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.
Look, the idea behind electing a president, is to pick the best man for the job. If you think Obama is the best man for the job, that is fine, that is your opinion. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for.
The problem is, you come on here and say that basically you are going to vote for Obama because you have basically lucked out over the last few years, without actually asking yourself why you are doing so well.
Lets pretend that I started a gold buying/selling business back before the recession hit. I might have made millions during the recession. But why did I make so much money? Was it because of Obama? No. Its just situational, circumstantial, coincidental, etc. And if you base your vote simply on the basis that you are doing well without understanding why, or who or what policy was responsible. Then you aren't really voting for the best man, you are just voting for things to stay exactly as they are today.
But I have news for you, Obama has no plans of keeping things the way they are today, nor does Romney. So if you aren't voting with a real understanding of both the policies that each candidate advocates, and how they will affect you and the overall economy. Then in my opinion, you are unwisely and selfishly voting.
But again, if you agree with Obama, and you understand his positions, and you think he is the best man for the job. Vote for him.
But I would advise you. Before you start falling into the socialist utopian fantasies, please read about the works of Milton Friedman, or watch his many videos on youtube. And Milton Friedman is no Republican, he tears apart Republican dogma just as severely as he does socialism.
Don't say that I lucked into where I am. I'm offended by that. I worked hard to get to where I am. I just feel the current environment helped me. How can I feel any different? It sure hasn't hurt me. Maybe someday I'll get my doom and gloom time again. What I hate is people who almost wish for others to struggle for political gain.
Socialism talk is boring.
What helped to create the derivative market? Could it have been the housing bubble, which was primarily caused by increasingly lower interest rates?
The link you posted talks about an equation that was invented in the 70's. Derivatives are not a new idea, they simply weren't profitable until the housing bubble made housing seem like an investment.
Sure, if you could go back in time, you could regulate derivatives, and that might have slowed the bubble. But the bubble was forming regardless of derivatives or not. And would have busted regardless of derivatives.
Bush was no angel, but don't you find it silly to blame Bush for the economic crisis? He did absolutely nothing to cause the financial crisis. And if Gore had been elected in 2000, or if Kerry had been elected in 2004, do you really think the financial crisis would have been avoided? Get real man.
There were plenty of people warning constantly about the possibilities of what happened, one of which was Ron Paul, yet no one wanted to listen. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, no one.
The reality is that home-ownership had become an American value, and anything that might have made home-ownership more difficult, especially for minorities(sub-prime loans, community reinvestment act), would have been political suicide.
I'm not happy about the recession, but to blame Bush for it is just stupidity. It would have been impossible for Bush to have done anything to stop it. The man that played the largest role in the housing bubble by far, was Alan Greenspan. And the bubble started forming while Bill Clinton was still the president. Alan Greenspan was the only man that could have stopped the housing bubble, and all he did was to continue to feed the bubble.
A policy of not regulating is a policy. As you said, it was obvious that there was going to be an implosion, yet no action.
A policy of not regulating is a policy. As you said, it was obvious that there was going to be an implosion, yet no action.
Action was taken but nothing happened because the thought that "everyone has a right to own a home" was liberal based in Jimmy Carterism, continued with Clinton, and the attempts to reel in that special kind of stupid-think were quashed.
Obama and his Acorn group helped it along. By threatening the banks and their ratings if they did NOT give loans to folks who couldn't afford them no matter the LTV. Those who couldn't qualify before, all of sudden they did...didn't mean they could also and all of a sudden afford the monthly payment on the loan.
How many attempts were made to reign in Fannie and Freddy lending practices? Plenty.
Last edited by Informed Info; 10-18-2012 at 11:20 PM..
That things are better for me than anytime in my life? I'm 50, live in Dallas, and I feel like I have finally reached the stage in my life where I don't go to bed each night with money worries. Rich? Hell no! Comfortable and secure? Yes, I feel so. I've felt this way for maybe the last 3 years. No knock on Mr. Bush at all, but I was downsized twice in his 8 years. So when my Republican buddies ask how things are going they almost want to argue that I can't be doing OK. I make no bones that I plan to vote for Obama. Why shouldn't I? Things are fine for me and I have people say, "Four more years of Obama and you won't be". So why should I vote against him on what to me at this moment is a theory that 4 more years i'll be in ruins?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Good idea, vote for the communist..! Have you been asleep for the last four years? The man is doing everything he can to bring America to it's knees. You may be doing ok, but the country is in terrible shape.
All of the problems in America, and a lot of the other countries stems from comrade obama. vote for him and the hell with the country, right?
Don't say that I lucked into where I am. I'm offended by that. I worked hard to get to where I am. I just feel the current environment helped me. How can I feel any different? It sure hasn't hurt me. Maybe someday I'll get my doom and gloom time again. What I hate is people who almost wish for others to struggle for political gain.
Socialism talk is boring.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Look, I have no idea why you are in the position you are. You have not shared that information, so I cannot dissect it and give you my opinion.
