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.
Actually, you are correct. I would still blame George Bush and the Republicans as they are the root causes of America's problems today. It may a take a generation or more to fix all the damage Bush and the Republicans caused America. It's not deflecting from Obama's record, it's pointing attention to the root cause of the problems.
.....hypothetically if Romney got into office and the economy turned around would you blame Obama or would you say that his policies finally worked?
As I have written elsewhere, one reason I enjoyed listening to Rush during the Bush years was that Rush always claimed that any bad economic news was due to Clinton.
Then, in November of 2008, after Mr. Obama won the election, Rush made the rather astounding claim that the economy (then in freefall) was actually Obama's, arguing that it became Obama's when he accepted the Democratic nomination in Denver the previous summer (hence, Rush was unknowingly implying that Senator McCain's chances of being elected, back in June 2008, was considered nonexistent by the business community, and so the economy started its tailspin). According to Rush, Mr. Bush never was responsible for the economy.
Anyway, I consider the economy President Obama's now. Three years is long enough.
Say, for those of you who fervently believe that Mr. Romney shall prevail this November, does that mean that the current economy is his?
I agree the recession was caused by the real estate bubble but I think you'll find it difficult to link Bush to the "Great Recession." Most economists agree that mortgage backed securities and questionable lending practices were to blame. That being said, Clinton with bi-partisan support lead the repeal of Glass-Steagall which was a depression era tool used esentially to break up "too big to fail." This also prevented mortgage and commerical entities from bonding together and speculating junk bonds and placing wagers on mutant packaged mortgage backed securities.
Now...all that is dandy until you have people defaulting on their mortgages left right and center. Insert the second primary cause....the "ramp up" of the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA maintained that banks engaged in discriminatory lending practices by redlining certain communities. This law was fairly innocuous at it's inception under Carter but Clinton felt it was an injustice therefore he put some gasoline in the bill and made it so that banks couldn't redline effectively thus esentially making it illegal to not lend in these areas. So...combine the two...we have repealed the regulatory framework that prevented speculation and a bill that requires (almost mandates) bad loans. While I agree Bush was an idiot and borderline Keynesian towards the end of his tenure...Bill Clinton's policies were the chief causes of one of the worst recessions since the 30's. Yet he rides the golden train of the dot com bubble under the guise of effecively managing the economy.
Believe me...I do some contract work with the OCC and you should have SEEN the loans under CRA........laughable.
I agree that the housing bubble caused it, and it was not Bush's fault alone. However, GOP initiatives, from the repeal fo Glass-Steagall (pushed by the GOP's Gramm and signed by Clinton), the maintenance of low interest rates by Greenspan and an unwillingness to acknowledge a bubble was exploding, lack of regulatory oversight by Bush appointees throughout the 2000s (like the idiots screwing on oil rigs in the gulf), the Bush tax cuts (while launching two wars!!!) which exploded liquidity in the financial class and led to a culture of "easy money." all led up to it. Of course, the "ownership society" ideas. as if putting poor people in houses they could not afford was good governance, were bipartisan. And of course, the scumbags who originated loans they knew were garbage and sold them up the food chain were criminals (and I am guessing about 99% republicans). And of course, every day citizens who turned into house flippers in new developments of AZ, NV, and FL, were of course unethical too. The last group were bipartisan sleazeballs.
The main point for this discussion about Obama is that this was all a big friggin deal, and there is no way on God's green earth it could have been reversed in a year or two. I am still underwater on a house I bought in 2003! And I did not screw around the second mortgages,etc. The middle class has been utterly hammered by this meltdown, and there is not enough money in the treasury to bail us all out. The stock market has almost completely recovered, which helps, but until housing reaches at least 2004 prices, many, many people will be screwed. And the people who were hurt most of all were guys in the building trades to lost work completel, for years. Obama tried to get infrastructure projects going to employ exactly those type guys and build resources for future generations in the process. The GOP opposed those, for one reason only, they knew that such efforts would be effective. They have proven that they want Obama to lose more than they want America to win. Screw the d-bags.
I agree that the housing bubble caused it, and it was not Bush's fault alone. However, GOP initiatives, from the repeal fo Glass-Steagall (pushed by the GOP's Gramm and signed by Clinton), the maintenance of low interest rates by Greenspan and an unwillingness to acknowledge a bubble was exploding, lack of regulatory oversight by Bush appointees throughout the 2000s (like the idiots screwing on oil rigs in the gulf), the Bush tax cuts (while launching two wars!!!) which exploded liquidity in the financial class and led to a culture of "easy money." all led up to it. Of course, the "ownership society" ideas. as if putting poor people in houses they could not afford was good governance, were bipartisan. And of course, the scumbags who originated loans they knew were garbage and sold them up the food chain were criminals (and I am guessing about 99% republicans). And of course, every day citizens who turned into house flippers in new developments of AZ, NV, and FL, were of course unethical too. The last group were bipartisan sleazeballs.
The main point for this discussion about Obama is that this was all a big friggin deal, and there is no way on God's green earth it could have been reversed in a year or two. I am still underwater on a house I bought in 2003! And I did not screw around the second mortgages,etc. The middle class has been utterly hammered by this meltdown, and there is not enough money in the treasury to bail us all out. The stock market has almost completely recovered, which helps, but until housing reaches at least 2004 prices, many, many people will be screwed. And the people who were hurt most of all were guys in the building trades to lost work completel, for years. Obama tried to get infrastructure projects going to employ exactly those type guys and build resources for future generations in the process. The GOP opposed those, for one reason only, they knew that such efforts would be effective. They have proven that they want Obama to lose more than they want America to win. Screw the d-bags.
I'm happy to see somenone (anyone!) on what appears to be the left say "it wasn't bush's fault alone!" I feel like this a big moment. BUT...that being said I personally disliked GWB as President and I am very much on the right. He campaigned on a policy of deregulation and low taxes/low spending yet he spend more than any of us could have imagined. The Bush Tax Cuts were a success of his presidency in my opinion, but the only way their benefits can be realized is spending is cut to match...which he seem to have a reluctancy to do on both sides of the political spectrum.
And as I mentioned...I worked in the OCC for some time and I can tell you that most of the loan officers and mortgage bankers I knew were NOT fans of CRA because they knew the liability for the bank. It does not benefit the bank to lend to someone that won't pay...banks are only profitable in instances where mortgages are being satisfied...not defaults. Clinton pushed the CRA very very hard...yet we hear no one blaming him for it. That'll be the day...
As for Obama...by his own admission his presidency would be a "one term proposal" if he couldn't manage the downturn. Both Bush and Obama have leaned toward Keynesianism to mend the economy and these policies, as exemplified by our European counterparts have been ineffective. And this ties in with Obama's infrastructure projects. The primary reason the republicans have opposed them is that they aren't a long term solution. Infrastructure projects are needed but they don't fix the real issue of the economy. Infrastructure investments put people to work in the short term and pad unemployment figures a little but ultimately they are short term jobs. It's like giving someone with a malignant brain tumor an excedrin....it may make them feel better in the short term but it doesn't address the problem. The real problem in all of this is a mixture of our entitlement system and its expansion and our decrease in revenues primarily from the Bush Tax Cuts. Now....this is where individual philosophy comes into play. We don't have the revenue to pay for everything for everyone without SUBSTANTIAL tax increases....Scandanavian style increases. Greece defaulted because it couldnt' handle it's public sector pensions and legacy costs...Spain and Portugal have essentially defaulted for the same thing. Both have a VERY LARGE entitlement structure and insufficient revenue's to support it...as do we. So Bernanke/Obama's solution is to either raise taxes or print more money to "bolster" growth yet it does nothing to free up credit or address people's credit problems. Individual ingenuity is the growth engine of the economy...not building a highway. As long as our policy emphasises the "government can help you do everything" mentality we won't grow outside of what we can print. We will continue to have short term solutions.
Three things we can do to fix our economy are as follows:
-Start mitigating Social Security outlays and work to eventually phase it out. (It was meant by FDR to be temporary in the first place). With our 401k and retirement structure now we just don't need it. It should be privatized. Tell me which would you rather do.....defer your taxes towards a private account for you or into a pot that may or may not be there? By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget, with 20.8% for Social Security, compared to 20.5% for discretionary defense and 20.1% for Medicare/Medicaid.In 2003 the combined spending for all social insurance programs constituted 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the GDP. THAT IS SUBSTANTIAL! A hell of a lot more of a problem than bush cutting taxes.
-Make our corporate tax rate competitive with other OECD nations to spur foreign investment. We are 35% now...second highest in the world behind Japan. FYI----Sweden (literally socialists) just cut theirs to 24%
-Cap federal spending to it's traditional level of 20% of GDP and NEVER let it go above it.
These things will substantially lower our entitlement costs, encourgage foreign investment, provide more jobs, and minimize the scope of the federal government.
Last edited by wnewberry22; 09-19-2012 at 10:18 AM..
I'm happy to see somenone (anyone!) on what appears to be the left say "it wasn't bush's fault alone!" I feel like this a big moment. BUT...that being said I personally disliked GWB as President and I am very much on the right. He campaigned on a policy of deregulation and low taxes/low spending yet he spend more than any of us could have imagined. The Bush Tax Cuts were a success of his presidency in my opinion, but the only way their benefits can be realized is spending is cut to match...which he seem to have a reluctancy to do on both sides of the political spectrum.
And as I mentioned...I worked in the OCC for some time and I can tell you that most of the loan officers and mortgage bankers I knew were NOT fans of CRA because they knew the liability for the bank. It does not benefit the bank to lend to someone that won't pay...banks are only profitable in instances where mortgages are being satisfied...not defaults. Clinton pushed the CRA very very hard...yet we hear no one blaming him for it. That'll be the day...
As for Obama...by his own admission his presidency would be a "one term proposal" if he couldn't manage the downturn. Both Bush and Obama have leaned toward Keynesianism to mend the economy and these policies, as exemplified by our European counterparts have been ineffective. And this ties in with Obama's infrastructure projects. The primary reason the republicans have opposed them is that they aren't a long term solution. Infrastructure projects are needed but they don't fix the real issue of the economy. Infrastructure investments put people to work in the short term and pad unemployment figures a little but ultimately they are short term jobs. It's like giving someone with a malignant brain tumor an excedrin....it may make them feel better in the short term but it doesn't address the problem. The real problem in all of this is a mixture of our entitlement system and its expansion and our decrease in revenues primarily from the Bush Tax Cuts. Now....this is where individual philosophy comes into play. We don't have the revenue to pay for everything for everyone without SUBSTANTIAL tax increases....Scandanavian style increases. Greece defaulted because it couldnt' handle it's public sector pensions and legacy costs...Spain and Portugal have essentially defaulted for the same thing. Both have a VERY LARGE entitlement structure and insufficient revenue's to support it...as do we. So Bernanke/Obama's solution is to either raise taxes or print more money to "bolster" growth yet it does nothing to free up credit or address people's credit problems. Individual ingenuity is the growth engine of the economy...not building a highway. As long as our policy emphasises the "government can help you do everything" mentality we won't grow outside of what we can print. We will continue to have short term solutions.
Three things we can do to fix our economy are as follows:
-Start mitigating Social Security outlays and work to eventually phase it out. (It was meant by FDR to be temporary in the first place). With our 401k and retirement structure now we just don't need it.
-Make our corporate tax rate competitive with other OECD nations to spur foreign investment. We are 35% now...second highest in the world behind Japan. FYI----Sweden (literally socialists) just cut theirs to 24%
-Cap federal spending to it's traditional level of 20% of GDP and NEVER let it go above it.
These things will substantially lower our entitlement costs, encourgage foreign investment, provide more jobs, and minimize the scope of the federal government.
These are some good ideas, in moderation. But they ask the common person to pay the prices for tax cuts and globalization, which have both favored the wealthy tremendously. I think we definitely need a more aggressively progressive tax structure and stronger investments in the middle class. You don't like it, move to Mexico. You can live like a king. The changes over the last two decades have massively favored the wealthiest and pulled many former middle class people into the working poor, or unemployed dependents. The private sector will always aggressively pursue profit for the top 10%. They have never sought to advance the standing of the worker unless their back is against the wall. With globalization, they don't need to deal, they can just kick the worker to the curb and outsource. But the fate of the country depends more on the worker than the wealthiest at this point in history. And the latter now own the media and the government and are on a crusade to attack the last bastions of livable wage jobs-government jobs and unionized jobs. You see, if we kill those, even more profit! But that greed first mentality is destroying the country. To have a great country we must invest in the people! Now, a moderate conservative would be able to see that living in a place with a few wealthy and a bunch of peasants (Mexico) is not the America we built together, but they are not in charge. The GOP is a big bullhorn for the corporate class, which cooks a tsunami of lies and spins for their own gain, aided by a lot of low information voters. The Dems are the only group that put forward ideas for all Americans, and are willing to raise our own taxes, and invest in our common future. We have a more holistic view of the future, where corporate dominance is just one of many paths to a great civilization.
