American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Jackson]Exon,

You can find a video on the internet to prove or disapprove any point.

Here's my point: If our government had NOT borrowed and then pissed away 820 billion dollars in the so-called "Stimulus Plan", our economy would be stronger today. The fact is that the American economy is an incredibly powerful wealth-generating machine, and thus is will always right itself if left alone to flourish. Unfortunately, our economy must now right itself while dragging the drogue chute of the Stimulus Plan's debt.

Nevertheless, thanks to the fortitude of the American entrepreneur and the productivity of the American worker, the US Economy will inevitably recover, upon which the liberals will congratulate themselves while admiring the "Obama Economic Miracle".

The point here is that the economic recovery will be delayed because of the stimulus borrowing, and that if we hadn't borrowed the 820 billion, the economy would have been better today.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]To prove how wrong you are "Jeffie", watch this FrontLine video "The Meltdown". Its a synopsis and time table of why Hank Paulson, a "Bushie" had to do what was done and Obama had to follow threw with their decisions.

It shows how close we came in September of 2008.

[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid[/url]

Exon

I am not sure how close we came to a meltdown in 2008. We were relying on assessments from financial institutions who wanted bailout money I. E. Free money. Financial institutions may not have been impartial evaluators of the situation.

The issue now is sovereign debt. The debt is insurmountable. I see no solution except to pay it back with funny money I. E. Devalued money. The world doesn't have enough real money to service that debt which, unfortuneately, is increasing by leaps and bounds everyday.

Watch those two video's especially the last one, "The Meltdown", Henry Paulson a "Bushie", decides to let Lemond Brothers fail and all Hell breaks loose. The largest stock market one day sell off in history, over 500 points, the entire financial system locked up and there was no credit.

It was the beginning of the end of the American standard of living as we had come to know it. Something much worse that Argentina experienced in 2001 and 2002.

Obama's hands are tied because of Bush's policy's, he has no choice but to keep spending to stabilize the economy. If not were still in danger of collapse.

Exon

There are three different things being bantered about here. The first two are related, in that they were supposed to sure-up the banking system via 'bail out' moneys (federal coffer spending and Fed money) actions (Bear to JP Morgan, etc) and in-actions (Lehman Bros) and the other is the Keynesian stimulus actions and moneys.

The first two were actions taken during the crisis in an attempt to stem the damage that was unfolding and build or establish some sort of confindence in the markets. The Fed and Congress pissed away trillions, in large part because they didn't know what they were doing. If the plan was to do away with the "too big to fail" precedent, they should not have selectively bailed out institutions. The precedent was certainly destroyed when Lehman was tossed overboard. At that point, all of the previous efforts were for naught (from a citizen's POV)

It is easy to confuse TARP and the stimulus because they both are ridiculous slush funds engineered to allow the pay-master to buy constituencies and pay off constituents. Although TARP was sold as a means to sure up the financial sector, that isn't the purpose for which it has been used. TARP, or the Trouble Asset Relief Program, has done nothing for the trouble assets for which it was named (no surprises here)

The stimulus package (with some $200mm going to ACORN) was nothing more than a political slush fund, stolen from the tax payers. Keynesian stimulus doesn't work, this has been proven over and over. The economic effect of an artificially created make-work program is less than $0.25 per dollar spent where as a job created by the private sector has an effect of greater than $1.25.

I for one think that "too big to fail" should have been kept intact through the Fed's primary mission is to act as the lender of last resort. That doesn't mean that sweetheart deals should have been cooked up for those that are close to the govt (JP Morgan, Merrill, Goldman) and that those out of favor with the govt (Lehman) should be cast adrift. The precedent was previously effective in backing up the financial sector in times of turmoil. The effect of letting Lehman go down was 100X worse than what any of the govt pinheads expected because it destroyed the psychological integrity of all counter-party agreements and thus the economy stopped for approximately 3 weeks and suffered long-term damage (most of which was inflicted by the congress in the wake of the debacle through TARP, Stimulus and healthcare reform)

The crisis was building for a long time. The govt could have stepped in 'early' and provided credit enhancements (a form of insurance) to all of the toxic assets ($2 trillion) via a fund of a $500 billion dollars (or less) which would have represented 25% of all toxic assets. This would enable the private sector to continue to trade these assets with a better sense that the expected returns would be commensurate with the underlying risk. While that is a bail out, it is certainly a much smaller number than the combine Fed and Congress spending of trillions. It would have still been more efficient for the govt to buy 100% of the TAs and put them in the fireplace.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]The stimulus package (with some $200mm going to ACORN) was nothing more than a political slush fund.

The Fed's primary mission is to act as the lender of last resort.[/QUOTE]Zero - yes zero - dollars of stimulus funds went to ACORN. That is a myth that was floated into the right wing media by Fox News. It has zero basis in fact.

The Fed is NOT the lender of last resort. That's like saying Goldman Sachs is an investment advisor for individuals and institutions.

Here is the official mission statement of the Fed:

"The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded.

"Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:

1. Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

2. Supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers.

3. Maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.

4. Providing financial services to depository institutions, the U. S. Government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system."

WW, you have every right to criticize and complain about the TARP and the stimulus, but try to be more accurate and rely less on discredited claims from politically motivated sources like Fox, Drudge, etc.

