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.
Fannie mae and freddie mac (ran by Democrats) are mainly responsible for the recession, and those decisions were done under Clinton's administration.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not even the problem but a subset of it. It was only a part of the problem relating to home loans in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
You seem to make up conclusions and then adjust the "facts" to fit perfectly. That takes some doing.
Again, I was there.....in business...and in politics (wife held office) and very involved in investment and real estate. I watched all of this.
Beside the TRILLIONS wasted in War (debt helps create bad economies!), the really simple explanation for the crashing of the economy (which started much earlier with Enron and Dynergy, etc....all friends of Bush) was the same "hands-off" and "they can police themselves" policies which we see Trump embracing.
When you let the foxes watch the chickens, they eat every last one....every time.
Many books have been written about the situation...from many angles...but basically it was the Republican Mantra of "hands off" and total Greed is Good that resulted in the Great Recession.
No single item caused or created it. It took a Village of Idiots who were led by the Idiot in Chief.
Yep people forget that that Reagnomics caused H.W. Bush to break his "No new taxes" campaign promise. How you might ask, the Savings and Loans (SNL) crisis that happened during the mid-1980's in the middle of Reagan deregulation. We saw the fox raid the henhouse when put in charge and yet we did it again and again. What is worse with Trump is he don't realize how tariffs work at all and how effective they will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
(1) Stock buybacks skyrocketed in 2010 and have continued to grow it is only until recently under Trump that some in the Democratic Party want to outlaw them, even though it zoomed the last 7 years under Obama.
$3.5 Trillion in stock buybacks have helped spur a rise in stock prices without the companies having to actually make more profit. Why would CEOs do this? A lot of executive compensation to get tax breaks for the company, must be tied to objectifiable performance like stock prices. This is a Bill Clinton law that has led to an excess in executive pay.
(2) A study suggests that 93% of the gains in the stock market from the bottom was caused by....QE. Also the artificially low interest rates mean many people can't get returns from bonds so do what? Look for investments with bigger returns like...stocks.
I can find you a link that I have posted if you want. That shows that every time a new round of QE would start the stock market was leveling off and then....boom! Up again!
(3) I see Obama as a run of the mill kick the can down the road leader.
For example... His Systemically Important Financial Institutions isn't much different than Too Big To Fail.
He opposes Trickle Down Economics in no qualified terms, then keeps making QE picks for the Fed, of which QE is a variation of Trickle Down.
GM had a problem so he threw mountains of cash at it in a variety of ways from multiple angles and didn't force GM to make serious systemic changes so that they can ask for more bailouts in the future...etc...and there is so much cash coming from different sources, GM can even pass off a lie that they paid everything back. Tax breaks left and right, money, subsidies for certain programs, cash for clunkers, etc...
Hates income inequality yet admits that it is the rich that gained under him. Admits 95% of income gains to the top 1%.
Don't get me wrong, GWB, Bill Clinton, Reagan, etc...all did things to kick the can down the road too and now Trump is as well at least in many areas if not trade issues.
Here is the problem with complaining about the bail out for GM. Chrysler was sold to Fiat so that seemingly was undone. GM still had a good number of US plants. It would be a killer to the economy which already hurting. I mean look at the whole shutdown of a plant to change its production line. Thousands of workers laid off. If GM had several, that would be thousands if not tens of thousands additional unemployed workers. Had Fiat not bought Chrysler (which was in shambles after the Daimler Benz split earlier that decade) we would see even more as the government owned the struggling Chrysler.
GM had a problem that Chrysler had in the 1990's, SUVs and vans fought for the same market that previously bought sedans and wagons and there was less brand loyalty. There was a time when you would only buy Pontiacs despite Chevrolets being fairly similar minus whatever happened. However, by the 2000's, people started to realize that brands are interchangeable and you could switch from Pontiac to Chevrolet or even to Honda, Huynadi, etc. GM had to end failing brands like Hummer, Saturn and Pontiac similar to what they did by that point with Oldsmobile.
Also GM haven't been the first to have a loan from the U.S. government. Lea Iaccoca got one for Chrysler in the 1970's. Like GM would do in the 2010's off their loan, they thrived on it and were able to pay it back. That said, Iaccoca wasn't (as widely) vilified for his loan yet Rick Wagoner was.
I will not gonna say that Obama, W. Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush and Reagan were not without fault, but in a few cases (namely Obama and H.W. Bush) had hard decisions to make. H.W. Bush had to deal with the SNL crisis that stemed from Reaganomics and deregulation in Savings and Loans. Obama had the bailout and recovery which was started off of W. Bush (banking bailouts started under Bush mind you.) FYI Bush made the initial emergency bailout, Obama made the official one a few months later.
Here is the problem with complaining about the bail out for GM. Chrysler was sold to Fiat so that seemingly was undone. GM still had a good number of US plants. It would be a killer to the economy which already hurting. I mean look at the whole shutdown of a plant to change its production line. Thousands of workers laid off. If GM had several, that would be thousands if not tens of thousands additional unemployed workers. Had Fiat not bought Chrysler (which was in shambles after the Daimler Benz split earlier that decade) we would see even more as the government owned the struggling Chrysler.
