ADVERTISEMENT

Koch-Puppet Rubio and the Big GOP Lie

Nov 28, 2010
87,543
42,365
113
Maryland
[excerpt from Dark Money - note Marco Rubio's appearance at the end and how Koch-connected money appears to have put words in his mouth]

In what the economic writer and asset manager Barry Ritholtz labeled Wall Street’s “big lie,” scholars at conservative think tanks argued that the [2007-8 economic meltdown] problem had been too much government, not too little. The lead role in the revisionism was played by the American Enterprise Institute, whose board was stocked with financial industry titans, many of whom were free-market zealots and regulars at the Koch donor seminars.

Specifically, AEI argued that government programs that helped low-income home buyers get mortgages caused the collapse. Ritholtz noted that these theories “failed to withstand even casual scrutiny.” There was plenty wrong with the government’s quasi-private mortgage lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but numerous nonpartisan studies ranging from Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies to the Government Accountability Office proved they were not a major cause of the 2008 crash. Yet by shifting the blame, Ritholtz noted, those “whose bad judgment and failed philosophy helped cause the crisis” could continue to champion the “false narrative” that free markets “require no adult supervision.”

Self-serving research from corporate-backed conservative think tanks wasn’t exactly news by 2011, but what was surprising, Ritholtz contended, was that “they are winning. Thanks to the endless repetition of the big lie.” Phil Angelides, the chairman of the bipartisan commission that Congress set up to investigate the causes of the crash, was also taken aback by the revisionism. In an op-ed column, he tried to remind the public that it had been “the recklessness of the financial industry and the abject failures of policymakers and regulators that brought the economy to its knees.” Instead, though, he said, “those at the top of the economic heap” were peddling “shopworn data” that had been “analyzed and debunked by the committee.” He conceded that history was written by the winners and that by 2011, while much of the country lagged behind, most of the financial sector had bounced back and “the historical rewrite is in full swing.”

Soon politicians backed by the same conservative donors who funded the think tanks were echoing the “big lie.” Marco Rubio, a rising Republican star from Florida, for instance, who had defeated a moderate in the 2010 Republican Senate primary with the help of forty-nine donors from the June 2010 Koch seminar, soon proclaimed, “This idea—that our problems were caused by a government that was too small—it’s just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.”
 
And these asshats are being handed their butts by Trump for crap like this. They have it coming.

[excerpt from Dark Money - note Marco Rubio's appearance at the end and how Koch-connected money appears to have put words in his mouth]

In what the economic writer and asset manager Barry Ritholtz labeled Wall Street’s “big lie,” scholars at conservative think tanks argued that the [2007-8 economic meltdown] problem had been too much government, not too little. The lead role in the revisionism was played by the American Enterprise Institute, whose board was stocked with financial industry titans, many of whom were free-market zealots and regulars at the Koch donor seminars.

Specifically, AEI argued that government programs that helped low-income home buyers get mortgages caused the collapse. Ritholtz noted that these theories “failed to withstand even casual scrutiny.” There was plenty wrong with the government’s quasi-private mortgage lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but numerous nonpartisan studies ranging from Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies to the Government Accountability Office proved they were not a major cause of the 2008 crash. Yet by shifting the blame, Ritholtz noted, those “whose bad judgment and failed philosophy helped cause the crisis” could continue to champion the “false narrative” that free markets “require no adult supervision.”

Self-serving research from corporate-backed conservative think tanks wasn’t exactly news by 2011, but what was surprising, Ritholtz contended, was that “they are winning. Thanks to the endless repetition of the big lie.” Phil Angelides, the chairman of the bipartisan commission that Congress set up to investigate the causes of the crash, was also taken aback by the revisionism. In an op-ed column, he tried to remind the public that it had been “the recklessness of the financial industry and the abject failures of policymakers and regulators that brought the economy to its knees.” Instead, though, he said, “those at the top of the economic heap” were peddling “shopworn data” that had been “analyzed and debunked by the committee.” He conceded that history was written by the winners and that by 2011, while much of the country lagged behind, most of the financial sector had bounced back and “the historical rewrite is in full swing.”

Soon politicians backed by the same conservative donors who funded the think tanks were echoing the “big lie.” Marco Rubio, a rising Republican star from Florida, for instance, who had defeated a moderate in the 2010 Republican Senate primary with the help of forty-nine donors from the June 2010 Koch seminar, soon proclaimed, “This idea—that our problems were caused by a government that was too small—it’s just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.”
 
