Welcome to the Obama economy

[Mac1958]

.

There are obviously people who want to absolve Bush of any responsibility regarding the global meltdown, and I suppose that's understandable given the long and clear history of dishonesty that is partisan politics. My guy did nothing wrong, it's all your guy's fault.

Funny thing is, this behavior illustrates an abject ignorance these folks have of the nature of the meltdown.

Obama didn't cause this, nor did Bush. Surprise! It was decades in the making and it could easily take that long for its affects to disappear.

One of the many problems with partisan politics is that it oversimplifies everything it touches. I'm sure that makes things nice and simple of the incurious, the simplistic and the intellectually lazy, but dishonesty advances or improves nothing.

But, by all means, let's continue with the silliness.


.

Enlighten us into the cause, no platitudes please.

Sure. Not sure that I really need to, but sure.

The meltdown is the result of a combination of powerful factors:

Ineffective regulation - Whether it was not enough regulation or poorly enforced regulation, I'll let the partisans wrestle over it. Regulators were simply unable to keep up with changing financial instruments over time and allowed those selling those instruments to essentially run amok within the financial system. Whether it was exotic CMOs or ratings agencies that were giving AAAs to shit securities packages, it was up and down the system. Still is.

Ineffective governance - There are politicians who are on record as pushing mortgage lenders to relax standards in the interest of "fairness", only to see those mortgages do precisely what anyone could have told them they would do, collapse essentially across the board.

Government borrowing - Across the globe, governments continued to spend far more than they were taking in, as politicians continued to be afraid to say "no" to pretty much anyone. Balanced budget requirements would certainly have helped us avoid that, but few have the guts to push such an idea. Balanced budget requirements would force conservatives to justify spending cuts, and would force liberals to justify tax increases. Too much pressure.

Cheap and easy money - The Fed's fixation on interest rates combined with politicians' fixation on legislated "fairness" ultimately flooded markets with easy cash and created impossible distortion in money markets, adding considerably to the torque of what was to come.

Business greed - Global markets now are so stuffed with artificial securities (those that are based purely on betting and speculation), that it's easy for people whose only priority is income to take advantage of the system, to bend the rules, to justify any business practice.


But all of those significant elements of the meltdown pale in comparison to:


Consumer greed - We have created, supported and advocated a culture in which what you own, what you eat, what you watch, and what you want to buy supposedly tell us more about you than your character. We're incredibly fat and lazy, we care more about how Kim Kardashian is getting along with her mom than we do about how are kids are doing in school, we're terrified of "offending" someone with mere words, we're obsessed with buying the latest and newest Apple product. We try to shoe-horn ourselves into mortgages we know damn well we can't afford, and we sacrifice the equity in our homes so that we can pay off our credit cards and run them back up to purchase shit we don't need. Our culture is in swift decay, and that decay is being directly reflected in our economy.

All of these issues have been festering and growing over decades.

Or, wait, forget all that. It's all Obama's fault.

Good gawd.

.

 

[zeke]

CRA aka Community Reinvestment Act.

Which also required banks that were drawing deposits from a particular community, those banks had to make conforming mortgage loans available in the same community. That is where the "reinvestment" part comes in.

Mortgage brokers were the driving force behind the sub prime collapse and did not have to follow CRA requirements. Because they were not recieving deposits of money into a bank.

But don't let your fantasy stop you from making shit up.

Or as sallow put it so well; BULLSHIT.

 

[zeke]

IF Mitt is elected, and the economy completely collapses, will the Mitt lovers place all the blame on Mitt or will they play the pass through blame game and say it is all Obama's fault?

Fortunatley, we will never know.

 

[PratchettFan]

.

There are obviously people who want to absolve Bush of any responsibility regarding the global meltdown, and I suppose that's understandable given the long and clear history of dishonesty that is partisan politics. My guy did nothing wrong, it's all your guy's fault.

Funny thing is, this behavior illustrates an abject ignorance these folks have of the nature of the meltdown.

Obama didn't cause this, nor did Bush. Surprise! It was decades in the making and it could easily take that long for its affects to disappear.

One of the many problems with partisan politics is that it oversimplifies everything it touches. I'm sure that makes things nice and simple of the incurious, the simplistic and the intellectually lazy, but dishonesty advances or improves nothing.

But, by all means, let's continue with the silliness.


.

Enlighten us into the cause, no platitudes please.

Sure. Not sure that I really need to, but sure.

The meltdown is the result of a combination of powerful factors:

Ineffective regulation - Whether it was not enough regulation or poorly enforced regulation, I'll let the partisans wrestle over it. Regulators were simply unable to keep up with changing financial instruments over time and allowed those selling those instruments to essentially run amok within the financial system. Whether it was exotic CMOs or ratings agencies that were giving AAAs to shit securities packages, it was up and down the system. Still is.

Ineffective governance - There are politicians who are on record as pushing mortgage lenders to relax standards in the interest of "fairness", only to see those mortgages do precisely what anyone could have told them they would do, collapse essentially across the board.

Government borrowing - Across the globe, governments continued to spend far more than they were taking in, as politicians continued to be afraid to say "no" to pretty much anyone. Balanced budget requirements would certainly have helped us avoid that, but few have the guts to push such an idea. Balanced budget requirements would force conservatives to justify spending cuts, and would force liberals to justify tax increases. Too much pressure.

Cheap and easy money - The Fed's fixation on interest rates combined with politicians' fixation on legislated "fairness" ultimately flooded markets with easy cash and created impossible distortion in money markets, adding considerably to the torque of what was to come.

Business greed - Global markets now are so stuffed with artificial securities (those that are based purely on betting and speculation), that it's easy for people whose only priority is income to take advantage of the system, to bend the rules, to justify any business practice.


But all of those significant elements of the meltdown pale in comparison to:


Consumer greed - We have created, supported and advocated a culture in which what you own, what you eat, what you watch, and what you want to buy supposedly tell us more about you than your character. We're incredibly fat and lazy, we care more about how Kim Kardashian is getting along with her mom than we do about how are kids are doing in school, we're terrified of "offending" someone with mere words, we're obsessed with buying the latest and newest Apple product. We try to shoe-horn ourselves into mortgages we know damn well we can't afford, and we sacrifice the equity in our homes so that we can pay off our credit cards and run them back up to purchase shit we don't need. Our culture is in swift decay, and that decay is being directly reflected in our economy.

All of these issues have been festering and growing over decades.

Or, wait, forget all that. It's all Obama's fault.

Good gawd.

.

I'd say that is a pretty fair assessment.

 

[Freewill]

IF Mitt is elected, and the economy completely collapses, will the Mitt lovers place all the blame on Mitt or will they play the pass through blame game and say it is all Obama's fault?

Fortunatley, we will never know.

If the economy takes off will the Mitt haters give him credit?

It isn't a matter of if Mitt will be any better it is a matter of whether or not we reward Obama for his performance over the last 4 years. If a divided country is what you really want then reward Obama.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

There are obviously people who want to absolve Bush of any responsibility regarding the global meltdown, and I suppose that's understandable given the long and clear history of dishonesty that is partisan politics. My guy did nothing wrong, it's all your guy's fault.

Funny thing is, this behavior illustrates an abject ignorance these folks have of the nature of the meltdown.

Obama didn't cause this, nor did Bush. Surprise! It was decades in the making and it could easily take that long for its affects to disappear.

One of the many problems with partisan politics is that it oversimplifies everything it touches. I'm sure that makes things nice and simple of the incurious, the simplistic and the intellectually lazy, but dishonesty advances or improves nothing.

But, by all means, let's continue with the silliness.


.

The economic crash in 2008 is old history now. People were not on foodstamps in 08 they way they are now. People were not unemployed for year in 08 they way they are now. No, this is the result of terrible economic policies over the last 3years, not some 30 year in the making nonsense.

I'm going to assume that you're more intelligent and informed than this, and that you're just playing partisan politics, i.e., being dishonest.

No way a reasonably intelligent person actually believes this.

.

Please tell me how people were unemployed for 3 years under Bush, when UE was rarely above 6%. Tell me about lower levels of workforce participation under Bush, about higher levels of gov't dependence under Bush. Fill me in on all this because despite reading the WS Journal every day for the past 20 years I've obviously missed it.
What fact did I get wrong here? I'm sure you have answers.

 

[Mac1958]

The economic crash in 2008 is old history now. People were not on foodstamps in 08 they way they are now. People were not unemployed for year in 08 they way they are now. No, this is the result of terrible economic policies over the last 3years, not some 30 year in the making nonsense.

I'm going to assume that you're more intelligent and informed than this, and that you're just playing partisan politics, i.e., being dishonest.

No way a reasonably intelligent person actually believes this.

.

Please tell me how people were unemployed for 3 years under Bush, when UE was rarely above 6%. Tell me about lower levels of workforce participation under Bush, about higher levels of gov't dependence under Bush. Fill me in on all this because despite reading the WS Journal every day for the past 20 years I've obviously missed it.
What fact did I get wrong here? I'm sure you have answers.

I'll post it again, just for the hell of it.

I know this won't satisfy you, because it doesn't simplistically point the finger in one direction or at just one guy. Plus, I'm sure Rush hasn't covered it. But once again:

The meltdown is the result of a combination of powerful factors:

Ineffective regulation - Whether it was not enough regulation or poorly enforced regulation, I'll let the partisans wrestle over it. Regulators were simply unable to keep up with changing financial instruments over time and allowed those selling those instruments to essentially run amok within the financial system. Whether it was exotic CMOs or ratings agencies that were giving AAAs to shit securities packages, it was up and down the system. Still is.

Ineffective governance - There are politicians who are on record as pushing mortgage lenders to relax standards in the interest of "fairness", only to see those mortgages do precisely what anyone could have told them they would do, collapse essentially across the board.

Government borrowing - Across the globe, governments continued to spend far more than they were taking in, as politicians continued to be afraid to say "no" to pretty much anyone. Balanced budget requirements would certainly have helped us avoid that, but few have the guts to push such an idea. Balanced budget requirements would force conservatives to justify spending cuts, and would force liberals to justify tax increases. Too much pressure.

Cheap and easy money - The Fed's fixation on interest rates combined with politicians' fixation on legislated "fairness" ultimately flooded markets with easy cash and created impossible distortion in money markets, adding considerably to the torque of what was to come.

Business greed - Global markets now are so stuffed with artificial securities (those that are based purely on betting and speculation), that it's easy for people whose only priority is income to take advantage of the system, to bend the rules, to justify any business practice.


But all of those significant elements of the meltdown pale in comparison to:


Consumer greed - We have created, supported and advocated a culture in which what you own, what you eat, what you watch, and what you want to buy supposedly tell us more about you than your character. We're incredibly fat and lazy, we care more about how Kim Kardashian is getting along with her mom than we do about how are kids are doing in school, we're terrified of "offending" someone with mere words, we're obsessed with buying the latest and newest Apple product. We try to shoe-horn ourselves into mortgages we know damn well we can't afford, and we sacrifice the equity in our homes so that we can pay off our credit cards and run them back up to purchase shit we don't need. Our culture is in swift decay, and that decay is being directly reflected in our economy.

All of these issues have been festering and growing over decades.


But, by all means, you can claim this all just happened since January 2009. I have little doubt that others here will agree with you.

.

 

[uscitizen]

.

There are obviously people who want to absolve Bush of any responsibility regarding the global meltdown, and I suppose that's understandable given the long and clear history of dishonesty that is partisan politics. My guy did nothing wrong, it's all your guy's fault.

Funny thing is, this behavior illustrates an abject ignorance these folks have of the nature of the meltdown.

Obama didn't cause this, nor did Bush. Surprise! It was decades in the making and it could easily take that long for its affects to disappear.

One of the many problems with partisan politics is that it oversimplifies everything it touches. I'm sure that makes things nice and simple of the incurious, the simplistic and the intellectually lazy, but dishonesty advances or improves nothing.

But, by all means, let's continue with the silliness.


.

The continuation of blaming this all on the president is just what those who are really the cause want us to do.

 

[WillowTree]

poor little butt hurt libturds,, can dish it but cannot take it..

the economy sucks, and it's obama's economy. his ball busting job killing policies are killing the fucking economy. now..... KERRY on

 

[RoadVirus]

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm going to assume that you're more intelligent and informed than this, and that you're just playing partisan politics, i.e., being dishonest.

No way a reasonably intelligent person actually believes this.

.

Please tell me how people were unemployed for 3 years under Bush, when UE was rarely above 6%. Tell me about lower levels of workforce participation under Bush, about higher levels of gov't dependence under Bush. Fill me in on all this because despite reading the WS Journal every day for the past 20 years I've obviously missed it.
What fact did I get wrong here? I'm sure you have answers.

I'll post it again, just for the hell of it.

I know this won't satisfy you, because it doesn't simplistically point the finger in one direction or at just one guy. Plus, I'm sure Rush hasn't covered it. But once again:

The meltdown is the result of a combination of powerful factors:

Ineffective regulation - Whether it was not enough regulation or poorly enforced regulation, I'll let the partisans wrestle over it. Regulators were simply unable to keep up with changing financial instruments over time and allowed those selling those instruments to essentially run amok within the financial system. Whether it was exotic CMOs or ratings agencies that were giving AAAs to shit securities packages, it was up and down the system. Still is.

Ineffective governance - There are politicians who are on record as pushing mortgage lenders to relax standards in the interest of "fairness", only to see those mortgages do precisely what anyone could have told them they would do, collapse essentially across the board.

Government borrowing - Across the globe, governments continued to spend far more than they were taking in, as politicians continued to be afraid to say "no" to pretty much anyone. Balanced budget requirements would certainly have helped us avoid that, but few have the guts to push such an idea. Balanced budget requirements would force conservatives to justify spending cuts, and would force liberals to justify tax increases. Too much pressure.

Cheap and easy money - The Fed's fixation on interest rates combined with politicians' fixation on legislated "fairness" ultimately flooded markets with easy cash and created impossible distortion in money markets, adding considerably to the torque of what was to come.

Business greed - Global markets now are so stuffed with artificial securities (those that are based purely on betting and speculation), that it's easy for people whose only priority is income to take advantage of the system, to bend the rules, to justify any business practice.


But all of those significant elements of the meltdown pale in comparison to:


Consumer greed - We have created, supported and advocated a culture in which what you own, what you eat, what you watch, and what you want to buy supposedly tell us more about you than your character. We're incredibly fat and lazy, we care more about how Kim Kardashian is getting along with her mom than we do about how are kids are doing in school, we're terrified of "offending" someone with mere words, we're obsessed with buying the latest and newest Apple product. We try to shoe-horn ourselves into mortgages we know damn well we can't afford, and we sacrifice the equity in our homes so that we can pay off our credit cards and run them back up to purchase shit we don't need. Our culture is in swift decay, and that decay is being directly reflected in our economy.

All of these issues have been festering and growing over decades.


But, by all means, you can claim this all just happened since January 2009. I have little doubt that others here will agree with you.

.

OK. I thought Obama was elected to fix all those things, none of which came from Bush, btw. But if those things are all true and went on for decades then why was UE about 5% and sometimes less for most of the Bush years? And why was it less during the Clinton years? And why was it less going back to Reagan's second term?
You seem to think high unemployment, high deficits, low workforce participation, and high levels of gov't dependence have been going on for 30 years. It is simply not true,not to the extent we have seen over the last 3 years.
So one of us is stupid. And it isn't me.

 

[Mac1958]

Please tell me how people were unemployed for 3 years under Bush, when UE was rarely above 6%. Tell me about lower levels of workforce participation under Bush, about higher levels of gov't dependence under Bush. Fill me in on all this because despite reading the WS Journal every day for the past 20 years I've obviously missed it.
What fact did I get wrong here? I'm sure you have answers.

I'll post it again, just for the hell of it.

I know this won't satisfy you, because it doesn't simplistically point the finger in one direction or at just one guy. Plus, I'm sure Rush hasn't covered it. But once again:

The meltdown is the result of a combination of powerful factors:

Ineffective regulation - Whether it was not enough regulation or poorly enforced regulation, I'll let the partisans wrestle over it. Regulators were simply unable to keep up with changing financial instruments over time and allowed those selling those instruments to essentially run amok within the financial system. Whether it was exotic CMOs or ratings agencies that were giving AAAs to shit securities packages, it was up and down the system. Still is.

Ineffective governance - There are politicians who are on record as pushing mortgage lenders to relax standards in the interest of "fairness", only to see those mortgages do precisely what anyone could have told them they would do, collapse essentially across the board.

Government borrowing - Across the globe, governments continued to spend far more than they were taking in, as politicians continued to be afraid to say "no" to pretty much anyone. Balanced budget requirements would certainly have helped us avoid that, but few have the guts to push such an idea. Balanced budget requirements would force conservatives to justify spending cuts, and would force liberals to justify tax increases. Too much pressure.

Cheap and easy money - The Fed's fixation on interest rates combined with politicians' fixation on legislated "fairness" ultimately flooded markets with easy cash and created impossible distortion in money markets, adding considerably to the torque of what was to come.

Business greed - Global markets now are so stuffed with artificial securities (those that are based purely on betting and speculation), that it's easy for people whose only priority is income to take advantage of the system, to bend the rules, to justify any business practice.


But all of those significant elements of the meltdown pale in comparison to:


Consumer greed - We have created, supported and advocated a culture in which what you own, what you eat, what you watch, and what you want to buy supposedly tell us more about you than your character. We're incredibly fat and lazy, we care more about how Kim Kardashian is getting along with her mom than we do about how are kids are doing in school, we're terrified of "offending" someone with mere words, we're obsessed with buying the latest and newest Apple product. We try to shoe-horn ourselves into mortgages we know damn well we can't afford, and we sacrifice the equity in our homes so that we can pay off our credit cards and run them back up to purchase shit we don't need. Our culture is in swift decay, and that decay is being directly reflected in our economy.

All of these issues have been festering and growing over decades.


But, by all means, you can claim this all just happened since January 2009. I have little doubt that others here will agree with you.

.

OK. I thought Obama was elected to fix all those things, none of which came from Bush, btw. But if those things are all true and went on for decades then why was UE about 5% and sometimes less for most of the Bush years? And why was it less during the Clinton years? And why was it less going back to Reagan's second term?
You seem to think high unemployment, high deficits, low workforce participation, and high levels of gov't dependence have been going on for 30 years. It is simply not true,not to the extent we have seen over the last 3 years.
So one of us is stupid. And it isn't me.

I expect to be called stupid by partisan ideologues, so we can run with that. Sounds good.

And I'll put this as simply as I can: What we are seeing is the predictable result of the above issues manifesting over time. The rubber band snapped. The old business cycle rules don't apply. The system finally collapsed under its own weight in September of 2008. There was a pre-meltdown environment, and there is a post-meltdown environment. We have to not only unwind from all the debt, we have to change our culture if we want to see long term improvement.

Look, I know you're committed to blaming Democrats for everything. I get it. And I know that I can provide you with mature, civil, reasonable, supportable opinions for the next thousand years and you will not bend, no matter what, period, your commitment to your ideology is that strong.

So, for your benefit: It's all Obama's fault. That guy. Over there. Your side is without any guilt whatsoever. Things would be just fine if it were not for him. From here to Greece, HE did all this.

Phew. There.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so your position is that the US economy was on a long decline and finally snapped in late 2008, never to recover?
OK. I guess that's one idea.
My idea is that 3 years of gross economic mismanagement turned a downturn in the business cycle into a long slow malaise, that can be cured easily enough by replacing the dolt in the WH and his idiot advisors, who have been replacing themselves in any case.
One of us is right.

 

[Zxereus]

So then, I assume you blame President George W Bush for the attacks of 9/11, correct?

.

If you'll go back and look, I am not blaming anyone. I am saying that whoever is in charge "GET'S" the blame or credit. That's how it has always worked.

So you were just making an objective, non-partisan point, with no inference or editorializing whatsoever. I see.

I suppose that would be a little easier to believe if (a) your avatar didn't say "Done" with a fork stuck in Obama's logo, and (b) said in the thread "well, we've had I believe 43 straight months of unemployment over 8%. He obviously isn't up for the job. It's time for change."

I think that any reasonable person would therefore conclude that you ARE making a point, as naive or dishonest as it is, that Obama's policies are to blame for the current economic situation.

Can't you at least be honest about that?

.

The effects of the bad economy has been unemployment over 8% for over 40 months. This has happened on Obama's watch, and he is the one directly reponsible for stewarding the American economy

 

[Zxereus]

IF Mitt is elected, and the economy completely collapses, will the Mitt lovers place all the blame on Mitt or will they play the pass through blame game and say it is all Obama's fault?

Fortunatley, we will never know.

If Romney becomes the president, it's his economy, just as it's Obama's now.

 

[Zxereus]

.

There are obviously people who want to absolve Bush of any responsibility regarding the global meltdown, and I suppose that's understandable given the long and clear history of dishonesty that is partisan politics. My guy did nothing wrong, it's all your guy's fault.

Funny thing is, this behavior illustrates an abject ignorance these folks have of the nature of the meltdown.

Obama didn't cause this, nor did Bush. Surprise! It was decades in the making and it could easily take that long for its affects to disappear.

One of the many problems with partisan politics is that it oversimplifies everything it touches. I'm sure that makes things nice and simple of the incurious, the simplistic and the intellectually lazy, but dishonesty advances or improves nothing.

But, by all means, let's continue with the silliness.


.

The continuation of blaming this all on the president is just what those who are really the cause want us to do.

Blame who you like, your choice. But that will not change the fact that the president is the one who provides the desk where the buck stops.