American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten]The main culprits are the private sector players in the mortgage and financial industries who acted through fraud, greed and poor risk management.[/QUOTE]Hey Esten,

You forgot to list one other major group of culprits:

[size=+2][b]Greedy Homebuyers![/b][/size]

Without greedy homebuyers with dollar signs for eyeballs, salivating at the prospect to "making a killing" in a perversely overheated real estate market, none of the other players would have made a dime.

I know it's not politically correct to acknowledge their culpability, but there it is.

Thanks,

Jackson

Plenty of villains and victims so I don't see any reason to give stupid buyers a free pass.

However, I won't blame "greedy buyers" as our system has the hope of outsized returns, aka "greed", as a fundamental cornerstone. "Greedy and smart" is fine, "greedy and stupid" is not. Fortunately, the market is generally good over the long-term at rewarding "greedy and smart" while punishing "greedy and stupid".

As far as Fannie / Freddie goes, looking at their actions over the last 10 years, it seems clear that the guys at the top fall into the "greedy and stupid" category. Perhaps it was political pressure. Or perhaps it was that their primary business (prime lending) wasn't producing the kind of financial returns that the investors needed for the big guys to keep their big-bucks jobs and subprime lending seemed to be the answer. Personally, I'd bet on greed.

So tell me guys, who are the villains in the drug trade? The users or the dealers?

For Esten and me its the greedy, corrupt dealers. They produce and sell the product. No product - no buyers - no drug traffic.

For Jackson and the right leaning AP members' - its got to be the irresponsible, self-centered lowlife users. The dealers are just good old capitalist businessmen trying to make a buck supplying a product with a ready market.

Of course, they likely also fault useless government for its inability to fight an effective war on drugs.

In reality, everyone is to blame. Users, dealers, and ineffective police forces.

I might go further and hypothesize that governments don't want the war on drugs to end. Like our other wars, its a great business. It pumps billions of dollars and profits into the companies that provide the products used in the war who funnel some of the money back to the supportive politicians with campaign funds. It also feeds the budgets and staffing of law enforcement agencies and the meme of Presidents, governors and mayors that they are "tough on crime." And it keeps people scared about a perceived threat that in reality impacts a relatively small segment of the population, while the spotlight is kept off more destructive things that are really fucking up the planet and the future.

The on-going debate on the subprime mortgage debacle is now being driven by bogus claims by conservative defenders of financial deregulation and free market ideology trying to make the case that irresponsible mortgagees and liberal government policies were the sole cause. The debate is reminiscent of the successful shifting the blame for losing the Vietnam War away from Nixon who actually lost the war after seven ineffective years as Commander-In-Chief and pin the loss on Democrats. I always assumed Tricky Dick's Secret Plan to win the war was so secret he never found out what it was!

Serious (meaning non-ideological) economists are pretty much in agreement that the causes of the global financial meltdown were many, complex, inter-related and primarily driven by faulty theory about the behavior of markets and business practices derived from the bogus consensus made inherent dangers posed by the technology of instantaneous market movements.

One example of forces that brought on the debacle that had nothing to do with greedy minority mortgagees and Freddie or Freddie were hyperactive in Fort Lauderdale and Vegas (among numerous upscale areas) between 2000 and 2008 when the volume of speculative high-rise condo projects popped up like daisies with absurd asking prices and no demographic basis for believing there would be enough people to buy the units as the projects were completed. The Community Reinvestment Act and Acorn had nothing to do with the phenomenon either.

What went on the Florida and Arizona went on across the UK, Spain and Puerto Madero and far beyond.

It was all about speculation. But unlike previous real estate bubbles, the speculators were able to spread their risks around the globe as absurd financial instruments were used to "securitize" the borrowing to build Potemkin villages. An eventual disaster was inevitable.

There are dozens of serious books already in stores that destroy the simplistic drivel written by intelligent people on this sight. I can only ascribe ideological blindness as to why so many circular and unsupported claims are made on these pages over and over again.

"that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."

Attribution: GG 1987, Teldar Paper sharholders' meeting

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]"that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."

Attribution: GG 1987, Teldar Paper sharholders' meeting[/QUOTE]And what about "lust", my dear friend? Since you are on the pulpit.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]And what about "lust", my dear friend? Since you are on the pulpit.[/QUOTE]Lust was pretty good, too. But that was in the Clinton administration.