Rubio and Cruz were both Tea Party candidates when
they won their senate seats. They have become lackeys
for the Tea Party. One is a robot and the other is dirty
trickster.
At their best they have become lackeys for the Tea Party. At least then, they were still part of the Tea Party. Now they can't scramble to the very establishment they ran against fast enough. Weird how neither could go a full term without totally turning their backs on everything they ran on to get in.
 
That the Bush Recession was caused by too much regulation, not too little. That and that it was all Barney Frank's fault (aka Fannie and Freddie).

That's not a lie. The government decided that banks needed "loose lending standards" so minorities could participate in the American Dream. Prior to this, banks didn't lend to anybody without a gold-plated application. That was determined to be "racist." So, enter no-doc, no-income-verification loans, and this is why they resorted to the quasi-criminal loan bundling to get those government-required bad loans off their books.
 
That's not a lie. The government decided that banks needed "loose lending standards" so minorities could participate in the American Dream. Prior to this, banks didn't lend to anybody without a gold-plated application. That was determined to be "racist." So, enter no-doc, no-income-verification loans, and this is why they resorted to the quasi-criminal loan bundling to get those government-required bad loans off their books.
The lie part isn't that standards were lowered. The lie part is that that was the reason for the economic meltdown.

The Kochs spent millions convincing you that lowered lending standards were the problem - not the unregulated derivative market, not the war, not the tax cuts. And conservatives mainlined that Kool Aid.

Cons also seem to forget that the lowering of standards was a bipartisan effort.
 
The lie part isn't that standards were lowered. The lie part is that that was the reason for the economic meltdown.

The Kochs spent millions convincing you that lowered lending standards were the problem - not the unregulated derivative market, not the war, not the tax cuts. And conservatives mainlined that Kool Aid.

Cons also seem to forget that the lowering of standards was a bipartisan effort.

The Kochs didn't "educate" me on anything. I witnessed the stupidity first-hand and knew the S was getting ready to HTF.
 
Looks to me as if the GOP big donors won't have to spend any money on the WH run this cycle. I suspect they'll be pouring money into pivotal Senate races in hopes of hanging on to the puppet strings.

If HRC pulls the bottom of the ticket with her, the Dems will reclaim the Senate and tighten up the House. Good times are coming!

Meanwhile... Hannity, Rush, BillO, and Breitbart will have someone to criticize for at least four more years.
 
A trillion here a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Of course the unfunded war was a huge factor.

Plus the irrational tax cuts for the rich.

Wrong.

If the government went bankrupt, you might have a point.

The crisis happened when the big banks started to fall.
 
Wrong.

If the government went bankrupt, you might have a point.

The crisis happened when the big banks started to fall.
Due to inadequate regulation.

If we hadn't slashed revenues with the unwise tax cuts and hadn't committed to spending what money we had on the war, and hadn't let the free market decide in the mortgage derivative arena, we would have been in good shape to weather the bursting of the much smaller housing bubble - if it happened at all.

The meltdown was the GOP's top policy agenda items coming to fruition.

In a reasonable world - meaning not so corrupt and much better informed - the GOP and its policies would be toast for the rest of the millennium. We tried them. It was a disaster.
 
Due to inadequate regulation.

If we hadn't slashed revenues with the unwise tax cuts and hadn't committed to spending what money we had on the war, and hadn't let the free market decide in the mortgage derivative arena, we would have been in good shape to weather the bursting of the much smaller housing bubble - if it happened at all.

The meltdown was the GOP's top policy agenda items coming to fruition.

In a reasonable world - meaning not so corrupt and much better informed - the GOP and its policies would be toast for the rest of the millennium. We tried them. It was a disaster.

The Treasury had nothing at all to do with it. In fact, we threw all kinds of money at the problem. Get over yourself with your liberal revisionist history.

The MORTGAGE crisis was caused by STUPID regulation which was a large part of the problem.

I'll reserve judgement on derivatives and other exotic crap that was going on.
 
Fox News talking that after tonight, it will be interesting to see if the Koch Brother/establishment try to lure Cruz to their side
 
That's not a lie. The government decided that banks needed "loose lending standards" so minorities could participate in the American Dream. Prior to this, banks didn't lend to anybody without a gold-plated application. That was determined to be "racist." So, enter no-doc, no-income-verification loans, and this is why they resorted to the quasi-criminal loan bundling to get those government-required bad loans off their books.

What govt regulations required no-doc, no income verification loans?
 
I dont see where the CRA mandates risky loans. Even if it did, what role did that have with the subprime mortgages made by mortgage companies that werent subject to the CRA? If companies not required to make these loans still did it, why do you think banks only did it because of the CRA?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raglefant
I dont see where the CRA mandates risky loans. Even if it did, what role did that have with the subprime mortgages made by mortgage companies that werent subject to the CRA? If companies not required to make these loans still did it, why do you think banks only did it because of the CRA?

I never said they "only" did it because of the CRA. The CRA nudged banks into taking on more risk and they found a way to make money on it. The law changed the industry, and that led to the crisis.
 
I never said they "only" did it because of the CRA. The CRA nudged banks into taking on more risk and they found a way to make money on it. The law changed the industry, and that led to the crisis.

Got it. So what you are saying is really the crisis was caused when humans decided to build houses instead of living in caves. No houses, no mortgages, no risky lending.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raglefant
I never said they "only" did it because of the CRA. The CRA nudged banks into taking on more risk and they found a way to make money on it. The law changed the industry, and that led to the crisis.
The only possible way to back into this conclusion is if you start with the fundamental premise that all evil begins with the government. Un-motherfvcking-believable.
 
Got it. So what you are saying is really the crisis was caused when humans decided to build houses instead of living in caves. No houses, no mortgages, no risky lending.

No, as I said before...

Prior to the CRA, you didn't get a mortgage unless your income and documentatioI n was perfect, and you had to put a big down payment up, too. After the CRA, you could get a 120% "liars mortgage" and actually take money home with the house keys.

I guess it's possible that it was actually "the war" that caused it instead of the CRA. o_O
 
The only possible way to back into this conclusion is if you start with the fundamental premise that all evil begins with the government. Un-motherfvcking-believable.

Okay, why else did bankers go from being tightwads to paying people to take out mortgages?
 
I dont see where the CRA mandates risky loans. Even if it did, what role did that have with the subprime mortgages made by mortgage companies that werent subject to the CRA? If companies not required to make these loans still did it, why do you think banks only did it because of the CRA?
Easy, if the banks did not make loans to these people that would have been "red lined" a decade earlier, then the government would accuse them of discrimination and take them to court. The banks were screwed either way. The theory was that all these bad loans could be hidden in mortgage bundles, but in reality, they infected the mortgage bundles they got put in.
 
No, as I said before...

Prior to the CRA, you didn't get a mortgage unless your income and documentatioI n was perfect, and you had to put a big down payment up, too. After the CRA, you could get a 120% "liars mortgage" and actually take money home with the house keys.

I guess it's possible that it was actually "the war" that caused it instead of the CRA. o_O

Prior to the CRA of 1977? Again, explain why other companies made these mortgages. The majority of subprime mortgages were made by companies not subject to the CRA. Your link said only 1 of 4 subprime mortgages was from an institution subject to the CRA. And even if you somehow did back up this claim, you still have not supported the primary cause of the collapse was due to this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raglefant
Prior to the CRA of 1977? Again, explain why other companies made these mortgages. The majority of subprime mortgages were made by companies not subject to the CRA. Your link said only 1 of 4 subprime mortgages was from an institution subject to the CRA. And even if you somehow did back up this claim, you still have not supported the primary cause of the collapse was due to this.

BECAUSE IT CHANGED THE MARKET!

Can you not read when I wrote it the first time?
 
BECAUSE IT CHANGED THE MARKET!

Can you not read when I wrote it the first time?

I read it the first time I just didnt think that could possibly be your actual explanation.

Basically your saying corporations couldn't control themselves once the govt allowed something to happen. Basically, your advocating that the govt needs to regulate the industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
I read it the first time I just didnt think that could possibly be your actual explanation.

Basically your saying corporations couldn't control themselves once the govt allowed something to happen. Basically, your advocating that the govt needs to regulate the industry.

Government regulations distort the market. This was a textbook example of it and yet, liberals just deny, deny, deny....

It would be funny if it wasn't so scary.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT