinion which you said is based on that ignorance.

[Bitsy]

I consider you ignorant regarding other religions based on the fact that you said you were.

I consider you biased because you refuse to reconsider an opinion which you said is based on that ignorance.

Carry on, don't expect me to attempt to change your opinion of me.

[Guest American Woman]

Carry on, don't expect me to attempt to change your opinion of me.

Oh, believe me, I have no such expectations.

[bleeding heart]

Remove the science foundation and replace it with knee jerk environmentalism and what do you get? Whining about the anti-science aspects of the republican platform is pointless if you refuse to acknowledge the equally odious anti-science basis opposition to GMOs and nuclear power.

First of all, plenty of liberals are not opposed to GMOs and nuclear power...and opposition to them is not part of core science curricula, and nor is it part of many (any?) major Democrat campaign platform, at least not in any serious and large-scale way.

Second, even if you were right (which I reiterate that you're not) you're looking at two very different phenomena.

One is an improper use of scientific evaluation and consensus.

The other is a fundamental, bedrock refutation of scientific knowledge itself. That's a serious and profound distinction, and the differences extrapolate over time.

The first is reparable; the second refuses to accept, even philisophically, that anything could need to be repaired.

To use an analogy: one is a doctor who is performing his duties in the wrong way. He can be educated, reformed, made to be better, by virtue of the fact of what is understood about medical science.

The other is a doctor who despises medical science, refuses medical schooling, and, further, believes such things are actually antithetical to practicing good medicine.

The second is worse in every way, Tim. Every way.

Both are performing wrong; but one has no philosophical or educational tools to ever even recognize it....and is in fact opposed to the very tools themselves.

Edited September 16, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

Well, I guess that answers that...you don't live in the US. I suspected as much.

So carry on, I could care less where you live now that I know it is not here.

And you're quite lucky, at that.

Jerry's a good reminder, for all the "what's wrong with Americans?" posters, that we have an unhealthy dollop of reactionary crazies as well. It's a universal phenomenon.

Edited September 16, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Bitsy]

And you're quite lucky, at that.

Jerry's a good reminder, for all the "what's wrong with Americans?" posters, that we have an unhealthy dollop of reactionary crazies as well. It's a universal phenomenon.

So very true

[carepov]

I thought this might be a good article to read and perhaps have some discussion about the ideological pigeon-holing that's going on in the US with the Culture Wars over the last 30 some odd years.

Great article, thank you!

On a scale of -10 to +10, here is how I rate the major results of the past few decades and current policies:

Fiscal Management:

Rep: -10

Dem: -5

Previous posters have pointed out the republican tendencies to balloon defence spending. For me, this graphs demolished the myth that Republicans are better fiscal managers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

The creation of DHS and the failure to significantly cut any government jobs or to re-organize the government demolishes the myth that Republicans stand for "small government".

Foreign Policy:

Rep: -10

Dem: 0

On 9/12/2001 the USA had support from almost every nation and its peoples - how the Bush administration pissed away this support astonishes me.

Social policy:

Rep: -10

Dem: +5

I am a strong believer that the government should ensure that human rights are protected and otherwise let adults decide how to live their lives.

Total:

Rep: -30

Dem: 0

I agree with the author, Republican support is based on nothing but myths and lies.

Edited September 17, 2012 by carepov

[kimmy]

This thread got quiet all of a sudden... remember the part where Tim was explaining how the Red States are models of economic success? Remember the part where Jerry was explaining how the banks don't need to be regulate?

Me neither.

-k

[bleeding heart]

This thread got quiet all of a sudden... remember the part where Tim was explaining how the Red States are models of economic success? Remember the part where Jerry was explaining how the banks don't need to be regulate?

Me neither.

-k

I do have a vague memory of lunatic babbling on these subjects, but I thought it was a dream I had in which Keanu Reeves and Lindsay Lohan were explaining economics to me.

Edited September 18, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bud]

this might be of interest to some of you; an article from another former GOP insider:

Leslie Thatcher for Truthout: Mike, in the title of your book, you describe the Republicans as "crazy," but in articles and interviews here and elsewhere, you've described their tactics as deliberate political terrorism. How are those policies crazy for the super-funders who determine GOP policy?

Mike Lofgren: That is an interesting question that goes to the heart of a paradoxical aspect of the GOP. Of course people like the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson are engaging in a rational exercise to maximize their wealth. Their contributions will come back manifold in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and exclusive franchises. The primary purpose of the GOP these days is to provide tax breaks and other financial advantages (such as not regulating pollution and other socially costly externalities) to their wealthy donor base. All the rest of their platform, all the culture wars stuff, is simply rube bait.

