Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Democrats' dilemma on the economy

This new Harry Reid ad is noteworthy, because it perfectly captures the Dem dilemma: How do you frame a message on the economy, when it's doing so badly on your own watch?

The Reid campaign's solution: Acknowledge how bad things are right now, but blame Bush economics for the current crisis and assert that if Sharron Angle is elected to the Senate, things will be far worse:

As Nevada journalist Jon Ralston notes, this is the first ad from Reid's camp that is directly responding to Angle's attacks on him over soaring Nevada unemployment, suggesting these attacks may be working.

But this is interesting for another reason. Because Nevada's unemployment is the highest in the nation -- and because Reid, as Senate Majority Leader, is more directly tied to Obama's record than any other Dem candidate -- Reid's dilemma on the economy mirrors the Dems' overall dilemma, but inflated to grotestque and distorted proportions.

If you don't acknowledge how bad things are, and keep gamely asserting things are getting better, you risk looking completely out of touch. But if you acknowledge how bad things are, how do you do this without indicting your own record?

Reid's solution -- admit that things are indeed awful, explicitly disavow responsibility for it, place the blame for the whole mess on Bush, and assert that as bad as things are right now, things will be far worse if the GOP takes over -- perfectly captures just how unenviable the Dem position is right now.

By Greg Sargent  |  September 7, 2010; 3:18 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: David Plouffe to Dems: Don't despair, get to work!
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

The Great Recession DID start on Bush's watch as a result of Bush policies.

FACT.

Posted by: paul65 | September 7, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Every professional economist (R or D) in the country agrees that GDP and unemployment would be much worse right now if not for the Obama stimulus.

FACT.

Posted by: paul65 | September 7, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

paul -- I don't dispute that. I'm just pointing out how unenviable a political position it is.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 7, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The great recession started when Harry and Nancy took control of congress in 2007 and starting paying off all the unions and radical left-wing extremist interest groups.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | September 7, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Just thought I would let you know how the other side (not yours) might be seeing things.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | September 7, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

It is an unenviable situation only if we assume we can't have meaningful discussions about the causes of social problems and there likely solutions. Admittedly there is reason to believe that but isn't that the purpose of a campaign--to make an argument and support it so that people can evaluate its merits. Instead we have 30 second sound bites which don't make an argument at all. Hard to have a democracy that way.

Posted by: Camus1 | September 7, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"The great recession started when Harry and Nancy took control of congress in 2007 and starting paying off all the unions and radical left-wing extremist interest groups."

And how do you suppose they did that? And if that's the case, why didn't W. veto any of these "payoffs"? I mean I know that W. like to ignore the Constitution but I'm pretty sure he liked the part about signing bills into law.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 7, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

This morning, President Obama was asked if he regrets his administration branding the past three months of economic misery as “Recovery Summer.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129611785

O's answer: “I don’t...”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/117107-obama-stands-by-recovery-summer

I can’t blame him, really. Who couldn’t be fully recovered after his endless summer vacation?

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | September 7, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

How can this country function when people believe stuff like this:

The great recession started when Harry and Nancy took control of congress in 2007 and starting paying off all the unions and radical left-wing extremist interest groups.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 7, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

The Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) economy kicked in during the latter part of 2007, when its architects decided that starving the economy of energy by refusing to allow more offshore drilling in the face of $4 gas prices was a winning political position. Pelosi claimed that because we couldn't totally "drill our way out of this," we shouldn't increase drilling at all. Reid put an exclamation point on Pelosi's stubbornness by insisting that fossil fuels are "making us sick."

What Pelosi, Obama, and Reid should do now is expand tax cuts, ditch all of the alleged "investments" in so-called "green" (read: globaloney boondoggle) technology, open up Alaskan oil and gas exploration, and watch the royalty money pour in. I know— that's way too much to "hope" that Alaskans be allowed to sell our own resources and enrich our country.

This turndown has been much more severe than it should have been because of a serious breakdown in "the rules of the game." Why invest in, start up, or expand any kind of business if there's a realistic possibility that the POR triumverate will aid your direct or indirect competitors, or otherwise radically and whimsically alter the playing field? This uncertainty has also taken its toll on consumers. Despite having billions of extra dollars available thanks to energy price drops and lower interest rates, their spending appears not to be ramping up proportionally.

The solution from Washington? More bailouts, leading to more uncertainty across the board. Yet another big "stimulus" and a less effective one at that. While tax "rebate" checks such as those sent by Bush are not as effective as across-the-board rate cuts, at least they put money into consumers' pockets quickly. But the new "stimulus" package evolving in Washington is dominated by public "investments" that, even if justified, would take much longer to make their way into the economy.

Please learn your history. FDR tried massive public works programs during the Depression. All he did is prolong it for seven years. Japan tried government stimulus for 10 years running in the 1990s. It only resulted in "the lost decade."

But that's the Leftist-fascist answer for everything— punish achievers to fund their distopian Big Gov Marxist pogroms. Only the most devoted Obamateur cultists buy O's tired redistributionist nonsense anymore.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | September 7, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

It's a tough position, but not a bad ad. Although it's not hard to make a good attack ad when Angle is the opponent.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 7, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is a complete joke and only the most ignornat voters can't see this. While they bash Democrats for the slow job growth we're not supposed to have noticed that they've voted against everything the Dems have tried to pass including jobs bills that are actually paid for? You can't whine about high unemployment while voting against unemployment extensions. Republicans believe the "Beltway Narrative" that they're going to win simply because we're all blaming the Dems for this mess but, that's just not the case. Dems had better get out and vote because a Congress controlled by the GOP will be exactly what we got for 8 years under Bush. This is the same Congress that crafted the horrible legislation that Bush signed into law. This is how the Dems should be framing this. Theses people weren't innocent bystanders. They were the architects of this mess and have done nothing to help clean it up. Now, who's going to reward them for that? I sure as hell am NOT!

Posted by: roxsteady | September 7, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Reid's bedwetting over the cost of our military defense against global jihadists is childish. The United States was founded on the basis of individual liberty. As a result, the Constitution assigns to the federal government the primary responsibility to “provide for the common defence.”

It is entirely reasonable to expend 4 percent of national income in the defense of freedom. Never­theless, the federal government is now allocating a smaller share of national income to defense than the average for the past four decades, despite the ongo­ing war against terrorism.

Projected growth in entitlement spending (not defense spending at this level) is at the core of the looming fiscal crisis facing the federal government. Defense expenditures at this level will jeopardize neither the health of the economy nor the prosper­ity of the American people— but a sustained commit­ment to defense is necessary to sustain liberty.

Paying 4 percent for freedom is worth the price. Indeed, it is a bargain.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | September 7, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

KaddafiDelendaEst, what's that, the third time you're copy/pasted that gibberish?

Just out of curiosity, how would FDR's doing nothing have helped getting us out of a depression? You seem to know everything so you must have an answer.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 7, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

By the way just how many of you Mensa member thought that Obama could turn around the economy in just 18 months with the GOP voting no on everything? You can vote for whoever you like but, I'm not uninformed enough to ever vote for Republicans. They have proven over the last 40 years that they can't govern. They all hat and no cattle!

Posted by: roxsteady | September 7, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Instead we have 30 second sound bites which don't make an argument at all. Hard to have a democracy that way."

You're right - it is hard to have a democracy that way.

Unfortunately, it's becoming harder and harder to have conversations about serious issues - cynical politicians would rather run on wedge issues, the media would rather discuss the "horserace" aspect of politics, and a large segment of the American population is either tired, lacking the necessary critical thinking skills, busy trying to keep their heads above water, or just plain uninterested. It's become a dangerous, dangerous combination.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 7, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Only the hyperpartisans on the Left blame the whole crisis on Bush. The housing bubble started inflating in the late 90s as the equity bubble went critical. The mess of derivatives that blew up on Wall Street had assets that were either mortgages or housing - related. If there wasn't a real estate bubble, there wouldn't have been a crisis.

