PDA

View Full Version : APP - Economy: who is to blame?



Cancel 2018. 3
08-07-2009, 07:54 AM
Obama as of yesterday is still blaming bush for the economy. A few questions come to mind....

1. What exactly did bush do that "ruined" the ecomony?

2. What exactly is obama doing differently that is helping the economy?

3. What exactly has or is obama doing that has or could ruin the economy?

4. How long can obama blame bush?

it would be nice to see specific examples, as we all know, the dems held majority in the legislature for the first two years and the last two years of bush's term.

PostmodernProphet
08-07-2009, 08:05 AM
QUOTE=Yurt;487812 Obama as of yesterday is still blaming bush for the economy. A few questions come to mind....

1. What exactly did bush do that "ruined" the ecomony? TARP

2. What exactly is obama doing differently that is helping the economy? lol

3. What exactly has or is obama doing that has or could ruin the economy?
TARP2, TARP3, TARP4, etc.
4. How long can obama blame bush? at least through November 2012....

it would be nice to see specific examples, as we all know, the dems held majority in the legislature for the first two years and the last two years of bush's term.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-07-2009, 08:09 AM
QUOTE=Yurt;487812 Obama as of yesterday is still blaming bush for the economy. A few questions come to mind....

1. What exactly did bush do that "ruined" the ecomony? TARP

2. What exactly is obama doing differently that is helping the economy? lol

3. What exactly has or is obama doing that has or could ruin the economy?
TARP2, TARP3, TARP4, etc.
4. How long can obama blame bush? at least through November 2012....

it would be nice to see specific examples, as we all know, the dems held majority in the legislature for the first two years and the last two years of bush's term.

thanks for the answers...

wasn't the economy already doing poorly when bush implemented TARP? isn't that why bush wanted TARP?

and yes....i do believe obama will blame bush forever

WinterBorn
08-07-2009, 08:24 AM
If we could convince politicians (and others) to expend as much energy fixing a problem as they expend trying to lay blame for a problem, the world would be a much better place.

PostmodernProphet
08-07-2009, 08:39 AM
wasn't the economy already doing poorly when bush implemented TARP? isn't that why bush wanted TARP?


yes, but you asked what Bush did.....he didn't do what caused the economy to "do poorly" prior to TARP.....that was Barney Frank and the "friends of Obama"..... you know....guys like Geitner and others who had their fingers in Fannie and Freddie and AIG?.....the people turning high risk mortgages into junk bonds.....

PostmodernProphet
08-07-2009, 08:40 AM
If we could convince politicians (and others) to expend as much energy fixing a problem as they expend trying to lay blame for a problem, the world would be a much better place.

and if you could keep politicians from taking action that will make the situation worse, it would also be a better place.....

uscitizen
08-07-2009, 09:03 AM
It was not Bush per sie that ruined the economy. It was like minded republicans in govt and some Dems that went along, that coupled with greed and stuipdity of the shortsighted general and corporate population was what put us where we are.

Bailing out the ones that contributed to our downfall was not the way to go either.


Bush's biggest contribution to the downfall was the Iraq war. The resulting energy cost rises due to the war was a factor.

Of course I am just talking of finiancial downfall, not of moral downfall.
That is a linked but seperate subject.

Damocles
08-07-2009, 09:11 AM
still[/B] blaming bush for the economy. A few questions come to mind....

1. What exactly did bush do that "ruined" the ecomony? TARP

2. What exactly is obama doing differently that is helping the economy? lol

3. What exactly has or is obama doing that has or could ruin the economy?
TARP2, TARP3, TARP4, etc.
4. How long can obama blame bush? at least through November 2012....

it would be nice to see specific examples, as we all know, the dems held majority in the legislature for the first two years and the last two years of bush's term.

LOL. True though. Just like the Rs constantly brought up Clinton, Bush will bring years of happy thoughts for Ds.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-07-2009, 10:59 AM
yes, but you asked what Bush did.....he didn't do what caused the economy to "do poorly" prior to TARP.....that was Barney Frank and the "friends of Obama"..... you know....guys like Geitner and others who had their fingers in Fannie and Freddie and AIG?.....the people turning high risk mortgages into junk bonds.....

i see...so the economy doing poorly before TARP and then bush added to its demise because of tarp...right?

Cancel 2018. 3
08-07-2009, 11:01 AM
It was not Bush per sie that ruined the economy. It was like minded republicans in govt and some Dems that went along, that coupled with greed and stuipdity of the shortsighted general and corporate population was what put us where we are.

Bailing out the ones that contributed to our downfall was not the way to go either.


Bush's biggest contribution to the downfall was the Iraq war. The resulting energy cost rises due to the war was a factor.

Of course I am just talking of finiancial downfall, not of moral downfall.
That is a linked but seperate subject.

how is that oil prices didn't rise until much later? are you blaming iraq for the 2008 prices? i don't see iraq as having any real impact on oil prices at all...or any other energy factors

as to bailout...i wholeheartedly agree....obama then bails out gm/chrysler only to have chrysler now be owned by a NON AMERICAN corporation and gm filing BANKRUPTCY

bizarro

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 11:09 AM
Obama as of yesterday is still blaming bush for the economy. A few questions come to mind....

1. What exactly did bush do that "ruined" the ecomony?

2. What exactly is obama doing differently that is helping the economy?

3. What exactly has or is obama doing that has or could ruin the economy?

4. How long can obama blame bush?

it would be nice to see specific examples, as we all know, the dems held majority in the legislature for the first two years and the last two years of bush's term. I think the economy went sour when business owners started to realize that McCain had won the primary, and got worse when they realized that Obama was likely to win the general. Bush with the Tarp thing put quite a few nails in the coffin, so to speak. *shrug*

uscitizen
08-07-2009, 11:18 AM
The worst thing Bush did to hurt the exonomy was nothing.
All I hear during the 1st 3/4 of the Bush presidency was how great the economy was.
Anyone who saw what was ultimately coming was dissed off as a doomer.

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 11:24 AM
Actually, history has proven that the less government interferes with a market slowdown the quicker the recovery. That being said, however, there was the incident prior to the election where foreign entities engineered a "run" on US banks and took out a half trillion in a matter of hours, which panicked the Fed and Bush was forced to do something. These two things in combination really fucked things up.

uscitizen
08-07-2009, 11:26 AM
History has proven twice that the less govt regulation the more severe the recession or depression as the case may be.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-07-2009, 12:03 PM
so far i haven't seen a single thing that justifies obama or dems constantly blaming bush...

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 12:14 PM
History has proven twice that the less govt regulation the more severe the recession or depression as the case may be.
Prove it.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-07-2009, 01:26 PM
i would think dems would jump at the chance to answer this thread

Cancel 2018. 3
08-07-2009, 04:28 PM
well...apparently no one can defend obama's comments, thus i am led to believe that obama's comments are nothing more than meadowmuffins and deflections....

ib1yysguy
08-07-2009, 04:41 PM
i would think dems would jump at the chance to answer this thread

Considering we've hashed this out about 88,888 times and you still refuse to believe Bush could have done anything to lead to a recession -- even going so far as to claim that Bush ending his first term with a net loss of jobs and his second with the largest recession in 80 years was an inconvenient coincidence of poor timing that had nothing to do with Bush or the Republicans having been in power for 14 years.

The fact that people are ignoring this thread says a hell of a lot more about the fact that nobody wants to waste their time with you then it does about anything else.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-07-2009, 05:15 PM
Considering we've hashed this out about 88,888 times and you still refuse to believe Bush could have done anything to lead to a recession -- even going so far as to claim that Bush ending his first term with a net loss of jobs and his second with the largest recession in 80 years was an inconvenient coincidence of poor timing that had nothing to do with Bush or the Republicans having been in power for 14 years.

The fact that people are ignoring this thread says a hell of a lot more about the fact that nobody wants to waste their time with you then it does about anything else.

no...it means that when presented with ONE thread to fully explain....no one dares...

saying stuff over numerous threads doesn't count...it is incoherent and becomes lost in the jungle of posts. i sought to honestly break down the arguments into one thread. apparently that is to much for you.

you already posted falsehoods....being in "power" 14 years....indicating a continuous 14 year period....obama is still blaming bush, so the issue is still relevent....notice one of the questions was....how long and until....your weak deflection at the end only serves to show that when confronted with an actual chance to make your point, not some....you're a retard point....but a real point in the APP....you chicken out

ib1yysguy
08-07-2009, 06:37 PM
The point is I pretty sure we're all fucking tired of your stupid shit. You will accept no level of evidence that Bush or the Republican fucked anything up. We've been over Bush's economic pitfalls a million times. Yes, pwning you for months now does count for something. You coming on and making a thread demanding that people pwn you by restating shit you already ignored is retarded and a huge waste of effort.

Simple facts are these: Bush ended both terms with a fucked up economy, one of which was the worst in 80 years. You want to blame it on happenstance.

That's about all anyone needs to know about the Bush years and your credibility.

Mott the Hoople
08-07-2009, 06:50 PM
LOL. True though. Just like the Rs constantly brought up Clinton, Bush will bring years of happy thoughts for Ds.I wouldn't say that. I enjoyed being a Republican. The fact that it has been taken over by an extremist faction is a huge dissapointment to me. As for Bush being a failure as a President....well DUH! BIG RED TRUCK!

It didn't take Nostradamus to predict that one.

Mott the Hoople
08-07-2009, 06:53 PM
Actually, history has proven that the less government interferes with a market slowdown the quicker the recovery. That being said, however, there was the incident prior to the election where foreign entities engineered a "run" on US banks and took out a half trillion in a matter of hours, which panicked the Fed and Bush was forced to do something. These two things in combination really fucked things up.
I'd suggest that #1. You study up on Keynesian economics and #2. Study the great depression as you're just factually wrong.

Mott the Hoople
08-07-2009, 06:54 PM
so far i haven't seen a single thing that justifies obama or dems constantly blaming bush...Well keep those partisan blinders on and keep drinking that kool-aid and you won't ever have to worry about that will you? LOL

uscitizen
08-07-2009, 06:54 PM
Prove it.

After the great depression regulations were put in place to prevent it from ahppening again. Those regulations were stripped away in the 80's and 90's mostly. And now we are once again in the worst recession since the depression.

The proof is in the results.

Mott the Hoople
08-07-2009, 07:02 PM
Considering we've hashed this out about 88,888 times and you still refuse to believe Bush could have done anything to lead to a recession -- even going so far as to claim that Bush ending his first term with a net loss of jobs and his second with the largest recession in 80 years was an inconvenient coincidence of poor timing that had nothing to do with Bush or the Republicans having been in power for 14 years.

The fact that people are ignoring this thread says a hell of a lot more about the fact that nobody wants to waste their time with you then it does about anything else.A great deal of truth there. The old addage "An age isn't dark because there is no light but because people refuse to see the light." applies here.

Though Democrats are by no means blameless it was Republican deregulatory policies, combined with an endemic lack of support for regulatory agencies enforcement and a certain level of being asleep at the wheel that allowed the housing bubble and it's derivative related banking fiasco that were the cause of the present recession. God knows there was plenty of signs of the impending disaster. warning bells had been going off for nearly 2 years before the whole house of card collapsed.

Rationally the blame for this really belongs to the anti-government/libertarian wing of the Republican party. The RR's are to fucking stupid to get into this kind of mess by themselves.

uscitizen
08-07-2009, 07:05 PM
I wonder if Bush had not spent like a drunken sailor keeping the economy propped up.

Well would we have had a smaller recession sooner and been better off?


Another question I would like to see answered is now many of the jobs created during the bush presidency were funded by bush spending?

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 07:09 PM
After the great depression regulations were put in place to prevent it from ahppening again. Those regulations were stripped away in the 80's and 90's mostly. And now we are once again in the worst recession since the depression.

The proof is in the results. The current situation is due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forcing private banks to change loan policies that were in place for decades and based on tried and true formulas of good lending practice. In this case, government involvement screwed the pooch, and government largess is extending the length and depth of the current depression.

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 07:10 PM
I wonder if Bush had not spent like a drunken sailor keeping the economy propped up.

Well would we have had a smaller recession sooner and been better off?


Another question I would like to see answered is now many of the jobs created during the bush presidency were funded by bush spending?

Wow you're right about Bush spending like a drunk sailor but Obama's got him beat by a factor of three or more.

Yet you bash Bush. LOL.

uscitizen
08-07-2009, 07:11 PM
so far i haven't seen a single thing that justifies obama or dems constantly blaming bush...

and YOU never will.

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 07:11 PM
I'd suggest that #1. You study up on Keynesian economics and #2. Study the great depression as you're just factually wrong. I have, and I'm right.

uscitizen
08-07-2009, 07:12 PM
The current situation is due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forcing private banks to change loan policies that were in place for decades and based on tried and true formulas of good lending practice. In this case, government involvement screwed the pooch, and government largess is extending the length and depth of the current depression.

How about the ratings companies giving those junk mortgages top ratings for investors to buy the packaged securities?
They had zero historical data to go on and just pulled the ratings out of their butts.

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 07:21 PM
How about the ratings companies giving those junk mortgages top ratings for investors to buy the packaged securities?
They had zero historical data to go on and just pulled the ratings out of their butts. "Let the buyer beware." How about Fannie and Freddie doing their own ratings? They bought up all that junk as fast as they could write checks.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-07-2009, 07:38 PM
UOTE=ib1yysguy;488255]The point is I pretty sure we're all fucking tired of your stupid shit. You will accept no level of evidence that Bush or the Republican fucked anything up.

yeah.....that is why i started this thread....because i will accept nothing you say....yeah....once again....you're proving you're nothing but a wuss....instead insulting, why not debate the actual questions/pointsraised? afterall....this is the APP forum......


We've been over Bush's economic pitfalls a million times. Yes, pwning you for months now does count for something. You coming on and making a thread demanding that people pwn you by restating shit you already ignored is retarded and a huge waste of effort.

(yawn)....repeat and smacks of...i can't actually explain how....but i will claim i've done so a million times and that will excuse me from actual debate.


Simple facts are these: Bush ended both terms with a fucked up economy, one of which was the worst in 80 years. You want to blame it on happenstance.

i want to know why YOU blame it on bush......read the OP again....


That's about all anyone needs to know about the Bush years and your credibility.

yes....another no debate conclusory statement....with a spice of ad hom

care to actually elaborate or are you just going to start the:

you're a retard...session

i'm honestly interested in your thoughts

Topspin
08-07-2009, 07:49 PM
Most dems don't know Jack shit about the economy or business. Bushs Nazi wars drained the economy but Obama is far far worse. Obama is attacking any industry making a profit as though it's evil. All the while Pelosi is ordering jets. Anybody who thinks Obama can't fuck this up more is retarded.

uscitizen
08-07-2009, 08:08 PM
Most dems don't know Jack shit about the economy or business. Bushs Nazi wars drained the economy but Obama is far far worse. Obama is attacking any industry making a profit as though it's evil. All the while Pelosi is ordering jets. Anybody who thinks Obama can't fuck this up more is retarded.

LMAO Look who is talking. Mr the parkiings lots are full.

ib1yysguy
08-07-2009, 08:16 PM
The current situation is due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forcing private banks to change loan policies that were in place for decades and based on tried and true formulas of good lending practice. In this case, government involvement screwed the pooch, and government largess is extending the length and depth of the current depression.

No. Everything you find if you want to actually research the community investment act will tell you that it had only a MINOR contribution to the whole subprime issue. Just read the wiki article about it.

ib1yysguy
08-07-2009, 08:18 PM
yeah.....that is why i started this thread....because i will accept nothing you say....yeah....once again....you're proving you're nothing but a wuss....instead insulting, why not debate the actual questions/pointsraised? afterall....this is the APP forum......



(yawn)....repeat and smacks of...i can't actually explain how....but i will claim i've done so a million times and that will excuse me from actual debate.



i want to know why YOU blame it on bush......read the OP again....



yes....another no debate conclusory statement....with a spice of ad hom

care to actually elaborate or are you just going to start the:

you're a retard...session

i'm honestly interested in your thoughts

No level of evidence would constitute a convincing argument to you. It doesn't matter what the heck we present to you. You will disregard it. That is why everyone ignored this thread until I made it interesting. Nobody's willing to waste time on you anymore.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-07-2009, 10:05 PM
No level of evidence would constitute a convincing argument to you. It doesn't matter what the heck we present to you. You will disregard it. That is why everyone ignored this thread until I made it interesting. Nobody's willing to waste time on you anymore.

i see......

well, my bad....

i thought people had something to say, and i want to listen to what they have to say. apparently you want to shut my questions down based upon your predisposition as to what YOU THINK i would accept as evidence....

i make a thread...i ask for evidence....

you insult and offer ZERO evidence and claim yourself a winner

well.....if that is all you have, have at it smart guy

signalmankenneth
08-07-2009, 10:06 PM
http://thecomicnews.com/images/edtoons/big/economy/03.gif

http://thecomicnews.com/images/edtoons/big/economy/04.gif

Good Luck
08-07-2009, 11:04 PM
1. What exactly did bush do that "ruined" the ecomony? The same types of things every administration since Cleveland have been doing.

2. What exactly is obama doing differently that is helping the economy? The same types of things every administration since Cleveland have been doing.

3. What exactly has or is obama doing that has or could ruin the economy?
The same types of things every administration since Cleveland have been doing.

4. How long can obama blame bush? As long as the mindless drones are willing to listen.



If we could convince politicians (and others) to expend as much energy fixing a problem as they expend trying to lay blame for a problem, the world would be a much better place.
Truer words have seldom been spoken.

Though, to be fair, sometimes finding the fault is part of fixing a problem. Of course, there is a big difference between finding the fault, and playing the finger pointing blame game. Politicians far prefer the latter to the former, because the former all to often leads to unpopular answers.

The fact is both parties share fully and equally in the economic crises of today. Both parties have been complicit in building an economy based on deficit spending - and I am not speaking of the government, but of society as a whole. It has been an ongoing process for almost a full century, whose roots lie in the acceptance of the idea that people should not have to wait and save to attain the "better things in life" as the saying goes.

It started with the idea that people should be able to buy a home using long term credit rather than saving most of their lives in the hopes (sometimes unrealized hopes) they can eventually buy a home with cash. It's not a bad idea on the surface, and had the idea stayed with home ownership, and also stayed with modest means, there would be no problem today. But the idea spread from home ownership to the auto industry, then to revolving credit which is used to purchase everything from TVs to groceries to a night on the town.

How long can an economy sustain itself when it is based on people purchasing things before they can afford them? Without help, not very long. That is why we can go back over the years and see the government repeatedly making adjustments to the banking/credit industry - because eventually credit runs out, the debt burden becomes greater than the people can make up for, and either the house comes tumbling down, or the government, via the federal reserve, pushes credit spending into larger and larger arenas, to include (and THIS is why the system failed) people who had no real hope from the very start of paying off the debt they were encouraged to build.

Now, let's couple that with what the people themselves were doing - and still are. As a society, we are a bunch of wasteful, greedy, pathetically neurotic, keep-up-with-the-joneses materialists. Why does a family of 4 need a 5 bedroom, 4 bath, 4,500 square foot house? They do not, but that is what people were buying and defaulting on. Why do they need 3 cars, including that nice big SUV used primarily by a single adult for commuting? They don't, but that is what they were buying with bank loans made under the blessing (and sometimes mandate) of government to keep the economy expanding. TVs for every room, computers for every family member, $600 cell phones, $100 steak dinners, $80 blue jeans, etc. etc. etc.; all purchased on credit cards, piling up debt - but as long as people were buying those things, we called it a good economy.

We've had several warning signs that we have not been in a stable, sustainable economy. We have recession after recession as the debt burden reached saturation, then the government has to step in with either new regulations mandating "more fair" lending practices (ie: forcing credit companies to lend to lower and lower income strata), coupled with ridiculous measures and relaxed banking regulations to allow banks and credit companies to make the required loans without going immediately bankrupt. We had the S&L crisis, but learned nothing from it because the causes were swept under a rug of blame and finger pointing. We had the stock market crash of 1987, and learned nothing. Now we have the 2008 crash, and the 2008 banking crisis, the auto industry crisis, all rolled into one major clusterfuck, yet by all signs and portents, we STILL are refusing to learn anything.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-07-2009, 11:33 PM
1. What exactly did bush do that "ruined" the ecomony? The same types of things every administration since Cleveland have been doing.

2. What exactly is obama doing differently that is helping the economy? The same types of things every administration since Cleveland have been doing.

3. What exactly has or is obama doing that has or could ruin the economy?
The same types of things every administration since Cleveland have been doing.

4. How long can obama blame bush? As long as the mindless drones are willing to listen.



Truer words have seldom been spoken.

Though, to be fair, sometimes finding the fault is part of fixing a problem. Of course, there is a big difference between finding the fault, and playing the finger pointing blame game. Politicians far prefer the latter to the former, because the former all to often leads to unpopular answers.

The fact is both parties share fully and equally in the economic crises of today. Both parties have been complicit in building an economy based on deficit spending - and I am not speaking of the government, but of society as a whole. It has been an ongoing process for almost a full century, whose roots lie in the acceptance of the idea that people should not have to wait and save to attain the "better things in life" as the saying goes.

It started with the idea that people should be able to buy a home using long term credit rather than saving most of their lives in the hopes (sometimes unrealized hopes) they can eventually buy a home with cash. It's not a bad idea on the surface, and had the idea stayed with home ownership, and also stayed with modest means, there would be no problem today. But the idea spread from home ownership to the auto industry, then to revolving credit which is used to purchase everything from TVs to groceries to a night on the town.

How long can an economy sustain itself when it is based on people purchasing things before they can afford them? Without help, not very long. That is why we can go back over the years and see the government repeatedly making adjustments to the banking/credit industry - because eventually credit runs out, the debt burden becomes greater than the people can make up for, and either the house comes tumbling down, or the government, via the federal reserve, pushes credit spending into larger and larger arenas, to include (and THIS is why the system failed) people who had no real hope from the very start of paying off the debt they were encouraged to build.

Now, let's couple that with what the people themselves were doing - and still are. As a society, we are a bunch of wasteful, greedy, pathetically neurotic, keep-up-with-the-joneses materialists. Why does a family of 4 need a 5 bedroom, 4 bath, 4,500 square foot house? They do not, but that is what people were buying and defaulting on. Why do they need 3 cars, including that nice big SUV used primarily by a single adult for commuting? They don't, but that is what they were buying with bank loans made under the blessing (and sometimes mandate) of government to keep the economy expanding. TVs for every room, computers for every family member, $600 cell phones, $100 steak dinners, $80 blue jeans, etc. etc. etc.; all purchased on credit cards, piling up debt - but as long as people were buying those things, we called it a good economy.

We've had several warning signs that we have not been in a stable, sustainable economy. We have recession after recession as the debt burden reached saturation, then the government has to step in with either new regulations mandating "more fair" lending practices (ie: forcing credit companies to lend to lower and lower income strata), coupled with ridiculous measures and relaxed banking regulations to allow banks and credit companies to make the required loans without going immediately bankrupt. We had the S&L crisis, but learned nothing from it because the causes were swept under a rug of blame and finger pointing. We had the stock market crash of 1987, and learned nothing. Now we have the 2008 crash, and the 2008 banking crisis, the auto industry crisis, all rolled into one major clusterfuck, yet by all signs and portents, we STILL are refusing to learn anything.

:blah: :blah:

DamnYankee
08-08-2009, 12:08 AM
Mr Obama inherited at cluster fuck! Is this your explanation of how his mother got pregnant with him?

Stick with posting only comics Kenneth. Just as we all suspected, when you try to put your own words down, your IQ is exposed to be approximately equal to your age.

DamnYankee
08-08-2009, 12:11 AM
No. Everything you find if you want to actually research the community investment act will tell you that it had only a MINOR contribution to the whole subprime issue. Just read the wiki article about it. Oh wow wiki- so that's where you get your economic education. 'Spalins a lot there, boy. *shrug*

ib1yysguy
08-08-2009, 12:30 AM
Oh wow wiki- so that's where you get your economic education. 'Spalins a lot there, boy. *shrug*

Read anything you trust about it as long as it's reputable. CRA didn't cause this recession. You have to be really fucking retarded to think it did, considering the fact that only a relatively small percentage of foreclosed homes were bought with loans made because of the CRA.

DamnYankee
08-08-2009, 12:57 AM
Read anything you trust about it as long as it's reputable. CRA didn't cause this recession. You have to be really fucking retarded to think it did, considering the fact that only a relatively small percentage of foreclosed homes were bought with loans made because of the CRA.
You do realize that anyone can edit wikipedia, don't you?

FUCK THE POLICE
08-08-2009, 03:55 AM
You do realize that anyone can edit wikipedia, don't you?

Anyone with a good source can edit wikipedia.

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 05:43 AM
Mr Obama inherited at cluster fuck!

is this a third alternative?....born in Kenya, born in Hawaii, inherited at cluster fuck?.......

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 05:48 AM
Though Democrats are by no means blameless it was Republican deregulatory policies, combined with an endemic lack of support for regulatory agencies enforcement and a certain level of being asleep at the wheel that allowed the housing bubble and it's derivative related banking fiasco that were the cause of the present recession.

I'm sorry Mott, but when you can go on you tube and listen to the House hearings on whether or not Freddy and Fanny should be reined in and you hear the Dems shouting about racism and arguing that there was NOTHING going on at the Macs, when you can hear it with your own ears you simply cannot honestly say the problem here was a lack of regulation on Republican's part.....

Onceler
08-08-2009, 08:01 AM
The American consumer (with emphasis on the American consumer/homeowner), the banks and the politicians.

signalmankenneth
08-08-2009, 08:14 AM
Obama as of yesterday is still blaming bush for the economy. A few questions come to mind....

1. What exactly did bush do that "ruined" the ecomony?

2. What exactly is obama doing differently that is helping the economy?

3. What exactly has or is obama doing that has or could ruin the economy?

4. How long can obama blame bush?

it would be nice to see specific examples, as we all know, the dems held majority in the legislature for the first two years and the last two years of bush's term.

Bush wrecked the economy and the after effects from his asinine policies are still with us today!

http://www.mrtredyffrin.com/images/AuthFeb2008.gif

uscitizen
08-08-2009, 08:59 AM
It amazes me on how little of the blame for our current problems that individuals will accept.
Personal responsibility Bleah!

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 11:37 AM
Anyone with a good source can edit wikipedia.

not true....anyone can

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 11:40 AM
Read anything you trust about it as long as it's reputable. CRA didn't cause this recession. You have to be really fucking retarded to think it did, considering the fact that only a relatively small percentage of foreclosed homes were bought with loans made because of the CRA.

just as i predicted....the level of ib1's debate....

you're retarded and i'm a winner so stfu

belme1201
08-08-2009, 01:17 PM
I'm sorry Mott, but when you can go on you tube and listen to the House hearings on whether or not Freddy and Fanny should be reined in and you hear the Dems shouting about racism and arguing that there was NOTHING going on at the Macs, when you can hear it with your own ears you simply cannot honestly say the problem here was a lack of regulation on Republican's part.....




