U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-21-2014, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 14,223,537 times
Reputation: 7950

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael View Post
The election results are irrelevant in terms of your unwillingness to face the reality that the country was in (objectively) terrible shape on January 20th, 2009, and is in much better shape today. I have no need to blame Bush for the current conditions because they're such a vast improvement over his last days in office. I just acknowledge that he was an awful president and move on. On the other hand, I don't think I'll ever be able to support a political party that seriously disputes the country is better off today than it was in January '09. It evinces a level of delusion that shouldn't be trusted with political power.
Where did anyone say that we are not in better shape today than on Jan 20th 2009? Show us the quote. If you can't, then the delusion is on your part.

The crash of 2008 was the result of multiple factors. A big one was the 'implicit guarantee' that the federal government would bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which eventually did occur. This, along with the loosening of lending standards that was really put in place during the Clinton years, led to the housing bubble, which brought about an economic crash when it deflated.

The Bush administration actually tried to rein in Fannie Mae, but House Democrats resisted. They resisted the regulation and oversight that Bush's treas. sec'y John Snow wanted. The real problem here was that Fannie and House Dems wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to reap the rewards of the implicit guarantee, of having taxpayers on the hook for them, without regulation and oversight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-21-2014, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
18,977 posts, read 15,432,602 times
Reputation: 3946
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Where did anyone say that we are not in better shape today than on Jan 20th 2009? Show us the quote. If you can't, then the delusion is on your part.

The crash of 2008 was the result of multiple factors. A big one was the 'implicit guarantee' that the federal government would bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which eventually did occur. This, along with the loosening of lending standards that was really put in place during the Clinton years, led to the housing bubble, which brought about an economic crash when it deflated.

The Bush administration actually tried to rein in Fannie Mae, but House Democrats resisted. They resisted the regulation and oversight that Bush's treas. sec'y John Snow wanted. The real problem here was that Fannie and House Dems wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to reap the rewards of the implicit guarantee, of having taxpayers on the hook for them, without regulation and oversight.
Many loans that went bad were not backed by Fannie and Freddie.

The obscure loan programs really took off in 2003. States Income and asset loans. No income check loans. Option arm Neg Am loans. These products skyrocketed in 2003 2004 2005, etc and caused many of the problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 01:51 AM
 
Location: MPLS
752 posts, read 447,197 times
Reputation: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Where did anyone say that we are not in better shape today than on Jan 20th 2009? Show us the quote. If you can't, then the delusion is on your part.
Nodpete: "I will question the sanity of anybody that wants to be the next President and have to clean up the mess this present loser has created."

Obviously, this quote is difficult to square with the notion that Barack Obama has cleaned up many of the messes his predecessor left and the country is currently in better shape.

Quote:
The crash of 2008 was the result of multiple factors. A big one was the 'implicit guarantee' that the federal government would bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which eventually did occur. This, along with the loosening of lending standards that was really put in place during the Clinton years, led to the housing bubble, which brought about an economic crash when it deflated.
Naw -- Fannie and Freddie were tangential at best. What truly created the housing bubble was subprime loans and derivatives not backed by the GSEs. In other words, the free market exercising its freedom to make poor bets.

Quote:
The Bush administration actually tried to rein in Fannie Mae, but House Democrats resisted.
So, House Democrats thwarted the Bush Administration's desire for greater regulation (ha!) ... in 2007? A bit too late at that point, wouldn't you say?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 07:03 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 2,355,014 times
Reputation: 2729
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Wall Street has just come out with the Best and Worst Run States in America.

"This year, a number of the best-run states again benefit from an abundance of natural resources. North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, and Texas are among the top 10 best-run states, and in all four, the mining industry — which includes fossil fuel extraction — is a major contributor to state GDP. Due in large part to the mining sector, North Dakota and Wyoming led the nation in real GDP growth in 2013. And Alaska has utilized its oil wealth to build massive state reserves and to pay its residents an annual dividend. To determine how well each state is run, [b]24/7 Wall St. examined data from numerous sources. From the U.S. Census Bureau, we looked at each state’s finances for the 2012 fiscal year, including revenue, tax collection, pension funding, debt, and expenditure. In order to identify how each state’s economy was performing, we reviewed data on unemployment rates, exports, and GDP. We looked at poverty, educational attainment, violent crime rates, and foreclosures to assess social outcomes and residents’ well-being."

The Best and Worst Run States in America: A Survey of All 50 - 24/7 Wall St.

Seems like good criteria to me.

They deemed North Dakota the Best Run State with Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Utah, Alaska, Texas, Vermont and South Dakota rounding out the Top 10.

Meanwhile, the Worst Run State is Illinois followed by New Mexico, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Kentucky, Arizona, Georgia, New Jersey, Missouri and Alabama.

So my question to all of you is why don't we see more governor candidates for President in 2016 coming from The Best Run States Top 10? We do have Rick Perry there but what about the rest of them? Why isn't Wall Street money pushing the governors from those best-run states to run for President? And why is Chris Christie and Susana Martinez' names being touted when they are governors of the Worst Run States?

I don't even see the governor of North Dakota (Jack Dalrymple) on TV. Even if he has no aspirations to be President, shouldn't he be held up/touted by the Republican Party as an example of a successful Republican governor? Shouldn't we hear the praises for North Dakota?
The article quote itself places most of the credit with having a mining industry, rather than governorship. In general, governors don't deserve much credit for their state's performance, varying by state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 01:47 PM
 
Location: WY
5,200 posts, read 3,734,521 times
Reputation: 5862
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael;37728953[B
][/b]


So, House Democrats thwarted the Bush Administration's desire for greater regulation (ha!) ... in 2007? A bit too late at that point, wouldn't you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 07:59 PM
 
Location: MPLS
752 posts, read 447,197 times
Reputation: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by juneaubound View Post
I mean, the whole premise is wrong (Fox New? Shocking!) since if you review the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, you see that Fannie and Freddie only entered the subprime market just prior to the bubble's collapse. The reality is that the bubble was driven by private enterprises making bad bets of their own volition -- something your ideology evidently precludes you from accepting. Also, House Democrats assumed a majority in 2007, which, as I've noted, was too late to deflate the bubble, whatever Dubya's intent (would've entailed regulating private industries, so probably a no go).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 08:57 PM
 
Location: WY
5,200 posts, read 3,734,521 times
Reputation: 5862
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael View Post
I mean, the whole premise is wrong (Fox New? Shocking!) since if you review the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, you see that Fannie and Freddie only entered the subprime market just prior to the bubble's collapse. The reality is that the bubble was driven by private enterprises making bad bets of their own volition -- something your ideology evidently precludes you from accepting. Also, House Democrats assumed a majority in 2007, which, as I've noted, was too late to deflate the bubble, whatever Dubya's intent (would've entailed regulating private industries, so probably a no go).
1, You made a statement indicating that the Bush administration did not attempt to tighten regulations until 2007. My video proves your declarative statement to be incorrect. If you want to dismiss the source (Fox News) that's fine. But each of the clips in my link can be verified by more complete clips separate and apart from Fox.

2. Great, easy to understand video on how the financial crisis happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9YLta5Tr2A

3. The role Fannie and Freddie played in the crisis

4. You said that the Bush administration did not attempt to reign in regs until 2007. I provided video evidence to the contrary and without further comment. You don't know anything about my ideology, so quit running your mouth and sounding like a dumbass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 14,223,537 times
Reputation: 7950
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Where did anyone say that we are not in better shape today than on Jan 20th 2009? Show us the quote. If you can't, then the delusion is on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael View Post
Nodpete: "I will question the sanity of anybody that wants to be the next President and have to clean up the mess this present loser has created."

Again, where did anybody say that we are not in better shape today? 'Nodpete' (poster whom I have never heard of in 10,000+ posts) did not say it. Who said it? Admit it, the delusion was yours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2014, 11:24 PM
 
Location: WY
5,200 posts, read 3,734,521 times
Reputation: 5862
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Again, where did anybody say that we are not in better shape today? 'Nodpete' (poster whom I have never heard of in 10,000+ posts) did not say it. Who said it? Admit it, the delusion was yours.
Doesn't really matter what he wrote. The entire thread was about why more successful governors don't make a presidential run - not about Bush or even the financial crisis and eventual crash. Dude sure managed to derail the conversation for a while though, and at the end of the day that's the goal of some posters on this site.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2014, 05:36 AM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
5,802 posts, read 5,446,286 times
Reputation: 3113
There is no evidence whatsoever that the country is in better shape now than in 2009, starting with the unfolding disaster known as Obamacare, which cost millions of Americans their health insurance, and 25+ Senators their jobs, which was downright wonderful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top