O'Donnell: Not a witch, but leading the cult of anti-elitism
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
O'Donnell: Not a witch, but leading the cult of anti-elitism
The Internet is all a-Twitter tonight: Christine O'Donnell has released her first TV ad in the Delaware Senate race -- and it's a doozy.
Unfortunately, there's no Elias Sports Bureau for politics, but I think we can safely say that this is the first 30-second campaign spot in U.S. history that begins with the phrase: "I'm not a witch."
Even though she appears to be wearing an outfit that's all black, mitigated by your basic Republican string of white pearls.
It's the kind of edgy spot you'd expect from her new GOP insider adman Fred Davis, who did the 2008 "celebrity" commercial against Barack Obama and also one of the most talked about spots from 2010, that "demon sheep" ad for California Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina. People are going to fixate on the witchcraft line, but this is the real meat of the ad:
“None of us are perfect, but none of us can be happy with what we see all around us,. Politicians who think spending, trading favors and back-room deals are the ways to stay in office. I’ll go to Washington and do what you’d do.
"I'm you."
I've covered a lot of elections and they are funny things in that a lot of times we don't realize what we'll remember about them until it's all over. With the election just four weeks away, there's been a lot of focus on the rise of the Tea Party Movement (uh, yes, I've contributed) and I do think the anti-Obama backlash will remain quite memorable as a social movement.
But as we enter the home stretch, the political significance of 2010 may be two things that are going to overlap in some unusual ways -- a) the absolutely obscene amount of unfettered corporate money that's pouring in at the last possible minute and b) a mood among the rank-and-file voter that is similar to the Tea Party Movement but is going way beyond that now, to affect moderate swing voters and even some key elements of the liberal coalition, and that is an utter rejection not just of insiders but the broader class of elites -- know-it-alls, anyone who thinks that America's complicated problems require or deserve complicated solutions.
Fred Davis just handed Christine O'Donnell the line of 2010: not "I'm not a witch," but "I'll go to Washington and do what you'd do."
Really? What do you think most people would do if they went to Washington? Would "you" figure out how to get a lot of parties on board to extend health insurance to 32 million or so more Americans, or drafting a new energy policy to end our addiction to foreign oil. Or would "you" cut taxes, "drill baby drill" for more oil off Louisiana, and head home for summer break, having got the government "off the people's backs."
What do you think?
But the rise of anti-elitism as the most potent force in 2010 is also highly understandable. The social changes in America since World War II -- in which a college education is the only path for rising above our stagnant middle class and yet that opportunity is unaffordable for millions -- is part of a cauldron of inevitable social-class resentments that have been brewing for 50 years or more. The reason that cauldron (notice the witchcraft allusion!) is now boiling over is that the college-know-it-alls seem to have been running things for a while now, and yet we get a financial crisis nearly wiped out America and left us with 10 percent unemployment.
"You" could have done that, right?
Sept. 14, 2010, may be remembered as the turning point. Sure, it was the night that O'Donnell -- a 41-year-old with virtually no income or job in recent months, and with few ideas for public policy beyond repealing health care reform -- defeated Delaware stalwart Rep. Mike Castle, a former governor whose fate was sealed when he tried to launch a rational conversation on health care reform with a panel of doctors and nurses only to get shouted down about Obama's birth certificate, and when he voted for a "cap-and-trade" solution to climate change that wasn't probably what "you" would do in Washington.
But it wasn't just a bunch of angry white Tea Partiers that Tuesday. In fact, down in the capitol city itself, an electorate that is largely Democratic and African-American tossed out an incumbent mayor who -- even in the age of Obama -- may have been the ultimate egghead technocrat in Adrian Fenty. The Washington mayor's signature issue, through his hand-picked chancellor Michelle Rhee, had been education reforms of the kind praised by many experts (or "experts," to some) in eliminating tenure and shutting down failing urban schools, but the sweeping changes roiled parents as well as the teachers' union and contributed mightily to Fenty's primary defeat to a longtime councilman with working-class support.
In other words, a new Washington mayor who will "do what you'd do."
Look, as "know-it-alls" like Obama or Castle or Fenty love to start their sentences these days, the educated eggheads in our politics today deserve a lot of blame for their own predicament. By and large, they've done a terrible job in enlisting rank-and-file voters to understand or get behind their programs, thinking that citizens will simply trust them to fix things. But citizens got neither neither the trust nor the fix.
