Remember, for instance, when John McCain's response was to call for the head of Chris Cox. Hardly a "liberal" pundit there.

Heck, go to wikipedia where their hard fought editing battle become our measured consensus:

Financial crisis of 2007–2009

But Steve, didn't Cheney teach us that "deficits don't matter"?. Or is that only applicable for Republican administrations?

God I hated that moment. Cheney really need a punch in the mouth after saying that, IMO.

I'm curious to see what kind of the promised "painful cuts" will be made in the general budget for this year.

None.

Odograph,

First "never let a crisis go to waste" sounds good until you think about it. As if the rational course were "ignore all crisis until they go away."

Well that was the common view prior to the Great Depression, at least in terms of economic policy. Recessions were seen as a natural part of the business cycle, even corrective.

Now instead of correcting erroneous expectations, bad planning, and so forth...we implicitly reward those things assuring that the problems don't really go away at least not quickly.

From the Ritzhotz link,

“The administration’s blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of its governing philosophy, which trusted market forces and discounted the value of government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.”

I think charactrizing this view as "trusting market forces" is misleading. The problem is that it wasn't just market forces. Everyone likes to pretend that prior to the financial crisis that the financial sector was some sort of un-regulated free market expriment that unfortunately blew up becuase markets are volatile.

Anyone who thinks this is a fool. What we had were markets that were already distorted by government rules, regulations, and bailouts. Further, this government was an active player in the markets as well as in changing the rules. This can create a very unstable market, IMO.

Perhaps it was foolish to not take proactive steps earlier, but to use the term "market forces" and "free market", even implicitly, to describe the financial sector prior to melt down suggests an amazing level of intellectually dishonest.

In fact, I look at this,

Bowing to aggressive lobbying — along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK — regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.

The bold portion is one reason why I think that government will always end up being a failure. This is one of the lessons of Public Choice theory.

The banks that lobbied most aggressively against the rules reads like a who’s who of bankruptcy and FDIC conservatorship: IndyMac, Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers, and Downey Savings.

I read that an wonder: How can a person look at that and think, "Oh, discrtionary government policy is a good thing!" Those banks went out and influenced the government to do something that was foolish. Sounded like a good idea at the time, but in the end it was foolish.

As to your other comment, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Bush WH Ignored Mortgage Meltdown Warnings

Charles, did the media tell the truth when Alan Greenspan put the economy on crack?

Is there a point here?

First "never let a crisis go to waste" sounds good until you think about it. As if the rational course were "ignore all crisis until they go away."

You don't get it. I mean you really don't get it.

First "never let a crisis go to waste" sounds good until you think about it. As if the rational course were "ignore all crisis until they go away."

The second part is really interesting, in which he essentially acknowledges the Republican role in making the mess, and first "going all socialist" under Paulson, and then retreating from the field to sulk, post election.

He accepts it, but thinks he can market past it.

Telling. Very.

I'm curious to see what kind of the promised "painful cuts" will be made in the general budget for this year.

You really are an unpleasant bigot aren't you. I've never read any of Ayn Rand's books.

Further, it isn't sex, it is that it is stupid to be funding that when the supposed goal is jump starting the economy. A simpler and more direct route would be to put cash in the hands of those people most likely to spend it since that is supposed to be where the biggest multipliers are.

Funding STD prevention, while a worthwhile cause, shouldn't be funded under the rubric of fiscal stimulus.

But neither am I enamored of the games played by detractors. Just watch they say, the economy won't any better in a year. Well, that's the frickin' point and to applaud ruin while doing nothing is ... duly noted.

I'm not enamored with the games played by supporters. I think back to the comment by Rahm Emmanuel on not letting a good crisis go to waste when trying to implement one's agenda. Playing politics while we are the road to ruin is duly noted.

They [Republicans] gamble that people blame the Democrats for a bad economy while forgetting that (a) helped make this disaster in the Bush years, and (b) washed their hands of cleaning it up.

(a) The public's memory is not that long.
(b) A sufficiently well funded and intense propaganda campaign will get most members of the public to believe anything.

In other words, what happens today will be of little consequence in 4 years. Its kind of a what have you done for me lately thing.

Seriously, steve, get a grip. (and put down the Ayn Rand books while you're at it. You're not 19 anymore.)

But neither am I enamored of the games played by detractors. Just watch they say,

the economy won't any better in a year.

My guess is that the Republican

They gamble that people blame the Democrats for a bad economy while forgetting that (a) helped make this disaster in the Bush years, and (b) washed their hands of cleaning it up

.

Your they are what for the that's the emprob.

But neither am I enamored of the games played by detractors. Just watch they say, the economy won't any better in a year. Well, that's the frickin' point and to applaud ruin while doing nothing is ... duly noted.

My guess is that the Republican will come up empty on this in a couple years. They gamble that people blame the Democrats for a bad economy while forgetting that (a) helped make this disaster in the Bush years, and (b) washed their hands of cleaning it up.