And all of this was occurring when whom, exactly, was in charge of our government?

That would be Bill Clinton who gave it the biggest goose.

But, LEVI, since you are so busy throwing Obambi under the bus for not being liberal ENOUGH, you sure as heck have no use for Bill Clinton. Compared to Obambi, Clinton rode beside Attila the Hun.

Who do you obsessed leftists want to be President? Mao?

or are all you still pretending that the Bush recession was caused by poor minorities defaulting on their mortgages?

Yes, Levi, it was caused by Democrats forcing banks to give sub-prime loans to people they knew were bad credit risks. Thats why it was called the “Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis” not the “Bush Deregulation Crisis”

I would think that the smart liberals who understand what Bush did to get us here would be able to staunch the bleeding and get things on an upswing. They could start by taxing the rich, threatening the small businessman with health care costs/fines and uncertain tax policy and blaming the banks for making only the safest of loans. But they wouldn’t do that, because it is a job and economy killer.

Yes, the smart liberals would be able to fix things, unfortunately none of them are holding significant office.

So, maybe The Won should go on the road and convince factories which are in deep trouble to switch to making mega thousand dollar green friendly stuff that will save the user a few dollars a year.

Yessiree, there is no possible way that giving banks FED encouragement and government preferences and guarantees if they wrote Freddie mortgages had anything to do with the housing collapse. No way did having Freddie buy up junk mortgages and sell them in huge blocks to Wall Street at attractive discount rates lead to the whole derivatives mess. It was all just a nasty coincidence. Or maybe it was caused by man made global warming.

And all of this was occurring when whom, exactly, was in charge of our government?

Goldman-Sachs backed Obama, remember? And Obama has been indulging their every whim, at the expense of us taxpayers, remember?

What you’re failing to understand is that those who are in control at the moment are not liberals. Goldman Sachs is backing Obama specifically because he is not a liberal – a company like Goldman Sachs would be in opposition to liberals, not supporting them. And that company had its claws all over the Bush administration as well, remember Henry Paulson?

Are you really incapable of recognizing the glaring contradiction in what you’ve just said?

or are all you still pretending that the Bush recession was caused by poor minorities defaulting on their mortgages?

Whoever said that only poor minorities were the people who, yes, caused the financial crisis by taking mortgages they couldn’t pay and shouldn’t have been offered?

I know I’ve never said that it was only poor minorities.

Except, of course, when they’re Obama Party members doing it through their government agencies.

Short answer: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lied about the number of subprime and alt-A mortgages they were securitizing by simply refusing to call them subprime or alt-A. Thus, they were claiming that their securities that they were selling were based on good mortgages when in fact they were NOT.

And who was in charge while they were doing this? Obama cronies like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and Barney Fag’s worthless executive boyfriend, all while Obama and Fag blocked any attempt to audit, regulate, or otherwise manage the two agencies AND demanded that they pump even more taxpayer-guaranteed money into making these bad securities.

or are all you still pretending that the Bush recession was caused by poor minorities defaulting on their mortgages?

Good gosh, are Bush and Rove still manipulating the “wealthy and exploitive elite” who are plunging us further into joblessness and economic depression?

I would think that the smart liberals who understand what Bush did to get us here would be able to staunch the bleeding and get things on an upswing. They could start by taxing the rich, threatening the small businessman with health care costs/fines and uncertain tax policy and blaming the banks for making only the safest of loans. But they wouldn’t do that, because it is a job and economy killer.

So, maybe The Won should go on the road and convince factories which are in deep trouble to switch to making mega thousand dollar green friendly stuff that will save the user a few dollars a year.

Yessiree, there is no possible way that giving banks FED encouragement and government preferences and guarantees if they wrote Freddie mortgages had anything to do with the housing collapse. No way did having Freddie buy up junk mortgages and sell them in huge blocks to Wall Street at attractive discount rates lead to the whole derivatives mess. It was all just a nasty coincidence. Or maybe it was caused by man made global warming.

There at times when the Government does have to step in and take greater control

Like Germany 1933, right? Sorry DER, not having it.

Goldman-Sachs backed Obama, remember? And Obama has been indulging their every whim, at the expense of us taxpayers, remember?

I never, even when I was more liberal, thought that the government’s role was to force people to live a certain way. I think it can be used to help people or to marshal resources that would not be as well used by pure market forces. I think of terms of public goods, like water and air, because what you do will affect how my quality of life. I think there are times when Government should step in but they should limited for various reason. Overreach, Abuse of Power, Inefficiency, so on and so on.

The government will track down and neuter the wealthy and exploitive elite and stop them from breaking the “rules” and stop the exploitation.

People that blow trillion dollar holes in the international economy need to be tracked down and neutered – or are all you still pretending that the Bush recession was caused by poor minorities defaulting on their mortgages?

The dictatorship of the proletariat will unite the workers and create a fair and just society. Social justice for one and for all, but no one may exist outside of social justice. The government will break those who do not succeed at reeducation.

If you want to get all hyperbolic and girlishly dramatic, you go right ahead. I’ll be right here if anyone wants to try to talk seriously about liberalism without devolving into this kind of ridiculous, dystopian prose.

Contemporary liberalism is more about protecting the country’s government and citizens from a wealthy and exploitative elite that are breaking the rules and exploiting people.

Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! We have BINGO!!!

The government will track down and neuter the wealthy and exploitive elite and stop them from breaking the “rules” and stop the exploitation.

The dictatorship of the proletariat will unite the workers and create a fair and just society. Social justice for one and for all, but no one may exist outside of social justice. The government will break those who do not succeed at reeducation.

Nothing Obama and the Democrats have done this year is an example of liberalism – including their joke of a health care bill. They’ve been protecting and catering to the same people and corporations that the Republicans just spent eight years protecting and catering to. You’ll have to read something written by someone a little less inside than George Will to have an idea of what liberalism is – taking his word for it just makes you look like you don’t spend very much time looking for information. Which means you end up having the nicely packaged little propaganda pieces informing your worldview. Wake up dummies – this administration is about as far left as the Bush administration was.

6. Breathing

Here’s a typical and nauseating MSM article-spin on Brown at AOL. Notice how the subtext of the writing holds Brown guilty for:

1. A Stunning Campaign Victory
2. Not Being Camera and Press-polished to perfection his first elected Day in D.C.
3. Adopting a suitable down to business demeanor shift from his celebratory demeanor on Tuesday
4. Possibly being linked to a candidate expressing legitimate concerns about President Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the oval office
5. Leaving his truck at home in Massachusetts (okay…that’s actually a somewhat funny dig, I’ll give them that much)

Also notice how it completely overlooks how decent he was with his highness John Kerry’s contemptible and presumptuous pressuring him with leading questions about Health Care. Or how cryptic, ungracious and distant Reid is with his confusing remark about how Brown’s victory “will make my job easier?”

Star-struck? It looks more like he’s doing his best not to gag, as any reasonable person would be in the presence of Kerry and Reid.

“Oh how dare he succeed, behave sanely and decently, and continue to do so! Just who the hell does this new guy think he is…a decent human being and Senator?”

http://www.sphere.com/politics/article/scott-brown-travels-to-capitol-tastes-expectations-that-await/19326448

Some liberals consider the legislation’s unpopularity a reason to redouble their efforts to inflict it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to understand that their betters know best.

Which is Dianne Feinstein’s attitude in thinking that the People oppose her government takeover of health care because the bill is “beyond their comprehension”. Again, Boxer is worse BUT their difference is only one of degree or intensity – not one of principles.