On the other hand, we shouldn't get fooled by O'Donnell and her attempt at reverse sorcery here. I'm reminded of a famous line from the back at the dawn of the age of resentment back in 1970 when a GOP senator named Roman Hruska argued for a lame Richard Nixon Supreme Court nominee by saying: "There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?
Christine O'Donnell is arguing that she's "you" because she's had some economic hardships and false starts over the years. But for one thing, she betrayed our actually much more complicated attitude toward elitism and education in America when she put out the bogus claim that she attended Oxford, which of course would have made her more like "them" and less like "you."
But more importantly, the best formula for a U.S. senator is someone who faced the same struggles and hardships that a regular person like "you" did -- and learned to overcome them. But O'Donnell was misrepresenting her academic record and allegedly living off campaign money just in the last two years. That might be what "you" would do, too, but that lack of transcendence or emotional growth is not we need to look for among the 535 people who'll be crafting our laws for the next six years.
Still, "I'm you" is pitch perfect for this throw-the-eggheads-out election. It probably won't work for O'Donnell, not in the politically hen-blue state of Delaware, but it may work for a generation of pols from Nevada to Kentucky who will govern at least like they think that "you" would -- with very serious consequences for America for many, many years to come.
Comments (109)
Am I the only one who gets distracted when she says "back room"?
Thanks for spreading the lie about the LinkedIn profile. You know it was faked, right? You know I can make one of you winning the Nobel Peace Prize, right?
In the show "Brigadoon" a Scotsman asks an American visitor if there are witches in America. "Yes, but we pronounce it differently." So maybe o'donnell is the American version of witch.— mike l- Wow! Apparently, you're still having some trouble, eh pj?
Here - I'll excerpt the most pertinent parts for you so you won't have to read so many big words:
--snip-- "...Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA...the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending... Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts... "banks have made many low- and moderate-income mortgages to fulfill their CRA obligations, they have found default rates pleasantly low, and they generally charge low mortgages rates. Thirty years later, CRA has become very good business." ...--snip--
I hope that helps.— Talking point sleuth 
Comment removed.- TPS, read this, some homework I did for you: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html— pj katauskas
- "CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later." The Carter (1980)and Reagan (1982) deregulation that you cited earlier was enacted around the same time.— RG
- Keep deluding yourself, TPS.— pj katauskas
- Next time, pj, I'm not going to do your homework for you.— Talking point sleuth
- snip con't... --snip-- Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." Yellen is hardly alone in concluding that the real problems came from the institutions beyond the reach of CRA. One of the only regulators who long ago saw the current crisis coming was the late Ned Gramlich, a former Fed governor. While Alan Greenspan was cheering the sub-prime boom, Gramlich warned of its risks and unsuccessfully pushed for greater supervision of bank affiliates. But Gramlich praised CRA, saying last year, "banks have made many low- and moderate-income mortgages to fulfill their CRA obligations, they have found default rates pleasantly low, and they generally charge low mortgages rates. Thirty years later, CRA has become very good business." ...--snip--— Talking point sleuth
- snip con't.... --snip-- Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Wow! pj. You really don't know anything about the topic, do you?
--snip-- . CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001. In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened. " --snip--— Talking point sleuth - Maybe you did on another site, TPS, but I didn't see any mention of F & F here, as having any role in the "accumulation of bad debt," that was my point.— pj katauskas
- I can't believe TPS believes CRA was "largely irrelevant." You're the one needing some homework done. That's laughable. Have you read "In Fed We Trust" or "The Big Short?" If not, that's your homework and then get back to me about how irrelevant CRA was. Heard of TARP? Subprimes were the lion's share of the "TAs."— pj katauskas
- "....without even mentioning Fannie's and Freddie's and the CRA's contribution...'
pj - you really need to pay closer attention, and you also need to do your homework.
I've said many times that Fannie and Freddie, and the politicians involved with those organizations, contributed structurally to the problems. No doubt.
