[jficquette]

[quote=EconProf]gdcox: I agree with your slam on President Bush to not put reins on mortgage brokers some years back. Might have avoided some, but not all, of our current problems.
But note that for economic principles (and capitalism) to work, we don’t need perfect information. We act with what we know, we seek better info, and we USUALLY avoid doing stupid things that hurt us. The sad thing about the bailout is that it would remove market incentives to do the right thing in the future. [/quote]

Your’re really going to blame this on Bush? LOL.

If you want to blame someone I suggest the blame goes to Greenspan who kept rates too low for too long and also to Bill Clinton for signing the law enabling Banks to own Wall Street firms and Insurance companies.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=EconProf]gdcox: I agree with your slam on President Bush to not put reins on mortgage brokers some years back. Might have avoided some, but not all, of our current problems.
But note that for economic principles (and capitalism) to work, we don’t need perfect information. We act with what we know, we seek better info, and we USUALLY avoid doing stupid things that hurt us. The sad thing about the bailout is that it would remove market incentives to do the right thing in the future. [/quote]

Your’re really going to blame this on Bush? LOL.

If you want to blame someone I suggest the blame goes to Greenspan who kept rates too low for too long and also to Bill Clinton for signing the law enabling Banks to own Wall Street firms and Insurance companies.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=EconProf]gdcox: I agree with your slam on President Bush to not put reins on mortgage brokers some years back. Might have avoided some, but not all, of our current problems.
But note that for economic principles (and capitalism) to work, we don’t need perfect information. We act with what we know, we seek better info, and we USUALLY avoid doing stupid things that hurt us. The sad thing about the bailout is that it would remove market incentives to do the right thing in the future. [/quote]

Your’re really going to blame this on Bush? LOL.

If you want to blame someone I suggest the blame goes to Greenspan who kept rates too low for too long and also to Bill Clinton for signing the law enabling Banks to own Wall Street firms and Insurance companies.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=EconProf]gdcox: I agree with your slam on President Bush to not put reins on mortgage brokers some years back. Might have avoided some, but not all, of our current problems.
But note that for economic principles (and capitalism) to work, we don’t need perfect information. We act with what we know, we seek better info, and we USUALLY avoid doing stupid things that hurt us. The sad thing about the bailout is that it would remove market incentives to do the right thing in the future. [/quote]

Your’re really going to blame this on Bush? LOL.

If you want to blame someone I suggest the blame goes to Greenspan who kept rates too low for too long and also to Bill Clinton for signing the law enabling Banks to own Wall Street firms and Insurance companies.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=EconProf]gdcox: I agree with your slam on President Bush to not put reins on mortgage brokers some years back. Might have avoided some, but not all, of our current problems.
But note that for economic principles (and capitalism) to work, we don’t need perfect information. We act with what we know, we seek better info, and we USUALLY avoid doing stupid things that hurt us. The sad thing about the bailout is that it would remove market incentives to do the right thing in the future. [/quote]

Your’re really going to blame this on Bush? LOL.

If you want to blame someone I suggest the blame goes to Greenspan who kept rates too low for too long and also to Bill Clinton for signing the law enabling Banks to own Wall Street firms and Insurance companies.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=OC Burns]WaMu is next.

Downey is toast too…. but WaMu is next.[/quote]

Lehman and Merrill Lynch appear to be going under too sooner or later. Lehman first then Merrill.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=OC Burns]WaMu is next.

Downey is toast too…. but WaMu is next.[/quote]

Lehman and Merrill Lynch appear to be going under too sooner or later. Lehman first then Merrill.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=OC Burns]WaMu is next.

Downey is toast too…. but WaMu is next.[/quote]

Lehman and Merrill Lynch appear to be going under too sooner or later. Lehman first then Merrill.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=OC Burns]WaMu is next.

Downey is toast too…. but WaMu is next.[/quote]

Lehman and Merrill Lynch appear to be going under too sooner or later. Lehman first then Merrill.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=OC Burns]WaMu is next.

Downey is toast too…. but WaMu is next.[/quote]

Lehman and Merrill Lynch appear to be going under too sooner or later. Lehman first then Merrill.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Peace]Allan said: ” You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?”

Yes, absolutely.

My favorite passtime is listening to the congressional hearings on C-Span – I remember (9/11 commission) that EVERYONE who worked and knew Clinton said he kept his finger on the pulse of terrorism – did more work/briefings before breakfast in one morning than Bush does in a week. Considering that the first World Trade Center bombing occured just a month after his inauguration in 1993.

There was plenty of warning that OBL was planning an attack inside the US and it wouldn’t have taken a genius to figure out how it might and did play out. Just one memo should have been enough to put the country on high alert; like this one maybe? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

Would you agree that it is one thing to protect our mainland against terrorist attacks vs worldwide attacks? Being attacked world wide will always be a risk and would not necessairly hold a president accountable for incidents where we really can not cover our exposure.

[/quote]

9/11 couldn’t have happened had Clinton taken Laden in to custody when the Sudan offered him to us.

Clinton only met with the CIA director once the entire 8 years he was in office. He was notorious in his lack of regards for foreign policy. He was also notorious for his work habits, sleeping late, being late to meetings, disorganized etc.

Clinton got elected twice with less then 50% of the vote. His VP couldn’t get elected, his wife couldn’t get elected. Master politician? Hell no. Master Joke is more like it.

Clinton hasn’t done squat except get elected. Check out Arkansas, he left them at number 48-50 in everything.

Anyone who thinks Clinton did a good job is simply misinformed.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Peace]Allan said: ” You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?”

Yes, absolutely.

