Already 5 Years Into a Lost Decade

[gandalf]

When it comes to corporate America and handing out favors for big business, the GOP is worse than Democrats. Everybody knows this.

Sadly, a protest vote for the GOP is an endorsement of growing corporate power. That’s the reality.

Bitch about Obama all you want. The GOP is worse.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]I disagree with you, Brian.

Stabilizing the financial system and propping up the Wall Street banking establishment are different things. The former does not require the latter.[/quote]

I guess that we have to agree to disagree…

In many ways, I agree with you, gandalf. But remember that the bailouts of Wall Street were started under Bush.

Stabilizing the financial system without propping up the Wall Street banking establishment would have required nationalizing the Wall Street firms and kicking out all the executives.

It was something that the Bush Administration was unwilling to do because of ideology. At that time, we were still in the early stages of the financial bailouts, and Bush still wanted to show the world that we could handle it through the “free-market”.

So it turned out that we effectively nationalized the banks (without calling it nationalization), but kept the executives in place.

When Obama came into office he could have punished the Wall Street executives, but he chose the expedient route thinking that a strong recovery would makes things alright.

Rather than being chastened, Wall Street executives grow bolder believing that, being too-big-to-fail, they had successfully blackmailed us.

Now that that economy is stagnating or heading south again, we have a problem.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]I disagree with you, Brian.

Stabilizing the financial system and propping up the Wall Street banking establishment are different things. The former does not require the latter.[/quote]

I guess that we have to agree to disagree…

In many ways, I agree with you, gandalf. But remember that the bailouts of Wall Street were started under Bush.

Stabilizing the financial system without propping up the Wall Street banking establishment would have required nationalizing the Wall Street firms and kicking out all the executives.

It was something that the Bush Administration was unwilling to do because of ideology. At that time, we were still in the early stages of the financial bailouts, and Bush still wanted to show the world that we could handle it through the “free-market”.

So it turned out that we effectively nationalized the banks (without calling it nationalization), but kept the executives in place.

When Obama came into office he could have punished the Wall Street executives, but he chose the expedient route thinking that a strong recovery would makes things alright.

Rather than being chastened, Wall Street executives grow bolder believing that, being too-big-to-fail, they had successfully blackmailed us.

Now that that economy is stagnating or heading south again, we have a problem.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]I disagree with you, Brian.

Stabilizing the financial system and propping up the Wall Street banking establishment are different things. The former does not require the latter.[/quote]

I guess that we have to agree to disagree…

In many ways, I agree with you, gandalf. But remember that the bailouts of Wall Street were started under Bush.

Stabilizing the financial system without propping up the Wall Street banking establishment would have required nationalizing the Wall Street firms and kicking out all the executives.

It was something that the Bush Administration was unwilling to do because of ideology. At that time, we were still in the early stages of the financial bailouts, and Bush still wanted to show the world that we could handle it through the “free-market”.

So it turned out that we effectively nationalized the banks (without calling it nationalization), but kept the executives in place.

When Obama came into office he could have punished the Wall Street executives, but he chose the expedient route thinking that a strong recovery would makes things alright.

Rather than being chastened, Wall Street executives grow bolder believing that, being too-big-to-fail, they had successfully blackmailed us.

Now that that economy is stagnating or heading south again, we have a problem.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]I disagree with you, Brian.

Stabilizing the financial system and propping up the Wall Street banking establishment are different things. The former does not require the latter.[/quote]

I guess that we have to agree to disagree…

In many ways, I agree with you, gandalf. But remember that the bailouts of Wall Street were started under Bush.

Stabilizing the financial system without propping up the Wall Street banking establishment would have required nationalizing the Wall Street firms and kicking out all the executives.

It was something that the Bush Administration was unwilling to do because of ideology. At that time, we were still in the early stages of the financial bailouts, and Bush still wanted to show the world that we could handle it through the “free-market”.

So it turned out that we effectively nationalized the banks (without calling it nationalization), but kept the executives in place.

When Obama came into office he could have punished the Wall Street executives, but he chose the expedient route thinking that a strong recovery would makes things alright.

Rather than being chastened, Wall Street executives grow bolder believing that, being too-big-to-fail, they had successfully blackmailed us.

Now that that economy is stagnating or heading south again, we have a problem.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]I disagree with you, Brian.

Stabilizing the financial system and propping up the Wall Street banking establishment are different things. The former does not require the latter.[/quote]

I guess that we have to agree to disagree…

In many ways, I agree with you, gandalf. But remember that the bailouts of Wall Street were started under Bush.

Stabilizing the financial system without propping up the Wall Street banking establishment would have required nationalizing the Wall Street firms and kicking out all the executives.