The CRA was largely irrelevant. Seriously, do your homework on the CRA and get back to us. We'll talk.— Talking point sleuth - Will has seized on the anti-elite sentiment but it's so much more than that. It's also (1) anti-big govt/over-regs, (2) anti-big spending, (3) anti-incumbent (if you're a D esp), (4) anti-business bashing, (5) anti-ignore the will of the majority (e.g., most did NOT want OBCare), (6) anti-bailouts, (7) anti-war (in that we want to win in AF not cut and run, which in light of Woodward's book, is what BO pursuing), (8) and overall anti-we the Ds know what's best for you poor, benighted peasants (I guess that's a repeat of anti-elite). It's like the perfect storm.— pj katauskas
- We have to elect them so we can learn their positions. Kinda like the health care bill.— pj katauskas
- "I mean after all, if someone actually knew their positions, no one would actually vote for them." Meanwhile, after finding out the Dems' positions, the American people are set to vote against them.
— RG - Comment removed.
- e pleb, you try to claim that conservatives hate America, but I've pointed out dozens and dozens of times on this blog where it's actually the liberals who can't stand 30-60% of this country. If you don't sign up for their loony ideology, democrats (particularly Foundations, LesIsMore, sometimes you) continually call you names, displaying their OWN INTOLERANCE of anyone who doesn't share their idea.— IggleFan68
- How can the TPSs and Leses of the world talk about the "accumulation of bad debt" without even mentioning Fannie's and Freddie's and the CRA's contribution to the problem? I guess if you just pretend they didn't have any role, then they didn't. Move along, nothing to see there.— pj katauskas
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
Someone said, “American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.” But what that person forgot to mention was a type of this cross-breeding was tried many years ago, except to create a human with a mouse brain. It was so successful one of the subjects might become the next senator from Delaware!— Hamlet
TeabaKKKer candidates and other Republicans go to great lengths to avoid the press...I mean after all, if someone actually knew their positions, no one would actually vote for them.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43121.html#ixzz11UK4f0Ge
— Les Ismore- First, Greenspan's cravenly trying to shift the blame away from his interest rate policies. Second, calling our finanical sector or economy a "free market" is amusing but it still doesn't make it so. There's the SEC, FDIC, accounting standards, the Fed Reserve and numerous other regulators out there. The issue is artifically cheap credit combined with moral hazard, ie "We'll lend to you at cheap rates then bail you out if your bets go wrong". This is the policy that exists, not my Shangra La, and its a policy you support. A policy that included TARP, in which money was borrowed or printed and then handed to the Wall St firms to give out as bonuses for the wonderful job they had done.— RG
- Don't worry about it, RG.
You might be completely wrong about the self-regulatory nature of the financial sector of a "free-market" (even Greenspan admitted he was wrong)...
but according to Tea Party leaders, if you "realign [yourself] with [your] savior," you'll be just fine.
So there's nothing to worry about.
The theocrats will take over in November, and all those devil-inspired (or is it Nazi-inspired? Marx-inspired? I can never quite remember) policies will be overturned.
— Talking point sleuth - there is more than enough blame to go around. both parties have made horrible errors that lead us to this point. someone needs to have the guts to fix it and tell us the truth. we are in real trouble and all we get are stimulus bills and tax cuts as the only alternative. we still have not seen any bi-partisanship and that is the fault of both sides. FDR told the nation harsh truths and made decision, both right and wrong, to lead the country through its darkest times. we need the President to use his bully pulpit and make the difficult choices even if that means not getting a second term. we need a real leader to emerge not more of the same.— egmetzjr
- Correction, they did engage in interest rate swaps to hedge against interest rate risk.— RG
- You'd also need to explain why F&F were even more leveraged than Wall st firms even though they didn't dabble in derivatives.— RG
- "The increased use of derivative had NOTHING to do with irresponsible levels of leveraging to massively increase the accumulation of (bad) debt." Why are European banks so massively overleveraged then? CFMA didnt apply to them. Its partially because their central banks kept itnerest rates too low for way too long.
— RG - "Yes, I've found a flaw."— Talking point sleuth
- "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform" Its not the government's job to protect your investments from losses. Shareholders and creditors (who were left unscathed recently) must do a better job on researching what companies they invest or lend to.— RG
- "Derivatives are mostly a way to spread risks or hedge bets, not increase debt. "
Classic. Right, RG. The increased use of derivative had NOTHING to do with irresponsible levels of leveraging to massively increase the accumulation of (bad) debt.