One cannot get a majority of voters - who are decidedly non-rich - to knowingly pull the lever for a party that nakedly says "our platform is further enrichment of the wealthy, and, oh, by the way, we're also going to make your retirement benefits take a hit." That's where deep psychological insight comes into play. Most people, even when they have a sneaking suspicion that they are being shafted economically, are not well attuned to the complexities of credit default swaps, the London Interbank Offered Rate, or quantitative easing. And the media are definitely not interested in wising them up, especially when they can instead supply celebrity interviews, singing contests, or commercialized orgies like the opening ceremonies of the Olympics

link

Edited September 18, 2012 by bud

[Guest American Woman]

I'm a former Republican, and I had my reasons for being Republican at the time. Republicans aren't all bad nor are Democrats all goodness and light. It's why I prefer a balance of power - and find extremism on both ends to be less than desirable.

[Pliny]

Although I am not particularly a republican or conservative I will defend it over today's progressive liberalism.

The writer of the article in the opening post was indeed, as he stated in the article, a RINO and now he has found home. He discovered for instance that he held an opinion while being a "republican" of whole swaths of people as being second class citizens. Where do they make that distinction more than in the Democrat party? If they didn't who would they know to give hand-outs to. He talks about his opinions as being those of the entire republican party.

There were a few interesting posts and side discussions. But if you looked at carepov's citing of the GDP graph and agreed that republican's were big spenders then you haven't given it any analysis. For instance, the ratio under Reagan looks like he was a big spender. There are two sides to this coin. Firstly, Reagan cut taxes and the revenues of the Federal government went up. The natural thing to do with more revenues, especially for a Democrat controlled congress, is to spend it and it looks like they did in spades even increasing the debt, instead of choosing to bring down the debt or some other unimportant thing, like Reagan wanted to do such as close the Department of Education.

Also, I think TimG brought up the point that Congress rather than the Executive Branch has more to do with the budget and congress was controlled by the Democrats from 1952 until 1995. It may look like Democrats didn't approve of Republican spending on the military and it was built up by Republicans but Democrats had to approve it in congress.

Essentially it takes a little more than just posting a graph to think you have made your point. An important point to consider is whether or not the spending is from revenues or borrowing. Bush II created a lot of debt and Barack Obama even more. Reagan did mostly due to Congress and their priorities. Amazingly, Clinton with the first Republican dominated Congress, cut the debt.

You'll find also that Bush II's biggest increase in spending occurred after 2006.

I do remember the part where TimG said that Red States were doing better economically than the Blue states. Aren't they? Do banks need regulation? Of course, they need rules in order to function but not as much oversight as the far-left would desire and definitely not rules that would tell them to ignore prudence.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Pliny

[carepov]

Although I am not particularly a republican or conservative I will defend it over today's progressive liberalism.

Although I am not particularly a progressive liberal I will defend it over today's republicanism or conservatism.

The writer of the article in the opening post was indeed, as he stated in the article, a RINO and now he has found home. He discovered for instance that he held an opinion while being a "republican" of whole swaths of people as being second class citizens. Where do they make that distinction more than in the Democrat party? If they didn't who would they know to give hand-outs to. He talks about his opinions as being those of the entire republican party.

Regarding the division of society into classes, Mitt Romney's own words in his May fundraiser supports the authors claim. Are you claiming that Republicans give fewer handouts than Democrats? I would like to see data that supports this. Secondly, I disagree that people receiving handouts equate to second class citizens. I must be misunderstanding your position but because it makes no sense to me.

… if you looked at carepov's citing of the GDP graph and agreed that republican's were big spenders then you haven't given it any analysis. For instance, the ratio under Reagan looks like he was a big spender. There are two sides to this coin. Firstly, Reagan cut taxes and the revenues of the Federal government went up. The natural thing to do with more revenues, especially for a Democrat controlled congress, is to spend it and it looks like they did in spades even increasing the debt, instead of choosing to bring down the debt or some other unimportant thing, like Reagan wanted to do such as close the Department of Education.

Also, I think TimG brought up the point that Congress rather than the Executive Branch has more to do with the budget and congress was controlled by the Democrats from 1952 until 1995. It may look like Democrats didn't approve of Republican spending on the military and it was built up by Republicans but Democrats had to approve it in congress.

Essentially it takes a little more than just posting a graph to think you have made your point. An important point to consider is whether or not the spending is from revenues or borrowing. Bush II created a lot of debt and Barack Obama even more. Reagan did mostly due to Congress and their priorities. Amazingly, Clinton with the first Republican dominated Congress, cut the debt.

You'll find also that Bush II's biggest increase in spending occurred after 2006.

I have heard these types of arguments before and to me it sounds like this:

Point 1: Republicans are tax cutters and sound fiscal managers, Democrats raise taxes, spending and debt

Point 2: When there is a Democratic president, the national debt usually soars, proving Point 1.