It was something that the Bush Administration was unwilling to do because of ideology. At that time, we were still in the early stages of the financial bailouts, and Bush still wanted to show the world that we could handle it through the “free-market”.

So it turned out that we effectively nationalized the banks (without calling it nationalization), but kept the executives in place.

When Obama came into office he could have punished the Wall Street executives, but he chose the expedient route thinking that a strong recovery would makes things alright.

Rather than being chastened, Wall Street executives grow bolder believing that, being too-big-to-fail, they had successfully blackmailed us.

Now that that economy is stagnating or heading south again, we have a problem.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]The government sought to control 1/6 of the economy through healthcare and they have succeeded. [/quote]

Djshakes, the Obama health care plan is virtually the same as the Republican 1993 proposal. I hope that your non-partisan self can see that.

Obama Health Proposal = 1993 Republican Proposal

Posted on: March 1, 2010 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton

Kaiser Health News points out something quite interesting. The health care reform proposal that President Obama just put out is remarkably similar to the Republican alternative to Clinton’s health care reform bill from 1993. That 1993 bill was sponsored by Sen. John Chafee (R-Rhode Island) and had 19 Republican co-sponsors in the Senate and two Democratic co-sponsors and was the primary alternative offered by the Republicans to Clinton’s bill.

Check out the chart of similarities between the Chafee bill and the Obama bill. Apparently the Republicans in 1993 were a bunch of socialists bent on making reparations and rebuilding the Third Reich, complete with death panels and murdering Sarah Palin’s baby.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/obama_health_proposal_1993_rep.php

More on Republican opposition to Health Care Reform:
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/3/19/why-republicans-fear-obamas-healthcare-reform_print.html%5B/quote%5D

My non-partisan self can see that. That is why I opposed it when they proposed it. What part of government (not just democrat)control I spoke of confused you?

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]The government sought to control 1/6 of the economy through healthcare and they have succeeded. [/quote]

Djshakes, the Obama health care plan is virtually the same as the Republican 1993 proposal. I hope that your non-partisan self can see that.

Obama Health Proposal = 1993 Republican Proposal

Posted on: March 1, 2010 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton

Kaiser Health News points out something quite interesting. The health care reform proposal that President Obama just put out is remarkably similar to the Republican alternative to Clinton’s health care reform bill from 1993. That 1993 bill was sponsored by Sen. John Chafee (R-Rhode Island) and had 19 Republican co-sponsors in the Senate and two Democratic co-sponsors and was the primary alternative offered by the Republicans to Clinton’s bill.

Check out the chart of similarities between the Chafee bill and the Obama bill. Apparently the Republicans in 1993 were a bunch of socialists bent on making reparations and rebuilding the Third Reich, complete with death panels and murdering Sarah Palin’s baby.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/obama_health_proposal_1993_rep.php

More on Republican opposition to Health Care Reform:
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/3/19/why-republicans-fear-obamas-healthcare-reform_print.html%5B/quote%5D

My non-partisan self can see that. That is why I opposed it when they proposed it. What part of government (not just democrat)control I spoke of confused you?

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]The government sought to control 1/6 of the economy through healthcare and they have succeeded. [/quote]

Djshakes, the Obama health care plan is virtually the same as the Republican 1993 proposal. I hope that your non-partisan self can see that.

Obama Health Proposal = 1993 Republican Proposal

Posted on: March 1, 2010 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton

Kaiser Health News points out something quite interesting. The health care reform proposal that President Obama just put out is remarkably similar to the Republican alternative to Clinton’s health care reform bill from 1993. That 1993 bill was sponsored by Sen. John Chafee (R-Rhode Island) and had 19 Republican co-sponsors in the Senate and two Democratic co-sponsors and was the primary alternative offered by the Republicans to Clinton’s bill.

Check out the chart of similarities between the Chafee bill and the Obama bill. Apparently the Republicans in 1993 were a bunch of socialists bent on making reparations and rebuilding the Third Reich, complete with death panels and murdering Sarah Palin’s baby.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/obama_health_proposal_1993_rep.php

More on Republican opposition to Health Care Reform:
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/3/19/why-republicans-fear-obamas-healthcare-reform_print.html%5B/quote%5D

My non-partisan self can see that. That is why I opposed it when they proposed it. What part of government (not just democrat)control I spoke of confused you?

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]The government sought to control 1/6 of the economy through healthcare and they have succeeded. [/quote]

Djshakes, the Obama health care plan is virtually the same as the Republican 1993 proposal. I hope that your non-partisan self can see that.

Obama Health Proposal = 1993 Republican Proposal

Posted on: March 1, 2010 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton

Kaiser Health News points out something quite interesting. The health care reform proposal that President Obama just put out is remarkably similar to the Republican alternative to Clinton’s health care reform bill from 1993. That 1993 bill was sponsored by Sen. John Chafee (R-Rhode Island) and had 19 Republican co-sponsors in the Senate and two Democratic co-sponsors and was the primary alternative offered by the Republicans to Clinton’s bill.

