Yes Tent, we don’t need a bunch of new congressmen who would say no to Bush-Paulson-Obama bailouts, no to Obamacare, no to Bush-Obama stimulus crap that doesn’t work, and dysfunctional governments that can’t do their basic jobs when it comes to hurricanes and oil spills. There is a reason liberals never frothed at the mouth when you were in the Senate like they did other conservatives and that is because they knew you were more interested in making deals than actually standing up for something. As far as I am concerned, working as a lobbyist suits you well because it means you can now get paid to be the trollop you always were.

Bush tried his own stimulus. Stupid rebate checks. He gave us the first bailouts. Obama took Bush’s worst economic polices and injected them with steroids. You seem to forget how flawed Bush was. Do you remember the first bailout proposed by Paulson? three pages? A blank check with no judicial review allowed. It wasn’t just Obama that put us in this mess but Bush as well. It was Bush, Paulson, and Ben that decided to save Bear Stearns. If they had not done so, Fuld would’ve made a deal to sell Lehman when he had legitimate offers on the table that would’ve prevented the October meltdown. Obama bears much of the blame but Bush is not spotless either, not by a long shot.

Not exactly.

There were quite a few conservatives arguing Bush should not have taken those actions BEFORE he took them. I seem to remember the WSJ editorial page and others arguing against the rebates. Quite a few conservatives argued against saving Bear and issuing TARP. In fact, you can tell by the Dow the exact moment TARP passed because it started sliding at that point. I argued on my own website against the TARP and other things Bush did in his last year. Hindsight my gluteus maximum, many of us knew what would happen and said so if Bush took the actions he did.

Then Obama took Geithner, who wrote up the TARP’s, and made him T-sec, kept Bernanke, and just did more of what Bush was doing: bailouts, spending, and phony stimulus.

The decision to remove leverage limits by Cox’s SEC. Suddenly the 12:1 limits were gone and you saw leverage of 20:1, 30:1, and 80:1. That allowed what would have been events that caused problems in the markets to instead cause market meltdowns. In other words, instead of burning down the block, it allowed the fire to burn down the neighorhood.

Then there are the CRA’s. If they were actually doing their jobs, then the MBS’s would’ve been priced properly for their risk, which was more likely a C or junk instead of AA that was so routinely given. That would have stopped a good bit of the liar loans from even being underwritten as their would have been little demand for them. See The Sellout by Gasparino.

Now, that doesn’t excuse the GSA’s, Obama’s policies, nor other factors but if I had to rank the causes, those are my first two.

won’t argue facts, just name-call because you don’t like what I write. I’m not writing anything not said by Dr. Anna Schwartz, Mish, the WSJ editorial page, the Market Ticker, Zero Hedge, Meredith Whitney, the Black Swan, and Jim Rogers. I would not call any of them Obama lovers either.