GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Take a look at the run on the banks that led to the Great Depression. It was the Government's non-involvement that exacerbated the lack of confidence in the banking system, and led to the greatest economic downturn in history. There is no question that without TARP, things would have been much, much worse today.

It was also the government's involvement that prolonged the depression until, basically, WWII came along.

One can certainly make these arguments in favor of TARP:
1) It did begin under Bush
2) We were facing a possible financial meltdown.
3) (Attention OWS) The banks have paid back the TARP money. The Congress then wasted it rather than returning it to the treasury.

Against TARP:
1) It has set a terrible precedent as we go forward facing bankruptcies in industry (Airlines, newspapers), foreign banks failing in a globalized economy and even state and municipality defaults. There will be enormous political pressure for federal bailouts.
2) Post-TARP the "too big to fail" banks have only grown larger.

To give you a look at where things were heading, after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, credit markets froze. There was an evaporation of trust. Banks stopped lending. Forget Wall Street, even the behemoth GE was having trouble meeting it's short term financing, and would have certainly gone under had it not been for TARP. There was a chance that McDonald's was not going to be able to pay it's workers in the next week because it couldn't access short term financing.

Well now you introduce the 3rd problem with TARP:

3) Smaller banks that do the majority of local lending to businesses can't compete against the large banks and their preferential rates. My bank, founded in 1880, was forced to merge just this year.
All in all, we needed a restoration of trust in the banking system, and the only party that was large enough to take action was the U.S. Government. It's silly to think that the affect of free markets can't be proven, because the Great Depression is a perfect example that disproves anyone who thinks government should have stayed out of it. All this anti-TARP talk coming from most of the Republican candidates is designed to appeal to the stupidity of the American public.

I agree in that I tend to favor the argument that TARP was needed but also that it was badly managed (too much power given to Bernanke, not enough concessions from banks in regards to bonuses, reforms and breaking them up).

Good debate. You've studied the issue.
 
It was also the government's involvement that prolonged the depression until, basically, WWII came along.

One can certainly make these arguments in favor of TARP:
1) It did begin under Bush
2) We were facing a possible financial meltdown.
3) (Attention OWS) The banks have paid back the TARP money. The Congress then wasted it rather than returning it to the treasury.

Against TARP:
1) It has set a terrible precedent as we go forward facing bankruptcies in industry (Airlines, newspapers), foreign banks failing in a globalized economy and even state and municipality defaults. There will be enormous political pressure for federal bailouts.
2) Post-TARP the "too big to fail" banks have only grown larger.



Well now you introduce the 3rd problem with TARP:

3) Smaller banks that do the majority of local lending to businesses can't compete against the large banks and their preferential rates. My bank, founded in 1880, was forced to merge just this year.


I agree in that I tend to favor the argument that TARP was needed but also that it was badly managed (too much power given to Bernanke, not enough concessions from banks in regards to bonuses, reforms and breaking them up).

Good debate. You've studied the issue.
I feel like you might be over-generalizing a bit, though. The issue isn't really with commercial banking, it's with investment banking. Some kind of regulation (OH GOD NO I'M AN ECON STUDENT) to separate risky investment banking from the people that issue mortgages should be the first priority in financial industry reform.

I am an Obama supporter, but have no false illusions that it's the financial industry money that got him into office with his record fundraising in 2008.
 
It was also the government's involvement that prolonged the depression until, basically, WWII came along.

How so?

And you missed the main point that, a total lack of confidence led to the run on banks. The government had the power to restore the confidence, but it didn't, making economic downturn much worse and longer than it could have gone. That's the main idea. In addition, it was the lack of government oversight that allowed people to carelessly borrow on 10% margin and speculate in the stock market. It was after the 1929 crash that margin requirements were set at 50%. The FDIC was also created as a result of the banking run, which was a very smart move by the government. So government oversight is absolutely necessary. I'm a big believer in capitalism, but I think that this blind notion that "free markets" rule best is ridiculous.

One can certainly make these arguments in favor of TARP:
1) It did begin under Bush
2) We were facing a possible financial meltdown.
3) (Attention OWS) The banks have paid back the TARP money. The Congress then wasted it rather than returning it to the treasury.

Against TARP:
1) It has set a terrible precedent as we go forward facing bankruptcies in industry (Airlines, newspapers), foreign banks failing in a globalized economy and even state and municipality defaults. There will be enormous political pressure for federal bailouts.
2) Post-TARP the "too big to fail" banks have only grown larger.

Well now you introduce the 3rd problem with TARP:

3) Smaller banks that do the majority of local lending to businesses can't compete against the large banks and their preferential rates. My bank, founded in 1880, was forced to merge just this year.