Check out the chart of similarities between the Chafee bill and the Obama bill. Apparently the Republicans in 1993 were a bunch of socialists bent on making reparations and rebuilding the Third Reich, complete with death panels and murdering Sarah Palin’s baby.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/obama_health_proposal_1993_rep.php

More on Republican opposition to Health Care Reform:
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/3/19/why-republicans-fear-obamas-healthcare-reform_print.html%5B/quote%5D

My non-partisan self can see that. That is why I opposed it when they proposed it. What part of government (not just democrat)control I spoke of confused you?

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]The government sought to control 1/6 of the economy through healthcare and they have succeeded. [/quote]

Djshakes, the Obama health care plan is virtually the same as the Republican 1993 proposal. I hope that your non-partisan self can see that.

Obama Health Proposal = 1993 Republican Proposal

Posted on: March 1, 2010 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton

Kaiser Health News points out something quite interesting. The health care reform proposal that President Obama just put out is remarkably similar to the Republican alternative to Clinton’s health care reform bill from 1993. That 1993 bill was sponsored by Sen. John Chafee (R-Rhode Island) and had 19 Republican co-sponsors in the Senate and two Democratic co-sponsors and was the primary alternative offered by the Republicans to Clinton’s bill.

Check out the chart of similarities between the Chafee bill and the Obama bill. Apparently the Republicans in 1993 were a bunch of socialists bent on making reparations and rebuilding the Third Reich, complete with death panels and murdering Sarah Palin’s baby.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/obama_health_proposal_1993_rep.php

More on Republican opposition to Health Care Reform:
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/3/19/why-republicans-fear-obamas-healthcare-reform_print.html%5B/quote%5D

My non-partisan self can see that. That is why I opposed it when they proposed it. What part of government (not just democrat)control I spoke of confused you?

[Djshakes]

[quote=gandalf]When it comes to corporate America and handing out favors for big business, the GOP is worse than Democrats. Everybody knows this.

Sadly, a protest vote for the GOP is an endorsement of growing corporate power. That’s the reality.

Bitch about Obama all you want. The GOP is worse.[/quote]

Well, it comes down to either the government being in control or corporations being in control from what you are saying. Which is worse? I don’t know. You have progressives on one side trying to take down corporations and you have conservatives/tea partiers on the other side trying to take down government. Maybe neither is in the wrong? After all, haven’t both corporations and government grown out of control? Instead, we all argue against each other (left and right) while never making headway on either side…exactly what they want.

[Djshakes]

[quote=gandalf]When it comes to corporate America and handing out favors for big business, the GOP is worse than Democrats. Everybody knows this.

Sadly, a protest vote for the GOP is an endorsement of growing corporate power. That’s the reality.

Bitch about Obama all you want. The GOP is worse.[/quote]

Well, it comes down to either the government being in control or corporations being in control from what you are saying. Which is worse? I don’t know. You have progressives on one side trying to take down corporations and you have conservatives/tea partiers on the other side trying to take down government. Maybe neither is in the wrong? After all, haven’t both corporations and government grown out of control? Instead, we all argue against each other (left and right) while never making headway on either side…exactly what they want.

[Djshakes]

[quote=gandalf]When it comes to corporate America and handing out favors for big business, the GOP is worse than Democrats. Everybody knows this.

Sadly, a protest vote for the GOP is an endorsement of growing corporate power. That’s the reality.

Bitch about Obama all you want. The GOP is worse.[/quote]

Well, it comes down to either the government being in control or corporations being in control from what you are saying. Which is worse? I don’t know. You have progressives on one side trying to take down corporations and you have conservatives/tea partiers on the other side trying to take down government. Maybe neither is in the wrong? After all, haven’t both corporations and government grown out of control? Instead, we all argue against each other (left and right) while never making headway on either side…exactly what they want.

[Djshakes]

[quote=gandalf]When it comes to corporate America and handing out favors for big business, the GOP is worse than Democrats. Everybody knows this.

Sadly, a protest vote for the GOP is an endorsement of growing corporate power. That’s the reality.

Bitch about Obama all you want. The GOP is worse.[/quote]

Well, it comes down to either the government being in control or corporations being in control from what you are saying. Which is worse? I don’t know. You have progressives on one side trying to take down corporations and you have conservatives/tea partiers on the other side trying to take down government. Maybe neither is in the wrong? After all, haven’t both corporations and government grown out of control? Instead, we all argue against each other (left and right) while never making headway on either side…exactly what they want.

[Author]

Posts