Reaganomics vs Obamanomics

[boedicca]

outlawing redling did not force banks to make bad loans. And the main reason for the crah was the inflating of housing prices by wall street using fraud.

Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail? | Rolling Stone Politics


Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom — an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities — has ever been convicted. Their names by now are familiar to even the most casual Middle American news consumer: companies like AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. Most of these firms were directly involved in elaborate fraud and theft. Lehman Brothers hid billions in loans from its investors. Bank of America lied about billions in bonuses. Goldman Sachs failed to tell clients how it put together the born-to-lose toxic mortgage deals it was selling. What's more, many of these companies had corporate chieftains whose actions cost investors billions — from AIG derivatives chief Joe Cassano, who assured investors they would not lose even "one dollar" just months before his unit imploded, to the $263 million in compensation that former Lehman chief Dick "The Gorilla" Fuld conveniently failed to disclose. Yet not one of them has faced time behind bars.

I call bullshit. You can't force someone to make loans to someone who can't afford it, and then expect the lending institution to remain financially stable. That's just plain fucking logic. It's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. I know you don't leave liberal fantasyland, but those theories don't work here in the real world were cause and effect don't give a shit about feelings and 'nice'.

The major reason why Canada hasn't experienced the painful crash of their real estate as we did is that in Canada banks were still getting a substantial down payment before approving home loans. One could make the argument that this whole crash can be traced to pressure on US banks to make sub-prime mortgage loans by the government. Without the massive numbers of sub-prime loans that got bundled and sold as "solid" investments we wouldn't have had the large financials getting slaughtered when the real estate bubble burst. Without Fannie and Freddie backing all those sub-prime loans tax payers wouldn't have suffered billions of dollars of losses. It's kind of like the old saying..."It doesn't pay to fool Mother Nature." In this case it didn't pay to to go against sound banking principles just to push a political agenda.

It's also why Texas has largely escaped the mortgage crisis. State law requires at least a 20% down payment.

It's criminal that the Federal Government encouraged loans to people who couldn't afford them.

 

[rdean]

No one has seen "Obamanomics". Obstructionist Republicans won't let it happen. They hate the black guy that much they won't even let him fix their failure. Well, at least he took out Bin Laden. One Republican failure fixed.

 

[Big Fitz]

No one has seen "Obamanomics". Obstructionist Republicans won't let it happen. They hate the black guy that much they won't even let him fix their failure. Well, at least he took out Bin Laden. One Republican failure fixed.

Still thinking this is "Bushonomics"? 3 years in and it's still W's fault. You just won't get off that dead horse will you. Hoping it'll resurrect? And playing the race card. Nice touch. Doesn't change fact that we've been in Obamanomics since 2009, and it's an abject failure. Just because the libs won't pass a budget doesn't mean it absolves him of his actions.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Further proof that you are an economic nincompoop. The country was put through a recession via Fed policy (the Volcker recession) to get rid of the double digit inflation that was decimating the country. That recession, which ended in Nov. 1982, had high unemployment just like the 2007 one. The difference in recoveries is telling. Reagan's policies led to high GDP growth, increased labor force participation, and high levels of job creation.

Obama's have basically resulted in the opposite. Other recoveries have taken 2 to 3 quarters to regain the lost GDP. We're still under water after 8 quarters of Obama's Endless Bummer of a Recovery.

Lefty, for all his talk of nuance, is the one who lives in a black-and-white world of limited possibilities. Driven by mere emotion, his ideology is a collection of slogans, his thought processes that of two-year-old (blame the guy in office without consideration given to trends, or the effects of latent or pending policies, for example), his understanding of history, non-existent or garbled, his tantrums, legion.

In short, he is stuck on stupid.

The conservative on the other hand has no illusions about the fundamental state of human nature and understands that the world does in fact operate according to certain universal imperatives which yield readily self-evident and predictable outcomes. The basic framework of these imperatives is simple, the absolutes of nature and the God of nature, but the outcome of any given input is different. Hence, lefty thinks that the recognition of absolutes is the stuff of pedestrian thinking because he doesn't grasp the fact that the recognition of absolutes is the beginning of understanding how things really work and just how vast and complex reality truly is in terms of its possibilities.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can consumers?

This what it looks like:

Gee - that Federal Policy of encouraging people to buy homes they couldn't afford worked out Just Great.

You're right. The lending industry needed much more government regulation than it had.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Carter or Reagan have no control on whet the Fed does. Fed plays politics with the American economy(but thats another thread) Obama was left with a much bigger mess than Reagan. And Carter didn't help himself by pissing off the middle east and trying to make America energy independent. Carter didn't reaslize how shortsighted and selfish Americans are....

Americans are not short sighted, nor are they selfish. If they were they would be willing to let the future deal with the deficit Congress and Obama are trying to saddle them with.

Maybe I sould of said "some people" And Republicans are only worried about the debt because a Democrat isi in office.

That is a lie, as usual.

Republicans would not care about the debt anymore than Democrats do if the TEA Party was not holding their feet to the fire. You hate the TEA Party because they care more about the country and its future than they do about politics, and you have no way to deal with a group that actually has principles and sticks to them. You end up calling them names, and claiming they hate Obama because he is black.

That makes you the fool, not them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I think it is worth mentioning that in addition to my previous post Reagan had a stronger manufacturing base and a stronger consumer base.

He had neither. Both are larger in real terms today than they were when Reagan was president. You just think that measuring things as a part of GDP actually means something. Toyota can produce more cars in a single plant than the Big Three could combined when Reagan was elected.

Want to come up with another reason Obama has it worse than Reagan?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you'd actually studied the economy back when Reagan took over from Carter you'd know that the single biggest problem we faced back then was Stagflation. Reagan's first order of business was to correct that. He did so by having the Fed tighten up the money supply. In doing so he made the economy contract and increased unemployment...hence his low levels of popular support almost three years into his Presidency. Once Reagan had inflation under control he cut taxes and government regulations and the economy took off giving us the longest single sustained period of economic growth in our countries history.

Now contrast THAT with what Barack Obama has done.

The fact is our current President has used the Fed to lower interest rates to near 0% and he STILL can't get unemployment to drop. There is nothing that Obama's done since taking office that's going to lead to the same kind of economic surge as Reagan produced because he hasn't paid the price leading up to this point. He blew a trillion dollars of borrowed money on a stimulus plan that was more liberal pork fest then stimulant, adding so much to the deficit we have that we had our credit rating downgraded.

Carter or Reagan have no control on whet the Fed does. Fed plays politics with the American economy(but thats another thread) Obama was left with a much bigger mess than Reagan. And Carter didn't help himself by pissing off the middle east and trying to make America energy independent. Carter didn't reaslize how shortsighted and selfish Americans are....

Absolute hysterical revisionism.

The economy Reagan inherited was in just as bad of a mess as the one Obama did. The difference is that Reagan did things to spur economic growth; Obama's policies has squashed it. The results being high REAL job creation under Reagan vs. job losses under Obama.

Thanks Obama!

Three things happened to turn the Reagan economy around:

1. Most importantly, the business cycle. A 16th month recession washed out the excesses and set the economy up to resume growth, as all business cycles do.

2. The Fed reversed monetary policy in 1982, making borrowing cheaper.

3. Oil prices fell significantly.

Reagan really had little to do with it, although a good Keynesian would argue that Reagan's ramping up of government spending by borrowing and ballooning the deficit was stimulative.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The FED started deampening down STAGFLATION long before Reagan took office, folks.

Remember what the prime rate was during Carters last years in office?

And by slowing down the economy, (read by increasing unemployment) the FED crushed inflation.

And THAT changing economy was what Reagan was working with.

Some of you might remember that Reagans first two years were sort of rocky, right?

But as the economy changed, as stagflation went away, the economy (thanks in part to Reagan's policies, but mostly tahnks to the pain and suffering that happened before he gtook office!) went through a period of recovery.

But comparing what Reagan face to what Obama faces is just foolish.

EAch POTUS faces thew economy he has, not the economy that some prevsious POTUS had.

Even if you were 100% right, which you aren't, you are still missing the point. The same economists who predicted that Reagan's policies would result in a longer recovery and, at best, a 3% increase in GDP are the ones that are telling me that Obama's policies are going to result in a 5% increase in GDP in 2 to 4 years. They were wrong then, why should I believe them now?

 

[Big Fitz]

Can consumers?

This what it looks like:

Gee - that Federal Policy of encouraging people to buy homes they couldn't afford worked out Just Great.

You're right. The lending industry needed much more government regulation than it had.

and 'regulation' over redlining helped us how.

You've never met a bad government policy you didn't love fanatically did you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reagan was a Keynesian, he spent like crazy till he started to raise taxes like crazy. America became a debtor nation under Reagan because his spending was on useless defense systems that didn't work. The S&L bailout was the biggest republican bailout till Bush Jr nearly brought down the nation under similar republican policies. History will always be re-written, but for those of us who lived through Reagan he was not only a failure but he started many of the ideas that have lead to a weaker America Today.

Because republican policies since Coolidge have failed, Reagan remains the best myth the right wing has, when you consider how badly he did, you realize why history becomes a rewrite.

"....there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed"- presidents of the 1970s--Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country." OpEdNews - Article: Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?


http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20090213_allen_barra_on_the_myth_of_ronald_reagan/


Reagan Raised Taxes At Least 7 Times, Including the Biggest Corporate Tax Hike Ever

Every Keynesian who was alive when Reagan was president said he would make things worse with his policies. Now the idiots are trying to say he was right all along because he actually followed Keynesian theory.

If you could think you would hide your head in shame.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And I think it is worth mentioning that in addition to my previous post Reagan had a stronger manufacturing base and a stronger consumer base.

He had neither. Both are larger in real terms today than they were when Reagan was president. You just think that measuring things as a part of GDP actually means something. Toyota can produce more cars in a single plant than the Big Three could combined when Reagan was elected.

Want to come up with another reason Obama has it worse than Reagan?

You cannot be serious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reagan was a Keynesian, he spent like crazy till he started to raise taxes like crazy. America became a debtor nation under Reagan because his spending was on useless defense systems that didn't work. ]

So how come it failed when Obama tried the same thing?

Because it wasn't big enough.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee - that Federal Policy of encouraging people to buy homes they couldn't afford worked out Just Great.

You're right. The lending industry needed much more government regulation than it had.

and 'regulation' over redlining helped us how.

You've never met a bad government policy you didn't love fanatically did you?

Are you missing the fact that most of your rightwing pals are blaming the housing bubble on Democrats blocking stronger regulation of the mortgage industry?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

American households currently have on average twice the amount of debt (vs. their incomes) that they did during the Reagan years.

In a consumer driven economy that is a disparity that makes meaningful comparisons of Reagan and Obama impossible when it comes to jobs.

Why do you cling to lies when it has been spelled out to you how absurd they are? Did you forget the thread where it was spelled out for you, in detail, why that is not true?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one has seen "Obamanomics". Obstructionist Republicans won't let it happen. They hate the black guy that much they won't even let him fix their failure. Well, at least he took out Bin Laden. One Republican failure fixed.

The "obstructionist" Republicans voted for the ARRA. Did you forget that, or the fact that Obama decided to spend all of his capital on PPACA instead of creating jobs?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can consumers?

This what it looks like:

Gee - that Federal Policy of encouraging people to buy homes they couldn't afford worked out Just Great.

You're right. The lending industry needed much more government regulation than it had.

The financial industry is the most regulated industry we have. Why do you think more regulations will fix anything?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I think it is worth mentioning that in addition to my previous post Reagan had a stronger manufacturing base and a stronger consumer base.

He had neither. Both are larger in real terms today than they were when Reagan was president. You just think that measuring things as a part of GDP actually means something. Toyota can produce more cars in a single plant than the Big Three could combined when Reagan was elected.

Want to come up with another reason Obama has it worse than Reagan?

You cannot be serious.

Are you trying to claim that, in real terms, they are not larger? If you are actually concerned about the problem that manufacturing is a smaller percentage of GDP now do you advocate taking real steps to fix the problem by reducing regulations that restrict manufacturers from building plants and hiring people? Or do you prefer to act like the solution is to retreat to an isolationist policy in the misguided hope that we will be forced to build things in this country if the government makes it impossible for people to buy them from foreign countries?

 

[Trajan]

No one has seen "Obamanomics". Obstructionist Republicans won't let it happen. They hate the black guy that much they won't even let him fix their failure. Well, at least he took out Bin Laden. One Republican failure fixed.

8.5 months and 2 years....you had it all, suck it up and stop repeating BS...

 

[Big Fitz]

You're right. The lending industry needed much more government regulation than it had.

and 'regulation' over redlining helped us how.

You've never met a bad government policy you didn't love fanatically did you?

Are you missing the fact that most of your rightwing pals are blaming the housing bubble on Democrats blocking stronger regulation of the mortgage industry?

The housing bubble was created by too much LOOSE credit forced on the industry by GOVERNMENT REGULATION like the Community Reinvestment Act and Freddie and Fannie 'guaranteeing' loans that were obviously bad, authorizing sub prime (falsely called predatory) lending. They tempted the moral hazard, bet the taxpayer would always bail them out, and lost huge. Nice racket when you can basically 'guarantee' your bet is covered, and the banks did with the taxpayer's money. And now, the whole market collapsed and continues to collapse.

How is this government regulation good you numbskull?