Point 3: When there is a Republican president the national debt soars (even more) but since Point 1 is proven then there must be other reasons (Democratic Congress, external economic influences, etc…)

Point 4: When there is a Democratic president (Clinton) and the debt goes down, the credit goes to the Republican Congress, as per Point 1.

This is circular logic and I wish that the public would stop drinking this Kool-Aid!

Bush 2 enjoyed a Republican Congress for four years and a split Congress for two. How do you or any republican supporters explain his record?

Here is my point again: the claim that “Republican Presidents have been (and therefore will be) better fiscal managers than Democratic ones” is false. Here is another graph to support my argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

[Pliny]

Regarding the division of society into classes, Mitt Romney's own words in his May fundraiser supports the authors claim.

Mitt Romney's statement is a statement that society is already divided and he has little chance of persuading them away from their entitlements.

Are you claiming that Republicans give fewer handouts than Democrats? I would like to see data that supports this.

A republican president can only get elected when a Democrat President has really tried to push the progressive label a bit farther than the American public is ready to accept or he has really screwed up. Or in the case of the very close election win of Bush II the Republican congress had demonstrated a Republican President might be tolerable but it was a squeaker. Admittedly though, Republicans are not above pandering for votes. Special interests tend to tarnish democracy that way.

Secondly, I disagree that people receiving handouts equate to second class citizens.

But... there has to be someone to look after their interests...and that's their more intelligent, more able brethren in the Democrat party. They are quite symbiotic and if one class exists to help, the other must exist to be helped. Now we have to clarify "help". Real help lifts people out of the need for help. Help that keeps people in constant need is more a betrayal as it is usually inadequate, can be used as a bartering tool and has a tendency to disappear. It must be realized, of course, that there are a few people that will always require some level of real help.

Really, the second class citizen is not necessarily the recipient of handouts but the one who feels someone else should pay to provide handouts that he can get paid for doling out.

We are all first class citizens.

Yes, whether, we're lower class, middle class or upper class; in the eyes of the law we should all be first class and treated equal under the law.

I have heard these types of arguments before and to me it sounds like this:

Point 1: Republicans are tax cutters and sound fiscal managers, Democrats raise taxes, spending and debt

Point 2: When there is a Democratic president, the national debt usually soars, proving Point 1.

Point 3: When there is a Republican president the national debt soars (even more) but since Point 1 is proven then there must be other reasons (Democratic Congress, external economic influences, etc…)

Point 4: When there is a Democratic president (Clinton) and the debt goes down, the credit goes to the Republican Congress, as per Point 1.

This is circular logic and I wish that the public would stop drinking this Kool-Aid!

We must only look at the composition of Congress since it is responsible for budgets. Harry Reid hasn't passed one for three years now, even Obama's budgets.

The fact is that there has only been, since 1952, a Republican Congress from 1995 to 2006. Nine years out of the past sixty.

Bush inherited a recession in the busting of the dot com bubble and a war on terror however the greatest spending under his administration occurred after 2006 when power in congress passed back to the democrats and they haven't stopped spending since.

In the last two years congress has been split but the Democrats in the previous two years were more or less able to pass enough laws to keep the budget with over a trillion dollar deficit in the subsequent years. Of course, any attempt to curb spending is thwarted by Harry Reid.

Bush 2 enjoyed a Republican Congress for four years and a split Congress for two. How do you or any republican supporters explain his record?

See above.

Here is my point again: the claim that “Republican Presidents have been (and therefore will be) better fiscal managers than Democratic ones” is false. Here is another graph to support my argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

Well look at the graph. The period of average expenses was lowest during the Republican congress between 1995 and 2006. After the Bush tax cuts in 2003 revenues were increasing. In January 2007 when the house was taken over by the Dems the spending started to rise and continued to rise. It started to rise pretty fast before the housing bubble burst in 2008 and TARP was passed. Bush warned about the housing bubble in 2006 as well but Barney Franks, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi flush with power paid no heed.

[carepov]

...

I see things very differently. Check out: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Congress since 1981:

Split: 10 years

Rep: 9

Dem: 12

Yes 1997-2002 the Rep. Congress did seem to do a good job. But from 1987-1994 looks good too as the Dems held Congress and the spending was relatively flat.

"Bush inherited a recession in the busting of the dot com bubble and a war on terror"

Firstly Bush bungled the War on Terror that he declared. Secondly if you are talking recessions then sure the much deeper Great Recession should excuse much of Obama's record.

Not to mention policy proposals. Obama plans to maintain military spending while Ronmey would increase. What spending would Romney cut?

[Pliny]

I see things very differently. Check out: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

The article is very specious to say the least. The last budget of Bush included the TARP agreement. This raised his last budget to a whopping 3.52 trillion dollars. The graphs are only statistics of "increases" in spending, so while it is true Obama hasn't increased spending much from the last Bush budget he has still kept the budget every year over a trillion dollars in deficit. Trying to portray him as a tightwad is a laugh. He has still spent more than any other President has. Wouldn't you say that it is a pretty deceitful article to try and say that Obama is not the biggest spending President of all time because he has the smallest annualized growth in spending?

Congress since 1981:

Split: 10 years

Rep: 9

Dem: 12

Right. Republicans had not won control of Congress from 1952 to 1995. From 1953 until the end of 2012 is 59 years. The Republicans had control of Congress for 12 of those years, 9 of them from 95 to the end of 2006, Democrats 36 years. Congress was split 11 of those years.

Although starting in 2007 during the Bush administration. From wikipedia " Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.[2] Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House."

In light of that fact I would contend that two of those split years should count under the Democrats. Making the split total 9 years and the Democrat controlled Congress 38 years out of those 59 years. Republicans 12.

Yes 1997-2002 the Rep. Congress did seem to do a good job. But from 1987-1994 looks good too as the Dems held Congress and the spending was relatively flat.

Still at a higher level. Obama's spending is rather flat too. It doesn't mean he isn't the highest spending President because he is.

"Bush inherited a recession in the busting of the dot com bubble and a war on terror"

Firstly Bush bungled the War on Terror that he declared. Secondly if you are talking recessions then sure the much deeper Great Recession should excuse much of Obama's record. Not to mention policy proposals.

I don't agree with Bush's foray into Iraq either and he did bungle that. I am talking recessions and Bush turned the dotcom recession around even with the War on terror. I will also add that the housing policy under the Clinton administration were the beginnings of the housing bubble. Barney Franks pushed that to the hilt when he took over running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

There were quite a few things Bush did that I didn't like. The Patriot Act, Homeland Security among them.

Obama plans to maintain military spending while Ronmey would increase. What spending would Romney cut?

Actually, I would like to see military spending cut. I would disagree with Romney and Obama on that issue. As for what Romney would cut we'll see what he says and how the Ryan budget proposes to trim ten trillion from the budget over the next decade.

[carepov]

The article is very specious to say the least. The last budget of Bush included the TARP agreement. This raised his last budget to a whopping 3.52 trillion dollars. The graphs are only statistics of "increases" in spending, so while it is true Obama hasn't increased spending much from the last Bush budget he has still kept the budget every year over a trillion dollars in deficit. Trying to portray him as a tightwad is a laugh. He has still spent more than any other President has. Wouldn't you say that it is a pretty deceitful article to try and say that Obama is not the biggest spending President of all time because he has the smallest annualized growth in spending?

Perhaps you did not read the second page of the article because that is not the author's main point (admittedly the headline is misleading but that’s journalism, eh):

"Don’t get me wrong: President Obama bears responsibility for federal outlays being larger for each year of his presidency than at any time since 1946. If George W. Bush bears a lot of responsibility for FY2009, then Mr. Obama bears even more responsibility for the three years that followed — responsibility for both the very high spending and the questionable composition of the spending.

So is Mr. Obama’s performance on spending quite bad? Yes. But a difference in kind rather than in degree? Over his four fiscal years as president the average outlays-to-GDP ratio is 24.4 percent. During the Reagan years the average was 22.4 percent. Given the Great Recession, this two percentage point difference, though deceivingly very large, isn’t enough to claim that President Obama represents a radical departure from post-war presidents with respect to spending."

I am not saying that the Dems are good fiscal managers, I originally rated them as a -5 compared to -10 for Rep. Based on your arguments perhaps I will now say that the Dems and Rep are equally bad managers.

You are not grasping the severity of the Great Recession: http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=149

The dotcom recession was nothing compared to the Great Recession!

Bush II took a surplus and changed it into a huge deficit.

I don’t believe the Republicans when they say they will cut the budget because:

1) Over the past 30 years they have been no better at balancing the budget than the Democrats

2) They have lost all credibility with the War in Iraq and many other stupid policies and comments

[cybercoma]

I'm a former Republican, and I had my reasons for being Republican at the time. Republicans aren't all bad nor are Democrats all goodness and light. It's why I prefer a balance of power - and find extremism on both ends to be less than desirable.

Thanks for the platitude.

[cybercoma]

Here is my point again: the claim that “Republican Presidents have been (and therefore will be) better fiscal managers than Democratic ones” is false. Here is another graph to support my argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

Well that doesn't look like the US is on the supply side of the Laffer curve at all.

[kimmy]

I do remember the part where TimG said that Red States were doing better economically than the Blue states. Aren't they?

no, they're not.

Do banks need regulation? Of course, they need rules in order to function but not as much oversight as the far-left would desire and definitely not rules that would tell them to ignore prudence.

It's not laws requiring them to ignore prudence that the bank lobby is bawling to get repealed.

-k

[Bitsy]

After the Bush tax cuts in 2003 revenues were increasing.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessions-wrong-on-bush-tax-cuts/