Oh, my sides.— Talking point sleuth - Alan Greenspan:
--snip-- Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said today that he was wrong to think, as AP puts it, "free markets could regulate themselves without government oversight."
Greenspan was testifying in front of the House Committee of Government Oversight, when he declared, "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,"...“
Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
....“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”
Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw..."
As far back as 1994, Mr. Greenspan staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives. --snip--
"Yes, I've found a flaw."— Talking point sleuth - Will's 'The Backlash' falling fast. Now stands at #10,702 on Amazon. Somebody needs to go on Glenn Beck...— Refounder
- Derivatives are mostly a way to spread risks or hedge bets, not increase debt. And once again, we get a false conclusion. Derivatives lead to a crashing stock market. What does a CDS on a tranche of mrotgages have to do with Microsoft's stock price? Nothing.— RG
- --snip-- .In April 1998, Brooksley Born found herself in a meeting of President Clinton’s Working Group on Financial Markets with Fed chief Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and S.E.C. chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. Born, the 57-year-old head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was pushing to regulate derivatives, which fell outside her purview because they were private contracts and not traded on any open market. But Greenspan and Rubin pushed back harder, arguing that regulation was a “deterrent to moving forward,” would drive the booming business overseas, and might call into question the legality of the trillion dollars in derivatives contracts floating around at the time. In the end, the Wise Men won the day. And although Born would continue to call for oversight in at least 17 congressional appearances, she was swatted back by Greenspan, who believed that regulating contracts “privately negotiated by professionals is unnecessary” and “hinders the efficiency of markets,” while Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers bemoaned the harm it would bring to a “thriving market.”...And over the next year, a stream of bankers lobbied Congress to keep regulation off the table. Finally, in June 2000, Senator Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) introduced the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which mainly aided Houston-based Enron’s ability to trade gas and electricity futures online but also removed credit swaps and derivatives from almost all federal and state regulation...By 2008 the worldwide derivatives market reached $530 trillion, and it would decimate Bear Stearns, A.I.G., and Lehman Brothers. In May 2009, 11 years after Brooksley Born lost out to Greenspan and Rubin, and with the American public having lost millions of jobs and billions in their retirement accounts, Tim Geithner announced the Obama administration’s plans to regulate credit-default swaps and derivatives... --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- "Read up about the CFMA and get back to us, RG." This has nothing to do with the banks and investment firms ability to borrow from the Fed at virtually no cost. When your cost of capital is close to zero, its hard for any investment to be too risky.— RG
- "huge financial institutions - made larger through deregulation" I think only Citi fits this bill, as the others were either banks or investment firms and weren't comingled.— RG
- She's not me.
I don't have super-duper top secret information about the coming Chinese takeover.
I also know that I don't need to see a monkey turn into a human to know that evolution occurs.
— DontDriveAngry - "Actually cheap credit via a fiat currency and artifical interest rates allowed this."
Too funny. Read up about the CFMA and get back to us, RG.— Talking point sleuth - "Deregulation allowed for leverage and concentration of debt in degrees that were previously prevented." Actually cheap credit via a fiat currency and artifical interest rates allowed this. The laws you posted (good work!) just helped funnel them into a perfect storm (along with a bipartisan push for homeownership). The Basel Accord is a good point, as it allowed banks to leverage more if they held certain AAA asset backed securities, which in this case were mortgages. Although I'd hardly call international accounting standards deregulatory.— RG
Just who is the elitists ? last week Obama held a fundraiser that charged 30 grand a head, the only people who have that ammount of coin are the Wall Street types. Also if Bush's policies were so bad why did the ecconomies of Europe, Asia and South America tank ? it was a global recesion, not exactly anything to do with Bush apart from the rampant overspending, but everywhere else in the world thats a liberal trait, so isnt it clear government over spending is the problem ?.— PAEnglish- Comment removed.
- It's really rather simple, RG. Deregulation allowed for leverage and concentration of debt in degrees that were previously prevented. The irresponsible levels of leveraging 40 to 1) and concentration of bad debt that ensued (huge financial institutions - made larger through deregulation - accumulated large percentages of their capital worth in bad deb) lead to the financial crisis.
Well, that is unless you live in Shanrgi-la, where there are no taxes, there is no regulation, and companies never sell toxic products pave the roads with gold as a public service.