GM had a problem that Chrysler had in the 1990's, SUVs and vans fought for the same market that previously bought sedans and wagons and there was less brand loyalty. There was a time when you would only buy Pontiacs despite Chevrolets being fairly similar minus whatever happened. However, by the 2000's, people started to realize that brands are interchangeable and you could switch from Pontiac to Chevrolet or even to Honda, Huynadi, etc. GM had to end failing brands like Hummer, Saturn and Pontiac similar to what they did by that point with Oldsmobile.
Also GM haven't been the first to have a loan from the U.S. government. Lea Iaccoca got one for Chrysler in the 1970's. Like GM would do in the 2010's off their loan, they thrived on it and were able to pay it back. That said, Iaccoca wasn't (as widely) vilified for his loan yet Rick Wagoner was.
I will not gonna say that Obama, W. Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush and Reagan were not without fault, but in a few cases (namely Obama and H.W. Bush) had hard decisions to make. H.W. Bush had to deal with the SNL crisis that stemed from Reaganomics and deregulation in Savings and Loans. Obama had the bailout and recovery which was started off of W. Bush (banking bailouts started under Bush mind you.) FYI Bush made the initial emergency bailout, Obama made the official one a few months later.
If you were going to throw out mountains of money at GM and do so in a way that was deceptive to the public and to fool the public into think that GM paid back all their money....then you could have forced GM to make systemic changes. Even the new CEO of GM stated that they weren't forced to make significant changes as they weren't forced into a normal bankruptcy, but a special bankruptcy.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not even the problem but a subset of it. It was only a part of the problem relating to home loans in general.
I will not gonna say that Obama, W. Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush and Reagan were not without fault, but in a few cases (namely Obama and H.W. Bush) had hard decisions to make. H.W. Bush had to deal with the SNL crisis that stemed from Reaganomics and deregulation in Savings and Loans. Obama had the bailout and recovery which was started off of W. Bush (banking bailouts started under Bush mind you.) FYI Bush made the initial emergency bailout, Obama made the official one a few months later.
My guess is that most people here don't know about the S&L Crisis (or don't know much) and also don't know about the "Barbarians at the Gate" economy which Reagan promoted (mergers, offshoring, deregulation, etc.).
Republicans told us this was all good....even as my friends and family were offshored....we were told that this is inevitable change and what came out the other end would be FAR superior to that Secure Job with pension and benefits and all of that.
The S&L Crisis, which just coincidentally involved McCain and Neil Bush (GW's Bro), was a MASSIVE hit to the economy and to individuals and households. As most understand, we (normal people) usually have a lot of our assets tied up in our homes. In my particular area, the S&L Crisis kept Real Estate from going up for 8 years, a time period when most stock market invested assets would have doubled. That hurt.
This stuff wasn't just "in the news" to those of us who lived through it. I have family that were officers in a Credit Union...they went bankrupt due to the repercussions. We had Real Estate that couldn't be sold - Realtors even refused to list it due to how bad the market was.
The roots of much of this stuff is much older than we are even talking about....but it went into high gear and the ripoff is not even hidden now...that is, the Wars, Tax Cuts from Deficits, Policies to Benefit only the top, stripping away of pensions, use of the bankruptcy system and offshoring, etc....now the Right brags about it! Note how they Praised Trump for his lack of paying taxes and bankruptcies and all of that.....they think that is "smart business". As above, so below.
The word "sustainable" is not even in the dictionary of Conservatives, Libertarians or whatever you want to call the Trickle Down Club. There is no thought to anything other than "mo money for me".
That doesn't work out well in a civil society...as we are seeing. Long term will always beat short term, which is why China will win this current game...won't even be close. Of course, we could change course but that is unlikely to happen.
If you were going to throw out mountains of money at GM and do so in a way that was deceptive to the public and to fool the public into think that GM paid back all their money....then you could have forced GM to make systemic changes. Even the new CEO of GM stated that they weren't forced to make significant changes as they weren't forced into a normal bankruptcy, but a special bankruptcy.
And as I stated in the post you quoted, Chrysler CEO Lea Iacocca wasn't vilified when he did the same thing for Chrysler and led them to simular success after government loans were given to prevent an automaker shutting its doors. The difference being Iacocca wasn't the CEO who got Chrysler to the point of being what GM was at when Wagoner went to Capital Hill. Both however succeeded in getting them out of the red. Sure we can debate how much GM actually did payback the loan but Chrysler during bailout when it defaulted and went to the US government still owed 1.4b to its creditor. Chrysler never paid it back and I doubt GM has more. As I said though, Chrysler had a lot of issues from even before the Daimler-Benz merger and then Daimler dumped them.
That garbage is right out of Putin's playbook. Maybe that's what they were talking about during their super secret bromance corner huddle? How to dupe the rubes lesson 101.
Trump Warns of Epic Stock Market Crash If He's Not Re-Elected
That would be like Nebuchadnezzar warning of a plague if he was not allowed to sack Jerusalem. There were often plagues in those days, before the burning ... raping ... pillaging, or afterward, it was sure to come ...
Trump warned of violence if he did not get the nomination, and many lifelong Republicans refused to attend the convention. This is just another one of his many threats in the form of unfounded claims and lies. Nostradamus he is not.
There will be a downturn, before or after the election no one knows, but the economy is cyclical and we are overdue for a correction, so there's that ...
Somehow, the fact that Trump has trashed our country and its economy, has penetrated his mind. He knows he will lose the election and this is just cover for his ego, to try to evade the blame.
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.
A deadbeat has taken over your country,