I agree in that I tend to favor the argument that TARP was needed but also that it was badly managed (too much power given to Bernanke, not enough concessions from banks in regards to bonuses, reforms and breaking them up).

I agree with most of this, more or less. TARP wasn't perfect, but hindsight is always 20/20, and it got the job done. And you're right, there is the moral hazard issue. For that reason I think it might not have been a mistake to allow Lehman to go under, contrary to popular thought. It help set an example that government protection is not always guaranteed for everyone. And if there was one firm that we had to choose to let die, Lehman was the right pick. It had the most idiotic, envy-driven management out of anyone on Wall Street. People like to cast Goldman Sachs as the cause of the crisis, simply because they are extremely profitable. But they were/are the most risk averse firm, and that's why they survived. And they also didn't need TARP. But the irony is that because they do survive, they get all the blame, whereas Lehman Brothers, which deserves much more of the blame, got to escape under the blame radar because they failed.

Going forward, the best way to prevent the need for bailouts is by setting much tougher incentives for management. And owning significant stock in their firm is clearly not enough. Lehman CEO Dick Fuld had a $1 billion stake in his firm which deteriorated to about $30,000 when the firm collapsed. But the man is still a multi-millionaire. We need incentives that would force CEOs to give up nearly all of their net worth if their firm requires a bailout.

The problem with forcing the banks to make greater concessions with TARP was that not every big bank wanted or needed the money (Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs come to mind). They were essentially forced to accept the funds so that the public cannot discriminate between healthy and weak banks. So more tougher concessions wouldn't have worked.

There was too much power given, not to Bernanke, but to Hank Paulson. He essentially threatened to publicly outcast the banks who didn't accept the money, which alone might have taken them down. The fucked up part about TARP was that the weak banks got a great deal, but the prudent, risk averse banks were the ones who suffered.

Good debate. You've studied the issue.

Sure, but perhaps you should study it some more so you can see some of the flaws in free markets.
 
I feel like you might be over-generalizing a bit, though. The issue isn't really with commercial banking, it's with investment banking. Some kind of regulation (OH GOD NO I'M AN ECON STUDENT) to separate risky investment banking from the people that issue mortgages should be the first priority in financial industry reform.

But commercial banks were part of the problem. It was the commercial banks and mortgage lenders that made the shitty loans which were sold to Wall Street or backed by Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. And a lot of the lending problems were caused by monoline lenders (Countrywide, American Home Mortgage, New Century Financial, and others). They had no incentive to make good loans, because all they did was sell those loans to Wall Street, whom in turn sold them to idiot investors. But when the housing market started cooling down, most of the firms that were involved had a huge inventory of these loans or packaged products, which they couldn't take off their books.
 

Not talking banking here but joblessness and economic growth. While the New deal provided much needed stability and security the price controls, anti-competition provisions and growth in union power (much of which was later found unconstitutional) slowed the recovery and led to another downturn in the late 30's.

I'm a big believer in capitalism, but I think that this blind notion that "free markets" rule best is ridiculous.

I'm hardly for the abolishment of the FDIC and the complete deregulation of banks. Who is? I'm not even in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve.

But I'd argue that the market place would not have allowed the housing bubble to swell for years or interest rates to remain artificially low. The inefficient, unprofitable or corrupt financial institutions would not have survived the market's pressure to cleanse away such entities. It would have been very, very painful to allow more institutions to go bankrupt and for the housing market to bottom out--but we'd be in better shape now. As it stands 3 years out, "too big to fail" still hangs over our heads and a stagnate housing market drags down an economy struggling to recover.
 
As it stands 3 years out, "too big to fail" still hangs over our heads and a stagnate housing market drags down an economy struggling to recover.

I'm assuming that you'd be in favour of an immediate repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act then? Because I certainly haven't heard a clamoring for that type of legislative move from the GOP. :shrug:
 
When asked during a tele-town hall organized by the Faith and Freedom Coalition whether he would consider the former Alaska governor as his running mate in 2012, Newt Gingrich explained that he would definitely consider her for that position.

Gingrich stated that he was a “great admirer” of Palin’s, and argued that her record of political reform in Alaska was impressive enough that he would expect her to bring the same spirit to Washington. But the candidate also brought up the possibility that Palin’s record on energy independence would make her an ideal candidate for Energy Secretary in his administration.

“I can’t imagine anybody who would do a better job of driving us to an energy solution than Governor Palin.”

:crack:...there's a headache-inducing combo right there.

Santorum...it's cute that he's still trying, it really is :p.
 