This administration is about "spreading the wealth." Robbing the productive rich to pay off the boys in the 'hood.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]I would think that if there was any real evidence of widespread, collusive fraud,[/QUOTE]Not necessarily widespread or collusive. But there was enough of it in both the mortgage and financial industries.

[QUOTE]A clear plurality of the the US believes Congress is to blame for the mortgage industry crisis,[/QUOTE]Do you have a reference for that? A Fox News poll in early May found that by a 41-31 percent margin, more people blame Wall Street for its bad financial practices than blame Congress for its bad oversight. Which is why there is a clear plurality in favor of financial reform.

Keep trying though.

[QUOTE=Exon123]I'll try this once more, watch the Frontline video.[/QUOTE]I watched the first half, excellent video. The first meeting of Brooksley Born and Greenspan was interesting. It appears Greenspan basically told her he wasn't too concerned about regulating fraud because the market would take care of it. LOL! That might be OK if Wall Street was not linked to Main Street, but that is not the case.

[QUOTE=Jackson]You forgot to list one other major group of culprits: Greedy Homebuyers![/QUOTE]They are on the list too! Although the ones with poor credit were enabled by others. And let's not forget "predatory lending"!

[QUOTE=Westy]This administration is about "spreading the wealth." Robbing the productive rich to pay off the boys in the 'hood.[/QUOTE]It continues to amaze me how some look upon "spreading the wealth" as a bad thing, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of new wealth in recent decades has gone to the rich. Income inequality in the US has risen to obscene proportions.

Here is some good reading:
[url]www.alternet.org/economy/145705/the_richest_1%25_have_captured_america's_wealth_--_what's_it_going_to_take_to_get_it_back[/url]

[i]Paul Buchheit, from DePaul University, revealed, "From 1980 to 2006 the richest 1% of America tripled their after-tax percentage of our nation's total income, while the bottom 90% have seen their share drop over 20%." Robert Freeman added, "Between 2002 and 2006, it was even worse: an astounding three-quarters of all the economy's growth was captured by the top 1%."

Due to this, the United States already had the highest inequality of wealth in the industrialized world prior to the financial crisis. Since the crisis, which has hit the average worker much harder than CEOs, the gap between the top one percent and the remaining 99% of the US population has grown to a record high. The economic top one percent of the population now owns over 70% of all financial assets, an all time record.[/i]

[QUOTE=Esten]It continues to amaze me how some look upon "spreading the wealth" as a bad thing, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of new wealth in recent decades has gone to the rich. Income inequality in the US has risen to obscene proportions.[/quote]'spreading the wealth' might sound like a good idea to some. However, in the real world 'spreading the wealth' is taking from those willing to work to give to those unwilling to work.

Hell has three gates: lust, anger and greed.

[url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/200138-financial-reform-it-s-greed-stupid[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten]It continues to amaze me how some look upon "spreading the wealth" as a bad thing, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of new wealth in recent decades has gone to the rich.[/QUOTE]Whereas most of us revere the founding documents of this great nation, Esten is showing us once again that the Constitution and related documents are an inconvenience to the left.

What's wrong with spreading the wealth? To start with, it is illegal. Since the Constitution bars it, that should be the end of story, no need to get into the moral and ethical implications. That said, our govt continues to illegally seize trillions of dollars of private assets from its citizens. When will it stop?

As I noted last July:

"That said, America (our America) is noticing. The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound."

I pointed out, almost a year ago, that Obama had over reached and that he was going to be hit with a significant backlash, generated by his own actions. The majority of Americans are against him, not in the sense that they favor someone else, they oppose the man and his agenda.

Add to that the suspected criminal activity involved in the Sestak affair and the related cover-up and this administration is coming to a close, if not literally, at least legislatively.

In the Sestak affair, the WH has already admitted to offering something of value to Sestak as an inducement to get out of the race. That is against the law. Deliciously coincidental is that statute was signed into law by none other than President BJ Clinton. The explanation is so full of holes that there is little doubt it could with stand the light of day. Even if the original act was legal, the lying and cover up were not. We will see if there will be any follow up at Justice or in Congress. If both houses turn over in Nov. I expect that BOH will be impeached during the next Congress. If he thought retaining control of Congress was important for his policy agenda, that pales in comparison for his need to maintain the Congress in order to remain POTUS.

As to the canard that the "unpaid" nature of the position that was allegedly offered. Regardless of whether or not the position came with a salary, it is highly prestigious and valuable, otherwise any of us could get it and no one would be impressed by it. If it had no value, why would they bother offering it in exchange for giving up a potential US senate seat? Further, I doubt that was the position offered because there was no way Sestak could take it. As a sitting member of Congress, he was disqualified from holding that position as Clinton, Sestak and BHO presumably would have already known. I can envision the cover-up blunder as it unfolded. Somewhere pointy-headed WH staffers were whipping up the cover story when one of them blurts out "hey, wait a minute. What if the position was unpaid? Then it would have no value!" Maybe that would work in a moot court but it ain't gonna fly here. The problem with having too many inexperienced people on your team is that you lack the institutional knowledge that experience brings.

I suspect that we will find out many unsavory aspects of this situation such as 1) a different position (perhaps in the cabinet) was offered, 2) it was a direct quid pro quo, 3) Clinton, Sestak and Gibbs have all lied about it (Obama has said nothing on the record about it so as to avoid lying publicly) and 4) that there has been massive impropriety between the WH and Justice.

If true, and only time will tell if that is the case, the resulting fallout would likely include Gibbs' and Holder's jobs (and perhaps criminal charges) as well as articles of impeachment against BHO. Depending on the quality of evidence, gaining conviction in the Senate, even if the opposition party controls it, will be difficult. With or without conviction, I don't see Obama resigning in order to mitigate damage to the office. I forsee him clinging bitterly to "his" office, the one rightfully "his" no matter the charges against him.

There is a rocky road ahead.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]There is a rocky road ahead.[/QUOTE]Walleye. You are as expert in law as you are in economics and my guess is you haven't read too deeply in US Constitutional history either.

The only "rocky road" ahead for Obama, Clinton, Sestak and Gibbs might come if they all stop off at a DC area Ben and Jerry's for some good old liberal ice cream.

The Clinton / Sestak conversation about the Pennsylvania Senate race was legal politics as usual. It mirrored how Ike tried to get Earl Warren not to run in 1959 and Reagan offered Hyakawa a job to keep him off the ballot in 1983.

Do you ever do your homework or is it just more fun to spout off with no basis other than your fantasy life?

Any and all efforts to actually get at the truth will be branded as racist.

There will be an attempt to link birthers and the Tea Party movement to those seeking the truth in the Sestak matter, besmirching all of the opposition at once, painting them all as racists trying to stop our historic leader.

By the way, I am not a proponent of using impeachment for political disagreements, nor am I proposing impeaching BHO. Rather, I am sharing my thoughts about behavior and the WH story related to the Sestak matter which I find wholly unbelievable and my expectation of things to come given different variables. Without a thorough, independent investigation, we will not know if the law was in fact broken. However, there is more than reasonable, circumstantial evidence that neither the WH nor Justice has been truthful thus far and in the case of Justice, clearly they have not been impartial representatives of the people in this matter.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]What's wrong with spreading the wealth? To start with, it is illegal. Since the Constitution bars it, that should be the end of story, no need to get into the moral and ethical implications. [/QUOTE]The wealth redistribution discussion is mainly about taxation and spending, which are clearly provided for in the Constitution. And a few other things such as regulation of minimum wage and benefits. There are plenty of legal means to redistribute wealth, so once again, this is just plain misinformation.

As far as Sestak, I think Fox News must have covered it a hundred times over the long weekend, while other networks were more balanced. It is funny how much the right is trying to milk this story. I think most people see it as a non-story getting hyped for political purposes, which won't help Republicans much and might hurt them. Efforts to "get at the truth" won't be branded as racist (how do you come up with that) merely political posturing and a waste of time.

While Republicans have been busy trying to portray Obama and Dems unfavorably, they have been doing the exact same thing to themselves as well. They need to proceed carefully to do well in November and they know it. The lines of attack by the right are easy to guess, but the left has plenty to work with as well. It's all in the execution. If Dems execute well, they will retain control of Congress.