I'm a bit skeptical about the "convenient truth" that Obama's hands were tied. Things may have been worse -- or much better -- without the massive bailouts they deployed. We just don't know.

Before everyone jumps on me for the temerity to suggest that the bailouts may not have been necessary, just pause and consider what all the so-called experts were telling us just two years ago. It's a different context, but still very instructive.

Just two years ago, we were going to see a massive death toll from the new flu pandemic. It was going to spread rapidly and it was going to have a significant effect on a group that normally was not particularly susceptible to death by influenza -- healthy people in the 20-40 age range. The CDC, the World Health Organization, and the entire scientific community were unanimous in their predictions: It was going to be very big and it was going to be very bad. As a result, trillions were spent on vaccines because these experts couldn't be wrong.

What happened? The vaccines didn't get rolled out in time in Argentina and South America, but the flu turned out to be much milder than the "usual" flu. The vaccines got delayed in the U. S. And elsewhere, and by then the public had become skeptical so many chose not to get vaccinated at all. The result: The annual flu-related death toll was much less than what we expect from a "normal" flu season. The same experience was had everywhere else. There was no pandemic. The so-called experts were just plain wrong.

What's the point? At least predictions about pandemics and the dangers of a new flu virus are based on science, yet they were still dead wrong. Predictions about economic catastrophe if this or that occurred are not based on science. Economics is called the "dismal science," but that is at best a partial misnomer. The "dismal" may be apt, but the "science" certainly is not. For every economist who will stand up and say that "Cause X" will lead to "Effect why," there is another who will dispute it. Both will support their theories with convincing evidence. Those who want to be persuaded by one group will be so persuaded, and the rest will follow the opposite path. Keynesian economic theories have been shown not to work, except when they do. There are no hard and fast rules in economics beyond supply and demand, and even those rules are open to interpretation and outside influences that can temporarily suspend these laws.

As but one example of what happens without a bailout, look at CIT. Folks were predicting another Lehman-like disaster for small businesses if CIT was allowed to go under. Even Sid here was predicting economic catastrophe if it didn't get bailed out, and he advocated for a bailout. No bailout happened. The company's creditors were eventually forced to step up, and even after that, the company had to file bankruptcy. But, as it turned out, there was no catastrophe. The economy began its recovery at almost the precise moment that CIT filed its bankruptcy petition, and CIT is now emerging from an orderly bankruptcy. Small businesses were no worse off pre- or post-CIT bankruptcy. It is still difficult to get credit -- just as you'd expect in a recession, especially one based on lax lending standards -- but not more so after CIT was "allowed" to fail.

So, that's a long way of saying that Obama will claim his hands were tied. Of course he will. But, we always knew he would try to justify his actions after-the-fact. Whether it bears any relation to the truth is a whole different story. Just my two cents. And, for the record, I certainly don't trust much of what Bush had to say about these things, and he certainly bears much of the blame for starting the bailout-mania. But, blaming him for a bad economy is a bit of a stretch, especially when it was the housing market and Democrat policies that led to the malaise.

By putting his personal agenda ahead of the nation's. No ifs, ands or buts.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I am for bail outs. I was for maintaining "too big to fail" for the benefit of the nation. This entails wiping out the equity holders of rescued institutions and restructuring the debt (cram down) and staying alive.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Just two years ago, we were going to see a massive death toll from the new flu pandemic. It was going to spread rapidly and it was going to have a significant effect on a group that normally was not particularly susceptible to death by influenza -- healthy people in the 20-40 age range.[/QUOTE]Didn't some one once say:

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. "

[quote=]As but one example of what happens without a bailout, look at CIT.[/QUOTE]Excellent example of what should be done and not done. I was not a proponent of bail outs. My belief is that TBTF is to give substance and support to the traditional banking industry and its underlying depositors.

[quote=]So, that's a long way of saying that Obama will claim his hands were tied. Of course he will. But, we always knew he would try to justify his actions after-the-fact.[/QUOTE]He will claim that his hands were tied ad nauseum while continuing to blame the "mess he inherited" up until the point that he claims full responsibility for any recovery (regardless of the fact that any recovery is in spite of his policies not as a result of them)

[QUOTE=Jackson]If our government had NOT borrowed and then pissed away 820 billion dollars in the so-called "Stimulus Plan"[/QUOTE]The Recovery Act (stimulus) approved $787 billion, comprised of a combination of tax cuts and spending. Only $229 billion has been spent as of May 2010.

$229 billion is significantly lower than the $820 billion you wrote, but why let facts get in the way of a good argument.

Obama had very little to do with the economic downturn. Hoping and praying and conjecturing and repeating it's his fault over and over won't make it true.

The real culprit is the private sector.

First, the financial & real estate sectors exercised poor risk management and inflated a highly leveraged real estate bubble until it burst. In the aftermath, the financial sector cut off lending and corporate america laid off millions to maintain and increase profits.

Sure there is some blame that can be assigned to government as well. But the lion's share of blame is with the private sector.

Here is the general rule:

The more the private sector phucks up and fails us, the more government intervention is needed.

If the private sector worked for society as wonderfully as many on the right claim it does, we wouldn't need as much government, which the right so bitterly complains about.