I'm hardly for the abolishment of the FDIC and the complete deregulation of banks. Who is? I'm not even in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve.

But I'd argue that the market place would not have allowed the housing bubble to swell for years or interest rates to remain artificially low. The inefficient, unprofitable or corrupt financial institutions would not have survived the market's pressure to cleanse away such entities. It would have been very, very painful to allow more institutions to go bankrupt and for the housing market to bottom out--but we'd be in better shape now. As it stands 3 years out, "too big to fail" still hangs over our heads and a stagnate housing market drags down an economy struggling to recover.

I agree that interest rates were too low for too long, and had this not been the case, the credit/housing bubble might not have been as big. Alan Greenspan's easy money policy certainly helped build the bubble, but that was only one out of many factors, involving many parties in the government and the private sector. THE underlying assumption of all these parties was that "house prices always go up" or "house prices won't come down by a lot".

There still would have been a bubble and collapse, and there still would have been systemic risks in the system needing bailouts. Incidentally, it was also Greenspan's laissez-faire attitude towards the derivatives market that played a major role in the mess. Like you mentioned, "too big to fail" still exists; and the main reason for that is the inter-connectedness that is a result of the derivatives market. "Too big to fail" would have existed regardless of interest rate policy, and it will continue to exist unless we have a major overhaul in the $500,000,000,000,000 (that's $500 Trillion) worldwide derivatives market.
 
Hey guys. I don't know if you peeps caught wind of this.

But get this.

Over the weekend, Kelly Clarkson's new album got a huge sales boost after Kelly had gotten on Twitter and endorsed Ron Paul.

How can you guys explain Kelly's album getting more sales after a Ron Paul endorsement?:huh:
 
A) people said "Hey, I like Ron Paul, too! That Kelly Clarkson is good people" and bought her album.

B) she got quite a bit of backlash online, and some people probably bought it to support her
 
Or it doesn't really matter who she endorsed, what does matter is how she made the endorsement. She caused a tiny bit of controversy and made news, that in turn reminded people she's still around and has a new album.
 
This could change, but as of now-

1) Romney, in the mid 20s, maybe even approaching 30
2) Paul, very close behind
3) Santorum, mid-teens
4) Gingrich, low-teens
5) Perry, high single digits or low double digits
6) Bachmann, mid-single digits
7) Huntsman, barely registering

Both Bachmann and Santorum need top 3 or else they drop out.

I'm going to revise this. I think Romney/Santorum/Paul finish 1-2-3 and Bachmann/Gingrich/Perry finish 4-5-6, but those two sets of three could really finish in any order. Here's my prediction and percentages, give or take a little:

1) Romney- 26%
2) Paul- 22%
3) Santorum- 21%
4) Perry- 13%
5) Gingrich- 11%
6) Bachmann- 6%

With two debates this weekend, nobody drops out before New Hampshire. Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich and Perry go straight to South Carolina.
 
I'm assuming that you'd be in favour of an immediate repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act then? Because I certainly haven't heard a clamoring for that type of legislative move from the GOP. :shrug:

Maybe, especially as a way to limit their size, but I've heard arguments that banks recovered quicker from the crisis because of the diversity this bill allowed.

Not sure.
 
I think Santorum will win in Iowa tomorrow. Evangelicals always exceed their polling numbers (my theory why is that the more conservative somebody is, the less they'd bother to respond to a phone poll or exit poll) and I also think a lot of people not wanting to vote for Romney or Paul will stop thinking about voting for Bachmann, Gingrich or Perry and jump onto Santorum's train.

Santorum will take Iowa, but Mitt will win New Hampshire and use that momentum to win this thing. The party establishment knows he's their best hope and nobody else in the field will have the funding/volunteers to keep the race going. I mean, they can stay in it as long as they'd like, but it would only be for their egos (and without money, they won't accomplish anything).
 
Here's when I think they drop out.....


1) Jon Huntsman. His entire gameplan relies on New Hampshire. When he fails to win or get even second place there, he'll call it a day. Does not have the network/funds to continue longer, nor does he have the support of party higher-ups.

2) Michelle Bachmann. Peaked earlier than Santorum/Perry and her campaign is almost penniless. She'll give it her last hurrah after performing miserably in South Carolina.

3) Rick Perry. Earned a lot of campaign money before he opened his mouth in the debates, so he can continue for some time. As he fails to win state-after-state, he'll look towards easily winning Texas to save face and then call it a day.

4) Newt Gingrich. He'll continue on for some time thanks to the press coverage which will help him sell books in the long run. Once his campaign starts to owe too many people money or becomes embarrassingly understaffed, then he'll concede.