Too funny.— Talking point sleuth - Someone just told me that if you play her new ad backwards and at half-speed, the numbers 666 scroll across the screen...— Les Ismore
- bag, Rasmussen is consistently an outlier on all of these polls. As they say in Politico "What are my numbers?" followed by "What are my numbers without Rasmussen?"...Rasmussen is widely known as the Fox News of polling.— Les Ismore
- Oh wait. There's more? --snip-- The constant flow of money to lobbyists and into legislators' campaign coffers was paying off for the banking interests. The Fed, under Chairman Greenspan, was methodically deconstructing the foundation of Glass-Steagall. The final breaching of the wall occurred in 1998, when Citibank was bought by Travelers. The deal married Citibank, a commercial bank, with Travelers' Solomon, Smith Barney investment bank and the Travelers insurance business.
There was only one problem: The deal was clearly illegal in light of Glass-Steagall and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 . However, a legal loophole in the 1956 BHC Act gave the new Citicorp a five-year window to change the landscape, or the deal would have to be unwound. If aggressively flouting existing laws to pursue a personal agenda isn't a perfect example of bankers' hubris and greed, then maybe I've just got it all wrong.
Phil Gramm - the fire breathing free-marketer, Texas senator, and chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs - rode to the rescue, propelled by a sea of more than $300 million in lobbying and campaign contributions. In 1999, in the ultimate proof that money is power, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act , at once doing away with Glass-Steagall and the 1956 BHC Act, and crowning Citigroup Inc. ( C ) as the new “King of the Hill.”
From his position of power, Sen. Gramm consistently leveraged his Ph.D in economics and free-market ideology to espouse the virtues of subprime lending, where he famously once stated: “I look at subprime lending and I see the American Dream in action.” --snip--— Talking point sleuth - snip con't.... --snip-- in 1988 - two very quiet revolutions sprouted that would ultimately hand bankers twin throttles to rain terror on us all.
That year, the Basel Accord established international risk-based capital requirements for deposit-taking commercial banks. In a byproduct of the calculations of what constituted mortgage-related risk (by nature of the loans' long maturities and illiquidity) lenders should be expected to set aside substantial reserves; however, marketable securities that could theoretically be sold easily would not require significant reserves.
To obviate the need for such reserves, and to free up the money for more-productive pursuits, banks made a wholesale shift from originating and holding mortgages to packaging them and holding mortgage assets in a now-securitized form. Not inconsequentially, this would lead to a disconnect between asset-quality considerations and asset-liquidity considerations.
Meanwhile, over at the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the appointment of free-market disciple Wendy Gramm, wife of U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm , R-Tex., as chairperson, would result in her successful 1989 and 1993 exemption of swaps and derivatives from all regulation.
These actions would not be inconsequential in the aforementioned reign of terror that was still to come.
In 1993, with her agenda accomplished, Wendy Gramm resigned from her CFTC post to take a seat on the Enron Corp. board as a member of its audit committee. We all know what happened there. Enron's fraud and implosion became the poster child for deregulation run amok and ultimately helped spawn Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, which has its own issues . --snip--— Talking point sleuth - snip con't.... --snip-- In a burst of deregulatory bravado in 1982, Treasury Secretary Regan ushered through the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act . Key provisions of the Act ultimately coalesced with Treasury Secretary Regan's protection of the lucrative “ brokered deposits ” business, in which Merrill was a major player, and paved the way for the future collapse of the savings and loan industry.
Some of the provisions in that 1982 Act would later be blamed for thousands of bank failures. The provisions permitted the following:
* Allowed savings and loans to make commercial, corporate, business or agricultural loans of up to 10% of their assets.
* Authorized a capital assistance program - the “Net Worth Certificate Program” - for dangerously undercapitalized banks, under which the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp . (FSLIC) and the FDIC would purchase capital instruments called “Net Worth Certificates” from savings institutions with net worth/asset ratios of less than 3.0%, and would theoretically later redeem the certificates as these shaky banks regained financial health.
* And, most frighteningly, raised the allowable ceiling on direct investments by savings institutions in nonresidential real estate from 20% to 40% of assets.
