I almost felt bad for poor little Newt last night. He had that moment of soaring rhetoric that he'd so obviously been planning and nurturing in his little heart, and then he got to deliver it with all the thunderous intensity and hand motion that he'd been imagining and rehearsing so hard, and he got his wonderful spontaneous applause line, and then the moderators went right back to ignoring him. Poor little Newt.

As far as snappy responses go, that one is pretty darn weak. I rate it half a Baldrick.

"intellectual leader of the free derp world"

I liked when he slammed the dirty hippies. That took me back.

Pocket Ninja: I almost felt bad for poor little Newt last night. He had that moment of soaring rhetoric that he'd so obviously been planning and nurturing in his little heart, and then he got to deliver it with all the thunderous intensity and hand motion that he'd been imagining and rehearsing so hard, and he got his wonderful spontaneous applause line, and then the moderators went right back to ignoring him. Poor little Newt.

I don't. He got exactly what he wanted. He doesn't expect to win. He's there for the attention and whatever dollars he can milk out of it.

I hope Newt stays in forever. He's so hilarious in these debates.

What does Barack Obama look like?

ArkAngel: What does Barack Obama look like?

HA!

DamnYankees: I hope Newt stays in forever. He's so hilarious in these debates.

When he gets the focus it's like going into a commercial.

So Newt, how does it feel to be getting your ass handed to you in the polls?

/your credibility... it sucks

"He's been having a bad year, you know - this self-styled intellectual leader of the free world struggling to stay ahead of Michele Bachmann in the polls is unsettling him so he talks even sillier than he sometimes does," he said.

I love you so much, Barney Frank.

Haha... because Bachmann is beating you. That's golden.

That truth has got to hurt.

Dodd Frank is one of the biggest pieces of shiat to come from Washington in a long long time.

TFA: Frank said Gingrich's anger over his and Dodd's role in the financial meltdown was absurd given that Republicans were in charge of the House and - excerpt for a brief period - Senate, from 1995 to 2007.

That was when Barney was screaming at the top of his lungs for greater regulations on the GSEs that were at the heart of the meltdown, wasn't it?

You know what the worst thing about this is for Newt?

This is the only story I see even mentioning the quip. He surely did it for news and he's got nothing.

Dancin_In_Anson: Dodd Frank is one of the biggest pieces of shiat to come from Washington in a long long time.

What exactly Dodd-Frank do you disagree with? Please be specific.

Dancin_In_Anson: That was when Barney was screaming at the top of his lungs for greater regulations on the GSEs that were at the heart of the meltdown, wasn't it?

That's untrue. Its been explained time and time again, but you keep repeating it. Why?

The problem was not that a bunch of people defaulted on their mortgage. That would have sucked for those individual people.

The problem, which I know I've explained to you before, is that these crappy mortgages were bundled together and sold to investors as GOOD mortgages, so when they defaulted it wasn't just one guy who lost his house and one bank who had to eat the loss, it was multiplied over and over again, because a lot of other people bet on that guy NOT losing his house.

Its been three years man. How many times do we need to explain this?

Wendy's Chili: Please tell us how Fannie Mae caused Lehman Bros. etc. to fail?


It is incredible how the republicans can lie and the idiots simply believe them, Fanny and Freddie cannot back subprime loans. They got in trouble when they started buying those loans to maintain their market share.

Wendy's Chili: Please tell us how Fannie Mae caused Lehman Bros. etc. to fail?





Just reposting these from the last few days against the inevitable "Fannie and Freddie caused the entire crash!" bullshiat.

what_now: Dancin_In_Anson: That was when Barney was screaming at the top of his lungs for greater regulations on the GSEs that were at the heart of the meltdown, wasn't it?

That's untrue. Its been explained time and time again, but you keep repeating it. Why?

The problem was not that a bunch of people defaulted on their mortgage. That would have sucked for those individual people.

The problem, which I know I've explained to you before, is that these crappy mortgages were bundled together and sold to investors as GOOD mortgages, so when they defaulted it wasn't just one guy who lost his house and one bank who had to eat the loss, it was multiplied over and over again, because a lot of other people bet on that guy NOT losing his house.

Its been three years man. How many times do we need to explain this?

And bingo was his name-o.

People don't know this because they don't want to know. If you tell a story about people defaulting on their mortgages ruining the economy, its compelling, because its a morality play. These people were BAD - they were lazy and stupid and make poor decisions, and they are ruining it for the rest of us! To quote a great man:

I've known these conservatives for years. And I've been operating under the assumption that the reason these conservatives devote so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that they simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Their problem isn't that they don't get it. Their problem is that they can't sell it!

GAT_00: Just reposting these from the last few days against the inevitable "Fannie and Freddie caused the entire crash!" bullshiat.

Thanks but do you really think that they care about facts? Rush and Fox told them that it was Fanny and Freddie and the CRA's fault and nothing will permit them to reject those eternal truths.

ArkAngel: What does Barack Obama look like?

What?

Sybarite: ArkAngel: What does Barack Obama look like?

What?

Say "what" again. Say "what" again, motherfarker. Say "what" one more goddamm time.

BritneysSpeculum: GAT_00: Just reposting these from the last few days against the inevitable "Fannie and Freddie caused the entire crash!" bullshiat.

Thanks but do you really think that they care about facts? Rush and Fox told them that it was Fanny and Freddie and the CRA's fault and nothing will permit them to reject those eternal truths.

No, but it's going to make it a lot funnier when DIA comes back with the same old stuff he always does.

BritneysSpeculum: What exactly Dodd-Frank do you disagree with?

Swipe fee regulation for one and the impending Volker rule for another.

Dancin_In_Anson: BritneysSpeculum: What exactly Dodd-Frank do you disagree with?