These are some good ideas, in moderation. But they ask the common person to pay the prices for tax cuts and globalization, which have both favored the wealthy tremendously. I think we definitely need a more aggressively progressive tax structure and stronger investments in the middle class. You don't like it, move to Mexico. You can live like a king. The changes over the last two decades have massively favored the wealthiest and pulled many former middle class people into the working poor, or unemployed dependents. The private sector will always aggressively pursue profit for the top 10%. They have never sought to advance the standing of the worker unless their back is against the wall. With globalization, they don't need to deal, they can just kick the worker to the curb and outsource. But the fate of the country depends more on the worker than the wealthiest at this point in history. And the latter now own the media and the government and are on a crusade to attack the last bastions of livable wage jobs-government jobs and unionized jobs. You see, if we kill those, even more profit! But that greed first mentality is destroying the country. To have a great country we must invest in the people! Now, a moderate conservative would be able to see that living in a place with a few wealthy and a bunch of peasants (Mexico) is not the America we built together, but they are not in charge. The GOP is a big bullhorn for the corporate class, which cooks a tsunami of lies and spins for their own gain, aided by a lot of low information voters. The Dems are the only group that put forward ideas for all Americans, and are willing to raise our own taxes, and invest in our common future. We have a more holistic view of the future, where corporate dominance is just one of many paths to a great civilization.
I'm going to guess you are a big fan of Paul Krugman, aren't you. You see both the GOP and the Democrats operate in the same exact manner. The GOP has the wealthy corporate class throwing their weight around to buy votes and the Democrats have the entitlement class. The primary difference is who's money is buying votes. The GOP uses money from corporate donors to buy votes...the Democrats uses tax dollars in the form of a dependent mass. Have you ever read 1984 by George Orwell...If not you should. The Democratic Party has focused their message on dividing class and redistributing hard earned money under the guise of "altrusim." And people like you eat it up because the big bad corporations are only out for themselves. Do you believe that Democrats TRULY care about you or society as a whole? NO....they don't. They are just like Republicans. They care about power and votes. Do you think that Obama is immune to low information votes? Watch the youtube clip from Bill Maher entitled Obama voters 201213.
What I enjoy most about your post is the Mexico remarks. These are the most telling about what you truly know about global econ. I noticed you didn't reference Chile or Uruguay. It's easy to cherry pick the most corrupt country and claim it exemplifies your opponents case. But for every Mexico you have I have a Chile, an Estonia, a Switzerland, a Latvia, a Lithuania, a Luxembourg, a Liechtenstein, a Poland, and the list goes on. Would you like to know what these countries have in common? Very low regulation, a flat or low income tax, a VERY low corporate tax rate. Guess what...the median income is getting higher in all these countries because the culture is not that of a dependency culture. Thats the problem in this country...entitlement mentality and the Democrats stand to benefit most from it. LBJ knew it when he quoted that if the if the great society is passed that black people would vote for democrats for the next 200 years....and he was right. But again...countries that truly espouse the ideology I believe are successful. What about yours? Who do you have? Greece? Italy? Spain? Portugal? Ireland? The UK? France? All have overwhelming entitlement structures that they are stuggling to manage....and the only prescription they can find is an increase in tax rates (70% on the wealthiest in France) to austerity in the others. EVEN SWEDEN IS STARTING TO PRIVATIZE AND CUT CORPORATE TAX RATES!!! SWEDEN FOR GODS SAKES! THE ONCE COMMIE UTOPIA IS EVEN GETTING THE PICTURE. When will you Obama/Krugman acolytes??? My guess is not too soon.
Your rant shows that you take your talking points almost exclusively from left wing politik. You realize your bold typeface statement basically says that in order to succeed we need government help, right? Is that what you believe? I agree that we do need a basic safety net for the poor but what you are espousing isn't that...it's western european politics and that has been a smashing success. All the Republicans have done is deregulate business from cumbersome bills that do nothing but drive up product cost in order to meet compliance costs, cut taxes on everyone, and make investing more lucrative for those by minimzing capital gains taxes. What do you think is bad about that? The problem is that income inequality rises because the amount to be redistributed is less. However these people have literally the same opportunity I had or you had/have. And our course a tax cut benefits a wealthy person more...they make more. This is the dumbest arguement I've ever heard from the left. A 10% tax cut on a million dollar income is more substantial than a 10% income on a 100000 dollar income or a 50000 dollar income. The percentages correlate to to the same amount of their take home...10%. From an economic standpoint this arguement makes absolutely no sense. The only way it could is that poor people are less likely to have any capital gains to speak of....but that isn't the fault of the wealthy.
And if YOU have problems with the course of the country...Canada is just next door.
Last edited by wnewberry22; 09-19-2012 at 11:10 AM..
So....I'm guessing the answer to this thread is that it will never be Obama's economy.
Well...my recommendation to the DNC is that in 2016 they just add Blame Bush when all fails to the DNC national platform. This way it saves them from taking any responsibility...it's a win win!
It's a good thing I like Greek food because thats where we are heading....Love me some soverign debt crisis with light feta.
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.
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.