Yes, one can honestly say there was a lack of regulation in that direction on the GOP's part. The proof is that no bills governing that subject came to the floor for a vote during their attempt at governing.
From 1994 to 2006 the Republicans controlled Congress, from 2001 until 2009 they also held the Presidency. Frank and others could, yes, be wrong, even on You Tube, but the fact is the Minority makes no decisions upon which bills come to the floor of Congress. Can you refer to any bills brought to the floor of either house during period of time? Rules of both the House and Senate give absolute control to the Speaker, Senate Majority Leader and committee chairmen regarding the progress of bills to the floor. It is the reason that, now, your guys hate Pelosi and Reid, simple proof.There is no 60% rule in committees.
The President(bush) campaigned on an issue called the "Ownership Society", his 2005 State of the Union speech and subsequent speeches included references to the policy which he endorsed. Perhaps you can explain the "Ownership Society" policy.
That said and on topic, the GOP left their period of government control with what was the worst economy since the Great Depression, that is history it can't be changed(honestly). Now the GOP rails about evil government. "Physician, heal thyself."
Since Reagan, the Middle Class working man has made few economic gains and suffered from the effects of several recessions, I think aimed at moderating any gains to them. Check your economic calendar. In that period of time, Laffer "Supply Side" and GOP deregulation policies were in effect. Can you tell me the ongoing effect of Supply Side economics and its benefit to the Middle Class working man as opposed to gains made by the wealthy and large corporations? What has been the benefit of deregulation aside from greater theft and increased lobbying? bush was the latest of Supply Side presidents. Next we can discuss the benefit of NAFTA, negotiated by bushI and signed by Clinton, further to be expanded by bushII. Where have all the jobs gone? The fact is that with the GOP, the rising tide has not raised all ships, nor do they plan it to be that way.

belme1201
08-08-2009, 01:19 PM
Bush wrecked the economy and the after effects from his asinine policies are still with us today!

http://www.mrtredyffrin.com/images/AuthFeb2008.gif

Once again, a picture is worth a thousand words

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 02:01 PM
From 1994 to 2006 the Republicans controlled Congress, from 2001 until 2009 they also held the Presidency.

which means that between 2001 and 2006 they controlled both, though you must admit with only a 50/50 split in the Senate for much of it....are you saying that when the hearing were held on whether to hold the Macs accountable for what was going on....the hearings where the Dems were lambasting the Republicans for a racial witchhunt for even suggesting that something bad was happening, that the Republicans had enough votes to take action without Dems?......

belme1201
08-08-2009, 02:34 PM
which means that between 2001 and 2006 they controlled both, though you must admit with only a 50/50 split in the Senate for much of it....are you saying that when the hearing were held on whether to hold the Macs accountable for what was going on....the hearings where the Dems were lambasting the Republicans for a racial witchhunt for even suggesting that something bad was happening, that the Republicans had enough votes to take action without Dems?......

I am saying, and I mean it for both parties, that regardless of whether they have the votes to pass, with CONVICTION, the majority party can and should bring any bill to the floor about which they feel strongly. It's only a case of whether they have the guts to show where each party stands on principle and policy. In the case being discussed, the party in power didn't have the gonads to bring a bill to the floor regulating either the Macs OR the high flyiing low-grade mortgage industry. There is no divine law saying that every bill brought to the floor must pass, but they do show voters the differences between them. The pressing question is why was no bill presented, politics, policy, or lobby pressure?

Crashk
08-08-2009, 03:51 PM
Yes, one can honestly say there was a lack of regulation in that direction on the GOP's part. The proof is that no bills governing that subject came to the floor for a vote during their attempt at governing.
From 1994 to 2006 the Republicans controlled Congress, from 2001 until 2009 they also held the Presidency. Frank and others could, yes, be wrong, even on You Tube, but the fact is the Minority makes no decisions upon which bills come to the floor of Congress. Can you refer to any bills brought to the floor of either house during period of time? Rules of both the House and Senate give absolute control to the Speaker, Senate Majority Leader and committee chairmen regarding the progress of bills to the floor. It is the reason that, now, your guys hate Pelosi and Reid, simple proof.There is no 60% rule in committees.
The President(bush) campaigned on an issue called the "Ownership Society", his 2005 State of the Union speech and subsequent speeches included references to the policy which he endorsed. Perhaps you can explain the "Ownership Society" policy.
That said and on topic, the GOP left their period of government control with what was the worst economy since the Great Depression, that is history it can't be changed(honestly). Now the GOP rails about evil government. "Physician, heal thyself."
Since Reagan, the Middle Class working man has made few economic gains and suffered from the effects of several recessions, I think aimed at moderating any gains to them. Check your economic calendar. In that period of time, Laffer "Supply Side" and GOP deregulation policies were in effect. Can you tell me the ongoing effect of Supply Side economics and its benefit to the Middle Class working man as opposed to gains made by the wealthy and large corporations? What has been the benefit of deregulation aside from greater theft and increased lobbying? bush was the latest of Supply Side presidents. Next we can discuss the benefit of NAFTA, negotiated by bushI and signed by Clinton, further to be expanded by bushII. Where have all the jobs gone? The fact is that with the GOP, the rising tide has not raised all ships, nor do they plan it to be that way.

I agree, it isn't just Bush it's 30 yrs of failed conservative ideology that's gotten us into this mess.

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 04:08 PM
I am saying, and I mean it for both parties, that regardless of whether they have the votes to pass, with CONVICTION, the majority party can and should bring any bill to the floor about which they feel strongly. It's only a case of whether they have the guts to show where each party stands on principle and policy. In the case being discussed, the party in power didn't have the gonads to bring a bill to the floor regulating either the Macs OR the high flyiing low-grade mortgage industry. There is no divine law saying that every bill brought to the floor must pass, but they do show voters the differences between them. The pressing question is why was no bill presented, politics, policy, or lobby pressure?

I thought the pressing question was why the Dems refuse to acknowledge responsibility?......have you heard a Dem say anything except "inherited Bush's problems" since January?......

Topspin
08-08-2009, 04:41 PM
2,000,000 jobs list on obama's watch.

Mott the Hoople
08-08-2009, 04:45 PM
I'm sorry Mott, but when you can go on you tube and listen to the House hearings on whether or not Freddy and Fanny should be reined in and you hear the Dems shouting about racism and arguing that there was NOTHING going on at the Macs, when you can hear it with your own ears you simply cannot honestly say the problem here was a lack of regulation on Republican's part.....OH good god. Another Limbaughnian/Fox News fan. It's a good thing I do listen to them on occassion just to see what stupid talking points their spinning.

If you do some honest research you'll find that Fanny/Freddie MAC had a minimal impact on the subprime fiasco. It was the bundled derivatives and other undefinable derivative based financial products the major investment banks were selling that were the cause. But I guess doing some objective research is to hard to do when it's easier to listen to Fox news, right?

Onceler
08-08-2009, 04:46 PM
2,000,000 jobs list on obama's watch.

Show me how much of an economic guru you are.

Do you think any President could have come in with ANY policy, and made a significant difference in that?

Now, since you're a captain of industry, I assume that you know that most companies chart layoffs 3-4 months in advance, so I'm asking the question with that in mind.

belme1201
08-08-2009, 05:15 PM
I thought the pressing question was why the Dems refuse to acknowledge responsibility?......have you heard a Dem say anything except "inherited Bush's problems" since January?......


Whose problems did they inherit? "Have you heard" a Republican say the last 6 months were ENTIRELY Obama's fault? If you want to discuss responsibility, start now. Did you read my second paragraph?

belme1201
08-08-2009, 05:39 PM
2,000,000 jobs list on obama's watch.



And none as a result of policies already in place 1/20/09?
What an amazing bunch you belong to. Clinton's Boom was a result of Reagan's policies decades earlier, but Obama is responsible for the problems that existed from his first day in office and onward. That leaves bush the unspoken blip in history. Would you like to discuss reality and if not, how about hypocrisy?

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 05:42 PM
OH good god. Another Limbaughnian/Fox News fan. It's a good thing I do listen to them on occassion just to see what stupid talking points their spinning.

If you do some honest research you'll find that Fanny/Freddie MAC had a minimal impact on the subprime fiasco. It was the bundled derivatives and other undefinable derivative based financial products the major investment banks were selling that were the cause. But I guess doing some objective research is to hard to do when it's easier to listen to Fox news, right?

you obviously ought to stick to biology, since you know nothing about real estate....do you understand the relationship between AIG and the MACS?......do you understand the concept of federal guarantees?.....do you realize who was buying and reselling these bundled products?.....I didn't think so.....

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 05:42 PM
Whose problems did they inherit? "Have you heard" a Republican say the last 6 months were ENTIRELY Obama's fault? If you want to discuss responsibility, start now. Did you read my second paragraph?
read my post.....

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 07:03 PM
And none as a result of policies already in place 1/20/09?
What an amazing bunch you belong to. Clinton's Boom was a result of Reagan's policies decades earlier, but Obama is responsible for the problems that existed from his first day in office and onward. That leaves bush the unspoken blip in history. Would you like to discuss reality and if not, how about hypocrisy?

what specific policies are responsible?

uscitizen
08-08-2009, 07:13 PM
Actually as I said before. Bush's biggest blame was in ignoring the indicators and doing nothing but brag on how great his economy was.
Of course his 5 trillion in overspending did not help either.
Devaluing the dollar raised oil prices.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 07:18 PM
Actually as I said before. Bush's biggest blame was in ignoring the indicators and doing nothing but brag on how great his economy was.
Of course his 5 trillion in overspending did not help either.
Devaluing the dollar raised oil prices.

interestingly, when obama kept talking about how bad the economy was....the market kept declining....bill clinton comes out and basically tells O to stfu and be more positive...market immediately starts going up...i don't think bush ignored it, rather tried to keep things on a positive keel as long as possible

absolutely on the overspending, stupid....with that said...how did that politicy effect the economy?

how did bush devalue the dollar?

uscitizen
08-08-2009, 07:31 PM
interestingly, when obama kept talking about how bad the economy was....the market kept declining....bill clinton comes out and basically tells O to stfu and be more positive...market immediately starts going up...i don't think bush ignored it, rather tried to keep things on a positive keel as long as possible

absolutely on the overspending, stupid....with that said...how did that politicy effect the economy?

how did bush devalue the dollar?

Umm borrowing 5 trillion dollars.

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 07:33 PM
Umm borrowing 5 trillion dollars.

explain how the current borrowing against the future is better.....

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 07:34 PM
Umm borrowing 5 trillion dollars.

so is obama's borrowing also devaluing the dollar?

how does borrowing in and of itself devalue the dollar? or is it the amount?

uscitizen
08-08-2009, 07:36 PM
so is obama's borrowing also devaluing the dollar?

how does borrowing in and of itself devalue the dollar? or is it the amount?

yes it is, but it is worse because bush had already borrowed 5 trillion in 8 years.

If bush had done as he promised and kept the defecit down the impact of current borrowing would be greatly reduced.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 07:48 PM
yes it is, but it is worse because bush had already borrowed 5 trillion in 8 years.

If bush had done as he promised and kept the defecit down the impact of current borrowing would be greatly reduced.

my understanding is that obama has borrowed near 2 trillion....that is less than one year....additionally, how does more borrowing help the problem?

i agree with the latter. he screwed up on his war planning and got us into two wars that we could not afford. i think it is probable if we had stayed in afghan we wouldn't have the debt.....it is possible, just maybe, that the end results (realized years down the road) will justify the loss of lives and debt. that is something only history will prove.

and btw....thank you for your points, this is exactly what i was looking for when i made this thread....

uscitizen
08-08-2009, 07:53 PM
Yeah Obama borrowed more, but wasn't the TARP money authorized by Bush? .8 trillion or so?

In any case we are in the worst recession since the great depression and spening is necessary to keep from going totally belly up. But I do disagree with TARP.
They were getting the big bucks for taking the risks so they can pay the price.

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 07:58 PM
But I do disagree with TARP.

so do I....but I'm not the one changing my tune now that it's a Democrat doing it.....

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 07:59 PM
Yeah Obama borrowed more, but wasn't the TARP money authorized by Bush? .8 trillion or so?

In any case we are in the worst recession since the great depression and spening is necessary to keep from going totally belly up. But I do disagree with TARP.
They were getting the big bucks for taking the risks so they can pay the price.

yes bush borrowed, i never said otherwise

i don't agree that spending is necessary....when people are losing money and facing b/k....spending more rarely works....and so called experts and historians are mixed on whether fdr's spending shortened or lengthened the great depression. unfortunately, the results are always tied to political beliefs. i don't believe and truly independent study has ever been done on the fdr's massive spending....

further, IMO....comparing then with now is apples/oranges...the country was relatively new....we were still heading west if you will....quite different than now

uscitizen
08-08-2009, 08:01 PM
so do I....but I'm not the one changing my tune now that it's a Democrat doing it.....


Check back thru the posts. I was against TARP from Day one!

Ask the other righties that have been here a while.

you are wrong and your assumption just made an ass out of you , not me.

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 08:02 PM
Check back thru the posts. I was against TARP from Day one!



yes....but that is the tune you changed FROM.....now you like big spending.....

uscitizen
08-08-2009, 08:04 PM
yes....but that is the tune you changed FROM.....now you like big spending.....

I am for helping the out of work and huruting people. I am not nor have ever been for helping business who made their big bucks on what is essentially gambling.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 08:08 PM
I am for helping the out of work and huruting people. I am not nor have ever been for helping business who made their big bucks on what is essentially gambling.

and the "people" didn't gamble on the housing market, stock market etc? i answered another of your posts about 4 posts up

Minister of Truth
08-08-2009, 08:08 PM
I am for helping the out of work and huruting people. I am not nor have ever been for helping business who made their big bucks on what is essentially gambling.

So the money is going into the hands of the out of work and huruting people, rather than the hands of the powerful, such as the lending institutions?

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 08:10 PM
I am for helping the out of work and huruting people. I am not nor have ever been for helping business who made their big bucks on what is essentially gambling.

you're for spending big bucks, so long as it's a Democrat spending it....

uscitizen
08-08-2009, 08:10 PM
So the money is going into the hands of the out of work and huruting people, rather than the hands of the powerful, such as the lending institutions?

Some of it is. excepting TARP money of course.
Of course most of it trickles up to the hands of the powerful.
But I do like tricke up a lot better than trickle down economics.

Trickle up works, trickle down not so well.

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 08:10 PM
trickle up poverty....

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 08:11 PM
Some of it is. excepting TARP money of course.
Of course most of it trickles up to the hands of the powerful.
But I do like tricke up a lot better than trickle down economics.

Trickle up works, trickle down not so well.

you're kitting me....obama hasn't given money to banks or large corporations?

Minister of Truth
08-08-2009, 08:11 PM
Some of it is. excepting TARP money of course.
Of course most of it trickles up to the hands of the powerful.
But I do like tricke up a lot better than trickle down economics.

Trickle up works, trickle down not so well.

No, it is neither trickling up or going into the hands of the poor. Perhaps it will trickle down, though...

uscitizen
08-08-2009, 08:12 PM
you're for spending big bucks, so long as it's a Democrat spending it....

You are just plain wrong.

Read some scriptures aobut helping the poor and meditate. It should help.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 08:15 PM
You are just plain wrong.

Read some scriptures aobut helping the poor and meditate. It should help.

yea....says nothing about giving to a government so they can spread the wealth...and if you really want to be technical....10%

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 08:16 PM
Yeah Obama borrowed more, but wasn't the TARP money authorized by Bush? .8 trillion or so?

In any case we are in the worst recession since the great depression and spening is necessary to keep from going totally belly up. But I do disagree with TARP.
They were getting the big bucks for taking the risks so they can pay the price.


yes bush borrowed, i never said otherwise

i don't agree that spending is necessary....when people are losing money and facing b/k....spending more rarely works....and so called experts and historians are mixed on whether fdr's spending shortened or lengthened the great depression. unfortunately, the results are always tied to political beliefs. i don't believe and truly independent study has ever been done on the fdr's massive spending....

further, IMO....comparing then with now is apples/oranges...the country was relatively new....we were still heading west if you will....quite different than now

lost in postlations....

uscitizen
08-08-2009, 08:50 PM
yea....says nothing about giving to a government so they can spread the wealth...and if you really want to be technical....10%

The bible does not limit charity to 10% Actually the 10% is for the church and gawd. Charity is above and beyond that.

does the bible make distinctions in charity by proxy?

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 08:55 PM
The bible does not limit charity to 10% Actually the 10% is for the church and gawd. Charity is above and beyond that.

does the bible make distinctions in charity by proxy?

did i say the bible limits it......

do you need some straw?

i don't believe the bible makes that distinction....but do feel free to limit yourself by continually voting dem'

post 91.....

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 08:55 PM
You are just plain wrong.

Read some scriptures aobut helping the poor and meditate. It should help.
uh dude....taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people isn't charity......using YOUR money to help poor people is charity....

uscitizen
08-08-2009, 08:57 PM
We elected our govt so it is just a charity by proxy thing.
One of the side effects of a psuedo democracy.

Did some rich dudes bring the fishes and loaves?

PostmodernProphet
08-08-2009, 08:58 PM
We elected our govt so it is just a charity by proxy thing.
One of the side effects of a psuedo democracy.

bullshit....it isn't charity at all.....

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 09:02 PM
We elected our govt so it is just a charity by proxy thing.
One of the side effects of a psuedo democracy.

Did some rich dudes bring the fishes and loaves?

wtf.....you don't even have a clue as to why the founding fathers created our constitution and our country....and they specifically made this country a republic.........................not.............. .......a democracy

this country is not jesus.....and to compare a miracle (viola there is fish) to taking care of our problems today is...........well.........outhouse mentality....

belme1201
08-08-2009, 09:21 PM
what specific policies are responsible?

Iraq War on borrowed money
Supply Side Economics
Deregulation/ no oversight

How's that for starters?

Cancel 2018. 3
08-08-2009, 09:38 PM
Iraq War on borrowed money
Supply Side Economics
Deregulation/ no oversight

How's that for starters?

excellent....thank you

borrowed money.....how is that different than what obama is doing now? when borrowing money caused the problem as you say.....then how is it that borrowing more money is better?

supply side.....what exactly is this? i see it plastered all over the net as some evil.....why exactly.

deregulation/no oversight....problem is....it was the repubs that called attn to the problem in 2003 and it was the dems who called them fear mongers....and how specifically would regulation solve the problem?

belme1201
08-08-2009, 09:43 PM
read my post.....

I did and I gave you the courtesy of replies more than once. You say you want to discuss responsibility, but, it seems, not if it belongs partially or wholly to those who were central to the mess we're in now.
I pointed out twice that if those you say wanted a bill to regulate the Macs and maybe others in the industry needing it, they could, would have brought it to the floor of either of the 2 houses of Congress. They did not .You refused to acknowledge and show what you have to offer to prove me wrong.
I can tell you if you want to find the answer, all you need do is read the rules of the 2 houses of Congress to see if their hands were tied or if they, as the Majority, just didn't do it, whatever the reason.

cawacko
08-08-2009, 09:43 PM
What did Bush deregulate during his term? I know he signed the Sarbanes/Oxley bill which added massive new regulations. I'm sure he passed some deregulation I just can't think of anything big at least off the top of my head.

belme1201
08-08-2009, 10:05 PM
What did Bush deregulate during his term? I know he signed the Sarbanes/Oxley bill which added massive new regulations. I'm sure he passed some deregulation I just can't think of anything big at least off the top of my head.

bush's deregulation came in the form of Cabinet Secretaries whose departments looked the other way rather than regulate. Actions in almost all departments from FDA to Justice to EPA diminished due to both inaction and failure to budget for adequate investigative staff. Oversight by the GOP Congress was almost non-existent. Is there any doubt the GOP is adverse to any regulation of business? I didn't say it began with bush.




Florida #1 (Who told you about Tebow, our hometown boy, first?)
USC #4
Wait! Let me say it first, it's the last vote that counts and I know it.

cawacko
08-08-2009, 10:19 PM
bush's deregulation came in the form of Cabinet Secretaries whose departments looked the other way rather than regulate. Actions in almost all departments from FDA to Justice to EPA diminished due to both inaction and failure to budget for adequate investigative staff. Oversight by the GOP Congress was almost non-existent. Is there any doubt the GOP is adverse to any regulation of business? I didn't say it began with bush.




Florida #1 (Who told you about Tebow, our hometown boy, first?)
USC #4
Wait! Let me say it first, it's the last vote that counts and I know it.


If they were adverse to any regulation they sure as hell wouldn't have passed that Sarbanes/Oxley. I saw those results first hand in our office as we hired many new accountants to comply with the new laws.

Florida is good. They are the defending champs and #1 so until someone beats them I can't say much. I will say thought their schedule is VERY soft this year. No Alabama and no Ole Miss in conference and their non-conference schedule is a joke. 3 cup cakes and Florida State. I so fired up for the season to start!

belme1201
08-08-2009, 10:58 PM
excellent....thank you

borrowed money.....how is that different than what obama is doing now? when borrowing money caused the problem as you say.....then how is it that borrowing more money is better?

supply side.....what exactly is this? i see it plastered all over the net as some evil.....why exactly.

deregulation/no oversight....problem is....it was the repubs that called attn to the problem in 2003 and it was the dems who called them fear mongers....and how specifically would regulation solve the problem?

You and I will never know what was on the plate when Paulson made his famous plea before Obama was elected, but apparently the problem was grave. Which budget was it that had to include the Paulson $3/4 trillion bailout money? I would rather throw money at a crumbling job situation and banks threatened by failure than a trumped up, mismanaged war, the first in the history of the US accompanied by tax cuts and financed with debt, asking nothing of the people. Let's step back to 1/19/09. What would you have to say today about the condition of the economy if Obama had handed it to a GOP President? What would you be saying about a GOP President who took over on 1/20/2009 if conditions were as they are today?

I suggest you look up Supply Side Economics, whose policy it represents and the long term minimal to negative effect it has had on the US worker especially when contrasted to the wealthy and large corporations, and its effect on the US economy since its inception. I suspect you are being somewhat disengenuous when you claim not to know it is what ghw bush called "Voodoo" economics. Track recessions and Supply Side, it is the reason I believe the recessions to be intentional.

Again, maybe the Dems were wrong also re: the Macs, but it was the GOP that held the power yet sat on their hands. I merely question "why?".
What was the bush "Ownership Society" policy? Before I hear it once again, the Super-Majority rule does not exist in the House or any Congressional committees.
If you claim Obama is making the same mistakes as bush, how can you absolve bush from responsibility?
Wouldn't the Mac bill you think the GOP wanted have been regulation?

uscitizen
08-08-2009, 11:08 PM
You and I will never know what was on the plate when Paulson made his famous plea before Obama was elected, but apparently the problem was grave. Which budget was it that had to include the Paulson $3/4 trillion bailout money? I would rather throw money at a crumbling job situation and banks threatened by failure than a trumped up, mismanaged war, the first in the history of the US accompanied by tax cuts and financed with debt, asking nothing of the people. Let's step back to 1/19/09. What would you have to say today about the condition of the economy if Obama had handed it to a GOP President? What would you be saying about a GOP President who took over on 1/20/2009 if conditions were as they are today?

I suggest you look up Supply Side Economics, whose policy it represents and the long term minimal to negative effect it has had on the US worker especially when contrasted to the wealthy and large corporations, and its effect on the US econommy since its inception. I suspect you are being somewhat disengenuous when you claim not to know it is what ghw bush called "Voodoo" economics. Track recessions and Supply Side, it is the reason I believe the recessions to be intentional.

Again, maybe the Dems were wrong also re: the Macs, but it was the GOP that held the power yet sat on their hands. I merely question "why?".
What was the bush "Ownership Society" policy. Before I hear it once again, the Super Majority rule does not exist in the House or any Congressional committees.
If you claim Obama is making the same mistakes as bush, how can you absolve bush from responsibility?
Wouldn't the Mac bill you think the GOP wanted have been regulation?


Well said. But they still will not understand.

It was the party of Bush that led the deregulation charge. Only an idiot can claim that deregulation of finiancial services played no part in theis economic mess.

belme1201
08-08-2009, 11:17 PM
If they were adverse to any regulation they sure as hell wouldn't have passed that Sarbanes/Oxley. I saw those results first hand in our office as we hired many new accountants to comply with the new laws.

Florida is good. They are the defending champs and #1 so until someone beats them I can't say much. I will say thought their schedule is VERY soft this year. No Alabama and no Ole Miss in conference and their non-conference schedule is a joke. 3 cup cakes and Florida State. I so fired up for the season to start!

Correct on S/O, but laws and enforcement are separate issues.

Also correct on the schedules, usually with Fla, the first 2 games are with Slippery Rock State Teachers and Colorado School for the Blind. Joking of course but it's been that way since Spurrier days when they dropped Miami and any other tough non-conference team except Fla. State. By the way the Canes are off the list altogether. There are 3 large FL schools now recruiting in competition with the Big 3, including the smallest that hired H. Schnellenburger, one of the best of all recruiters.

belme1201
08-08-2009, 11:34 PM
Well said. But they still will not understand.

It was the party of Bush that led the deregulation charge. Only an idiot can claim that deregulation of finiancial services played no part in theis economic mess.


Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic advisor and a major bank lobbyist is but a myth. Chris Cox, bush's Chairman of the SEC is only a rumor. Deregulation? "Who me?"

USFREEDOM911
08-09-2009, 12:05 AM
my understanding is that obama has borrowed near 2 trillion....that is less than one year....additionally, how does more borrowing help the problem?

i agree with the latter. he screwed up on his war planning and got us into two wars that we could not afford. i think it is probable if we had stayed in afghan we wouldn't have the debt.....it is possible, just maybe, that the end results (realized years down the road) will justify the loss of lives and debt. that is something only history will prove.

and btw....thank you for your points, this is exactly what i was looking for when i made this thread....

But it woiuld only be near 1 trillion, 500 billion if Bush hadn't spent that other 500 billion.

CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!

belme1201
08-11-2009, 09:18 AM
You and I will never know what was on the plate when Paulson made his famous plea before Obama was elected, but apparently the problem was grave. Which budget was it that had to include the Paulson $3/4 trillion bailout money? I would rather throw money at a crumbling job situation and banks threatened by failure than a trumped up, mismanaged war, the first in the history of the US accompanied by tax cuts and financed with debt, asking nothing of the people. Let's step back to 1/19/09. What would you have to say today about the condition of the economy if Obama had handed it to a GOP President? What would you be saying about a GOP President who took over on 1/20/2009 if conditions were as they are today?

I suggest you look up Supply Side Economics, whose policy it represents, and the long term minimal to negative effect it has had on the US worker especially when contrasted to the wealthy and large corporations, and its effect on the US economy since its inception. I suspect you are being somewhat disengenuous when you claim not to know it is what ghw bush called "Voodoo" economics. Track recessions and Supply Side, it is the reason I believe the recessions to be intentional.

Again, maybe the Dems were wrong also re: the Macs, but it was the GOP that held the power yet sat on their hands. I merely question "why?".
What was the bush "Ownership Society" policy? Before I hear it once again, the Super-Majority rule does not exist in the House or any Congressional committees.
If you claim Obama is making the same mistakes as bush, how can you absolve bush from responsibility?
Wouldn't the Mac bill you think the GOP wanted have been regulation?

Hello, Helloooooo, anybody out there? Isn't it amazing how you hear the sound of little GOP feet running away at the mention of Supply Side Economics or the Ownership Society? Yurt, you asked the question, it's your thread.

Topspin
08-11-2009, 09:25 AM
because you had lax enforecement doens't disprove supply side or ownership at all. They are the reasons we are so vastly richer than Europe and Asia.

belme1201
08-11-2009, 09:55 AM
because you had lax enforecement doens't disprove supply side or ownership at all. They are the reasons we are so vastly richer than Europe and Asia.





???