Swipe fee regulation for one and the impending Volker rule for another.

And why are these bad?

Dancin_In_Anson: the impending Volker rule

Time being so frustratingly linear and all, what precisely did the "impending" Volcker rule have to do with the financial crisis of several years ago?

GAT_00: "Fannie and Freddie caused the entire crash!"

Never said they "caused the entire crash" did I? But they did play a big role (right wing rag warning).

GAT_00: And why are these bad?

They are (or will as in Volker) greatly reduce the profitability of banking institutions.

kronicfeld: Time being so frustratingly linear and all, what precisely did the "impending" Volcker rule have to do with the financial crisis of several years ago?

Absolutely nothing. Where did you come up with the notion that I even remotely insinuated that?

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: "Fannie and Freddie caused the entire crash!"

Never said they "caused the entire crash" did I? But they did play a big role (right wing rag warning).

I like how you say they played a big role and ignored the images upthread that show the problem isn't Fannie and Freddie but private companies.

Which brings me back to this:

GAT_00: BritneysSpeculum: GAT_00: Just reposting these from the last few days against the inevitable "Fannie and Freddie caused the entire crash!" bullshiat.

Thanks but do you really think that they care about facts? Rush and Fox told them that it was Fanny and Freddie and the CRA's fault and nothing will permit them to reject those eternal truths.

No, but it's going to make it a lot funnier when DIA comes back with the same old stuff he always does.

Dancin_In_Anson: Swipe fee regulation for one and the impending Volker rule for another.

What is wrong with swipe fee regulations? It creates transparency and real competition among debit card vendors. Before, they could hide the fees that they charge and collude. Now, they have to price their product and allow consumers to choose based on price. Seems like real capitalism to me. As for the Volker rule, please explain why you want banks to use their federally insured deposits (in other words cheap capital because of the federal insurance) to make speculative investments for their own account? And then when you are done, please distinguish that from Fannie and Freddie, organizations that you condemn, which also used the implicit federal guarantee to obtain cheap capital.

In the end, my guess is that you have no idea what the Volker rule is but you have others complain about it.

kronicfeld: Dancin_In_Anson: the impending Volker rule

Time being so frustratingly linear and all, what precisely did the "impending" Volcker rule have to do with the financial crisis of several years ago?

Duh. Barack "HG Wells" Madscientistbama and his amazing economy ruining time machine. He went back to before he'd even won the nomination and told the banks that he'd pass the Volker rule if they didn't crash the economy. Of course, being an evil genius, he lied and impersonated every "yes" vote in Congress to get it passed even though they crashed the thing just as he commanded.

He is truly a frustratingly competent socialist who has planned all of this to bring on a one-world government, yet with no knowledge, skill, or ability whatsoever to do anything. That's why he's magic.

Dancin_In_Anson: They are (or will as in Volker) greatly reduce the profitability of banking institutions.

They weren't all that profitable before. They just looked that way before the crash. With the Volcker rule, they can be profitable without the massive idiotic crash.

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: And why are these bad?

They are (or will as in Volker) greatly reduce the profitability of banking institutions.

But doesn't the Volcker Rule also reduce the likelihood of catastrophic collapse of the banking institutions in question from questionable or just plain bone-headed speculative trading? The catastrophic collapse that affects everybody else in the country in the economic aftermath, whether we use that bank or not? The catastrophic collapse that we'd be on the hook for (through the FDIC, possibly, or through various bailouts)?

Dancin_In_Anson: They are (or will as in Volker) greatly reduce the profitability of banking institutions.

Care to try again?

BofA Says Volcker Rule Won't Be Too Tough (new window)

During a keynote speech on Monday, Bank of America (BAC_) CEO Brian Moynihan became the first top-gun on Wall Street to indicate that the so-called "Volcker rule" won't be applied broadly to all banking activities performed in the interest of clients.

"The adoptive version of the Volcker rule should restrict some form of proprietary trading but still allow financial services to provide your clients good trading activity," Moynihan said at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Investment Conference in New York.

At another event on Tuesday, Moynihan added that Bank of America has "a very small proprietary trading operation" -- essentially saying the change hasn't causing much concern about a drag on trading revenue.

His presentation at the Barclays Capital Financial Services Conference was preceded by JPMorgan Chase (JPM_) CEO Jamie Dimon, who also indicated that Volcker would not significantly impair his bank's white-shoe division.

The amount of bullshiat spewed forth by the shills and baggers here daily could power a city.

This sunday on the talk shows, Face the Nation, I think Newt was saying something like . . .

As President I would do everything to ignore the Supreme Court and the Congress, just to get things done.

1. Newt seems like he's had enough of the whole "Checks and Balances" thing.
2. Being a dictator is getting that much closer if "small government" Gingrich is ok with it.

habitual_masticator: Did he say what again?

BLAM!!

Dancin_In_Anson: Swipe fee regulation for one and the impending Volker rule for another.

Wait- you're opposed to the Volker rule? You're actually in favour of putting taxpayers in the position of having to bail out banks again? I recognize that all regulation is bad regulation from your perspective, but surely there are a few basic rules that would seem to make sense in order to protect taxpayers.

Or, you know, you could also avoid the moral hazard by say, terminating the FDIC, so that taxpayers aren't on the hook. But then you have that pesky problem of bank failure and people having their life savings wiped out as a result.

Oh well, Caveat Emptor. They should have kept their money under their mattress.

what_now: Dancin_In_Anson: That was when Barney was screaming at the top of his lungs for greater regulations on the GSEs that were at the heart of the meltdown, wasn't it?

That's untrue. Its been explained time and time again, but you keep repeating it. Why?


Because for people like Dancin_In_Anson, politics is a religion. Reason, facts, logic -- none of it can sway you when you "believe."