[QUOTE=Jackson] If our government had NOT borrowed and then pissed away 820 billion dollars in the so-called "Stimulus Plan", our economy would be stronger today. The fact is that the American economy is an incredibly powerful wealth-generating machine, and thus it will always right itself.

Thanks to the fortitude of the American entrepreneur and the productivity of the American worker, the US Economy will inevitably recover.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Jackson, with all due respect, there is no way to prove your claim that "if we hadn't borrowed the $820 billion, the economy would have been better today."

Claims of this nature are merely individual opinion or more accurately articles of faith. Although it is conceivably true, it cannot be proven, and just as easily, it may be absolutely wrong. Stan the Man is right when he says "We just don't know." And economic history does not support the claim.

It is no accident that virtually every government across the globe – whether led by a conservative or a progressive – chose to pump government funds into their economies in late 2008 and early 2009 to take up the slack as $50 trillion in global asset values evaporated. Not one global leader was willing to let the sick patient heal itself. The Jackson / Christian Science-derived "Let It Be" recovery approach was a non-starter from Berlin to Buenos Aires.

Throughout modern economic history, governments have intervened whenever their economies were thrust into a tailspin and asset values collapsed causing individuals and companies to be unable to sustain a stable level of spending. They acted in order to reverse the collapse. In instances when they didn't intervene, things got worse – usually much worse. When they injected financial support, things usually got no worse, typically got better, often much better. Government borrowing goes back to Roman times and has been instrumental in the growth of industrial capitalism.

I have no idea if you (or Wild Walleye and other AP member stimulus skeptics) studied college economics using Paul Samuelson's core text that was in vogue for decades. If you had you would understand, if not accept, the Keynes theory and the history of deficit spending.

If you tracked the role of stimulus spending in economic recoveries in country after country over the past eighty years, you would not find much support for your thesis that it is bad policy per se. The evidence is just not there.

When a kid hits up his Dad for a loan to buy his fiancee a diamond and promises to pay it back a few months after the wedding, when he expects he will be getting a raise from his employer, that is deficit spending. When a company sells bonds to individual investors to pay for expansion, they are borrowing money against future revenues and that is deficit spending. When a family takes out a mortgage to buy a home, that is deficit spending.

When governments engage in deficit spending, they share with the kid who hit up Dad, the corporate bond issuers and the mortgagee, the same obligation to eventually repay the debt. Lenders need to have confidence in the eventual ability of borrowers to repay or they hold on to their moolah.

If the kid gets the raise and pays back Dad, the firm's expansion plans pay off so the bond holders get their dividends and principle, and the mortgagee stays current on the loan, a win-win is the result.

If a government uses borrowed funds to successfully help grow its economy and thereby is able to raise sufficient revenues to cover operating and capital costs and manage on-going longer term finances in ways that sustain investor confidence, a win-win can be the result.

History shows that deficit spending is unavoidable at different times in nations' lives – during war for example. It has also shown that deficits can be reduced and eliminated – even deep ones – through growth and adjusting spending and taxes!

In reality, there are no hide-bound rules about national debt management other than not to fuck things up by longterm fiscal mismanagement. That is what Argentina did and Greece has done more recently. El Alamo's worry about the explosion in sovereign dept has merit, but his claim that government imposed inflation is how it will be addressed is not a foregone conclusion. Sovereign debt management is less a function of economics than of political will of leaders and citizens to act responsibly.

There is no magic debt to GDP measure or any other statistic. In finance things are fungible. We even have global loan sharks who buy wobbly debt if the interest rate is high enough!

For conservatives, the rub is that they always assume their taxes will be raised to pay down any government debt. Again, history shows that is not necessarily true. During the Clinton years, the nation's deficit was paid off as a strong economy provided sufficient revenues to cover expenses and pay down debt, even after tax rates had been reduced across the board.

As to the speed of the current US recovery, consider this. If the Obama-led economy produces jobs at the pace of the past four months over the next eight months, in the first full calendar year of Obama's presidency, it will have created more jobs than it did over the entire eight years of W's reign!

During W's eight years as President, including six when the Rs controlled all of government, the great US economic machine you extol as a monster wealth-generator produced its weakest performance in seven decades. GDP grew at the slowest pace since Truman's post WW II years. Jobs increased a whopping 2%. While, incomes grew slower than in any presidency since the 1960s (other than that of Bush senior) The Clinton surplus became a $1.7 trillion deficit. Of course, all of this was before the economy cratered on W's watch.

If there is one lesson we all should have learned during the run-up to the current crisis, the bumpy management of its initial turmoil and the vagaries of how individual and collective economies have weathered the storms, it is that things related to global finance and economic fortunes are pretty fucking complicated. For example, huge deficits notwithstanding, the US dollar remains the currency of choice across the globe, while the global appetite for US treasuries remains strong. Clearly the markets are not overly fearful of US longterm fiscal vulnerability!

We are all in the soup because the "incredibly powerful wealth-generating machine" - the US economy – that you praise, over the past thirty years generated trillions of dollars of illusionary, rather than real wealth, as individuals, businesses and all levels of government gorged themselves on debt. That gorging was directed, aided, abetted with malice aforethought by the international financial wizards.