The history of S&L greed and fraud - which resulted from brokered deposits and deregulation - wasn't forgotten by legislators. But it was steamrolled by bankers pursuing an even greater unshackling of the regulations that constrained their ambitions. --snip--— Talking point sleuth - --snip-- The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 , signed into law by President Jimmy Carter , was the first major reform of the U.S. banking system since the Great Depression.
While touted as a boon to consumers, the law was actually a gold mine for bankers. Among other requirements and banker “gifts” the 1980 Act's provisions:
* Lowered the mandatory reserve requirements banks keep in non-interest bearing accounts at U.S. Federal Reserve banks.
* Established a five-member committee, the Depository Institutions Deregulation Committee , to phase out federal interest rate ceilings on deposit accounts over a six-year period.
* Increased Federal Deposit Insurance Corp . (FDIC) coverage from $40,000 to $100,000.
* Allowed depository institutions, including savings and loans and other thrift institutions, access to the Federal Reserve Discount Window for credit advances.
* And pre-empted state usury laws that limited the rates lenders could charge on residential mortgage loans.
In 1980, in a virtual landslide, Ronald Reagan was elected and grabbed the conservative mantle. A year later, the shock troops of the heralded Reagan Revolution launched their attack and embarked on a massive, systematic de-regulatory campaign. President Reagan's first treasury secretary, former Merrill Lynch & Co. Chief Executive Officer Donald T. Regan , became chairman of the Depository Institutions Deregulation Committee. --snip--— Talking point sleuth - Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "and a few defense contractors" Like Blackwater? Obama's State Dept is still giving them contracts. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/exclusive-blackwater-wins-piece-of-10-billion-merc-deal/— RG
- "RG did you ever look up how much this damn war in the middle east is costing America?" So why doesn't Obama end it? And why does the CBO still project massive deficits 10 years into the future while asusming the war costs go down?— RG
- Good News for America! Polls are trending toward the Dems in major races as real, hardworking Americans realize that electing people who hide their positions or only appear on the Faux News shows really have nothing to offer America and Americans. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/10/keeps_closin.php#more?ref=fpblg
As always when you take out Rasmussen, its even better!— Les Ismore - Isn't that why Bush was elected, as a course correction over the slimy, but intellectual, Bill Clinton. That worked out well for a few energy companies and a few defense contractors, but pretty much everyone else was screwed.— gee1971
- RG did you ever look up how much this damn war in the middle east is costing America? If so you would realize that the majority of our federal debt is the cost of the war that has been going on for 9 years.— pw1967
- RG did you ever look up how much this damn war in the middle east is costing America? If so you would realize that the majority of our federal debt is the cost of the war that has been going on for 9 years.— pw1967
- Christine O'Donnell is the perfect candidate for the "conservative" commentators from the Hate Americans First crowd. When she says "I'm you" it's clear she doesn't mean everyone. It's clear she means the close-minded, say anything, lie first and don't answer questions later folks. She's the perfect candidate for people who idolize a half term governor from a small state who cut and ran when the going got tough.— E.Plebnista
- It's actually a pretty powerful ad - not that it makes a difference, Coons is up 15 points. You guys are missing the point -- the Tea party is going to alter the GOP by forcing them closer to the Tea Party platform -- otherwise the GOP can expect to have their candidates booted out of primaries left and right by seemingly unqualified candidates. And I say seemingly only because we seem to have a President who was (and probably still is) unqualified.— IggleFan68
- I think I started to realize Christine is seriously unhinged when she revealed that she has secret information about China's plans to take over the US. I just hope this election doesnt put her over the edge. She needs to follow the Palin Track; Council member, mayor, governor, Fox News commentator.— Les Ismore
- "The educated eggheads have spent us into a ditch with government running wild" And the educated eggheads plan to get us out of this mess? Raise taxes on the rich, that'll generate a whopping $700 bil over ten years. Which only covers, unfortunately, half of this years deficit alone. But yeah, lets have these geniuses tackle the global climate next.— RG
- Comment removed.
- >>"politics only works when we’re realigned with our Savior.” . . . . . Osama bin Laden said that, didn't he?<< That and "This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around..."
— Hamlet - Comment removed.
- amg, since you're so big on GLB, why don't you just explain why it was so disasterous? All you do is state what the law allowed (banks and investment firms to comingle), but you don't show HOW this led to the global economic crisis. So far, your case is more than a tad flimsy.— RG
- Comment removed.
- "Educate yourself on how that disastrous piece of legislation deregulated the insurance and finance industries allowing them to co-mingle." Educate yourself on the fact that two of the firms to fail, Lehman and Bear Stearns weren't comingled, and neither were Goldman or AIG. In fact, the ability to comingle actually allowed struggling banks to buy stuggling investment firms during the crisis. Remember the gov approved (some say forced) merger of BoA and Merrill? And in Europe, banks and investment firms were never prohibited from merging. But thanks again for the empty talking point, totally devoid of substance.— RG
- RG, try researching Gramm-Leach, Bliley. Educate yourself on how that disastrous piece of legislation deregulated the insurance and finance industries allowing them to co-mingle. But please, do honest research, not biased "evaluation" of the law. If you do that, you'll have the answer you seek. If you don't then your response will be typical of your common posting themes. I'm not holding out much hope for the former.— amg
- Will, nothing on Obama firing drones into Pakistan? You caught some national buzz in some circles, well crazy Daily Kos circles calling that a war crime when Bush-Cheney did it and now that Obama does it, nota peep. Whats up with that?— tr88
- and her crusade, I mean is "our" crusade would include people like you Will.....a member of the elitist media who have an agenda and who think we need to be taught how to think....your love affair with obama is part of the reason the sheep love him and he got away with his socialistic agenda and the weakening of America......Way to go O'Donnell.......Down with the elitists snobs and the self appointed smart people— nuggett
- "they like the sound of small government, less taxes, no healthcare reform without understanding why these policies do not work." There's bigger gov, higher taxes, and healthcare in the UK, yet their economy is still in the cr-pper. So, why would those policies work here?
— RG - Comment removed.
- "If you don't mind your job allocated to China," Newsflash, in a global economy, you'll have to compete for jobs and not beg the government to protect yours.— RG
- Oh my, the deregulation canard again. I'll try again: please name the laws that deregulated the economy (was it Sarbenes-Oxley?) and their direct impacts. Otherwise, stop spouting talking points. Thanks.— RG
- Comment removed.
- The mess was created by the same policies that christine is pushing for. What her comrades are pushing for will only make our economy worse. She won in the primary because there were not enough well-informed voters north of the canal to wash out the highly manipulated voters south of the canal. they like the sound of small government, less taxes, no healthcare reform without understanding why these policies do not work.— flavious27
- Sharon Angle making some dirty deals and she isn't even elected yet. lol, the tea baggers are dirty just like the people they claim to be against. Where is Angles honor and integrity? She has none! http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2010/oct/03/angle-im-not-sure-i-can-win-if-ashjians-natl-goper/— The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine
- Comment removed.
- Nothing on the Communist organizers of the rally on Sunday Will? Christian taxpayers are crazy, Communist America-hating parasites are normal Americans.— tr88
- Gotta love O'Donnell, Dumb as a stump and dirty with the political donations. What a combination!— The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine
"politics only works when we’re realigned with our Savior.” . . . . . Osama bin Laden said that, didn't he?- Oh, and Christine, that's what the women said in Salem, MA in 1692, when we still had our country back and hanged witches.
- What has this country come to ? Here is a senate candidate who admits to exploring witchcraft, falsified her education resume, mishandled campaign finances, holds no job, claims to know of China's secret plan to topple the USA and people will actually vote for her ? In the immortal words of Richie Ashburn : "Hard to believe Harry" !— Joe R.
- "Markets do a better job of allocating resources ..." . . . . . If you don't mind your job allocated to China, and your Congressman allocated to Wall Street.
- She's the walrus, koo koo kachoo
- "and when these people running on emotion prove themselves unable to manage their way out of a paper bag, we'll realize how stupid we were and get rid of them in two years" Two years? I thought that a president served for 4 years. Nevertheless, your basic point about Obama stands.— legatus
Markets do a better job of allocating resources than do agenda-driven bureaucrats. Even agenda-driven bureaucrats who went to Harvard.— Mr. Smith- But does she float?— yohuss
- So if Christine O'Donnell weighs more than a duck...?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Sorry, I don't want an inexperienced, opportunistic witch representing me. She can't handle her own money, so why should I trust her with mine? She can't focus on getting and keeping a job, so why should we give her one just because she says pretty please. There will be a backlash, and when these people running on emotion prove themselves unable to manage their way out of a paper bag, we'll realize how stupid we were and get rid of them in two years -- ironically, the year the world as we know it is supposed to end. I can't wait.— ChrisWZD
- The DeMint comments were widely reported and he made a public apology for them-reported by the Spartanburg (SC) Herald-Journal, and picked up by every outlet not run by Rupert Murdoch.— JSaq
- "I'm you"....minus about 100 IQ points.— CiceroSpuriousDeodatus
- I am actually impressed that will bunch has at least been trying to craft balanced and well-thought out pieces of late. Im not surprised his puny liberal brain missed the point that was right in front of his face, which is a shame, but not unexpected. I'll keep my fingers crossed and I wont give up on you, I know that one day you will be able to write a piece that's logical start to finish.
tps you gotta do a better job with your demint --snip-- sources and citations, cmon.— notojm - Sure they imagined people like Reid being elected-they elected Aaron Burr to the vice presidency, didn't they?— JSaq
- Nor did they imagine anyone like Harry Reid being elected.— PhillyTru
- The most ironic thing is that Founding Fathers didn't make the Senate direct elect because they feared that some type of common populist rube like O'Donnell would be elected to one of the most important offices in the new gov't for 6 years.— MG77
- In other news, Sharron Angle (a candidate Dick Poleman once called a 'gift' to Harry Reid) has been endorsed by Nevada's largest newspaper.— PhillyTru
- Acutally, handnik, mc62strat is right: Clinton was very much a part of rolling back financial oversight, regulation of food safety and the energy industry, etc. Of course, he wasn't nearly as bad as Bush - and the Republican mantra of deregulation laid the ground cover for Clinton to conduct his corporate cronyism - but dismissing Clinton as being blameless isn't accurate.
What's particularly disturbing about the Tea Party leaders is that they want to create a combined theocratic and corporate state:
Him Demint: --snip-- “Hopefully in 2012, we’ll make headway to repeal some of the things we’ve done, because politics only works when we’re realigned with our Savior.” --snip--
Wow! "Politics only works with we're realigned with our Savior."
Amazing.
--snip-- DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn’t be in the classroom. --snip--— Talking point sleuth - As Elvis once said in a song, "You're the devil in disguise, oh yes you are." Actually, it's not much of a disguise. Dressed in almost all black with a black background, she just needs a pointed hat.— Delaware Jim
- Our founding fathers were the biggest elitists going. I don't want someone like me running the country, I want someone better than me. Education needs to continue to be a virtue, but unfortunately that no longer seems to be the case.— birds
- Who wants the neighbor they think is stupid running the country? That's what you get when electing Tea Partiers. mc62strat, why do you keep having to blame a liberal and then say they're alike? It's a typical refrain this year. It wasn't Clinton. It was Republicans who have set this country back. It's obvious to anyone who can read statistics, but unfortunately most of those non-elites don't know how to do things like that. Do you really think that Angle or O'Donnell can understand briefings and other things that Senators need to deal with? Do you think they can propose actual policies? If not, why are you supporting them?— HandNik
- It's 50 plus years of cutting regulations and taxes on the super rich that have seen the stagnation of the middle class, the erosion of the American infrastructure, the handing over of the government to corporations and lobbyists. It's both Republicans and Democrats. The fact that a person like O'Donnell can win a primary shows that Americans are turning into sheep that can be bought with HDTVs, fake tax cuts and jingoistic lies telling them they're great— JSaq
- ms62strat speaks a lot of truth there. Clinton, like Obama, was in the pocket of corporations - particularly in the financial sector. Only disastrous candidates like O'Donnell can make Dems, and even a lot of mainstream Repubs, look good.
Unfortunately, a focus on relatively trivial issues about O'Donnell will probably only backfire make her more popular. The focus with her, as with many Tea Party candidates, should be on the extremism of her political ideology - and not on personal attacks. You'd think that given Obama's success despite the personal attack politics of the McCain/Palen campaign, Dems and their supporters would realize that a campaign strategy based on personal attacks won't work in today's political climate.— Talking point sleuth - actually clinton did all of that duke....there are alot of people who think their side is right and they are all wrong...liberals and conservatives are imbeciles. they can't see the forest for the trees...— mc62strat
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: