Americans blame Republicans for the economy

My post did not isolate CRA, but spotlighted it as representing the conceptual viewpoint of our left of center colleagues. Whether one believes that giving is being a "good person," or that one can further ones career by making life easier for others, liberal-Democrat policy caused the meltdown.

This is in direct counterpoint to your claim that Republicans are more to blame since they were most recently in power. The problem goes back further than '79.

Conservative principles would have led to a more stable financial situation: no Freddie, no Fannie, no CRA.

Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple, as in giving loans to people who, while they might be good individuals, do not deserve loans they cannot afford. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ in this case, as the taking more financial risk.

Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Not everyone will have the same accommodations, or healthcare for that matter. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the constellation of Democrat innitiatives that have been outlined in these posts.

So this is not simply about the CRA, but about the entire package.
Be well.

The primary cause of the bubble was the Federal Reserve, IMO.

The reason why the Republicans are more culpable, however, is because they are the general philosophical champions of deregulation - even though Clinton and Rubin played their part. This crisis is a failure of deregulation.

If you have an understanding of financial history, this crisis is not a surprise, because financial history is littered with examples such as this. Financial bubbles are always precluded by a build-up of debt, and they are always marked by extreme overvaluation. You can read about financial crises here.

The Federal Reserve created and encouraged the build-up of debt but so did deregulation. Deregulation allowed the banks to build their debt to equity leverage from 12-15:1 to 30-40:1. The lack of deregulation in the Shadow Banking System - an unregulated part of the financial market - lead to the build-up of debt. Derivatives - which the International Swaps and Derivatives Association fought hard to exempt swaps from deregulation that Phil and Wendy Gramm famously shepherded through Congress - grew exponentially and lead to the massive increase in leverage.

This financial crisis was also a failure of philosophy that is generally espoused by Republicans - that markets are highly efficient. Highly efficient markets do not grossly misprice assets. If the price of a house doubles in a few years, then efficient markets are correctly pricing the price of your house. It is not overvalued, so the theory goes, because the market is always rational. If you believe this, then you can build mountains upon mountains of derivative structures based on the simple notion that housing prices do not appreciably fall across the country, let alone the world.

But that has been shown to be an utter fraud.

Deregulation is not always bad. I have usually thought it to be a good thing. And it has been very positive in some respects in the financial industry.

But it is not always a good thing. This crisis would not have occurred had the financial system not been as levered up as much as it had, full-stop. And deregulation allowed the massive leverage to occur.

There are many factors to blame for this mess. The most important was the Fed IMO. And the Democrats certainly are not blameless for several reasons, not least because they were the protector of the GSEs and allowed them to build up too much debt. However, since the Republicans are generally the champions of deregulation, and since most of the build-up in debt occurred either outside of the regulated financial system or because financial firms were allowed to do so, they are the more culpable party of the two.
 
My post did not isolate CRA, but spotlighted it as representing the conceptual viewpoint of our left of center colleagues. Whether one believes that giving is being a "good person," or that one can further ones career by making life easier for others, liberal-Democrat policy caused the meltdown.

This is in direct counterpoint to your claim that Republicans are more to blame since they were most recently in power. The problem goes back further than '79.

Conservative principles would have led to a more stable financial situation: no Freddie, no Fannie, no CRA.

Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple, as in giving loans to people who, while they might be good individuals, do not deserve loans they cannot afford. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ in this case, as the taking more financial risk.

Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Not everyone will have the same accommodations, or healthcare for that matter. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the constellation of Democrat innitiatives that have been outlined in these posts.

So this is not simply about the CRA, but about the entire package.
Be well.

The primary cause of the bubble was the Federal Reserve, IMO.

The reason why the Republicans are more culpable, however, is because they are the general philosophical champions of deregulation - even though Clinton and Rubin played their part. This crisis is a failure of deregulation.

If you have an understanding of financial history, this crisis is not a surprise, because financial history is littered with examples such as this. Financial bubbles are always precluded by a build-up of debt, and they are always marked by extreme overvaluation. You can read about financial crises here.

The Federal Reserve created and encouraged the build-up of debt but so did deregulation. Deregulation allowed the banks to build their debt to equity leverage from 12-15:1 to 30-40:1. The lack of deregulation in the Shadow Banking System - an unregulated part of the financial market - lead to the build-up of debt. Derivatives - which the International Swaps and Derivatives Association fought hard to exempt swaps from deregulation that Phil and Wendy Gramm famously shepherded through Congress - grew exponentially and lead to the massive increase in leverage.

This financial crisis was also a failure of philosophy that is generally espoused by Republicans - that markets are highly efficient. Highly efficient markets do not grossly misprice assets. If the price of a house doubles in a few years, then efficient markets are correctly pricing the price of your house. It is not overvalued, so the theory goes, because the market is always rational. If you believe this, then you can build mountains upon mountains of derivative structures based on the simple notion that housing prices do not appreciably fall across the country, let alone the world.

But that has been shown to be an utter fraud.

Deregulation is not always bad. I have usually thought it to be a good thing. And it has been very positive in some respects in the financial industry.

But it is not always a good thing. This crisis would not have occurred had the financial system not been as levered up as much as it had, full-stop. And deregulation allowed the massive leverage to occur.

There are many factors to blame for this mess. The most important was the Fed IMO. And the Democrats certainly are not blameless for several reasons, not least because they were the protector of the GSEs and allowed them to build up too much debt. However, since the Republicans are generally the champions of deregulation, and since most of the build-up in debt occurred either outside of the regulated financial system or because financial firms were allowed to do so, they are the more culpable party of the two.

good post.

the FED however is neither republican nor democrat.

it amazes me that anybody actually cares who is a democrat or who is a republican. do you care about how these prostitutes trim their pubes ? no ? then why do you care what party they belong to ?

republicans, democrats - same shit. its just a show, a circus. how brain dead does one have to be to think it's real ?

democrats were trying to put down Kucinich at the same time as republicans were trying to put down Ron Paul. why ? because these two actually wanted to change things. instead they narrowed it down to candidates who would keep things exactly the same as they were - and of course the one who ran under "change" slogan won.

when democrats gained control of the legislative did they try to stop bush in Iraq ? NO. why ? they're on the same payroll as Bush and now Obama.

democrats and republicans are full of shit to the exact same extent - 100%

i don't know anybody with a brain who identifies with either of the parties.
 
Last edited:
My post did not isolate CRA, but spotlighted it as representing the conceptual viewpoint of our left of center colleagues. Whether one believes that giving is being a "good person," or that one can further ones career by making life easier for others, liberal-Democrat policy caused the meltdown.

This is in direct counterpoint to your claim that Republicans are more to blame since they were most recently in power. The problem goes back further than '79.

Conservative principles would have led to a more stable financial situation: no Freddie, no Fannie, no CRA.

Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple, as in giving loans to people who, while they might be good individuals, do not deserve loans they cannot afford. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ in this case, as the taking more financial risk.

Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Not everyone will have the same accommodations, or healthcare for that matter. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the constellation of Democrat innitiatives that have been outlined in these posts.

So this is not simply about the CRA, but about the entire package.
Be well.



it amazes me that anybody actually cares who is a democrat or who is a republican. do you care about how these prostitutes trim their pubes ? no ? then why do you care what party they belong to ?

republicans, democrats - same shit. its just a show, a circus. how brain dead does one have to be to think it's real ?

democrats were trying to put down Kucinich at the same time as republicans were trying to put down Ron Paul. why ? because these two actually wanted to change things. instead they narrowed it down to candidates who would keep things exactly the same as they were - and of course the one who ran under "change" slogan won.

when democrats gained control of the legislative did they try to stop bush in Iraq ? NO. why ? they're on the same payroll as Bush and now Obama.

democrats and republicans are full of shit to the exact same extent - 100%

i don't know anybody with a brain who identifies with either of the parties.

Ah, we have found an area of expertise about which I have no knowledge, and you, clearly, do: prostitutes. And I see you have made a careful study of their nether parts.

Rarely do we see the depth of ignorance more clearly then when an alter-view proponent uses the other anatomical part to strenthen his point: "brain," trying, seems to claim some attachment to same.

You have certainly not made that case.

My friend Mr. Bull has made the attempt to paint a picture using no more than a financial explanation. My argument is that the picture cannot be seen clearly without applying philosophical, and psychologicl as well as financial aspects.

You, it seems, have not gotten beyond the "so are you," and "my mother can beat up your mother," level of explanation.

Even newspapers are outside of your grasp.

We have a president, President Obama. Still with me? He is the most left-wing executive we have ever had. It is astounding to those of us who can read that he is further left than European leaders, like Angela Merkel. (You'll have to have someone look that up for you.) And yet you say "candidates who would keep things exactly the same as they were - and of course the one who ran under "change" slogan won."

Now go back in the corner where you belong, and we'll have someone water you twice a day.
 
Last edited:
My post did not isolate CRA, but spotlighted it as representing the conceptual viewpoint of our left of center colleagues. Whether one believes that giving is being a "good person," or that one can further ones career by making life easier for others, liberal-Democrat policy caused the meltdown.

This is in direct counterpoint to your claim that Republicans are more to blame since they were most recently in power. The problem goes back further than '79.

Conservative principles would have led to a more stable financial situation: no Freddie, no Fannie, no CRA.

Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple, as in giving loans to people who, while they might be good individuals, do not deserve loans they cannot afford. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ in this case, as the taking more financial risk.

Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Not everyone will have the same accommodations, or healthcare for that matter. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the constellation of Democrat innitiatives that have been outlined in these posts.

So this is not simply about the CRA, but about the entire package.
Be well.

The primary cause of the bubble was the Federal Reserve, IMO.

The reason why the Republicans are more culpable, however, is because they are the general philosophical champions of deregulation - even though Clinton and Rubin played their part. This crisis is a failure of deregulation.

If you have an understanding of financial history, this crisis is not a surprise, because financial history is littered with examples such as this. Financial bubbles are always precluded by a build-up of debt, and they are always marked by extreme overvaluation. You can read about financial crises here.

The Federal Reserve created and encouraged the build-up of debt but so did deregulation. Deregulation allowed the banks to build their debt to equity leverage from 12-15:1 to 30-40:1. The lack of deregulation in the Shadow Banking System - an unregulated part of the financial market - lead to the build-up of debt. Derivatives - which the International Swaps and Derivatives Association fought hard to exempt swaps from deregulation that Phil and Wendy Gramm famously shepherded through Congress - grew exponentially and lead to the massive increase in leverage.

This financial crisis was also a failure of philosophy that is generally espoused by Republicans - that markets are highly efficient. Highly efficient markets do not grossly misprice assets. If the price of a house doubles in a few years, then efficient markets are correctly pricing the price of your house. It is not overvalued, so the theory goes, because the market is always rational. If you believe this, then you can build mountains upon mountains of derivative structures based on the simple notion that housing prices do not appreciably fall across the country, let alone the world.

But that has been shown to be an utter fraud.

Deregulation is not always bad. I have usually thought it to be a good thing. And it has been very positive in some respects in the financial industry.

But it is not always a good thing. This crisis would not have occurred had the financial system not been as levered up as much as it had, full-stop. And deregulation allowed the massive leverage to occur.

There are many factors to blame for this mess. The most important was the Fed IMO. And the Democrats certainly are not blameless for several reasons, not least because they were the protector of the GSEs and allowed them to build up too much debt. However, since the Republicans are generally the champions of deregulation, and since most of the build-up in debt occurred either outside of the regulated financial system or because financial firms were allowed to do so, they are the more culpable party of the two.

YouTube - EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama's tie to all of it!!!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64]YouTube - EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama's tie to all of it!!![/ame]

"Not Barney Frank: Starting in the early 1990s, he (and other Democrats) stood athwart efforts by regulators, Congress and the White House to get the runaway housing market under control.

He opposed reform as early as 1992. And, in response to another attempt bring Fannie-Freddie to heel in 2000, Frank responded it wasn't needed because there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."


"President Bush pushed for what the New York Times then called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Let The Inquisition Start With Frank

After view the youtube and read the above, I expect you will retact your statements about who is responsible.
 
Even newspapers are outside of your grasp.

you are absolutely correct. i don't read newspapers, don't watch TV, don't listen to radio and don't plan to start - ever.

Still with me?

i don't need to read your posts either.

Oh, wow! This is the best self-exposure by a liberal I have ever seen on this board!

Ignorant, and shouting it from the rooftops! Hooray!

You know, I thought I remembered you: Killer the Buzzard

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8DlBNA2HJFc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8DlBNA2HJFc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
 
This is the best self-exposure by a liberal I have ever seen on this board!

Ignorant, and shouting it from the rooftops! Hooray!

You know, I thought I remembered you: Killer the Buzzard

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge"

~ Stephen Hawking

Go plug yourself back into your illusion.

PS: i am not a liberal.

PPS: thanks for the cartoon, i enjoyed it.
 
This is the best self-exposure by a liberal I have ever seen on this board!

Ignorant, and shouting it from the rooftops! Hooray!

You know, I thought I remembered you: Killer the Buzzard

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge"

~ Stephen Hawking

Go plug yourself back into your illusion.

PS: i am not a liberal.

PPS: thanks for the cartoon, i enjoyed it.

My pleasure.
 
After view the youtube and read the above, I expect you will retact your statements about who is responsible.

Are you kidding?

I watched the Fox portion of this video. I skipped over the Cuomo part because I got the message. I counted now many references there were to the number of loans lent out to minorities, which according to Fox News was the reason for the financial crisis.

That number?

Zero.

As in zip, zilch, nada.

Not a single piece of data was referenced to back up their argument.

Not one.

They do not offer one piece of evidence, just opinions.

It was a typical hack job. "CRA forced banks to make loans. So they did. The financial system collapsed. Minorities are responsible."

What garbage.

Who's voice was intoning over the pictures, being portrayed as an expert in this subject?

Sean Hannity.

Unreal.

If you want a perfect example why many say that Fox News is a nothing more than an ideological shill, and why (many of) its conservative viewers are merely looking to reinforce their own confirmation bias at the expense of what is actually happening in the world, this is it.

It's as bad as the 9/11 twoofers videos.

Come back to me when you have something real, not some silly ideological hack-job.
 
After view the youtube and read the above, I expect you will retact your statements about who is responsible.

Are you kidding?

I watched the Fox portion of this video. I skipped over the Cuomo part because I got the message. I counted now many references there were to the number of loans lent out to minorities, which according to Fox News was the reason for the financial crisis.

That number?

Zero.

As in zip, zilch, nada.

Not a single piece of data was referenced to back up their argument.

Not one.

They do not offer one piece of evidence, just opinions.

It was a typical hack job. "CRA forced banks to make loans. So they did. The financial system collapsed. Minorities are responsible."

What garbage.

Who's voice was intoning over the pictures, being portrayed as an expert in this subject?

Sean Hannity.

Unreal.

If you want a perfect example why many say that Fox News is a nothing more than an ideological shill, and why (many of) its conservative viewers are merely looking to reinforce their own confirmation bias at the expense of what is actually happening in the world, this is it.

It's as bad as the 9/11 twoofers videos.

Come back to me when you have something real, not some silly ideological hack-job.

It is unfortunate that you have exposed yourself as a partisan apologist for Democrats, and to some extent exhibit an attempt to puff yourself as some sort of expert on the meltdown. You are not.

John Allison is.

IBD, American Spectator, WSJ are.

To review: It is the faulty Democrat ideology that has caused the meltdown. Without the CRA, Freddie, Fannie, the Clinton Administration, Dodd and Frank blocking regulation, we would not be seeing any more than a normal recession.

Be gone.
 
Last edited:
It is unfortunate that you have exposed yourself as a partisan apologist for Democrats, and to some extent exhibit an attempt to puff yourself as some sort of expert on the meltdown. You are not.

John Allison is.

IBD, American Spectator, WSJ are.

To review: It is the faulty Democrat ideology that has caused the meltdown. Without the CRA, Freddie, Fannie, the Clinton Administration, Dodd and Frank blocking regulation, we would not be seeing any more than a normal recession.

Be gone.

Quaint bromides and bumper sticker sloganeering does not change the fact that you have yet to offer one piece of evidence or data to support your claim. But of course, we wouldn't expect anything more from someone who quotes Anne Coulter in her sig, and does so without a trace of irony.
 
It is unfortunate that you have exposed yourself as a partisan apologist for Democrats, and to some extent exhibit an attempt to puff yourself as some sort of expert on the meltdown. You are not.

John Allison is.

IBD, American Spectator, WSJ are.

To review: It is the faulty Democrat ideology that has caused the meltdown. Without the CRA, Freddie, Fannie, the Clinton Administration, Dodd and Frank blocking regulation, we would not be seeing any more than a normal recession.

Be gone.

Quaint bromides and bumper sticker sloganeering does not change the fact that you have yet to offer one piece of evidence or data to support your claim. But of course, we wouldn't expect anything more from someone who quotes Anne Coulter in her sig, and does so without a trace of irony.

I made the mistake of assuming that you were innocently in error. You have disabused me of that error, proving, in fact that you are a pompous apologist for the Democrats masquerading as one seeking to honestly answer questions about the meltdown.

Numerous indicators of Democrat malfeasance have been posted and submitted, and you merely bluster about it being insufficiant.

It is sufficient, in the general, and in the specific.

Your claim that the Republicans where more at fault, being in power in the short term, has been clearly blown out of the water.
Truth On Target: Obama's Financial Friends: Schumer, Dodd and Barney Frank

And your cover has been blown, blow-hard.
 
Last edited:
"President Bush pushed for what the New York Times then called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

Hmmm.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all
.

This Republican tells a little different story about Bush's committment to greater regulation of Fannie/Freddie.
 
This Republican tells a little different story about Bush's committment to greater regulation of Fannie/Freddie.

Although I have not read the story that you quote, it does seem reasonable in the following light.

I have read that the point was made to President Bush that he would have been painted as "racist" had he followed through on regulation, and he would not show the courage necessary to confront the problem.

President Bush, while Republican, was not Conservative.

This might explain what appears to be syncretic.
 
Yet how long will this last? another six months or a year? Polls are snap shots. They tell you where things are right now they do not predict where they will be in six months. And the snapshot is only as good as the lens though which it was filtered.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top