Between 1970 and 2009, financial sector profits went from 20% percent of total corporate profits to 40%.

Wall Street and the shadow banking system's role morphed from supplier of capital to productive sectors of the economy into a leech-like appendage which sucked value from the overall economy. It created more and more ways to get people to go further into debt and distributed enormous profits to a small number of mostly undeserving individuals. Those changes fundamentally altered the nature of the US economy and not to the benefit of most of its citizens.

The easy and cheap credit created asset bubbles in real estate and equities and it inflated the costs of essentials including health care and education and non-essentials like travel and luxury goods.

Debt-addicted Americans were living La Vida Loca. Then the whole thing collapsed – in ways that were very, very predictable. (The same sequence occurred in the UK, Ireland, Spain and many other nations.

The destruction of $50 trillion dollars of global "wealth" in a few months in late 2008 will mean that the future standard-of-living for hundreds of millions of the poor and middle-class people around will be well below what they anticipated. In the words of Henry David Thoreau, many people, whose immediate losses are being exacerbated by disappearing work options, will face "lives of quiet desperation."

For the foreseeable future millions won't have access to credit and be able to borrow their way back to fun times and any sense of personal economic well-being – or to be the engine of consumer-driven economic growth.

Bleeding the economy and the price structure down to realistic and sustainable levels is a painful and slow process that can only be cushioned by government policies.

Economic anger and anxiety will make politics as volatile as the financial markets for a long-time as people with diminished prospects have to find someway to express their anger.

Hang on cause the bumpy ride ain't getting much smoother for a long time.

I agree with your kudos to the US business owner and working stiffs on the factory floor, but the great US economic success was built on more than just entrepreneurs and labor.

How about the genius of America's inventors; the learning provided by its educators; the great structures built by its engineers; the core infrastructure that governments have put in place without which modern society couldn't function; the civic order enforced by its law enforcement; the national security provided by its young troops; the confidence of foreign and domestic investors who will fund in its economic future; the natural resources provided by good fortune; and the optimism and inspiration provided by trail blazers and role models in sports, the arts, the military and yes politics - including Barack Obama.

Now I hope that didn't give you a migraine!

As far as I know the US Government, going back to the Carter Administration and maybe before, pushed legislation which amounted to forcing financial institutions to adopt fiscally irresponsible lending practices.

The Administrations of Carter and Clinton accused financial institutions of 'red lining'. Carter and Clinton alleged that mortgages were harder to obtain in certain neighborhoods i.e. neighborhoods that the banks 'red-lined' or designated as high risk zones for mortgages.

The concept of 'red lining' had certain racial and political overtones because many of the 'red lined' zones were predominantly black or inhabited by other Democratic leaning voting blocks.

To most rational people 'red lining' did not have racial or policial overtones. 'Red-lining' merely amounted to prudent lending practices.

Carter and Clinton prevailed. Banks were forced into irresponsible lending practices by the Federal Government and today we have a mess on our hands gracias a Big Brother.

The private section resisted the irresponsible regulations of Barney Franks and friends. Unfortuneately, those irresponsible regulations, which solely and directly caused the financial mess we are in today, were forced down the throats of the private sector by guess who? - the correct answer is - our number one problem - the government.

[QUOTE=Esten]First, the financial & real estate sectors exercised poor risk management [/quote]At the behest of the government, who [I]required[/i] these sectors to provide very risky loans to "disadvantaged" people and neighborhoods. [quote]and inflated a highly leveraged real estate bubble[/quote]With the collusion of the government, operating through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; quangos set up to "insure" these risky loans, funded by the Federal government, run by people whose qualifications ran to "who you know" rather than "what you know". [quote]until it burst. In the aftermath, the financial sector cut off lending [/quote]Because the federally-mandated loans left them broke as well, without money to lend.

[quote]Sure there is some blame that can be assigned to government as well. But the lion's share of blame is with the private sector. [/quote]Largely because it's the government who's doing the blaming, aided and abetted by a "liberal tame press" whose qualifications run to "who you know" rather than "what you know".

[quote]Here is the general rule: The more the private sector phucks up and fails us, the more government intervention is needed. [/quote]And the corollary: The more the government intervenes, the more the private sector and the people get phucked over by the intervention.

[quote]If the private sector worked for society as wonderfully as many on the right claim it does, we wouldn't need as much government, which the right so bitterly complains about.[/QUOTE]But when the government puts the private sector into a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation, as was happening underneath this situation, then government and the press get to sit back "outside of the blame" and sharpshoot to their hearts' content.

Just my two pesos' worth; would have been two cents' worth, but for the power of the government's printing press.

And Cheap CockSuckers Too.

Exon

[QUOTE=Esten]The Recovery Act (stimulus) approved $787 billion, comprised of a combination of tax cuts and spending. Only $229 billion has been spent as of May 2010.

$229 billion is significantly lower than the $820 billion you wrote, but why let facts get in the way of a good argument.[/QUOTE]If you believe that this money is not as good as spent, I have a bridge for you (not the shovel-ready kind) The fact of the matter is that the remaining balance is a slush fund that will be spent on things that have nothing to do with helping the economy (all of which was obvious in the original legislation)

You bring up an excellent point, although I am sure you don't realize it. The 'stimulus' package was complete bullsh-t from the start, it hasn't been implemented (I. E. Those funds have not gone into the economy) and therefore has had absolutely nothing to do with any recovery (if there is one)

On the contrary, the 'spending' (I. E. Printing and taking $787B of the taxpayers' money and earmarking it to give to FOBs) does the exact opposite of stimulating the economy, by deflating the value of every American's dollars, increasing the national debt burden (upon which interest must be paid) and creating a disincentive to invest in businesses (I. E. The things that create jobs) by increasing taxation and regulation.

Anyhow, thanks for pointing out how phony the 'stimulus' package was and is.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]As far as I know the US Government, going back to the Carter Administration and maybe before, pushed legislation which amounted to forcing financial institutions to adopt fiscally irresponsible lending practices.

The Administrations of Carter and Clinton accused financial institutions of 'red lining'. Carter and Clinton alleged that mortgages were harder to obtain in certain neighborhoods I. E. Neighborhoods that the banks 'red-lined' or designated as high risk zones for mortgages.

The concept of 'red lining' had certain racial and political overtones because many of the 'red lined' zones were predominantly black or inhabited by other Democratic leaning voting blocks.

To most rational people 'red lining' did not have racial or policial overtones. 'Red-lining' merely amounted to prudent lending practices.

Carter and Clinton prevailed. Banks were forced into irresponsible lending practices by the Federal Government and today we have a mess on our hands gracias a Big Brother.

The private section resisted the irresponsible regulations of Barney Franks and friends. Unfortuneately, those irresponsible regulations, which solely and directly resulted in the financial mess we are in today, were forced down the throats of the private sector by guess who? - the correct answer is - our number one problem - the government.[/QUOTE][size=+2][b]It's George Bush's fault![/b][/size]

Esten, arguing for government intervention because of private sector faults is what is wrong in general with people on the left who think the government needs to be involved (to intervene) to save the day. There is no real understanding at how things come to be, and the fuck-ups the government makes are compunded when people rush in and say "now we need more government involvement!"

The fact is, most big problems, including the credit crisis, are usually the fault of the government in not following rules it has set out (allowing favored businesses, industries to get around the rules) or making new rules to tell the market place how to act.

If progressive administrations had not ordered the banking industry to create these risky loans, they would not have existed to begin with. The market would never have allowed it to happen. Did the financial industry make things worse? Yeah, but the govt didn't look very closely at what was happening and actually enforce the laws / regulations on the books after they created the potential problem.

The government fucks up most things when it tries to tell people and the market place what to do. People on the left just can't imagine that we don't all need to be controlled "for our own good."

You mean all those brains in financial firms couldn't develop responsible risk management plans within the existing regulatory framework?

Did the government require these firms to give financial incentives based on the volume of their transactions, regardless of the risk profiles?

A bit hard to believe.

[QUOTE=Esten]You mean all those brains in financial firms couldn't develop responsible risk management plans within the existing regulatory framework?

Did the government require these firms to give financial incentives based on the volume of their transactions, regardless of the risk profiles?

A bit hard to believe.[/QUOTE]You were the very last in line for brains.

Exon

Direct commentary from Yahoo.

"This is how it goes in 2010 at the ballot box: Old orders are upended, political lions become roadkill, chosen successors get left behind, and the outsider, riding a wave of discontent, becomes the new frontrunner.

In quick succession Tuesday night, the jittery inhabitants of Washington's marble halls found three more reasons to worry about their staying power. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the Senate's patron saint of resilience, was turned out in a Democratic primary, in favor of an unwanted rival, Rep. Joe Sestak, who had neither major union nor White House support. In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a model of southern Democratic moderation, was forced into a primary runoff by a self-styled outsider, Bill Halter, challenging from her left. And in Kentucky, the Washington establishment's chosen Republican (See 10 races that have Democrats worried for 2010.

Senate candidate, Trey Grayson, fell to the son of a libertarian outlier, who carried the flag of another party. "I have a message, a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We've come to take our government back," declared Rand Paul, son of Representative and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, upon winning by a double-digit margin."

Sucks to be a liberal right now! Just remember who told ya how things will change later this year! It's just a matter of time till all ya liberal b*tchs start pointing the finger at your great messiah. The "Obamantion". LOL. One thing about liberals! They offend easily and point the finger faster than anyone I know! LOL! From my perspective, really can't wait till the blood-letting really starts in November! Should be something to watch! I'll be back in BA in early October and can't wait to see the tone of this thread change. Stop pointing the finger at past presidents liberal-b*tchs. Only a fool would look at the past year and a half with an eye that beholds the liberals have'in made even one solid move. "Spend our way out of a recession"! IALOTFLMAO! Keep it real fellas. It's just time to own up to the fact that the liberals couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. Way too much social agenda to pursue! LOL!

Words to live by all.

If you are not a liberal in your twenties then you have NO HEART!

If you are still a liberal in your thirties then you have NO BRAIN!

Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. To all you liberal b*tchs out there. Stay in denial! It will make the next 6 month much more tolerable for ya all. LOL!

[QUOTE=Toymann]Direct commentary from Yahoo.

"This is how it goes in 2010 at the ballot box: Old orders are upended, political lions become roadkill, chosen successors get left behind, and the outsider, riding a wave of discontent, becomes the new frontrunner.

In quick succession Tuesday night, the jittery inhabitants of Washington's marble halls found three more reasons to worry about their staying power. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the Senate's patron saint of resilience, was turned out in a Democratic primary, in favor of an unwanted rival, Rep. Joe Sestak, who had neither major union nor White House support. In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a model of southern Democratic moderation, was forced into a primary runoff by a self-styled outsider, Bill Halter, challenging from her left. And in Kentucky, the Washington establishment's chosen Republican (See 10 races that have Democrats worried for 2010.

Senate candidate, Trey Grayson, fell to the son of a libertarian outlier, who carried the flag of another party. "I have a message, a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We've come to take our government back," declared Rand Paul, son of Representative and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, upon winning by a double-digit margin."

Sucks to be a liberal right now! Just remember who told ya how things will change later this year! It's just a matter of time till all ya liberal be*tchs start pointing the finger at your great messiah. The "Obamantion". LOL. One thing about liberals! They offend easily and point the finger faster than anyone I know! LOL! From my perspective, really can't wait till the blood-letting really starts in November! Should be something to watch! I'll be back in BA in early October and can't wait to see the tone of this thread change. Stop pointing the finger at past presidents liberal-be*tchs. Only a fool would look at the past year and a half with an eye that beholds the liberals have'in made even one solid move. "Spend our way out of a recession"! IALOTFLMAO! Keep it real fellas. It's just time to own up to the fact that the liberals couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. Way too much social agenda to pursue! LOL!

Words to live by all.

If you are not a liberal in your twenties then you have NO HEART!

If you are still a liberal in your thirties then you have NO BRAIN!

Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. To all you liberal be*tchs out there. Stay in denial! It will make the next 6 month much more tolerable for ya all. LOL![/QUOTE]Not that I am a liberal, but your taunting style reminds me of being in some small town bars. You know what I mean!

If ya can't have a little fun on the political thread now that ol'Sids gone, who's gonna bait and offend the liberals. LOL. They offend so easily don't ya know and this damn board is just full of them. LOL.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. And I am from a small town don't ya know! LOL!

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Not that I am a liberal, but your taunting style reminds me of being in some small town bars. You know what I mean![/QUOTE]1. He admits to having been in flyover country.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]1. He admits to having been in flyover country.[/QUOTE]What the hell does that mean? I go wherever pussies are pulsating.

Right now, I am writing from the Star Princess crusing in the Baltic Sea, and then on to Bangkok and the riots and demonstrations.

[QUOTE=Jackson][size=+2][b]It's George Bush's fault![/b][/size][/QUOTE]Keep repeating, over and over, until the second Wednesday in November 2012.

Frankly, it'll probably go on a lot longer than that. The Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover until at least 1980, when nobody who voted for him was still alive.

[QUOTE=Esten]You mean all those brains in financial firms couldn't develop responsible risk management plans within the existing regulatory framework?

Did the government require these firms to give financial incentives based on the volume of their transactions, regardless of the risk profiles?

A bit hard to believe.[/QUOTE]Didn't say they COULDN'T develop risk management plans. But since when is the government in the business of telling companies that they HAVE to take risks?

Also, why didn't the government do its job and work within the framework that existed as well to make sure that shit didn't happen?

My point was that the first thing liberals do is start telling us how we need MORE government to take care of the last thing that the government screwed up or helped screw up in one fashion or another.

1) The government shouldn't tell companies that they have to take risks they wouldn't normally take.

2) When you DO tell companies to take risks, don't just ignore what they're doing.

3) No matter 1 & 2 - if you already have a framework in place, ENFORCE IT and ensure that you don't let crooks fuck things up worse.

We don't need more government and more regulations.

[QUOTE=Exon123]You were the very last in line for brains.[/QUOTE]Exon, I'm sorry I'm such a dumb MotherFucker.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]What the hell does that mean? I go wherever pussies are pulsating.[/QUOTE]No self-respecting, knee-jerk, coastal liberal would admit knowledge of or experience in "fly over country." Therefore, you're ok.

[quote=]Right now, I am writing from the Star Princess crusing in the Baltic Sea, and then on to Bangkok and the riots and demonstrations.[/QUOTE]Could you pick me up some licorice at the CentralWorld Mall?

[QUOTE=Esten]Exon, I'm sorry I'm such a dumb MotherFucker.[/QUOTE]Its Ok, I was wrong once myself,.

Course when the facts came out, it turned out I was right after all.

Exon.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]No self-respecting, knee-jerk, coastal liberal would admit knowledge of or experience in "fly over country." Therefore, you're ok.

Could you pick me up some licorice at the CentralWorld Mall?[/QUOTE]I am not going to break curfew for you, but if you come over, we can go together, and also see some fishbowls.

Greetings Everyone,

Today, SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members trespassed "en masse" on the lawn of the personal residence of the president of Bank of America specifically to protest against BoA's policy of foreclosing on the homes of SEIU members who have not paid their mortgages.

They apparently believe that they have the right to trespass and protest at the bank executive's personal residence because they believe it's not their member's fault that they can't pay their mortgages, not withstanding that they asked for the mortgage in the first place, agreed to and executed the mortgage documents, and then they took the bank's money.

They also apparently believe that as union members they are entitled to some sort ot special exemption not available ot the rest of us.

This reminds me of union politics here in Argentina.

Thanks,

Jackson

BTW: Nobody forced these people to take the Bank's money, which leads to the obvious question: Whatever happened to personal responsibility in the USA?

While these tools are available to all politicians, the Left has perfected the arts of fear-mongering and playing on emotions in order to overcome reason and the rule of law.

Anybody who has entered into a mortgage knows that there must be something different about it than any other debt obligation one has entered into in their personal lives. The enormous amount of paper work and nauseating details about the land and the house (I. E. The asset or collateral)

Nobody entering into a mortgage, who can read and has read the documentation can deny knowing that the house is the collateral to a 'secured' loan. That is to say that the loan is secured by the house. If the borrower doesn't pay, the lender has the right, through a tried and true process to reclaim that asset and sell it in order to satisfy the loan.

A foreclosure process can only begin after you failed to make payments and a certain period of time ("cure period" and local statutes) Seizing and auctioning the house can only take place after the lender has completed foreclosure process and a judge issues and order. The foreclosure process in most states takes about 12-18 months from the first missed payment until the point where the bank can auction that home. In some states, such as Texas, it can be much shorter. There are many, many facets of this process tipped in the favor of the borrower and in most cases the borrower is able to keep the home. Historically, only about 5% of homeowners against whom a foreclosure process has been initiated cannot keep the home (if they want it)

Today, banks are doing things never heard of before in order to keep the home owner in the house and get them back on track paying the mortgage. This includes many banks (including BofA) agreeing to reduce the principal balance owed on the property. That means the bank is saying "ok you owed us $500k on the house, we'll knock 15% off of that to get things back in line, so now you owe us $425K." That is a non-taxable gift of $75K. I have heard of banks that are also willing to extend the term of the loan to 40 years and fix it at 4%. This is amazingly good for people that have found themselves on hard times.

The SEIU is a criminal organization that should be facing multiple RICO charges for organized violence and intimidation. Their protests are always politically motivated as is this one. I would be curious to see real evidence of SEIU members actually being foreclosed on and evicted.

They are trying to intimidate lenders who are doing more than ever to help and play on the emotions of people who afraid of this happening to them.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Today, SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members trespassed "en masse" on the lawn of the personal residence of the president of Bank of America specifically to protest against BoA's policy of foreclosing on the homes of SEIU members who have not paid their mortgages.

They also apparently believe that as union members they are entitled to some sort ot special exemption not available ot the rest of us.

BTW: Nobody forced these people to take the Bank's money, which leads to the obvious question: Whatever happened to personal responsibility in the USA?[/QUOTE]Good thought about a delicate issue Jackson, reminds me of several latin american countries in the 80's and 90's including Mexico's Tequila effect back in '95. Here we had people who were paying mortgages they couldn't afford at variable rates up to 85% a year. Some of them joined and formed an organization called "El Barzón", these guys turned a "social" cause into a political mess.

It wasn't unusual that they would intimidate lenders, entering their houses, break into judges' houses in daylight and destroy the property, close the courthouses by force, etc.

Banks were forced to negotiate with lots of people, some in good faith, others, well. However, the point I wish to comment is, as you said, What happened to personal responsibility? Specially in the US, years ago, when I went to your country, most people were hardworking, hard savers, some even penny pinching, but able to make a good and decent living even If their resources were limited. Now, it seems people are willing to live today and pay in installments (if they pay at all, considering the foreclosures, and the possible coming credit card debacle in the US as well as in UK and of course my country)

I can understand people who want to live beyond their means, after all, anybody who has been a student can attest to that, however, using violence to justify not paying. Gimme a break!

You know guys, I hope you don't consider this as lack of respect but lately the US reminds me too much of my country, not just for the economic mess but also the political one. Very sad, I hope we are not seeing the start of America's decline, because we would miss many good things we know in this world which we give for granted.

Exon BTW, I absolutely agree with you that Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Obama they all had to do what they did, or things would have been worse, quite possibly significantly worse. Some may say things would have turned out fine without the bailout, but no responsible leader would have taken a wild gamble like that.

I remember the day Bush came on TV and said sternly "Congress must act". I respected him at that moment for doing the right thing.

[QUOTE=El Queso]But since when is the government in the business of telling companies that they HAVE to take risks?[/QUOTE]I'd like to know the answer to that question myself. And another - why did the banks stop making risky loans? Did the regulations change? Or did the banks make that decision themselves. If the banks made that decision, they were never FORCED in the first place. It appears your argument falls apart here.

The subprime market was all about profit, pure and simple. Nothing wrong with pursuing profits, but with increased risk should come better risk management.

And then there's an even more relevant contributor to the crisis: the shadow banking system. Investors made highly leveraged bets linked to the US real estate market, which they should have known was in a bubble and due for a correction. The crisis was arguably mostly about a run on the shadow banking system.

Lehman was pretty much the main reason the bailout happened. Could someone explain how the government was responsible for Lehman's demise?

Face it, the financial sector phucked up. It was like the "Wild West". Yes the government allowed them to with inadequate regulation and oversight, and for that they share the blame. But to downplay the actions of the private sector and blame it mainly on the government is just a giant cop-out. And laughable. Fortunately, most Americans recognize the role the financial industry played in the economic downturn and the need for financial reform.

[QUOTE=Esten]Exon BTW, I absolutely agree with you that Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Obama they all had to do what they did, or things would have been worse, quite possibly significantly worse. Some may say things would have turned out fine without the bailout, but no responsible leader would have taken a wild gamble like that.

I remember the day Bush came on TV and said sternly "Congress must act". I respected him at that moment for doing the right thing.[/QUOTE]See Esten,

I take back everything I said!

Welcome Back from the "Dark Side".

Exon

So far 2010 has been a pretty good year for Obama. The is the President who gets up in the morning and goes to work solving the nation's problems while his opponents rant and rave and the Republicans try every trick in the book to block him and yet fail to do so!

Half the American people consistently give him favorable job approval ratings. Those numbers are amazing given the fact that the economy is still in tough shape and the sixteen months of unending blubbering and baldfaced lies coming from his adversaries.

Both Clinton and Reagan who faced nothing like we do now were in worse shape as far as public support at this time in their first terms. W, of course, in the post 9/11 period was supported by patriotic citizens until he screwed the pooch.

The public respects Obama's calm, confident, reasoned approach to issues. They know how we got in the mess and don't buy the bullshit attempts to shift the blame by the 35% of people stuck with Bush even as the barn was burning down.

Tuesday's election results gave no sign of a Republican resurgence in November. They lost a seat they should have won in Pennsylvania. The day he won, the Tea Party guy from Kentucky stepped on his own dick, implying he thought restaurant owners maybe should be free to refuse to serve blacks. (Yea the Tea Party isn't racist!

Of course the whole world may well be fucked no matter what the US Fed and the Obama economic team does because the entire world went debt crazy for thirty years and the bills are still coming due.

And no Walleye, Alamo and Jackson our perilous circumstances have nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Freddie, Fannie, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd or Acorn - but have a shit load to do with an international financial system - encouraged by the conservative free market theologians and politicians around the world who were on the take one way or another - that threw fiduciary responsibility out the window and turned international markets into casinos where the house marked the cards and loaded the dice.

During the recent real estate bubble not all banks followed the governments advice and wrote fiscally irresponsible mortgages based on the government's idea that banks have a social obligation to put everybody, regardless of their ability to pay, into homes.

The banks that did not follow the governments advice are the fiscally solid banks that are now buying the toxic banks the FDIC is closing each week.

And the new government regulations, simply put, are an admission by the government that the government was wrong I. E. an admission that banks do not have a social obligation to put put everybody, regardless of their ability pay, into homes.

And, of course, the most egregious violator of sound lending practices was the government itself i.e. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who had a couple of political clowns as CEO´s who were found to have the mathmatical skills of a 7 year old (they couldn't even count to ten, and addition, subtraction, division or multiplication were light years beyond their grasp)

Good summary from USA Today:

"The historic legislation is an emphatic response to Wall Street practices that fueled the housing bubble and a historic economic downturn. Financial firms packaged questionable mortgages into complex securities that plunged in value as housing prices fell, nearly bankrupting the firms, freezing credit markets and forcing taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail them out."

abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-guts-financial-reform/story?id=10706839

Good to see Scott Brown representing his state by voting with Dems. Not surprisingly, some people were posting on Brown's Facebook page calling him a "pig" and saying his days in DC will soon be over.

Do Repubs really think their opposition to this bill and their success in killing some parts of it are going to help them in November? I can easily see their apparent protection of Wall Street hurting them.

The resolution of the House and Senate bills will be interesting to watch as the lobbying continues.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]The 'stimulus' package was complete bullsh-t from the start, it hasn't been implemented (I. E. Those funds have not gone into the economy) and therefore has had absolutely nothing to do with any recovery (if there is one)[/QUOTE]Walleye I'm curious. Why post such obvious misinformation? There are many things you could blow smoke about that would be difficult to verify, but the stimulus spending is not one of them. There are tons of articles, reports and first hand accounts (myself included) that attest that stimulus money is being spent.

So again I ask, why the deliberate misinformation?

[QUOTE=Jackson]Today, SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members trespassed "en masse" on the lawn of the personal residence of the president of Bank of America specifically to protest against BoA's policy of foreclosing on the homes of SEIU members who have not paid their mortgages.

BTW: Nobody forced these people to take the Bank's money, which leads to the obvious question: Whatever happened to personal responsibility in the USA?[/QUOTE]"Personal responsibility? Whuzzat? You gotta be kidding, right?"

For many people in the USA, from union hacks to legislators, "responsibility" has been reduced to a euphemism for "blame"; and of course, the people who use it that way do not, [i]do not, [b]DO NOT[/b][/i] blame [u]themselves[/u]. Especially when there's someone in the neighborhood, with enough business acumen and personal responsibility to run a bank, to "hold responsible."

These bums see it as "His bank gots all the money, they must have stole it from us, he must have stole it from us. It's our money that bought him that big fancy house and all. We oughta lynch him and take the money, it should be ours."