I am an economist.  There is no "robust" demand, but there is demand.  The housing market will not recover for years, but yes, one thing that will help is when it bottoms out.  But it still is those pesky regulations.

Ok, now we are rending bugs bunny.  That is all politicians ever do!  If you are expecting some sort of magical plan, then the closest thing you are going to find is Cain's plan.  He is not a politician, so speaks the truth more often than not.  They are exactly appealing to the masses.  The more specific they get, the more they will be hammered.  But all have at least given lip service to the core of the problem.

just a question - how long have you been working?  For me, the answer is a long time so I have seen good bosses and terrible ones.  The bad ones always have one thing in common - micromanaging.  They are not talking about removing ALL oversight, just freeing business from micromanagement.  And that is basically doing away with a lot of regulations that accomplish nothing, except to stifle businesses from functioning.  Democrats are trying to make life into a rubber room - completely safe.  That is impossible.  Spending $1 to save a thousand lives is a good thing.  Spending a billion dollars to possibly save one life is not.  There is a saying in my field.  Nothing is fool proof because fools are so damn ingenious.  And the corollary - genius is limited, but stupidity is limitless.  There is no way to save every fool from harming themselves, even if money was limitless.

Ok, you got me on that.  Yes, that is clearly "unfair", but even more so, it is illegal.  And yes they are doing that.  But that is more for their own people as none of the can be sold over seas.

S&L - Late 80s.

Quoting yourself?   But I agree with you on Newt.  That does not mean he is all bad, but as I said at the beginning of the thread, he has gone too mainstream to be my first choice.

True - but it also means he is the one they want to campaign against.  Axelrod is saving his fraud for the general for him.

He's a lobbyist and political talking head. He may have a plan but it is a lousy plan. He is paid for spinning tales not telling the truth.

I'm not. I'm expecting the Bush era tax cuts to expire and not be renewed at some point in time.

Doesn't even come close to comparison in size and scope. However its a good case study because the republican party was and is against using the same types of solutions which were used to resolve that crisis. Not to mention the same type of deregulation helped cause this crisis as well.  You stepped in your own shit on this one. The sad thing is it is not a Rep vs. Dem thing. It is the influence of monied interests on politicians from both sides that led to the changes in regulations and lack of oversight that caused both of these crisis. You are so blinded by the propaganda that you can't see through it. And you want people to think you are an economist? Yea Right! LOL LOL

It is the crux of the problem not just something that will be helpful. Real Estate is the major asset used to start many small businesses and to use as collateral for other types of investments. A large percentage of the mortgages in this country right now are underwater.

Actually they are talking about getting rid of the regulations for the companies and industry lobbies that are paying for their campaigns.

The problem is he is all about monied influence in politics and that is what this country truly needs to get rid of.

Debate Night

Tonight at 8 p.m. ET, eight Republican presidential candidates will take the stage at Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C., to tell America where they stand on foreign policy and national security in a special debate hosted by The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, broadcast on CNN and moderated by Wolf Blitzer.

The debate marks the first time that either Heritage or AEI -- both nonprofit, nonpartisan research institutes -- has sponsored a presidential debate. Businessman Herman Cain, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Representatives Ron Paul (TX) and Michele Bachmann (MN), former Governor Jon Huntsman (UT), and former Senator Rick Santorum (PA) will square off, addressing an issue that should be central for these contenders for the White House: Which presidential candidate will best protect our nation and amplify American leadership, and how will they do it?

That question is vitally important for the eight candidates in the spotlight this evening. Ensuring our country's defense is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government, as set forth in the Constitution. And it is up to the President to take the lead in crafting American foreign policy while also serving as commander in chief of the armed forces.

Over the past weeks, Heritage has highlighted some of the central foreign policy and national security issues confronting America today: the threats to defense spending, a continually rising China, the war in Afghanistan and against terrorism, the failed attempt to "reset" relations with Russia, and the increasingly dangerous, hostile, and emboldened Iran. Each issue poses serious questions and choices for the man or woman who sits in the Oval Office.

This week in particular, defense spending has been in the headlines. Yesterday, the congressional "super committee" that was charged with developing a plan to reduce the federal deficit by more than $1.2 trillion announced its failure. As a result, funding for our military could be in jeopardy, with automatic cuts that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described as "devastating." President Obama has already slashed military spending, and Congress cannot solve the overspending problem by gutting defense. How the federal government funds our men and women in uniform is a vital issue that deserves attention.

That funding is necessary for America to adequately guard its interests at home and abroad. But spending is not the only issue. Building the right strategy is just as important to confront America's challenges abroad. China has increased its defense budget by double digits every year for the last 20 years, while the United States is winding down its defense budget at a similarly rapid pace. Terrorist threats continue to emerge, and the International Atomic Energy Agency recently released a report confirming that Iran has made substantial progress in its nuclear weapons program. Though Osama bin Laden is no more, the gains the United States has made in waging the war in Afghanistan could be squandered if we continue on our plotted course. Likewise, our current posture toward Russia has failed because we have expected more from the Russians than they are willing to give under any circumstance.

Tonight, the eight Republican presidential candidates will have an opportunity to address questions surrounding these issues and how they would conduct American foreign policy and national defense. Join us as we watch the debate tonight at 8 p.m ET. Learn more about the issues and read our post-debate reaction and analysis at our blog, Foundry.org. Follow our Twitter account (@heritage) for real-time updates about the debate and the issues. Throughout the day and during the debate, join the discussion on Facebook with our more than 388,000 fans. We want to hear from you and what you think.

The U.S. Constitution creates a government of the people to, among other things, "provide for the common defence." The Founding Fathers believed this to be one of the fundamental responsibilities of the federal government, and they agreed that when America was threatened, the nation had to respond clearly and forcefully. It follows that the President of the United States must play a central role in executing this responsibility. We hope that tonight the eight Republican presidential candidates address the serious question of how they would carry out that duty, and we invite you to join us in watching and discussing this important debate.

The Republican presidential debate will air nationally tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern Time on CNN and CNN en Español and worldwide on CNN International, CNN Radio, and CNN.com.

You said Romney was liberal on some social issues and I agree. I identified one of the social issues as Romney's beingsoft on homosexuality and advancing it in Massachusetts..something that would continue across this land if he were elected president.

So how is that bigotry and ignorance?

You're homophobic and a religious bigot Lulu. Just look at the definition of bigot and you may understand why you are being called one. It shows in many of your posts. You have little if any tolerance for others who do not share your religious views and think this country's law books should mirror your interpretation of the bible. I have no problem with someone believing that homosexuality is wrong. I understand why the Bible says it is, and understand why the bible says be fruitful and multiply, I do have a problem however with people trying to impose their religious views on society through law.  Unfortunately you always seem to skip the parts of the bible that teach tolerance. Romney is not pro homosexuality as you suggest. He simply does not try to impose his religious views through law.  He is tolerant of others who do not share his his religious views.

Stating things like this is what shows your ignorance. You seem to think the world is simply black and white. You have no concept of grey. There is no center to you . You seem to think even moderates must believe the exact opposite of what you believe or be out to get you. You don't understand the concept of tolerance nor do you understand discrimination.

Actually it is dead on.  The only difference is in the size of the individual institutions.  However, it hit the housing market hard (since S&Ls at the time were the primary lenders) and the total dollar value of losses was the same.  In 2008, we had a handful of banks go belly up (relatively speaking).  In 1989, we saw an industry fail.

The "solution" was to let them go belly up.  And the republicans were for it then (just not in 08).

I fail to see where I stepped in anything.  You asked for an example, and I am very familiar with that one.  Yes, deregulation played a part.  But the bigger player was the fact they had been propped up for a long time when in fact their usefulness was gone.  And that is solely a democrat policy (keeping those buggy whip manufacturers in business).  The deregulation was a desperate, and bad, attempt to give them a reason for existing.

I really do not care what you see me as.  I do not WANT you to see me as an economist.  I AM an economist.  If it suits your fancy to belittle my profession, that is your problem, not mine.  I am not blinded by any propaganda.  I do not think republicans are perfect, or democrats perfectly evil.  But the direction of each party, is what I look at.  I recognize and understand the warts on the former, and the lilies on the later - few as they are.  So what you think you know or think I think is immaterial.  And irrelevant.  Try sticking to what I say, and not what you want me to say.

And here is where you use a general statement that is patently false.  Because again, we are not talking all regulations, and the biggest recipient of those lobbyists is the current occupant of the white house.  in other words, as I have said before, there is big difference between big and small business.  Big business seeks power, period.  Small business seeks opportunities.  The latter is what is being killed by democrats with the regulations.  The former thrives on it.  And the former is where the vast majority of lobbyist come from.

You say many things about Lula, but you are reflecting yourself in this comment.  We have already seen where government has tried to stick its nose into religion after passing laws so they can do just that.  from the mandate that Catholic Hospitals perform abortions, to the desire of the Justice department to set rules of ministry in the Lutheran Synod.  Gays have all the rights of straights at this point, the only thing a new "law" would do would be to give the government more control over religion.

Unfortunately the size and effects of this crisis is much greater. Not to mention the way in which is has been handled is most likely going to cost the taxpayer far more. The losses are not the same. You can't figure out the total cost yet since we are still amidst the crisis. You initially posted that larger crisis were over in months however this one is already larger and the S&L crisis lasted far longer than just a few months. The housing market took over 5 years to correct itself back then. The Fed funds rate was higher back then when it started so the Fed had a lot more room to help ease the foreclosure rate. Not so today.

I was commenting on what the candidates were saying along the campaign trail not what I think of any particular party or those who are not involved in the current republican primary. When someone like Rick Perry for example says that the Energy Dept. should be dissolved and that the EPA should be totally reconfigured he is not talking about easing the red tape for small businesses.

I think both parties are evil. Unlike you I look at the individual not the direction of a party because the only direction either party goes in is the one that protects their own interests.

No you just added yourself to those who might see things as black and white. I don't agree with either extreme of the issue. I don't think doctors in catholic hospitals should be forced to perform abortions. But I also disagree with the extremist on the other end of the spectrum who want to redefine the viability of life through their own religious terms as opposed to medical capability.

I'm guessing that your opinion will be proven wrong as the court system rules on certain cases involving these issues. If you're talking about marriage. A marriage license is a civil contract not a religious decree. If you are talking about the extreme left's definition of hate speech as I said before I don't agree with them. Gays do not have the same rights as others. Maybe they do in your state and maybe in some other states, but certainly not in all 50.

Geez I almost missed this sweet piece of incorrect information. Solely a Democratic Policy? Who was the president who served from '81-89? And as far as the solution to the problem who was the president that followed? Keep stepping in your own shit please. You make it so very easy for me.

That article does not present the facts of the case. The case did not establish or alter any law. It found the states ban on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional and directed the states legislature to make the necessary changes within 180 days. Mitt Romney simply adhered to the decision handed down by the court. He then tried to get the states constitution amended in order to overturn the courts ruling but was dogged by the state legislature.  He next tried for a referendum to allow an amendment which would allow for civil unions as opposed to marriages and the state legislature voted it down.

As to Romney not adhering to the advice of the above stated letter....Why would he? I believe using the advice and direction of his states attorney generals office would be more appropriate don't you? DOH

As far as Robert Bork's comments I question whether they actually exist or whether this is something taken out of context. Why do I have doubts on this.....Because Bork endorsed Romney in 2007 and endorses him again for this election.

Do you do anything to sift through internet information to figure out what is fact and what is fiction? Or do you simply find something that you agree with and decide to present it as fact? There is a lot of crap on the internet and you seem to repost quite a bit of it. 

Because it is the right thing to do.

Massachusetts people were dealing with an aggressive force of men and women who want to change the moral structure of their state and ultimately the nation. There is no right to homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts Constitution which Romney had taken an oath to uphold. He preferred to do the wrong thing. 

Romney's instituting "Romneycare"  and facilitating homosexual "marriage" was abysmal and a show that he has no problem moving to the Left if he thinks it will help politically. 

Then I guess you do not believe in the rule of law. You are so afraid of some fictitious world dictatorship yet not only choose to live your own life under a dictatorship, but advocate that others do it as well. Ooh the hypocrisy!