So, who is to blame for the financial crisis? There is a lot of blame to go around: Government and Private, Democrat and Republican.

1) The Fed who refused to acknowledge asset bubbles exist
2) Consumers who used their houses as ATMs to keep up with the Jones'
3) Fannie and Fred becoming the biggest mortgage arbitrage hedge fund on the Street
4) Washington for pursuing a social policy or promoting
5) Wall Street who got drunk on leverage

The housing social policy was bipartisan. It really goes back to the early 90s.

Again, only hardcore partisans believe that GWB's policies caused the financial crisis. Most people are intellectually honest enough to realize this, and that is why they aren't buying the "Bush Did It" spin.

Posted by: sold2u | September 7, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington: I believe it's the third time Greg has said roughly the same thing. Therefore, the response bears repeating.

See also, "FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression" by Jim Powell
http://audiobookvault.ws/?p=15333

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | September 7, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

A "fighter" who's been in the Senate for 24 years is gonna campaign on "Don't blame me!"

The word isn't unenviable - it's unbelievable.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/117405-reid-dont-blame-me-for-high-unemployment-in-nevada

The article reads like satire - but it isn't!

Posted by: sbj3 | September 7, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Well, if Conservatives want to blame Pelosi for the economy since she started leading in 2007 as I've seen posted just today by the wingers, then Republicans get the blame for writing and passing Grahm/Leech/Bliley and the Tax restructuring of the 90's that lowered capital gains for stock and derivative investors and eliminated paying taxes on sales of homes for singles to 250k and couples to 500k. They were in charge of the law writing process after all and all the committee's, right?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 7, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama campaigned as a moderate and only won because enouh people were fooled by a pliant liberal media (good job Greg).

FACTS


Obama is a huge lefty whose plans for economic growth involve higher taxes, more government regulation, and Six-Year Plans (Comrade Stalin only did Five-Year Plans).

FACTS


The economic non-recovery is happening on the watch of Comrades Obama, Pelosi, and Reid because they subscribe to these outdated statist ideals.

FACTS


Democrats will pay in November for the overreaching leftism of this group.

FACT

Posted by: BarkObama | September 7, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

@Paul65: "Every professional economist (R or D) in the country agrees that GDP and unemployment would be much worse right now if not for the Obama stimulus. FACT"

Adding "FACT" in all caps after the stuff you say actually makes me think it's less likely that what you just said is a fact, not more.

That being said, many conservative economists (who are professionals) don't agree that things would be much worse if not for the Obama stimulus. One of them is Thomas Sowell, but there are others.

In any case, it's very hard to prove a negative--that something didn't happen because you did a no-rain-today dance--and convince people that they should thank you and your fine dancing skills for the fact that it rained, but at least it wasn't a hurricane.


@Cornell: "The great recession started when Harry and Nancy took control of congress in 2007 and starting paying off all the unions and radical left-wing extremist interest groups"

I think you oughta look closer at Barney Frank and Andrew Cuomo, and then perhaps Chris Dodd, and then the bi-partisan folks who helped repeal Glass-Steagall, among other things. Even then, if banks hadn't given out bad mortgages and the lendees hadn't accepted them and the ratings agencies had rated them appropriately and the banks hadn't bundled mortgages and sold them and so on, if HGTV hadn't start that Flip My House show . . . well, we might have a very different housing market, and those same sorts things apply throughout the economy. The Great Recession (so-called) is not because Dubya pressed the "recession" button in the Whitehouse, or because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid catered to special interests.

The economy, I suspect, is slightly more complicated. Just a little bit.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 7, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Well then KaddafiDelendaEst, if you want to repeat things multiple times so most people can scroll by it multiple times then be my guest, it's a free world I suppose.

And please, give the me cliffnotes. I'm not about to listen to an audio book. Quick run down. Tell me how creating safety nets prolonged the depression.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 7, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

BarkObama thinks writing the word FACT after opinions makes them facts.

FACT

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 7, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis must think some obscure statement Barney Frank made while in the minority back in 2004 is partly responsible for the economic collapse.

Is that what you're refering to Kevin?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 7, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

afk for a while.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 7, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

@sold2u

Well thought out post. I agree hyperpartisanship gets us nowhere.

But at least four of your points are actually the result of deregulation. And again trying to avoid hyper partisanship there is some blame to be shared by both sides.

But really...do we think of R's as the party of regulation..or deregulation?
Is it not the Dems who get the bashing for big government and too much regulation.

Yes there is blame to go around...no side is perfect..but look at the repeal of Glass Stegall..one of the reasons this disaster unfolded. Yes it was signed by Clinton (who some have referred to as the best Republican President since Ike:-) ) and "technically" it was bi-partisan but reality looks a bit different. That repeal was sponsored by R Phil Gramm in the Senate...and R Jim Leach in the House.
The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate, and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives. Repeal of Glass Stegall was not a Democratic idea...but again the Dems could have perhaps objected more strenuously than simply voting against it.
The same could be said of Dem culpability in the Iraq war.

The reality is that you are a very informed individual sold2u...alas our electorate is not really that informed...they do not pay that close attention to the "reality" of the issues...as proven by their repeated use of words like "socialism" with HCR when Obama (wrongly IMHO) came up with a plan that basically involved private insurance companies.

During the HCR debate I asked person after person to tell me the difference between socialized medicine and single payer. Their eyes glaze over..huh..when I pointed out our country already has socialized medicine and it was the highest ranked system in our country...they couldn't believe it..not realizing what the VA hospital system represents.

In short..while I agree with your observation I think it's far simpler. The country is suffering...citizens are hacked...they want to protest their condition and so it's the R's election to lose. Can the R's snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Maybe but not likely.

This same desire for payback...getting even..whatever you wish to call it rarely produces a good result...can you say Iraq War? The next two years for our nation are probably not going to be very good socially...hopefully the economy can rebound despite what will be a totally dysfunctional government..gridlocked...investigation after investigation...impeachment..it's the R way.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 7, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"Reid's solution -- admit that things are indeed awful, explicitly disavow responsibility for it, place the blame for the whole mess on Bush, and assert that as bad as things are right now, things will be far worse if the GOP takes over -- perfectly captures just how unenviable the Dem position is right now."
---------------------------------------------

I wonder if it helps at all that all that happens to be substantially true...

(Pipe down, cynical CalD. You could at least let optimistic CalD finish a sentence before guffawing.)

Posted by: CalD | September 7, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

@mikefromArlington If I might take a small exception to one of your posts...

"BarkObama thinks writing the word FACT after opinions makes them facts."

BarkObama doesn't think..he just posts blather and then adds..

FACT

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 7, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

[mike chirped: "it's a free world I suppose."]

So far as that goes under Obama. You know Leftists are getting a little fascist when even Der Speigel notices.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,715339-2,00.html

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | September 7, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

You guys, BarkObama posts an awful lot like STR, hint, hint. Wasn't his last post about dogs.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 7, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

@ sold2u | September 7, 2010 4:06 PM:

6) Republicans in congress and the Bush administration for dismantling the federal government's regulatory capability and quite literally inviting investment bankers in to re-write the laws governing their industry.

7) Republicans in congress and the Bush administration for handing out trillions in tax cuts without ever giving any thought to offsetting the cost.

8) The Bush administration for starting a trillion dollar war for no particular reason and financing completely on deficit spending...

Posted by: CalD | September 7, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

@mike: "Kevin_Willis must think some obscure statement Barney Frank made while in the minority back in 2004 is partly responsible for the economic collapse."

That's it!

You do know that Barney Frank has been serving in congress since 1981, right?

The statements you're referring to would probably be this one: "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." referring to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and
this one "I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing." Which, rather than statements, represent an attitude that he brought to his legislative and oversight activity.

