Wow. In your world artificially low interest rates and subprime mortgages were allowed due to "overregulation"?
The "lending out more money" wasn't Obama's idea. BTW - actually going into debt to pull out of a recession is actually a quite common practice... but I'm sure you will never, ever vote for Harper and the Conservatives based on their deficit spending during this recession, eh?
And you firmly believe that the market would have corrected itself? I think there are plenty of economic experts that would disagree with you. But even if you are correct, the bailouts where put in place by George W. Bush.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, wasn't Harper's spending quite modest in comparision to the States? It seemed to be more directed as easing the pain than turning the economy. Also, I don't think Harper's government would have survived if he did any less. The pressure from the other parties was intense. Sure he could have kept to his principles but, the end result would have been a change of government and greater deficit spending.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, wasn't Harper's spending quite modest in comparision to the States? It seemed to be more directed as easing the pain than turning the economy. Also, I don't think Harper's government would have survived if he did any less. The pressure from the other parties was intense. Sure he could have kept to his principles but, the end result would have been a change of government and greater deficit spending.
I think I remember it that way as well. PM Harper was getting a lot of heat to start throwing some money around.
But what happened in Canada is not the same as the US obviously.
Nope, No matter what happens Obama's government can't fall.
With Harper he was put into a position of spending stimulus money that he didn't want to spend because there was the threat of his government falling over it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
- artificially low interest rates (as low as 1% so when you take inflation into account they are actually negative!)
- Clinton's government policy of a free lunch (subprime mortgages to people who couldn't afford them because hey we're liberal we'll give everyone a house even if we have to bankrupt the country in the process!)
- belief that we can live off newly created fiat money and every time the bubble is about to burst we need to further inflate it by lending out more money
- inability to comprehend what happened - malinvestment, refusal to let the market correct itself and subsequent worsening of the problem (bailouts, moral hazard etc)
But yeah keep thinking thats it's just "my world"
Of course lending standards played a role. But if you really think that deregulation of credit markets didn't play a role in the eventual widespread financial collapse, you're not looking at the whole situation. There was literally no regulatory scrutiny after 2000 (Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000). I'm not going to waste time discussing about which party/President is more to blame. The political structure was at the hands of Greenspan and the rest of the FED. Both Presidents Clinton and Bush were misguided on the dangers of the FEDs actions during those years.
- Clinton's government policy of a free lunch (subprime mortgages to people who couldn't afford them because hey we're liberal we'll give everyone a house even if we have to bankrupt the country in the process!)
Don't know if it is Clinton's policy necessarily, but I do agree that allowing upper class white families to have one or more loans that they couldn't handle was a big cause of the real estate bubble.
The Democrats have paid the wages of Obama's spin. Independents and moderate Republicans who voted for Obama learned that they had been sold a counterfeit. Now the greater portion of Americans will not care what Obama says until they believe that he is genuine. Obama can no longer persuade the American people, because he has lost the President's most valuable commodity: credibility.
Nicholas Kristof wrote recently that Obama should turn from the "prose" of governing to the "poetry" of campaigning on behalf of his accomplishments. With a "better product to sell" than the opposition, he should improve his "salesmanship" by demonstrating his emotional engagement with the issues. He should "start sweating -- and slugging" at the bully pulpit.
Conservatives should hope that Obama follows this advice, since it would deepen the disaster. Obama doesn't need any more Greek columns, no Vero Possumus seal, no Abraham Lincoln paraphernalia. No bit lip, no false tears, no sweating or anything that is not true to who he is. Obama's actions in the Presidency have not matched the costume he wore in the campaign. Americans will not trust him, will not believe him, will not be persuaded by him, until they believe he's no longer performing.
Obama doesn't need more theatrics. He needs to show America he's not an actor.
Nope, No matter what happens Obama's government can't fall.
With Harper he was put into a position of spending stimulus money that he didn't want to spend because there was the threat of his government falling over it.
I always thought that was more of a Carter creation then anything else.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Of course lending standards played a role. But if you really think that deregulation of credit markets didn't play a role in the eventual widespread financial collapse, you're not looking at the whole situation. There was literally no regulatory scrutiny after 2000 (Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000). I'm not going to waste time discussing about which party/President is more to blame. The political structure was at the hands of Greenspan and the rest of the FED. Both Presidents Clinton and Bush were misguided on the dangers of the FEDs actions during those years.
Bush and Clinton had a relatively strong economy while they were in office. Washington doesn't change things when everything is running fine.
But yes, you absolutely have a point. I just think it goes back further. All the way to Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act.
And then some blatant lying by people like Franks made it worse.
Quote:
Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.
Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.
During the week of September 14, 2008, the Speaker of the House was asked whether “Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street.” Her one-word answer: “No.” We’re not sure what’s more discomfiting here: If Madame Speaker truly believed that Democrats played no role in this—despite the congressional record, the news clips, the torrent of cash from financial-industry lobbyists, and what Bill Clinton himself called the Democrats’ resistance to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—then she was either curiously unengaged or woefully misinformed. But if Ms. Pelosi was merely being disingenuous—aware that both parties were culpable, yet so caught up in partisanship that she was unwilling to even entertain the possibility that some of the Democrats’ most compassionate legislation may have had unintended consequences—this represents an equally dispiriting alternative. Looking forward, neither explanation augers well for any of us.
^ So Pelosi is an idiot because she was behaving like a...wait for it...politician?
Show me one politician on either side of the aisle that hasn't shirked their own culpability or layed blame where it didn't necessarily belong? And yet, you've chosen to call out Pelosi specifically, for something that all politicians, generally do on a regular basis?
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
Not exactly the person you want in charge of the Democrats going forward.
You'll have to do better than that. I agree that it's something she should be criticized for, but you'll have to do better than find one instance where a politician was disingenuous. You're heavily criticizing the person in Democratic leadership who actually did her job and passed progressive reform she promised. Pelosi delivered so it's truly odd that you are so against someone, who ran on a certain platform, worked and succeeded in passing her platform, and the platform was reasonable. Yet, Nancy Pelosi is the scourge of American Politics.
It's funny that you support the Blue dogs, as if they weren't more culpable and more corrupt than Pelosi. Your view of the a reasonable middle in American congress making non-partisan stands doesn't exist. They don't have a platform, and they work to undermine reasonable legislation to maintain their corporate support.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
^ So Pelosi is an idiot because she was behaving like a...wait for it...politician?
Show me one politician on either side of the aisle that hasn't shirked their own culpability or layed blame where it didn't necessarily belong? And yet, you've chosen to call out Pelosi specifically, for something that all politicians, generally do on a regular basis?
Obama and that's why progressives are so fed up with him. So many think he's operating in a fantasyland where if he's fair, the other side will be fair too.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
^ So Pelosi is an idiot because she was behaving like a...wait for it...politician?
Show me one politician on either side of the aisle that hasn't shirked their own culpability or layed blame where it didn't necessarily belong? And yet, you've chosen to call out Pelosi specifically, for something that all politicians, generally do on a regular basis?
No she's an idiot for arrogantly trying to act like the Democratic Party are not to blame for many of the problems the US faces, or has faced. Sure, it absolutely does make her a politician, just like all other politicians, but as leader of the Democratic Party she needs to be held accountable.
Technically the Dems have been in power since they took over Congress in 2006. What has happened since then that has been good?
That's a fallacy. The president retained the hammer called veto and was not afraid to use it. The Democrats were only able to affect change once the presidency was wrestled from control of the Republicans.
What hurt Democrats this election was that Obama was not liberal enough. He disenfranchised his base and they stayed away from the polls in droves. Nate Silver did another fine job explaining it and hitting projections out of the park. As well, young voters stayed away from the polls, they key demographic that took Obama to office.
If you don't think that the problem was liberal displeasure, look at the Democrats that got ousted. The vast majority of them were blue dog Democrats. The liberal Democrats retained their seats while the conservative Democrats lost theirs. If it were a backlash at liberalism you would have seen the liberal Democrats crushed, which they were not.
No she's an idiot for arrogantly trying to act like the Democratic Party are not to blame for many of the problems the US faces, or has faced. Sure, it absolutely does make her a politician, just like all other politicians, but as leader of the Democratic Party she needs to be held accountable.
I'll buy that if it's also true of George W. Bush, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell or any of the upcoming Republican presidential candidates.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
I'll buy that if it's also true of George W. Bush, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell or any of the upcoming Republican presidential candidates.
Those are recent 'faces' of the Republican Party. Keep going back until you hit the Carter Administration. Every single Republican 'leader', including Reagan has ignored the problems for a variety of reasons.
And they have had more than ample opportunity to change them.
That's a fallacy. The president retained the hammer called veto and was not afraid to use it. The Democrats were only able to affect change once the presidency was wrestled from control of the Republicans.
What hurt Democrats this election was that Obama was not liberal enough. He disenfranchised his base and they stayed away from the polls in droves. Nate Silver did another fine job explaining it and hitting projections out of the park. As well, young voters stayed away from the polls, they key demographic that took Obama to office.
If you don't think that the problem was liberal displeasure, look at the Democrats that got ousted. The vast majority of them were blue dog Democrats. The liberal Democrats retained their seats while the conservative Democrats lost theirs. If it were a backlash at liberalism you would have seen the liberal Democrats crushed, which they were not.
Actually, I think it has nothing to do with 'liberal', 'conservative'...or political leanings. I think it has to do with sheer frustration by the American people for a variety of reasons, i.e. economy, jobs, deficit, debt, etc,etc, and them still being naive enough to believe that voting a bunch of candidates out, and replacing them with what were largely morons will actually accomplish something.
Don't get me wrong, I think a Republican house with Obama as President will actually be effective, but I also think both parties lack people with the vision to actually sit down and start fixing these problems. One party screams more government regulation, and 'more fed, more fed'...while the other screams less government regulation, and 'less fed, less fed.'
IMO, the whole bailout was just a corrupt scheme by Wall Street and a bunch of politicians to steal all the money they could and run off with it.
Those are recent 'faces' of the Republican Party. Keep going back until you hit the Carter Administration. Every single Republican 'leader', including Reagan has ignored the problems for a variety of reasons.
And they have had more than ample opportunity to change them.
I think we agree on that. So why is Pelosi to be labelled an 'idiot' whereby all others are excluded?
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