5) Rick Santorum. A good showing in Iowa, and presumably, the South, will keep him going for some time. Basically Romney is the McCain to his Huckabee with the evangelicals throwing their protest votes behind Santorum. He can definitely win the "more fundie" states.

6) Ron Paul. Will run his campaign to the end. His is the only one (other than Romney, of course) that has a guaranteed sizable amount of support regardless at what point the campaign is in. He can't build momentum whatsoever, but he'll use his vast network to continue the race on for as long as he can.

Romney will seal the deal by Super Tuesday.
 
Onetime Republican presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich called on campaign rival Mitt Romney Tuesday to "just level with the American people" about his moderate political views.

Asked point-blank in a nationally broadcast network interview if he was calling the former Massachusetts governor "a liar," the former House speaker replied, "Yes."

In the interview on CBS's "The Early Show," Gingrich declined to predict he'd win Tuesday night's Iowa caucuses, but said "I don't think anybody knows who's going to get what right now." He said "I think anybody can come in first" because of a large number of Iowa voters who remained undecided on the day of the caucuses.

Of Romney, Gingrich was asked about previous statements he'd made accusing his opponent of lying. Gingrich assailed Romney for negative television ads that have hurt his standing in the polls, saying Romney has been disingenuous about large sums of money that a Super PAC has been spending on his behalf for the attack commercials.
advertisement

"I just think he ought to be honest with the American people and try to win as the real Mitt Romney," Gingrich said. "He ought to be candid and I don't think he's been candid."

But when asked if he could support Romney if he became the party's nominee and runs against President Barack Obama, Gingrich answered affirmatively. "He would be much less destructive than Barack Obama," he said. "If you think Barack Obama is someone who is not a risk to the country's future, then that's somebody to vote for."

"I wish Mitt would just level with the American people and be who he really is and let's have a debate between a Massachusetts moderate and a real conservative," Gingrich said.
 
I'm rooting for Paul to do well and drag out this circus funhouse a little longer.

Plus, his campaign reminds me of Dean 2004 a bit; a nice bit of grassroots internet mobilization that I look back on fondly.
 
it does look like Romney has played this well and kept his cool and is in a stronger position than a month ago.

still, i'm morbidly curious to watch what happens when Gingrich goes full frontal on him in the next debate.

:corn:
 
Tonight should mark the end of Iowa being first and more importantly, relevant in these primaries.

Don't be shocked if Santorum has a good showing or wins, which would all be seal Iowa being a waste of time for future POTUS elections.
 
it does look like Romney has played this well and kept his cool and is in a stronger position than a month ago.

still, i'm morbidly curious to watch what happens when Gingrich goes full frontal on him in the next debate.

:corn:
Romney has been playing the long-term game since the campaign began.

He's a very smart and controlled candidate (as Obama was) and is the only one of the GOP field with the ability to sound like he's already running for the general election.

As with Obama in 2008, having a shit-ton of money raising potential doesn't hurt either.
 
Plus, his campaign reminds me of Dean 2004 a bit; a nice bit of grassroots internet mobilization that I look back on fondly.

I sure don't. I volunteered and donated money to the guy's campaign....and then watched as Iowans said the war was the most important issue for them as they proceeded to vote for that war monger John Kerry. :doh: I lost faith in Democratic voters right then.

And then, the "Dean Scream"...just an excitable candidate trying to rile up his base for the next few states and the media plays bits of out of context. I realized right then that the media just loves a circus.

Then I watched as Dean ended up being fine with supporting someone like Kerry who hadn't taken a real stance on anything. I immediately lost faith with the Democratic party ever managing to accomplish anything.

Luckily, I was already registered Green, so I voted for Peter Camejo in the primary and then Nader in the general election. I've never looked back and have only ever voted for Democrats when there's no other liberal choices on the ballot and will never do so otherwise.
 
you see, it's not that Republicans are themselves racist; it's just that they say, do, and believe racist things that appeal to other people who aren't racist but just say, do, and believe racist things as well:

Santorum targets blacks in entitlement reform

By
Lucy Madison

Updated: 6:35 p.m. ET

At a campaign stop in Sioux City, Iowa on Sunday, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum singled out blacks as being recipients of assistance through federal benefit programs, telling a mostly-white audience he doesn't want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money."

Answering a question about foreign influence on the U.S. economy, the former Pennsylvania senator went on to discuss the American entitlement system - which he argued is being used to politically exploit its beneficiaries.

"It just keeps expanding - I was in Indianola a few months ago and I was talking to someone who works in the department of public welfare here, and she told me that the state of Iowa is going to get fined if they don't sign up more people under the Medicaid program," Santorum said. "They're just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so they can get your vote. That's what the bottom line is."

He added: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

"Right," responded one audience member, as another woman can be seen nodding.


"And provide for themselves and their families," Santorum added, to applause. "The best way to do that is to get the manufacturing sector of the economy rolling again."

It is unclear why Santorum pinpointed blacks specifically as recipients of federal aid. The original questioner asked "how do we get off this crazy train? We've got so much foreign influence in this country now," adding "where do we go from here?"

When asked about the comments in an interview with "CBS Evening News" anchor Scott Pelley, Santorum said he wasn't aware of the context of his remark, but mentioned that he had recently watched the movie "Waiting for Superman," which analyzes the American public education system through the stories of several students and their families. (The students and their families portrayed in the movie represent several races.)

"I've seen that quote, I haven't seen the context in which that was made," Santorum told Pelley, of the Sunday remarks. "Yesterday I talked for example about a movie called, um, what was it? 'Waiting for Superman,' which was about black children and so I don't know whether it was in response and I was talking about that."

Santorum stressed that he wants to make life better for Americans regardless of race.

"Let me just say that no matter what, I want to make every lives [sic] better - I don't want anybody - and if you look at what I've been saying, I've been pretty clear about my concern for dependency in this country and concern for people not being more dependent on our government, whatever their race or ethnicity is."

CBS News found that of the people on food stamps in Iowa, only nine percent are black and 84 percent are white.

Just days ago, the Pennsylvania conservative raised some eyebrows while talking about diversity at an event in Ottumwa, Iowa.

"I was at a debate with Howard Dean and we were asked what was the most imp quality of America and he said diversity. Diversity? Have you ever heard of e pluribus unum?....The greatness of America is people who are diverse coming together to be one," Santorum said. "If we celebrate diversity, we lay the groundwork for that conflict. We need to celebrate common values and have a president that lays out those common values."

Santorum targets blacks in entitlement reform - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
 
^ Actually, there's conflicting reports on what he said, so give Santorum the benefit of the doubt. I saw him on tv yesterday and he was asked about the comment, and he genuinely appeared like he had no idea what he was being asked about.

Did Santorum really say he didn’t want to make “black people’s lives better”? � Hot Air

Except that’s not what Santorum said at all. What he said was, “I don’t want to make [pause] lives, people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” This makes sense in the context of what immediately preceded this statement: “It [Medicaid] just keeps expanding. I was Indianola a few months ago, and I was talking with someone who works at the Department of Public Welfare here, and she told me that the state of Iowa is going to get fined if they don’t sign up more people under the Medicaid program. They’re just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so that they can get your vote.”

In other words, Santorum’s point didn’t have anything to do at all about race; it had to do with creating a dependency class that includes a lot of Iowans for political purposes. Whether one agrees with this or not, it’s pretty standard fare, and it’s certainly a legitimate concern to raise at a time when ObamaCare will expand the number of people eligible for government subsidies to families who make 60% more than the average household income. Instead of listening carefully to what Santorum actually said, CBS just assumed that Santorum was a racist. Don’t they watch the videos before transcribing them at CBS News?

One person who did listen to what Santorum said was my friend Tommy Christopher, who I assume doesn’t agree with Santorum’s point or much else Santorum has to say. Tommy, however, is both honest and thorough, and says that CBS gave Santorum a bum rap:

A review of a clearer version of the video, however, casts serious doubt on whether Santorum actually said “black people’s lives.”
CBS News has posted a cleaner version of Santorum’s remarks, and it seems as though Santorum did not actually say “black people’s lives,” but rather, that he stumbled in mid-sentence with a verbal tic that sounded like that.
“I don’t want to make…mmbligh…people’s lives better” is what it sounds like to me, although CBS News also transcribes it as “”make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”
Given the preceding context, in which he talks about the government trying to get more Iowans enrolled in Medicaid, the former explanation makes much more sense than the latter.
The Santorum campaign has still not returned our request for comment.
Here’s the CBS clip. The viewer can judge, but even as an LGBT-friendly liberal, I’m inclined to give Santorum the benefit of the doubt here.
 
this seems to happen a lot with the GOP. they didn't hear the cheers when someone suggested allowing people without insurance to die. they didn't hear the boos for the honorably serving gay soldier (or it was just one really, really loud person). it was a verbal tic and not the word "black."

but i suppose it's possible. :shrug:

either way, the Republican assumption that it's only black people who receive welfare, or are the majority of welfare recipients, is a great big lie, one that's been repeated since Regan's racist "welfare queen" imagery of the 1980s, and if nothing else, this is a teachable moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom