What is Obama's plan?

[Tidewater_Wave]

If that youtube is what Democrats really think the Republicans are saying, then they should play that at their convention.

[Torie]

Obama, what are you blind?

Please articulate your babble into a sensible question.

I was talking to that other jerk.

Welcome to the Forum BYUmormon? Is that where you attending? I chat about BYU from time to time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just as suggestion, you might consider avoiding calling other posters names, even if it is deserved, or you think they deserve it. It will send you into the penalty box on many of the Boards around here in a hurry. You rack up something called "infraction points." Just smash away at their opinions, as if they came from a disembodied computer with no feelings, so putting the machine down personally is a sign of psychosis or something.

[Oakvale]

1 Put us as far into debt as he can.
2 Destroy our national defense and security while making it look like he's strong on defense.
3 Being tougher on the GOP than he is on terrorism.
4 Tuck Fort Hood under the rug.
5 Look the other way at an underwear bomber.
6 Take the side of foreign dictators over freely elected leaders.
7 Redistribute the wealth.
8 Cause electricity prices to necessarily skyrocket.
9 Sing
10 Play basketball
11 give harmonious speeches
12 send wife on $180,000 cruises
13 Prevent job creation by vetoing the keystone pipeline.
14 Hang out with Bill Ayers and start a political career from his basement.
15 Sit in the church of Jeremiah Wright.
16 Mandate what we eat.
17 Mandate which health care policies we have.
18 Advocate class warfare to cause division within the greatest nation on earth.
19 Get involved with the Cambridge Police.
20 Fight a war based on Rolling Stone Magazine rather than the generals' information.
21 Appear on MTV to get the younger voters' support regardless of their political knowledge.
22 Repeat the 1932 Democratic Playbook on economics.
23 Use scare tactics regarding the GOP being in the white house again.
24 Compare everyone in the GOP to George W. Bush.
25 Sue everyone who disagrees with him on immigration.
26 Make sure not to wear the American Flag pin.
27 Vote present.

Finally someone who isn't a jerk!

You guys should move to California and get married.

[Tidewater_Wave]

I don't like name calling either. I appreciate your compliment there but let's save name calling for polticians and celebrities.

[opebo]

Please stop the rhetoric. It's for your own good.

You mean because he'll soon be offed by Obama's minions like that guy Breitbart, or that he'll be given death-points by our masters here on the forum for 'trolling'?

[Democratic Hawk]

Seriously, any one who worships at the Altar of Supply-Side is in no position to criticise Obama on debt. Most of increase since 2009 being a consequence of the 'Great Recession' rather than the modest increases in spending NECESSARY to counter it. Most of the increases, under Bush 43, on the other hand, was a direct consequence of his policies

[mondale84]

Obama, what are you blind?

Please articulate your babble into a sensible question.

I was talking to that other jerk.

Why is it that you people have to see a conspiracy for everything?

[Tidewater_Wave]

Seriously, any one who worships at the Altar of Supply-Side is in no position to criticise Obama on debt. Most of increase since 2009 being a consequence of the 'Great Recession' rather than the modest increases in spending NECESSARY to counter it. Most of the increases, under Bush 43, on the other hand, was a direct consequence of his policies

Obama has tripled the debt Bush put us into. I never said I was a fan of Bush or stated my positions on any of Bush's policies. My views are traditional low taxes, free trade, anti-tariff, balanced budget, and right to work economics with safety nets such as social security and medicare.

[Inverted Things]

Obama has tripled the debt Bush put us into.

Sorry, but no.  Total US Federal Government debt on 12/31/08: $10.7 trillion.  Total US Federal Government debt on 12/31/11: $15.1 trillion.  Source: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Did you mean deficit?  Couldn't have... Bush's last budget deficit: $1.4 trillion for FY 2009*.  Obama's highest deficit so far: $1.327 trillion.  Source: http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit_chart.html

*The 2009 deficit was a joint effort between Bush and Obama (not really; congress has the most power here, but if you insist on blaming presidents...).  Most of that effort was Bush's, given that the 2009 budget passed in October 2008.  FY 2009's spending was therefore basically set in place before Obama took office.  Also worth noting: the deficit was expected to be $400 billion, but the deficit was inflated about $245 billion from bailouts (A Bush act) and $200 billion from economic stimulus (An Obama act).  The remainder of the excess was the result of a $600 billion difference between expected tax revenues and actual.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Seriously, any one who worships at the Altar of Supply-Side is in no position to criticise Obama on debt. Most of increase since 2009 being a consequence of the 'Great Recession' rather than the modest increases in spending NECESSARY to counter it. Most of the increases, under Bush 43, on the other hand, was a direct consequence of his policies

Obama has tripled the debt Bush put us into. I never said I was a fan of Bush or stated my positions on any of Bush's policies. My views are traditional low taxes, free trade, anti-tariff, balanced budget, and right to work economics with safety nets such as social security and medicare.

The problem is, all the available evidence indicates we are not on the portion of the Laffer curve where a decrease in tax rates will yield an increase in tax revenue.  We have to cut spending, raise taxes, or both if we want to reduce the deficit.  In order to reduce the deficit and cut taxes we'll need to cut spending even more than we would otherwise.  And despite the rhetoric of politicians, the only places in the budget where meaningful amounts of money can be cut from the budget are the defense budget and the safety net programs.  While we can trim at the margins elsewhere, in order to eliminate the deficit without raising taxes we will need to make major cuts to one or more of Defense, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.  There is no free lunch to be had here.

[Tidewater_Wave]

Obama has tripled the debt Bush put us into.

Sorry, but no.  Total US Federal Government debt on 12/31/08: $10.7 trillion.  Total US Federal Government debt on 12/31/11: $15.1 trillion.  Source: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Did you mean deficit?  Couldn't have... Bush's last budget deficit: $1.4 trillion for FY 2009*.  Obama's highest deficit so far: $1.327 trillion.  Source: http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit_chart.html

*The 2009 deficit was a joint effort between Bush and Obama (not really; congress has the most power here, but if you insist on blaming presidents...).  Most of that effort was Bush's, given that the 2009 budget passed in October 2008.  FY 2009's spending was therefore basically set in place before Obama took office.  Also worth noting: the deficit was expected to be $400 billion, but the deficit was inflated about $245 billion from bailouts (A Bush act) and $200 billion from economic stimulus (An Obama act).  The remainder of the excess was the result of a $600 billion difference between expected tax revenues and actual.

I said he tripled the debt from Bush as in the debt accumulated during the Bush administration.

[pbrower2a]

Yep it's all a conspiracy! Those damn fat cats, how dare they! I bet they're losing money just so the economy stays behind and people blame Obama. Folks this ^^ is the mentality that our party and country is up against. The leftwing conspiracy theorists who think that those who have a little more money only do so because they've screwed people over. Of course it can't be simply because they're success has been from wise decisions and an understanding of how the economy really works. NO!!! It's because those damn lousy fat cats are sitting on what should rightfully be ours. Folks, this is the domino effect of electing Obama president as his class warfare and socialist ideology has TRICKLED DOWN our nation.

Such is precisely the idea behind Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged -- that if the rightful masters of the common folk find us inadequately appreciative of their 'generosity' and 'wisdom', then they can take their portable wealth, go off to resorts, and simply wait for the rest of us to fail... and beg for their return at abject terms for ourselves when we starve due to our incompetence. Few people show less confidence in the common man than Ayn Rand does.  It will be called the definitive freedom -- but it will in fact be serfdom for most of us. Economic inequality will be as severe as that on a typical ante-bellum plantation if at a higher level of technology.

The vertically-integrated corporations and bureaucratic elites within those corporations are in fact largely novelties in American history. The American economy became great because largely of small-scale businesses with the only large ones being the US Mail, DuPont, and the railroads.  Then came the regulated utilities, auto makers, and appliance manufacturers (not too bad!)

If the price for achieving social justice were a return to the economic norms of the 1950s -- complete with high graduated taxes on very high incomes -- would you accept it? No, we wouldn't have to return to the unsafe cars and now-primitive electronics of the time, let alone the awful cuisine. That genie is out of the bottle and will not return. We would have a more honest form of capitalism than we have now.   Maybe our consumer goodies would be more expensive... but as I recall people liked what they had back then.   

 

[Tidewater_Wave]

Yep it's all a conspiracy! Those damn fat cats, how dare they! I bet they're losing money just so the economy stays behind and people blame Obama. Folks this ^^ is the mentality that our party and country is up against. The leftwing conspiracy theorists who think that those who have a little more money only do so because they've screwed people over. Of course it can't be simply because they're success has been from wise decisions and an understanding of how the economy really works. NO!!! It's because those damn lousy fat cats are sitting on what should rightfully be ours. Folks, this is the domino effect of electing Obama president as his class warfare and socialist ideology has TRICKLED DOWN our nation.

Such is precisely the idea behind Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged -- that if the rightful masters of the common folk find us inadequately appreciative of their 'generosity' and 'wisdom', then they can take their portable wealth, go off to resorts, and simply wait for the rest of us to fail... and beg for their return at abject terms for ourselves when we starve due to our incompetence. Few people show less confidence in the common man than Ayn Rand does.  It will be called the definitive freedom -- but it will in fact be serfdom for most of us. Economic inequality will be as severe as that on a typical ante-bellum plantation if at a higher level of technology.

The vertically-integrated corporations and bureaucratic elites within those corporations are in fact largely novelties in American history. The American economy became great because largely of small-scale businesses with the only large ones being the US Mail, DuPont, and the railroads.  Then came the regulated utilities, auto makers, and appliance manufacturers (not too bad!)

If the price for achieving social justice were a return to the economic norms of the 1950s -- complete with high graduated taxes on very high incomes -- would you accept it? No, we wouldn't have to return to the unsafe cars and now-primitive electronics of the time, let alone the awful cuisine. That genie is out of the bottle and will not return. We would have a more honest form of capitalism than we have now.   Maybe our consumer goodies would be more expensive... but as I recall people liked what they had back then.   

 

You actually make some good points in this but there's other ways to do it. There were problems with the 1950's as well but they were far and few between compared to now. I have no problem with anyone taking vacations at resorts because doing so creates jobs at resorts. See how no matter how money is spent, it creates jobs. The corporate and federal income taxes are the biggest hurdles we face though.

[opebo]

...we wouldn't have to return to the unsafe cars and now-primitive electronics of the time, let alone the awful cuisine.

You mis-remember the past pbrower.  Cars were at their safest in the 70s and 80s - can't beat mass in an accident - just add a seat belt.  As for electronics, they're overrated.  Most of the technologies that best-improved our standard of living and were the most useful overall had been fully developed by the 1950s.  What's come along since has either been electronics/computers, or just been slight tweaking of the real innovations of the first half of the 20th century.  

Finally, I can assure you that the diet of most Americans was far better in the 1950s than in the present day - the simple fact that farming and the restaurant business were less dominated by large corporations explains this.

[Inverted Things]

Obama has tripled the debt Bush put us into.

Sorry, but no.  Total US Federal Government debt on 12/31/08: $10.7 trillion.  Total US Federal Government debt on 12/31/11: $15.1 trillion.  Source: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Did you mean deficit?  Couldn't have... Bush's last budget deficit: $1.4 trillion for FY 2009*.  Obama's highest deficit so far: $1.327 trillion.  Source: http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit_chart.html

*The 2009 deficit was a joint effort between Bush and Obama (not really; congress has the most power here, but if you insist on blaming presidents...).  Most of that effort was Bush's, given that the 2009 budget passed in October 2008.  FY 2009's spending was therefore basically set in place before Obama took office.  Also worth noting: the deficit was expected to be $400 billion, but the deficit was inflated about $245 billion from bailouts (A Bush act) and $200 billion from economic stimulus (An Obama act).  The remainder of the excess was the result of a $600 billion difference between expected tax revenues and actual.

I said he tripled the debt from Bush as in the debt accumulated during the Bush administration.

This is still false.  Debt accumulated from 12/31/2000 to 12/31/2008: about $5 trillion*.  Debt accumulated from 12/31/2008 to 12/31/2011: about $4.4 trillion (Source: the first link in my previous post).

Can you explain carefully what you mean?  It looks to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

*Note this this includes the last ten months of FY 2001 which belongs more to Clinton than to Bush, and applies the last ten months of the FY 2009 accumulated debt to Obama rather than Bush.

[pbrower2a]

Yep it's all a conspiracy! Those damn fat cats, how dare they! I bet they're losing money just so the economy stays behind and people blame Obama. Folks this ^^ is the mentality that our party and country is up against. The leftwing conspiracy theorists who think that those who have a little more money only do so because they've screwed people over. Of course it can't be simply because they're success has been from wise decisions and an understanding of how the economy really works. NO!!! It's because those damn lousy fat cats are sitting on what should rightfully be ours. Folks, this is the domino effect of electing Obama president as his class warfare and socialist ideology has TRICKLED DOWN our nation.

Such is precisely the idea behind Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged -- that if the rightful masters of the common folk find us inadequately appreciative of their 'generosity' and 'wisdom', then they can take their portable wealth, go off to resorts, and simply wait for the rest of us to fail... and beg for their return at abject terms for ourselves when we starve due to our incompetence. Few people show less confidence in the common man than Ayn Rand does.  It will be called the definitive freedom -- but it will in fact be serfdom for most of us. Economic inequality will be as severe as that on a typical ante-bellum plantation if at a higher level of technology.

The vertically-integrated corporations and bureaucratic elites within those corporations are in fact largely novelties in American history. The American economy became great because largely of small-scale businesses with the only large ones being the US Mail, DuPont, and the railroads.  Then came the regulated utilities, auto makers, and appliance manufacturers (not too bad!)

If the price for achieving social justice were a return to the economic norms of the 1950s -- complete with high graduated taxes on very high incomes -- would you accept it? No, we wouldn't have to return to the unsafe cars and now-primitive electronics of the time, let alone the awful cuisine. That genie is out of the bottle and will not return. We would have a more honest form of capitalism than we have now.   Maybe our consumer goodies would be more expensive... but as I recall people liked what they had back then.   

 

You actually make some good points in this but there's other ways to do it. There were problems with the 1950's as well but they were far and few between compared to now. I have no problem with anyone taking vacations at resorts because doing so creates jobs at resorts. See how no matter how money is spent, it creates jobs. The corporate and federal income taxes are the biggest hurdles we face though.

With allowances for the officially-sanctioned gutter racism still entrenched in the Old South (this could never return even if America returned to the economic norms of the 1950s) and likely the male chauvinism... It is unlikely that we will return as a rule to the insipid cuisine of the time in view of the tastier ethnic fare now available. As for technology... technological progress is best described as doing more with lesser material input and direct labor.

High corporate and federal income taxes on earners of gigantic incomes created niches for small-scale enterprises in the 1950s, arguably the heyday of small business. A small-town banker really could compete with Wells Fargo; a grocer could compete with Kroger or Safeway; an independent pharmacist could compete with Walgreen's; a small-scale diner could compete with Howard Johnson's; a small-scale dry-goods business could compete with JC Penney or Woolworth's. There was room even for manufacturing as a cottage industry. High taxes kept us from enjoying the reduced costs that we might enjoy at McDonald's, Wal-Mart, and Dollar General. But those high taxes stifled the cartels that arose in their absence and killed opportunity for many Americans to be capitalists and create their own wealth. Real wages and middle-class pay are lower than they were forty years ago despite greater efficiency in manufacturing and retailing. Cheap DVDs and video games as clutter in our smaller living space are poor compensation for the lives of economic fear that most of us now know.

Our democratic system depends to no small extent upon the dispersal -- and not the concentration -- of economic power. The expressions of conservatism of small-business owners, big landowners, tycoons, and corporate bureaucrats are quite different in political life. American democracy started with the first two -- small-business owners dominant north of the Mason-Dixon Line and big landowners to the south of the Mason-Dixon line. Small-business owners could never buy the political process, and although the big landowners might be brutal tyrants on their own plantations they well knew where their authority ended. Tycoons establishing new industry (think of the railroads, mines, and steel mills in the 19th century) have frequently turned to thuggish methods of enforcement of their property rights and bribery of public officials and thus created the perception of a class struggle between capitalists and everyone else; such was the climate that Karl Marx associated with the capitalist order that he knew and from which he derived his concept of the class struggle.  Bureaucrats who do not so much create as manage wealth develop their own conservatism that protects those who pay them -- and effectively become political enforcers or hucksters for their benefactors. 

Our political system began as an expression of the interests of the first two and has gone to the latter two. Small-business owners were satisfied with the vote as were the big landowners. The latter two demand an intensification of their political as well as economic power at the expense of everyone else.

[batmacumba]

@Tidewater_Wave, Politico and BYUmormon, please, explain something to this foreigner who is kinda lost about you guys:

- the policy of the Republican Party, during Bush43, destroyed your economy;
- than Obama proposes a solution which you guys don't agree;
- his policies 1. don't make any affect, but stops bleeding or 2. slightly enhance the situation, but not enough to satisfy the people;
- you appear on a politics forum, the kind of 'place' where people are, at least, not analphabet about what's happening, make strident rants stating that 1. the state of the economy is Obama's fault; 2. the country should return to those policies which doomed it;
- you don't provide any explanation about why the situation wouldn't be exactly what I've described, yet you defend the return to previous state based on theoretical postulates witch never worked throughout history;
- you make statements that Obama has a worldview that He never defended and accuses someone who was elected and is doing things that were on his platform (yet many people complain that the problem is He's not fullfilling them all) of imposing politics that your country don't want;
- one of you call people jerk for having asked a clarifying of his statement, which was pretty obscure and serves more as propaganda than as an argument;
- yet, people who defends Obama's policies, at least to some extent, puts arguments and explanations on why they believe you are equivocated;
- you keep on pointing theoretical postulates which never worked throughout history;
- other of you posts false numbers, trying to defend your statements;
- again, people gives demonstrations that your statements seems not to be valid, even using rightist point of views.

What kind of 'queer alien'* pattern of reasoning works inside your braincases?


*Just dived on H. P. Lovecraft this weekend.

[izixs]

I'll second batmacumba's 'wtf?' confusion here.

Also, this seems much more like political theory debate, and not discussion of the 2012 election. There are other areas for this:

Individual Politics - https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=14.0
Political Debate - https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=20.0

[Politico]

@Tidewater_Wave, Politico and BYUmormon, please, explain something to this foreigner who is kinda lost about you guys:

- the policy of the Republican Party, during Bush43, destroyed your economy;

I did not support the Bush Administration, but the above is hogwash. The removal of Glass-Steagall was signed by Clinton. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed by Democrats before Reagan was even president, and it was strengthened under Clinton. Most of the lawsuits filed, or threatened to be filed, against banks for not giving out loans to minorities were undertaken by lawyers affiliated with the Democratic Party.

There are plenty of discussions about the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the Economics Forum (In short, various policies/measures passed by both aisles over the past few decades created the incentives that led to the poor results, with poor oversight by the bureaucracies in the process). The line "the Republican Party/Bush destroyed the economy" is about as true as "Bush caused the high gas prices." Comments like that make for great politics, and this year the shoe will be dropping on the other side (i.e., on Obama for high gas prices, stagnating eocnomy, etc.), but they are not well-grounded in reality.

[Tidewater_Wave]

@Tidewater_Wave, Politico and BYUmormon, please, explain something to this foreigner who is kinda lost about you guys:

- the policy of the Republican Party, during Bush43, destroyed your economy;

I did not support the Bush Administration, but the above is hogwash. The removal of Glass-Steagall was signed by Clinton. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed by Democrats before Reagan was even president, and it was strengthened under Clinton. Most of the lawsuits filed, or threatened to be filed, against banks for not giving out loans to minorities were undertaken by lawyers affiliated with the Democratic Party.

There are plenty of discussions about the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the Economics Forum (In short, various policies/measures passed by both aisles over the past few decades created the incentives that led to the poor results, with poor oversight by the bureaucracies in the process). The line "the Republican Party/Bush destroyed the economy" is about as true as "Bush caused the high gas prices." Comments like that make for great politics, and this year the shoe will be dropping on the other side (i.e., on Obama for high gas prices, stagnating eocnomy, etc.), but they are not well-grounded in reality.

Ah yes well when banks are forced to provide loans to people who have no intention of paying them back, what happens is that they lose that money. Eventually money is going to run out to provide loans and the lenders have to start taking back homes that are under water. In order to prevent this the Democrats in congress and the Bush Administration put together a bail out that included the eating patterns of snails and wool studies in the bill. I guess those were just so important that they had to be in there at the time along with a nice deal for the train company that Joe Biden rode into D.C. Anyways, the situation could've been prevented had we done nothing at all in the way of trying to help people who couldn't pay the loans back in the first place rather than allowing them to be set up for failure when they buy a home for $300,000 with only $20,000 to put down. Had Carter and Clinton done nothing at all, we wouldn't have the debt that was the result of this mess. I don't want to hear anyone bringing up debt from other administrations on this thread either because that's not the topic now. Believe it or not, in 2003, Bush called on congress to act on the forseen situation and they sat around on it and McCain had his own bill for the housing industry in 2005. The situation was forseen but not brought to attention until perfect timing just before the 2008 election in order to form the opinion in the uninformed who decide elections that "greedy fat cats are taking our money" or something stupid like that. Interest rates were also very low from 1996-2008 and that's going to hurt money earned by lenders crippling them to lend more in the future. Also, thank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for not dealing with this issue as they were getting sweet heart deals from Fannie and Freddie while keeping the issue under the rug in congress. Now the Democrats will whine about a private citizen named Newt Gingrich who was getting deals around 2007, but they won't be able to call him a congressman of the time who was taking advantage of the system while in office.

[Torie]

The banks would have been in good shape if the only loans that went bad in their portfolio, were "forced" loans. It was the "unforced" errors as it were that did them in. Some of them for example dabbled in securitized loans, where they really had no idea what was in them, relying in part on credit ratings, by agencies that had arguably been corrupted because they got more business by issuing generous ratings.

To blame the bulk of the cause of the collapse of the financial industry on government mistakes, rather than the industry's own mistakes, to me is something close to akin, to use a rather strong term here ... a whitewash.

[Democratic Hawk]

The banks would have been in good shape if the only loans that went bad in their portfolio, were "forced" loans. It was the "unforced" errors as it were that did them in. Some of them for example dabbled in securitized loans, where they really had no idea what was in them, relying in part on credit ratings, by agencies that had arguably been corrupted because they got more business by issuing generous ratings.

To blame the bulk of the cause of the collapse of the financial industry on government mistakes, rather than the industry's own mistakes, to me is something close to akin, to use a rather strong term here ... a whitewash.

Greed . Pure and simple

[Tidewater_Wave]

If you listen to his speeches in 2003, you'd know his plan is to have a single payer universal healthcare system.

[Tidewater_Wave]

The banks would have been in good shape if the only loans that went bad in their portfolio, were "forced" loans. It was the "unforced" errors as it were that did them in. Some of them for example dabbled in securitized loans, where they really had no idea what was in them, relying in part on credit ratings, by agencies that had arguably been corrupted because they got more business by issuing generous ratings.

To blame the bulk of the cause of the collapse of the financial industry on government mistakes, rather than the industry's own mistakes, to me is something close to akin, to use a rather strong term here ... a whitewash.

Greed . Pure and simple

Greed to want to keep your own money? Please describe for us in depth detail how that is so.

[pbrower2a]

Ah yes well when banks are forced to provide loans to people who have no intention of paying them back, what happens is that they lose that money. Eventually money is going to run out to provide loans and the lenders have to start taking back homes that are under water.

Our economic system depends upon bankers as the enforcers of fiduciary propriety. In an economic order full of people trying to bet a million to make a billion, bankers are the only ones who can (if they do their jobs) ensure that those people who bet a million bet their own money or a big portion of it and stand to lose big in the event of a failure. The classic 3C's of banking (character, collateral, and conditions) prevent many of what the conservative Robert Ringer calls "LSD deals" that devour capital while enriching a scammer. Bankers as a rule were the least entrepreneurial, imaginative, technologically-adept, and daring of business managers -- and were generally known as lazy people who dressed well and got lesser pay than the more entrepreneurial, imaginative, technologically-adept, and daring of business managers.   Bankers did not allow people to bet on inflation or appreciation of assets  to alleviate the nominal cost of their loans. One had to earn it. If one got a mortgage loan, the banker invariably asked questions about the borrower to the applicant's supervisor to ascertain the stability of that person as an employee and prospects of career improvement. One could not get a business loan for a new enterprise that would pay the owner a lucrative salary despite the failure of the enterprise.

It all made manifest sense. That came to an end when bankers tried to become entrepreneurs in their own right.  (More specifically it was mortgage lenders, largely, and not specifically banks... although banks got into the business by underwriting some of those shady lenders). Lenders used to not bet on the appreciation -- but in the last decade they did. With a small down-payment a borrower could get a loan for a house that which the borrower could pay off. The old rule of never allowing someone to borrow more than three-and-a-half times one's  pay for fresh equity became a way only for lenders left behind in the mad rush for advanced profitability.  Some lenders offered "liar loans" sure to fail. If the borrower failed, at least the property would appreciate enough that the lender could foreclose upon the property and resell it for a profit. To accelerate the failure, lenders often encouraged those who were doing well on appreciation to borrow more for living costs and luxuries. 

Eventually the real estate boom came to an end and housing prices cratered when the suckers vanished.
   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Normal politics, god times or bad. Things looked good. Maybe those studies of wool and the eating patterns of snails had merit. Amtrak? I just took a long journey and I liked the ride -- and hope to do so again. I'd take a plane only if I had to get somewhere fast. A commercial bus? Tour buses are OK, but I'm not good at watching my back on the other kind.  It was nice to not dodge maniac drivers for a couple days. The passengers that I met on Amtrak seemed talkative and trustworthy. Nice trip. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Harry Truman kept a reminder that "The buck stops here" in the White House. Maybe you can blame Carter for the real estate scandals of the 1980s -- but that is ancient history. Clinton? If Clinton was so incompetent and inattentive, then it would have been up to Dubya to reform the system even if such ensured that he would be a one-term President, right? Instead he promoted his "Ownership Society" that depended upon people buying houses that they could never afford at terms sure to result in failure. (My idea of a conservative "Ownership Society" would be one based on thrift, personal investments in stocks and bonds, or maybe starting small businesses even if the businesses are sandwich carts -- paradoxically a good way of creating a mass of conservative voters).     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could see it happening back in 2005; I just couldn't time it. 

To be fair, Dubya had his own nasty recession to deal with soon after taking office -- but his perverse idea of an "Ownership Society" doubled down on a bad bet. Much did go wrong under Dubya. He gave tax cuts that effectively rewarded people for being rich during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe the wars had their own stimulative effect on the economy. But the housing and lending mess was going to go very bad.

Face it: Dubya was already unpopular enough in 2006 for issues other than economic stewardship before the economic meltdown that his Party lost the House majority and six incumbent Republican Senators were defeated. After that the Democrats in the majority weren't going to punish their constituencies for Dubya-era mistakes. Maybe that is a failure built into the system -- that nobody stands for austerity which might be good economics but horrible politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fannie and Freddie did adequately on the loans that they initiated -- even on those to low-income borrowers. Fannie and Freddie were far more conservative in their lending practices than the predatory lenders who generated fecal loans. Freddie and Fannie eventually absorbed many of those fecal loans -- and eventually went under.

...Interest rates went low because inflation that had gone up to the 10% area when Nixon, Ford, and Carter were President  went to near zero.