When I said "lucked", I meant more that it was coincidental, and not related to policy changes in Washington.
This assumption of "luck" is based around the fact that, on average, people are poorer than they were before Obama. And almost all commodities are more expensive than they were before Obama. Thus the average "standard of living" has dropped under Obama. And outside of material items, crime rates are up this year, and socially we are more at eat others throats than we were before Obama. So I'm having a hard time figuring out how you think the country is doing better than it was before Obama.
But please, tell me why you feel the way that you do. You must have a reason. You aren't going to convince me of anything by vaguely saying "I'm going to vote for Obama because I feel like I'm better off now". All that says is, you are basing your opinion on feelings and not facts.
A policy of not regulating is a policy. As you said, it was obvious that there was going to be an implosion, yet no action.
First, there are a billion things going on in the world right now that aren't regulated. You can't blame the government when something bad happens because something isn't tightly regulated. Regulation generally is only put in place when it appears that it is necessary, so regulation almost always comes "after the fact". There had been no ill effects caused by derivatives, and so no one on either side made any intentions of regulating them. And the reality is, had housing values no exploded, then derivatives wouldn't have hurt anyone anyway, and never would have needed to be regulated.
The questions really is, what created the housing bubble?.... The answer is that the bubble was almost entirely related to increasingly lower interest rates. Had interest rates not continued to fall to near zero, the housing bubble never would have formed. On the other hand, regardless of whether or not they regulated derivatives, there still would have been a housing bubble, just wouldn't have expanded as quickly.
Now, I'm not sure if anyone had proposed regulating derivatives at any time before the recession. I mean, did the democrats propose regulating derivatives and the Republicans fought it? Derivatives aren't a new thing, they had been around for decades before the collapse, and were never regulated.
Lets pretend that Gore or Kerry had been elected president, would they have put in place regulations on derivatives? Did the democrats ever even speak out against the housing bubble? Did they propose bills to slow the bubble? What did the democrats do exactly?
If you argue that a lack of regulation is a policy, wouldn't you then have to argue that the policy of the democratic party was also to keep derivatives unregulated?
As I said before, it wouldn't have mattered who was president between 2000-2008, there would not have been any regulations on the derivative market. Period. Do you really think if Obama had been president between 2000 and 2008 that he would have put in place legislation that would make it more difficult for minorities to buy houses, and get in on the booming housing/investment industry? Get real man.
This whole "it was Bush's fault", only works if it was something that the Republicans pushed for, that the Democrats were pushing against(or vice versa). But the reality is, that was never the case, nor would it have been the case if a democrat was president. So I feel that people who are wanting to put the blame for the housing bubble on Bush, are being a little hypocritical and/or silly.
The reality is, neither Bush nor Obama nor John Kerry nor Al Gore could have or would have done anything to stop the housing bubble. And the housing and financial collapse was simply inevitable. The question you have to ask is, if derivatives existed for decades before the housing collapse, why did derivatives only suddenly become a problem in the 2000's. You seem to be overly obsessed with a symptom of the system, but you need to understand the cause.
The cause of the recession, was the Federal Reserve bank, because they constantly manipulate interest rates, and buy up public and private debt to manipulate financial markets. The Federal Reserve is currently the largest buyer of US debt. And how do they buy that debt? They print money out of thin air and purchase the debt with no assets of their own.
I could care less if you want to vote for Obama or not, I'm just trying to inject a little honesty into this debate. And the truth is, Bush did not create the recession, he did nothing directly that contributed to the recession. And the economy was the best it has ever been in 2006, right before the collapse. As well as federal tax revenues were the highest they had ever been in 2006.
The reality is, the Federal Reserve bank continues to manipulate the financial sector. And is doing everything it can to reinflate the housing market.
Action was taken but nothing happened because the thought that "everyone has a right to own a home" was liberal based in Jimmy Carterism, continued with Clinton, and the attempts to reel in that special kind of stupid-think were quashed.
Obama and his Acorn group helped it along. By threatening the banks and their ratings if they did NOT give loans to folks who couldn't afford them no matter the LTV. Those who couldn't qualify before, all of sudden they did...didn't mean they could also and all of a sudden afford the monthly payment on the loan.
How many attempts were made to reign in Fannie and Freddy lending practices? Plenty.
It was the inaction to reign in derivatives that was a major part of the problem. Hedge funds were packaging bad debt as a solid investment so banks were making bad loans but still making profits off of them.
The only fact that matters to me is how my family is doing. What other fact is more important. As stated, I'm well aware that others are struggling. Is that a new phenomenon? There will always be people struggling. This is the exact reaction I get from some people when I do mention how great things are. It's like they are so shocked.
It was the inaction to reign in derivatives that was a major part of the problem. Hedge funds were packaging bad debt as a solid investment so banks were making bad loans but still making profits off of them.
There were a lot of steps that led up to this (that you aren't addressing), and a lot of liberals and democrats (who could have changed what ended up happening) that were just fine with not reigning anything in.
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.
