Bush: "I had to become a Socialist to save the country"

[Agnapostate]

Pathetic. If their own source discredits them, it does not matter how delusional the source because they believe in it. In any which case, if you did not follow the argument, why are you bothering to respond to it?

That's not what I meant, fool.

 

[Kazikli Bey]

Meh, you are being antagonistic for antagonism sake. Petty.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not disputing that, but all i am saying is that the Banks themselves were the cause of the bubble as they allowed these low and no doc loans and they themselves artificially inflated the housing market. The only way this debacle could be attributed to the Federal Government is by saying they did not regulate AGAINST allowing this sort of shit to happen.

but banks were borrowing money at negative interest rates. it was more expensive not to borrow.

All that money had to be lent and the low doc, no doc and the ARM craze all grew out of the easy money policy of the fed keeping interest rates artificially low.

And yes lenders upped the ante and lent 30 - 40 times their assets and not the old standard of ten to 15 times assets. But if interest rates were allowed to rise as they would have naturally after a huge run on the credit markets, the housing market would have slowed and home prices would have risen much more slowly. In short, the bubble would not have happened.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Evidence that the Fed Caused the Housing Boom - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Institute

 

[Paulie]

The weak in a democracy get the vote, governments in democracies can't afford to - nor should they - allow people to starve to death simply to be ideologically pure.

I can't speak for your government because I don't know anything about it, but the US government serves at the pleasure of the people, or at least it's SUPPOSED to. Most of us over here do not want the government getting involved even REMOTELY as deep as it has. It doesn't matter what the gov. deems it can't "afford", it serves as we see fit. If we do not want their help, they have no basis for offering it, other than FORCEFULLY which we are seeing today.

And people would not starve to death in numbers large enough to matter. We are at the top of the food chain as human beings, there's no reason for us to starve to death. There's food EVERYWHERE if you're willing to look for it. You don't ever have to step foot in a grocery store.

 

[Andrew2382]

Just wow....

So, Bush agrees with FDR. Under regulated, unfettered capitalism can't be trusted, and government intervention is needed.

Also interesting how just like FDR's policies didn't help shorten the depression, Bush's socialistic policies isn't helping cut the recession.

Whats that phrase again...

We study history, so history doesn't repeat itself...

 

[glockmail]

I agree with you on that point, Gluck, someplace nice and quiet, like Leavonworth.

This proves that you're a lefty kook.

 

[glockmail]

I am proud to say that I never voted for George W. Bush. Doesn't that just make me a totally awesome person???

It all depends who you voted for.

 

[Paulie]

Kazikili, you don't seem to be understanding where the problem ultimately began.

You quoted Mises, just because one little sentence said what you wanted to hear. It is true, the government is causing instability by pick and choosing, but if you read ENOUGH Mises, you'll know that his position is ultimately to not pick or choose ANYONE. You cherry-picked a sentence to prove a point that any Austrian advocate already knows anyway.

You can not have a bubble like the housing boom, without first having credit cheap enough to entice a large enough group of potential borrowers. Had rates not dropped to 1%, the absolute poorest of the borrowers most likely would have stayed out. When rates are "as cheap as they'll ever be" in a period where money was flowing like wine, of COURSE the borrowers are going to come out of the woodwork. Add in some good old propaganda to entice the masses to chase an asset that is being sold to them as one with apparent infinite valuation, and you have yourself a classic BUBBLE starting to inflate.

The deregulation only served to allow the banks to take advantage of the problem that was already initiated by the cheap credit. Without the cheap credit, the market would have decided on its own that housing was not a worthwhile investment at that time.

 

[editec]

They allowed the Fed to exist and to inflate the money supply, which caused the housing bubble.

They didn't have to lend the money, KK.

They did so because they got such a great return on their investments until the market collapsed.

A LOT of banks are NOT in trouble who could have been, you know?

Why do you keep absolving the BANKS for their responsibility for their own actions?

They're also allowing the Fed to further worsen the situation.

All your former heros (like Bush) seem to think you're wrong.

Oh oh..yeah, that's right, Bush II turned out to be a secret socialist.

I almost forgot.

 

[Paulie]

All your former heros (like Bush) seem to think you're wrong.

There you go assuming someone's position, again. The same shit you berate me for doing to you.

The only difference is I conclude your position based on what you directly say here, Kevin has never said he supports Bush. He's never even REMOTELY IMPLIED such. Everything he says would lead one to believe he vehemonently disagrees with Bush and his administration.

Try a new tactic, Ed. You're exposing yourself.

They didn't have to lend the money, KK.

Yeah, and the borrowers didn't have to take it, either.

 

[editec]

Also interesting how just like FDR's policies didn't help shorten the depression, Bush's socialistic policies isn't helping cut the recession.

Whats that phrase again...

We study history, so history doesn't repeat itself...

You know what they say, don't you Andrew?

Those who study history are doomed to watch those who don't, fuck things up again.

 

[editec]

There you go assuming someone's position, again. The same shit you berate me for doing to you.

I apologise for presuming to think I know who you voted for, Paul.

Yeah, and the borrowers didn't have to take it, either.

True. But they are NOT profession financiers with teams of economists telling them how to act.

BANKERS ARE.

Will you finally acknowledge that the BANKS are responsible for their OWN ACTIONS, or are you going to continue to blame the borrowers as those they were operating on their own?

 

[Paulie]

I apologise for presuming to think I know who you voted for, Paul.

apology accepted of course, but it was Kevin you assumed about, not me. And not just voting for, but presuming him to be his "hero" as well.

A little ridiculous, don't you think?

Will you finally acknowledge that the BANKS are responsible for their OWN ACTIONS, or are you going to continue to blame the borrowers as those they were operating on their own?

When have I ever NOT? I've always said I blame everyone. I blame the Fed, the individual banks, the consumers, the media. EVERYONE.

The banks shouldn't have preyed on the weakness of consumers, and the consumers shouldn't have let the banks do it. They should have been just a little smarter than the banks. If I can be, why can't anyone else? It wasn't too long ago that I was politically and economically apathetic, snorting coke and living the partying scene on a regular basis. If I'd have bought a house back then when I couldn't afford it, I'd be taking responsibility for myself NOW.

But what I did, was I grew up and learned what was important in life. I never even went to college, although I'm probably going to be starting this January, pursuing a brand new career.

There's simply no excuse, and no room for the blame game. Everyone deserves equal responsibility and accountability for their own actions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There you go assuming someone's position, again. The same shit you berate me for doing to you.

I apologise for presuming to think I know who you voted for, Paul.




True. But they are NOT profession financiers with teams of economists telling them how to act.

BANKERS ARE.

Will you finally acknowledge that the BANKS are responsible for their OWN ACTIONS, or are you going to continue to blame the borrowers as those they were operating on their own?

Yeah that's right Ed. those damn bankers forced people to put pen to paper at gun point. All those people who signed ARMs they could barely afford at the low end are 100% free from blame. they are all just innocent victims of evil bankers.

And the fucking banks that screwed up SHOULD have been held responsible for their fuck ups and should not have been bailed out. I've been saying that all along. But you need to cling to your class war and blame everything on the evil rich even though there is more than enough blame to go around.

So what do you propose Ed? A 1oo% government subsidized life where all you have to do is wake up? no personal responsibility, no accountability, where just being is enough where the benevolent government gives you everything you "deserve" and punishes the evil people for taking it from you?

 

[irie]

Yup, the democrats drafted and passed legislation that went into effect and killed the economy within a matter of months..

Btw what is this legislation that so drastically affected the economy?[/QUOTE]

Duhhhh, how about forcing lenders to make loan to non-qualified buyers in the housing market?

 

[sealybobo]

Yup, the democrats drafted and passed legislation that went into effect and killed the economy within a matter of months..

Btw what is this legislation that so drastically affected the economy?[/QUOTE]

Duhhhh, how about forcing lenders to make loan to non-qualified buyers in the housing market?

We've been telling you people for 8 years now that the Republicans were privatizing the profits and socializing the losses.

You didn't listen then, and now you still won't listen. All you do is talk talk talk.

 

[editec]

apology accepted of course, but it was Kevin you assumed about, not me. And not just voting for, but presuming him to be his "hero" as well.

A little ridiculous, don't you think?

We all suffer from the same disease, Paul.

We read so much sheer blather from the nitwits on this board, (and it elevates our ire) that we can't keep what people with more subtle minds think straight.

When have I ever NOT? I've always said I blame everyone. I blame the Fed, the individual banks, the consumers, the media. EVERYONE.

Then you and I are of the same mind, Paul. It took a cavalcade of players both in government and in private industry to cause the problems we are facing now.

My objection is ALWAYS to those who DEMAND that we pin the entire problem on one party, one group, one set of villians.

The banks shouldn't have preyed on the weakness of consumers, and the consumers shouldn't have let the banks do it. They should have been just a little smarter than the banks.

But the people who are buying homes (usually for the first time, I might add) NOT smarter about this stuff than full time professionals, Paul.

Those professionals knew they would get more money shunting people into mortgages they would eventually not be able to pay so shunted into those they were.

And when the shit hit the fan the people who should have helped those consumers were off the hook for the outcomes of their shinanigans.

If I can be, why can't anyone else? It wasn't too long ago that I was politically and economically apathetic, snorting coke and living the partying scene on a regular basis. If I'd have bought a house back then when I couldn't afford it, I'd be taking responsibility for myself NOW.

The people you are so angry at are losing their homes right now, man.

How much more abuse do you think they should enjoy.

But the bankers, who actually make great heaping piles of money selling people into bizarre mortgages are doing just fine, aren't they?

They got paid, and for them that's the end of the story.

But what I did, was I grew up and learned what was important in life. I never even went to college, although I'm probably going to be starting this January, pursuing a brand new career.

Planning on a career as an art historian, no doubt, right? (just kidding, I know you'll be tracking into something that you presume will make you a fine living...good luck with that, too)

There's simply no excuse, and no room for the blame game. Everyone deserves equal responsibility and accountability for their own actions.

Everyone deserves to accept the responsibility for what they did, on that we agree.

It's not working out that way, though, is it?

 

[FistyTheBadger]

We've been telling you people for 8 years now that the Republicans were privatizing the profits and socializing the losses.

You didn't listen then, and now you still won't listen. All you do is talk talk talk.

Give me valid examples of you guys telling us, in an assertive and consistent way, that you guys have known what has been happening all along, and give me examples of my side not listening and exacerbating the problem.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They didn't have to lend the money, KK.

They did so because they got such a great return on their investments until the market collapsed.

A LOT of banks are NOT in trouble who could have been, you know?

Why do you keep absolving the BANKS for their responsibility for their own actions?



All your former heros (like Bush) seem to think you're wrong.

Oh oh..yeah, that's right, Bush II turned out to be a secret socialist.

I almost forgot.

I am aware that there are more people to blame than simply the Fed, but the main perpetrator was the Fed. Too many people are looking to the Fed to correct this problem, when it was the Fed, predominantly, that caused it.

Bush is not and has never been my hero, and it's obvious he thinks I'm wrong or he wouldn't be doing the things that he is doing. But nothing he's done has helped the situation at all has it? Failed businesses are being bailed out to the tune of trillions and so far the situation hasn't gotten better. So should we really still be assuming that Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke know what's best? I don't think so.

I don't think Bush is a secret socialist. Though it's never been a secret that he's a neo-con, which means he leans more to the left than a traditional conservative.