And, since we like to blame people for whatever happens "during their watch", is it any coincidence that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee, just before banks started to collapse and unemployment skyrocketed? Coincidence? I think not!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 7, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Der Speigel *commentary*? Oy. Who cares? Why not link anything at the NRO or the WSJ?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 7, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"Yes there is blame to go around...no side is perfect..but look at the repeal of Glass Stegall.."

This claim gets tossed around as fact.

Please support it with concrete and verifiable facts, if you can. Show that repeal of GS in fact caused or even significantly contributed to the recession.

This is just part of the continuing mythology that "deregulation" is to blame, rather than over- and mis-regulation.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 7, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

@ rukidding:

I am in all honesty somewhat conflicted on the deregulation argument. Everyone likes to point out Glass-Steagall, which separated investment banking and commercial banking. The problems I have with that argument are (1) No one else (Canada, the UK, Europe, Japan, etc) separates commercial and investment banking, and (2) even if the big banks were not in the credit default swap business, they still would have been vulnerable, because they did business with firms that did, and (3) housing-related investments blew up the banking system, and whether you were exposed through a derivative, or had simply had a balance sheet full of vanilla mortgages, you were in trouble.

One other point about deregulation - the model of regulating banks through limited assets and limited competition completely fell apart in the inflationary 1970s. As a matter of fact, it was Carter who deregulated the banks in 1980. Reagan deregulated the S&Ls in 1982. People forget that the impetus for deregulation was due to the failure of regulation, not "corporate greed."

Posted by: sold2u | September 7, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

@sold2u

Very interesting reply. You've obviously given this lots of thought and some study.
And I certainly agree Glass Stegall would be only part of the problem and can accept that it may be a small part.

And so what is your idea of how to guard the Wall Street/Big Bank henhouse.

Are you as radical as Dylan Ratigan in your assessment of the "evils" of what he calls the Wall Street Casino?

BTW sold2u...I haven't seen you here before but certainly hope you hang around.
We have some pragmatic people on this blog who really appreciate somebody who approaches any issue with an open mind instead of a simply ideological mandate.
Hopefully you'll stick around and post often!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 7, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Q.B.

As I've already conceded to sold2u the repeal of Glass Stegall may have played only a small part in our crisis. Certainly nobody is suggesting that any SINGLE regulation's repeal or implementation was SOLELY responsible.
However many people believe repeal of GS or more importantly the general lack of government oversight..regulations...certainly contributed to our crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010#Deregulation

"Critics have argued that the regulatory framework did not keep pace with financial innovation, such as the increasing importance of the shadow banking system, derivatives and off-balance sheet financing. In other cases, laws were changed or enforcement weakened in parts of the financial system. GOVERNMENTS DID NOT ADJUST THEIR REGULATORY PRACTICES TO ADDRESS 21ST CENTURY FINANCIAL MARKETS." Key examples of this deregulation include:

You can follow the link to wikipedia if you wish to see the specific examples Q.B.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 7, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/happy_hour_roundup_82.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 7, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

sold2u,

Agree with ruk. Appreciate your informed views.

At one time (law school) I was state of the art in the history and theory of bank regulation, but that was long ago.

ruk, good enough. I am always puzzled by the GS claim, because the basic theory of the "wall" was, crudely speaking, keeping commercial bank deposits on one side of a vault from being wiped out by collapsing stock certificates on the other. I'm really not aware of the removal of the wall playing any significant role in the meltdown.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 7, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

@ruk,

thanks for the kind words. Regarding how to control Wall Street, I would say the single best thing we could do is to force OTC derivatives to become exchange-traded instruments with a central clearing party, similar to what we have with listed options. That would eliminate the cascading counterparty risk issue that was the endgame for the crisis.

To be honest, I have no idea what the investment banking business is going to look like in a few years, it is in such a state of flux. For a long time, investment banks made a living on underwriting and commissions. Sales and trading (the commission business) is a loss-leader business anymore. Sales and trading supported the research effort, which is probably going to go the way of the dodo. Hedge funds are now competing directly with investment banks in the underwriting business. To be honest, I don't know what investment banks are going to look like in 5 years. They could be doing the big underwriting, not doing equity research, and automating most commission business.

That is why I think we should move as many derivatives as possible to an exchange. Because the TBTF problem in the future may be Citadel, not Citibank.

Posted by: sold2u | September 7, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

* Howard Kurtz says the onus is on the GOP to "humanize" Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner, because he "comes off as a permanently bronzed, country club Republican, reflexively saying no to everything the administration wants."

Are we sure Boehner would view that as a problem?
---------------------------

Hilarious! (And probably true that Boehner doesn't.)

Posted by: associate20 | September 7, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

And how do you suppose they did that? And if that's the case, why didn't W. veto any of these "payoffs"? I mean I know that W. like to ignore the Constitution but I'm pretty sure he liked the part about signing bills into law.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 7, 2010 3:50 PM
-----

Excellent question. As I've said elsewhere, Bush may have been a social conservative, but when it came to spending money and embarking on foreign adventures, he was anything but conservative.

Posted by: Brigade | September 7, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

It's a tough position, but not a bad ad. Although it's not hard to make a good attack ad when Angle is the opponent.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 7, 2010 3:58 PM
-----

DDAWD! Haven't seen you in awhile.

Posted by: Brigade | September 7, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

roxsteady wrote,
"The GOP is a complete joke and only the most ignornat voters can't see this."
-----

Right. Only intelligent people rely on big government. Why are the Republicans known as the "party of the rich" when they're all so stupid? Just wondering.

Posted by: Brigade | September 7, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Reid's bedwetting over the cost of our military defense against global jihadists is childish. . . . .


Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | September 7, 2010 4:01 PM
------

Actually, I think it's a medical dysfunction. Weak bladder, erectile dysfunction---all that stuff. Go Sharon!

Posted by: Brigade | September 7, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

By the way just how many of you Mensa member thought that Obama could turn around the economy in just 18 months with the GOP voting no on everything? You can vote for whoever you like but, I'm not uninformed enough to ever vote for Republicans. They have proven over the last 40 years that they can't govern. They all hat and no cattle!

Posted by: roxsteady | September 7, 2010 4:05 PM
----

Yeeeaaaahhh! The economy is turned around! The stock market is at its highest level ever, we have full employment, the national debt is now zero, and there is no deficit spending! Yippeeee! Get the word out to the voters!
They're being told the economy's in the tank, unemployment is near 10%, and we're running huge deficits and higher-than-ever debt. If only voters knew the truth!

Posted by: Brigade | September 7, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Well, if Conservatives want to blame Pelosi for the economy since she started leading in 2007 as I've seen posted just today by the wingers, then Republicans get the blame for writing and passing Grahm/Leech/Bliley and the Tax restructuring of the 90's that lowered capital gains for stock and derivative investors and eliminated paying taxes on sales of homes for singles to 250k and couples to 500k. They were in charge of the law writing process after all and all the committee's, right?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 7, 2010 4:14 PM
-----

Now you're getting the picture. It wasn't a one-party screw-up; it was a collaborative effort. The job outsourcing; the whole works.

Posted by: Brigade | September 7, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 wrote,
"The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate, and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives. Repeal of Glass Stegall was not a Democratic idea...but again the Dems could have perhaps objected more strenuously than simply voting against it."
-------

C'mon now, let's be fair. The final bill which came out of committee and was signed into law passed the Senate 90-8.

Posted by: Brigade | September 7, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

People forget that the impetus for deregulation was due to the failure of regulation, not "corporate greed."

Posted by: sold2u | September 7, 2010 5:11 PM
-----

Reminds one of the problem of illegal immigration. It isn't a lack of laws; it's a failure to enforce them.

Posted by: Brigade | September 7, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company