My favorite passtime is listening to the congressional hearings on C-Span – I remember (9/11 commission) that EVERYONE who worked and knew Clinton said he kept his finger on the pulse of terrorism – did more work/briefings before breakfast in one morning than Bush does in a week. Considering that the first World Trade Center bombing occured just a month after his inauguration in 1993.

There was plenty of warning that OBL was planning an attack inside the US and it wouldn’t have taken a genius to figure out how it might and did play out. Just one memo should have been enough to put the country on high alert; like this one maybe? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

Would you agree that it is one thing to protect our mainland against terrorist attacks vs worldwide attacks? Being attacked world wide will always be a risk and would not necessairly hold a president accountable for incidents where we really can not cover our exposure.

[/quote]

9/11 couldn’t have happened had Clinton taken Laden in to custody when the Sudan offered him to us.

Clinton only met with the CIA director once the entire 8 years he was in office. He was notorious in his lack of regards for foreign policy. He was also notorious for his work habits, sleeping late, being late to meetings, disorganized etc.

Clinton got elected twice with less then 50% of the vote. His VP couldn’t get elected, his wife couldn’t get elected. Master politician? Hell no. Master Joke is more like it.

Clinton hasn’t done squat except get elected. Check out Arkansas, he left them at number 48-50 in everything.

Anyone who thinks Clinton did a good job is simply misinformed.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Peace]Allan said: ” You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?”

Yes, absolutely.

My favorite passtime is listening to the congressional hearings on C-Span – I remember (9/11 commission) that EVERYONE who worked and knew Clinton said he kept his finger on the pulse of terrorism – did more work/briefings before breakfast in one morning than Bush does in a week. Considering that the first World Trade Center bombing occured just a month after his inauguration in 1993.

There was plenty of warning that OBL was planning an attack inside the US and it wouldn’t have taken a genius to figure out how it might and did play out. Just one memo should have been enough to put the country on high alert; like this one maybe? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

Would you agree that it is one thing to protect our mainland against terrorist attacks vs worldwide attacks? Being attacked world wide will always be a risk and would not necessairly hold a president accountable for incidents where we really can not cover our exposure.

[/quote]

9/11 couldn’t have happened had Clinton taken Laden in to custody when the Sudan offered him to us.

Clinton only met with the CIA director once the entire 8 years he was in office. He was notorious in his lack of regards for foreign policy. He was also notorious for his work habits, sleeping late, being late to meetings, disorganized etc.

Clinton got elected twice with less then 50% of the vote. His VP couldn’t get elected, his wife couldn’t get elected. Master politician? Hell no. Master Joke is more like it.

Clinton hasn’t done squat except get elected. Check out Arkansas, he left them at number 48-50 in everything.

Anyone who thinks Clinton did a good job is simply misinformed.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Peace]Allan said: ” You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?”

Yes, absolutely.

My favorite passtime is listening to the congressional hearings on C-Span – I remember (9/11 commission) that EVERYONE who worked and knew Clinton said he kept his finger on the pulse of terrorism – did more work/briefings before breakfast in one morning than Bush does in a week. Considering that the first World Trade Center bombing occured just a month after his inauguration in 1993.

There was plenty of warning that OBL was planning an attack inside the US and it wouldn’t have taken a genius to figure out how it might and did play out. Just one memo should have been enough to put the country on high alert; like this one maybe? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

Would you agree that it is one thing to protect our mainland against terrorist attacks vs worldwide attacks? Being attacked world wide will always be a risk and would not necessairly hold a president accountable for incidents where we really can not cover our exposure.

[/quote]

9/11 couldn’t have happened had Clinton taken Laden in to custody when the Sudan offered him to us.

Clinton only met with the CIA director once the entire 8 years he was in office. He was notorious in his lack of regards for foreign policy. He was also notorious for his work habits, sleeping late, being late to meetings, disorganized etc.

Clinton got elected twice with less then 50% of the vote. His VP couldn’t get elected, his wife couldn’t get elected. Master politician? Hell no. Master Joke is more like it.

Clinton hasn’t done squat except get elected. Check out Arkansas, he left them at number 48-50 in everything.

Anyone who thinks Clinton did a good job is simply misinformed.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Peace]Allan said: ” You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?”

Yes, absolutely.

My favorite passtime is listening to the congressional hearings on C-Span – I remember (9/11 commission) that EVERYONE who worked and knew Clinton said he kept his finger on the pulse of terrorism – did more work/briefings before breakfast in one morning than Bush does in a week. Considering that the first World Trade Center bombing occured just a month after his inauguration in 1993.

There was plenty of warning that OBL was planning an attack inside the US and it wouldn’t have taken a genius to figure out how it might and did play out. Just one memo should have been enough to put the country on high alert; like this one maybe? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

Would you agree that it is one thing to protect our mainland against terrorist attacks vs worldwide attacks? Being attacked world wide will always be a risk and would not necessairly hold a president accountable for incidents where we really can not cover our exposure.

[/quote]

9/11 couldn’t have happened had Clinton taken Laden in to custody when the Sudan offered him to us.

Clinton only met with the CIA director once the entire 8 years he was in office. He was notorious in his lack of regards for foreign policy. He was also notorious for his work habits, sleeping late, being late to meetings, disorganized etc.

Clinton got elected twice with less then 50% of the vote. His VP couldn’t get elected, his wife couldn’t get elected. Master politician? Hell no. Master Joke is more like it.

Clinton hasn’t done squat except get elected. Check out Arkansas, he left them at number 48-50 in everything.

Anyone who thinks Clinton did a good job is simply misinformed.

John

[Author]

Posts