Outstanding Article

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The fed was in kind of a tough spot there. The economy wasn't doing that great and there was a bubble going on. Of course, they made the wrong decision...

 

[Damocles]

I'm not giving anyone a pass. Those other "leaders" were not the President.

The one in charge is responsible regardless of whom did what. That's the way things are supposed to work, however, we have such a screwed up system today that the President gets a free ride and people who work for bankrupt companies get bonuses while others say there's too much control/government interference.

The chair in the Oval Office is supposed to represent more than a park bench. It's about time someone sat in it and took control.

The President is not "in charge" of anything other than 1/3 of the government. You give 2/3 of the government a pass. I can see maybe the Judicial Branch, but there is no excuse but partisanship to give the legislative branch a pass. 4 years of control during the Bush Admin, nothing at all done in the direction you say they should have been moving on this issue. In fact they sped as fast as they could in the other direction. And for you, it's only one guy and his party. It must be you happy place to sit inside the glass house and throw rocks at all the "enemies" you can see.

Again. Bush's lackluster attempts to point out the dangerous road we were on were infinitely better than the total lack of any action in a positive direction by the legislative branch. Rather than take any action to make anything any better, they preferred to have an issue that would help them to win more power. The deafening silence as you list the leaders of the house and senate who took no action is, well, deafening....

 

[apple0154]

The President is not "in charge" of anything other than 1/3 of the government. You give 2/3 of the government a pass. I can see maybe the Judicial Branch, but there is no excuse but partisanship to give the legislative branch a pass. 4 years of control during the Bush Admin, nothing at all done in the direction you say they should have been moving on this issue. In fact they sped as fast as they could in the other direction. And for you, it's only one guy and his party. It must be you happy place to sit inside the glass house and throw rocks at all the "enemies" you can see.

Again. Bush's lackluster attempts to point out the dangerous road we were on were infinitely better than the total lack of any action in a positive direction by the legislative branch. Rather than take any action to make anything any better, they preferred to have an issue that would help them to win more power. The deafening silence as you list the leaders of the house and senate who took no action is, well, deafening....

Every member of Congress and the Senate still have the Presidency to which to aspire while the President has "made it". One would hope they'd be a bit more responsible and altruistic as far as political ambition/loyalty is concerned.

As for Cawacko's comments,

I don't know if you're saying this as just an anti-Bush rant or you really mean it about the Presidency itself but while the buck does have to stop with the President the President is not a dictator and for good reason so even they only have so much control.

and

And as far as being able to stop a bubble the Fed has far more power over that than the President with the Fed's ability to adjust rates.

The point is he should have known and he should have done more to warn the people. He had access to private information and access to members of Congress who were sending out warning messages. He should have inquired and told the people.

I'm sure he could have made a case before the American people to insist their Congress-Person change the laws. He made a case for war on a lot less evidence.

Yes, it is partly an anti-Bush rant. He crusaded for a war that wasn't necessary and did little for something that was necessary.

 

[cawacko]

Every member of Congress and the Senate still have the Presidency to which to aspire while the President has "made it". One would hope they'd be a bit more responsible and altruistic as far as political ambition/loyalty is concerned.

As for Cawacko's comments, and

The point is he should have known and he should have done more to warn the people. He had access to private information and access to members of Congress who were sending out warning messages. He should have inquired and told the people.

I'm sure he could have made a case before the American people to insist their Congress-Person change the laws. He made a case for war on a lot less evidence.

Yes, it is partly an anti-Bush rant. He crusaded for a war that wasn't necessary and did little for something that was necessary.

Sorry dude, it's fine to be anti-Bush but you are letting your anti-Bush thinking not allow you to think rationally. It's obvious when a bubble bursts that we should have recognized it earlier. It's like claiming Bill Clinton should have spoke to the country in 1999/2000 and said the stock market is a bubble so everyone sell your stocks now and don't buy anymore tech stocks.

Partisan arm chair quarterbacking isn't always so good. I'm not even saying this in defense of Bush it's the idea of what you are asking the President to do. So I think how would I respond if it's a President I like vs. a President I don't. Well you're senario doesn't pass either test.

Again, you are free to think Bush was as bad as you like. But what you are asking the President to do is not reality.

 

[apple0154]

Sorry dude, it's fine to be anti-Bush but you are letting your anti-Bush thinking not allow you to think rationally. It's obvious when a bubble bursts that we should have recognized it earlier. It's like claiming Bill Clinton should have spoke to the country in 1999/2000 and said the stock market is a bubble so everyone sell your stocks now and don't buy anymore tech stocks.

Partisan arm chair quarterbacking isn't always so good. I'm not even saying this in defense of Bush it's the idea of what you are asking the President to do. So I think how would I respond if it's a President I like vs. a President I don't. Well you're senario doesn't pass either test.

Again, you are free to think Bush was as bad as you like. But what you are asking the President to do is not reality.

It's obvious we have differing expectations for the leader of a country. A crisis that almost resulted in a major depression that would have, in turn, resulted in many deaths, illness, social unrest.....that's not much of a leader in my view.

As for Clinton and the tech bubble while it did have an impact it wasn't a national crisis.

 

[Good Luck]

I'm not giving anyone a pass. Those other "leaders" were not the President.

The one in charge is responsible regardless of whom did what. That's the way things are supposed to work, however, we have such a screwed up system today that the President gets a free ride and people who work for bankrupt companies get bonuses while others say there's too much control/government interference.

The chair in the Oval Office is supposed to represent more than a park bench. It's about time someone sat in it and took control.

Yes, you are. You're giving congress a full pass under the idea that the president should have been more "in control". Frankly, I do not WANT any president to be even minimally in control of Congress.

Problem with that claim is that presenting information to congress for them to act on is not the job of the president. Yes, he ccould have taken the issue to the people - but would the people INCLUDING YOU have listened? Try to remember how the people - especially the left - felt about Bush. My bet is all of you (and probably myself included) would have viewed any warning from Bush as an attempt to pull focus away from the fiasco in Iraq.

Additionally, the President can make speeches all day long, but unless congress passes a bill for the president to sign into law, all that happens is a speech is made. In the end, Congress is on record of having been warned in a variety of ways, but chose to ignore the warnings. (Mostly because of who the warnings were coming from.)

Congress writes the laws. As such, they are every bit as much responsible, if not more so, for letting things go to the point of crisis as the President is. It's called balance of powers - and that also means balance of responsibility when thing go sour (and when they go well.) The judicial branch is the only one that gets a pass because all they can do is uphold the laws - even bad ones. (Unless they are unconstitutional, which the repeal of Glass Steagle, among others, was not.)

 

[cawacko]

It's obvious we have differing expectations for the leader of a country. A crisis that almost resulted in a major depression that would have, in turn, resulted in many deaths, illness, social unrest.....that's not much of a leader in my view.

As for Clinton and the tech bubble while it did have an impact it wasn't a national crisis.

Ok, how about some specific examples of what you would have liked the President the Congress and the Fed to have done.

 

[apple0154]

Ok, how about some specific examples of what you would have liked the President the Congress and the Fed to have done.

Specifics? Bush should have gone on national TV like he did promoting the Iraq war and told people to write their Congress person and change the laws that were leading to the financial crisis.

It wasn't as if people in power didn't know it was coming. The average guy on the street probably figured it was just rhetoric from Congress but Bush could have taken an in-your-face approach.

That's what, I my opinion, leaders are for. They are there to avert crisis, not just watch them happen.

Talking about averting a crisis that's what Obama is trying to do with health care. As it gets worse the poor will suffer the most but just like the financial crisis the wealthy/well-connected carry on just fine.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, he could have taken the issue to the people - but would the people INCLUDING YOU have listened?

Did that stop him regarding the Iraq war?

He should have warned the people whether or not they would listen.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Yes, you are. You're giving congress a full pass under the idea that the president should have been more "in control". Frankly, I do not WANT any president to be even minimally in control of Congress.

Problem with that claim is that presenting information to congress for them to act on is not the job of the president. Yes, he ccould have taken the issue to the people - but would the people INCLUDING YOU have listened? Try to remember how the people - especially the left - felt about Bush. My bet is all of you (and probably myself included) would have viewed any warning from Bush as an attempt to pull focus away from the fiasco in Iraq.

Additionally, the President can make speeches all day long, but unless congress passes a bill for the president to sign into law, all that happens is a speech is made. In the end, Congress is on record of having been warned in a variety of ways, but chose to ignore the warnings. (Mostly because of who the warnings were coming from.)

Congress writes the laws. As such, they are every bit as much responsible, if not more so, for letting things go to the point of crisis as the President is. It's called balance of powers - and that also means balance of responsibility when thing go sour (and when they go well.) The judicial branch is the only one that gets a pass because all they can do is uphold the laws - even bad ones. (Unless they are unconstitutional, which the repeal of Glass Steagle, among others, was not.)

 

[cawacko]

Specifics? Bush should have gone on national TV like he did promoting the Iraq war and told people to write their Congress person and change the laws that were leading to the financial crisis.

It wasn't as if people in power didn't know it was coming. The average guy on the street probably figured it was just rhetoric from Congress but Bush could have taken an in-your-face approach.

That's what, I my opinion, leaders are for. They are there to avert crisis, not just watch them happen.

Talking about averting a crisis that's what Obama is trying to do with health care. As it gets worse the poor will suffer the most but just like the financial crisis the wealthy/well-connected carry on just fine.

What laws could have been changed? Fannie and Freddie? That was tried and rejected by Congress. You want Congress to pass laws telling Wall St. firms to deleverage themselves or make law stating those firms can only carry so much leverage on their books? Should Congress have passed laws eliminating derivitives which tied so many companies and people into the crisis? You want the President to demand the Fed raise rates to cut off easy access to cheap capital? As far as I know the laws in the U.S. don't allow that.

I'm not hear trying to absolve Bush of any blame or say he was a great leader because he wasn't. But again I think you are still allowing your dislike of Bush to cloud your judgement on what the role the President plays in the U.S.

And saying ths financial crisis is causing deaths and unrest? That's some serious hyperbole to me.

 

[Good Luck]

Did that stop him regarding the Iraq war?

He should have warned the people whether or not they would listen.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Is that the best you can come up with? Bush sold Iraq at a time when his popularity was high. He would have been crying doom and gloom at a time when his popularity was low, which not only would have put even more opinion against his administration, but also at a time when Iraq was in the dumps thus making it appear as a distraction instead of a genuine area of concern. And let's not mention that changing lending practices would have hit lower income brackets more, thus opening the door to even more hubris from the left about racist practices of the republicans. Not even the best of political leaders is going to toss themselves under the bus when the likely outcome is no positive difference. While Bush could and should have done more to avert the crisis, to include taking it to congress more often and more insistently, talking with the fed aabout raising rates, "taking it to the people" is not a measure that would have anything but give people like you more ammunition to hate him.

And you still refuse to acknowledge that Bush - or at least his administration - did take warnings to those who had the capability to actually do something about it (ie: pass new laws and/or adjust interest rates). Those warnings were ignored. And here you are still in essence giving a pass to those who chose to ignore the warnings because Bush didn't cry doom and gloom from the TV.

OTOH, maybe he should have cried doom and gloom. I wonder what the "I told you so" factor would have been worth in some close congressional races.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Specifics? Bush should have gone on national TV like he did promoting the Iraq war and told people to write their Congress person and change the laws that were leading to the financial crisis.

It wasn't as if people in power didn't know it was coming. The average guy on the street probably figured it was just rhetoric from Congress but Bush could have taken an in-your-face approach.

That's what, I my opinion, leaders are for. They are there to avert crisis, not just watch them happen.

Talking about averting a crisis that's what Obama is trying to do with health care. As it gets worse the poor will suffer the most but just like the financial crisis the wealthy/well-connected carry on just fine.

"...should have gone on national TV like he did promoting the Iraq war and told people to write their Congress person..."


DAMN, you have this armchair quarterbacking down pretty good.
I bet you could tell last years LOSING Superbowl coach, exactly what he SHOULD have done, to win.

Would you care to show the number of past Presidents that have undertaken this??

And then; I'm sure it would have been so well received by the Liberals, seeing as how they had so much support for the Alert warnings.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What laws could have been changed? Fannie and Freddie? That was tried and rejected by Congress. You want Congress to pass laws telling Wall St. firms to deleverage themselves or make law stating those firms can only carry so much leverage on their books? Should Congress have passed laws eliminating derivitives which tied so many companies and people into the crisis? You want the President to demand the Fed raise rates to cut off easy access to cheap capital? As far as I know the laws in the U.S. don't allow that.

I'm not hear trying to absolve Bush of any blame or say he was a great leader because he wasn't. But again I think you are still allowing your dislike of Bush to cloud your judgement on what the role the President plays in the U.S.

And saying ths financial crisis is causing deaths and unrest? That's some serious hyperbole to me.

It looks like apple believes that the American public needs to be TOLD to write their Congressmen and Senators.

 

[apple0154]

What laws could have been changed? Fannie and Freddie? That was tried and rejected by Congress. You want Congress to pass laws telling Wall St. firms to deleverage themselves or make law stating those firms can only carry so much leverage on their books? Should Congress have passed laws eliminating derivitives which tied so many companies and people into the crisis? You want the President to demand the Fed raise rates to cut off easy access to cheap capital? As far as I know the laws in the U.S. don't allow that.

I'm not hear trying to absolve Bush of any blame or say he was a great leader because he wasn't. But again I think you are still allowing your dislike of Bush to cloud your judgement on what the role the President plays in the U.S.

And saying this financial crisis is causing deaths and unrest? That's some serious hyperbole to me.

I wrote in msg 25, "A crisis that almost resulted in a major depression that would have, in turn, resulted in many deaths, illness, social unrest..." (Emphasis added) There isn't anything hyperbolic about it.

As for what laws there are or aren't Bush could have and should have made a case for change. A strong case. Furthermore, laws can be changed. For one to take the position nothing could have been done and just watch it unfold is absurd.

This all comes back to Obama and people objecting to government interference. Surely it's obvious the government needs to interfere. If the repeal of the Glass Steagle Act, signed by Clinton, wasn't working Bush should have told the general public, over and over and over just like he did to get the public on side for the Iraq war. That's my point.

The leader has an obligation to the people. The repercussions could have much more severe. To do little to avert such a calamity is incompetence on the part of a leader. How can anyone disagree with that?

 

[cawacko]

I wrote in msg 25, "A crisis that almost resulted in a major depression that would have, in turn, resulted in many deaths, illness, social unrest..." (Emphasis added) There isn't anything hyperbolic about it.

As for what laws there are or aren't Bush could have and should have made a case for change. A strong case. Furthermore, laws can be changed. For one to take the position nothing could have been done and just watch it unfold is absurd.

This all comes back to Obama and people objecting to government interference. Surely it's obvious the government needs to interfere. If the repeal of the Glass Steagle Act, signed by Clinton, wasn't working Bush should have told the general public, over and over and over just like he did to get the public on side for the Iraq war. That's my point.

The leader has an obligation to the people. The repercussions could have much more severe. To do little to avert such a calamity is incompetence on the part of a leader. How can anyone disagree with that?

I understand the point about leadership but comparing the build up to war to the finanical crisis is not the same thing. It's easy to arm chair quarterback once its over. There was no general consensus about the size of the bubble we were in. It may look obvious in restrospect but not at the time.

If Glass-Steagal was so bad what have Obama in his year and the Democratic controlled Congress does in three years to put it back in place?

 

[apple0154]

Is that the best you can come up with? Bush sold Iraq at a time when his popularity was high. He would have been crying doom and gloom at a time when his popularity was low, which not only would have put even more opinion against his administration, but also at a time when Iraq was in the dumps thus making it appear as a distraction instead of a genuine area of concern. And let's not mention that changing lending practices would have hit lower income brackets more, thus opening the door to even more hubris from the left about racist practices of the republicans. Not even the best of political leaders is going to toss themselves under the bus when the likely outcome is no positive difference. While Bush could and should have done more to avert the crisis, to include taking it to congress more often and more insistently, talking with the fed aabout raising rates, "taking it to the people" is not a measure that would have anything but give people like you more ammunition to hate him.

And you still refuse to acknowledge that Bush - or at least his administration - did take warnings to those who had the capability to actually do something about it (ie: pass new laws and/or adjust interest rates). Those warnings were ignored. And here you are still in essence giving a pass to those who chose to ignore the warnings because Bush didn't cry doom and gloom from the TV.

OTOH, maybe he should have cried doom and gloom. I wonder what the "I told you so" factor would have been worth in some close congressional races.

You wrote, "Not even the best of political leaders is going to toss themselves under the bus when the likely outcome is no positive difference."

Why would he care? He was the President. He wasn't bucking for a promotion.

As you correctly wrote, "I wonder what the "I told you so" factor would have been worth in some close congressional races."

Exactly! The worst that could have happened was he would lose "points" with the public. Who cares? He was already the President. He wasn't going anywhere and time would have shown he did the correct thing because those lending/banking/investing practices would have caught up, sooner or later, even if less people defaulted on their mortgage.

He knew the outcome. He had nothing to lose in the long run and it would have made no difference to his current position because he was already the President.

The bottom line is he just didn't care enough.

 

[cawacko]

You wrote, "Not even the best of political leaders is going to toss themselves under the bus when the likely outcome is no positive difference."

Why would he care? He was the President. He wasn't bucking for a promotion.

As you correctly wrote, "I wonder what the "I told you so" factor would have been worth in some close congressional races."

Exactly! The worst that could have happened was he would lose "points" with the public. Who cares? He was already the President. He wasn't going anywhere and time would have shown he did the correct thing because those lending/banking/investing practices would have caught up, sooner or later, even if less people defaulted on their mortgage.

He knew the outcome. He had nothing to lose in the long run and it would have made no difference to his current position because he was already the President.

The bottom line is he just didn't care enough.

So that's the basis of your argument, "he didn't care?" A President who obviously has a huge ego doesn't care if the economy falls apart on his watch and hurts his legacy? That makes a lot of sense.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I wrote in msg 25, "A crisis that almost resulted in a major depression that would have, in turn, resulted in many deaths, illness, social unrest..." (Emphasis added) There isn't anything hyperbolic about it.

As for what laws there are or aren't Bush could have and should have made a case for change. A strong case. Furthermore, laws can be changed. For one to take the position nothing could have been done and just watch it unfold is absurd.

This all comes back to Obama and people objecting to government interference. Surely it's obvious the government needs to interfere. If the repeal of the Glass Steagle Act, signed by Clinton, wasn't working Bush should have told the general public, over and over and over just like he did to get the public on side for the Iraq war. That's my point.

The leader has an obligation to the people. The repercussions could have much more severe. To do little to avert such a calamity is incompetence on the part of a leader. How can anyone disagree with that?

There were several senators and economists who predicted the repercussions of repealing Glass-Steagall, not least among them being Byron Dorgan, it is just tragic that nobody listened to these siren voices in the wilderness at the time. I am reminded of the Gordon Gecko character in Wall Street and the infamous saying "greed is good". There is a new film called unsurprisingly Wall Street 2 coming out next year, where Michael Douglas reprises his role as Gecko.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/11/glass-steagall-act-the-se_n_201557.html

 

[apple0154]

"...should have gone on national TV like he did promoting the Iraq war and told people to write their Congress person..."


DAMN, you have this armchair quarterbacking down pretty good.
I bet you could tell last years LOSING Superbowl coach, exactly what he SHOULD have done, to win.

Would you care to show the number of past Presidents that have undertaken this??

And then; I'm sure it would have been so well received by the Liberals, seeing as how they had so much support for the Alert warnings.

We're not talking about a possibility. People did the math. The outcome was certain. The practices couldn't continue. It's not a case of "maybe" like in a ball game you use as an analogy.

There was a law in place before, the Glass-Steagall Law. Bush would know about that or have someone explain to him why it was necessary. How many average Joes would know about that law or why it was enacted?

The point is Bush did know. What he didn't do was push hard enough to prevent a crisis and that's poor leadership.

 

[apple0154]

It looks like apple believes that the American public needs to be TOLD to write their Congressmen and Senators.

Yes, when a leader sees an impending crisis and Congress is not acting then the leader has the responsibility to tell the people anything that might help.

That's what being a leader is all about. Leading.