I'm not sure what the Larouche reference is. Is he still emitting crazy from the grave? Of course ya gotta have Obama with a hitler stache because of all the atrocities he's committed making him Adolph-like, right?
I do have to agree with the restorer Glass-Steagals part, but how it overturning in 1999 is Obama's fault or grounds for impeachment is beyond me. Hell that was GOPster Phil Grahm's misdeed.
Obama's recession, yeah right, funny how it started well before he even took office. How stupid and whacky can these teabaggers get!?
8 comments:
So it's silly to call it Obama's recession? Really? The left (you) have called the recession of 2001 Bush's recession, but that one seems to have started before he took office.
Definition of HYPOCRITE
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
— hypocrite adjective
I'd say 2 fits here, eah? Or do you wish to use the "stupid and whacky" defense? A strong case could be made for either.
48.42 Days :)
That downturn started just before or just after Bush Took office. His policies could not possibly have caused it. It was pretty much a typical business cycle.
Presidents get way more credit/blame for current and short term economic conditions that are mostly beyond their control. They can in some cases however have great effect over the longer term.
Just when I think I have you pegged you go and say something thoughtful and reasoned.
If you believe that repeal of parts of Glass-Steagal caused the banking crisis, wouldn't it be more President Clinton's folly? Ultimately he did sign it into law. It's also a stretch to label it as Grahm's misdeed when 92 Senators (including Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Feinstein and Wisconsin's very own Herb Kohl) voted yes and 362 House members gave it the nod. I agree that calling for Obama's impeachment on this is very Larouche-y. Impeachment should be called for if, say for instance, he bribed a Nebraska or Louisiana Senator to get their vote on a piece of legislation.
You are making to much of the stache. I don't think this guy was going for a meta-ethics statement on Nietzsche vs Bataille but rather using very simple defacing to show his displeasure with the Keynesian Clown. Horns may have been beyond the artistic ability of this gentleman.
The repeal of Glass-Steagel was part of the conservative deregualtory agenda pushed on behalf of the Bankster by Phil Grahm and a few other Republicans. It was included in a budget bill. Clinton signed the budget bill and the Democrats voted the budget bill that included that provision. It was not part of their agenda. Nevertheless they bear some responsibility for its getting into the bill and into law. But that was definitely part of the conservative agenda, not the liberal agenda.
Democrats should work with conservatives where they have good ideas. But this dismantling of the regulatory framework that arose out of the Great Depression was not one of them and they have too often gone along and tried to play nice when conservatives push bad ideas that are in the interest of their corporate sponsors and not the public interest.
I still say that the CRA coupled with the bail-out culture that started with the Mexican bailout (pronounced Goldman-Sachs bailout, thank you President Clinton) had much more to do with the finical crisis than the repeal of GS.
I've said it before but it's worth repeating, Have you noticed the increase in drone strikes in Pakistan? A cynical attempt by The One to try to get OBL and boost his parties chances in the mid-terms?
46.54 Days :)
I hate to rehash this, but CRA was a small contributing factor and here's why.
CRA only applied to FDIC insured banks. Most of the subprime loans were written by mortgage brokers like Country wide who often engaged in predatory lending pushing borrowers even without their knowledge into baloon mortgages with very low initial rates. Since they immediately sold those loans to larger banks they had no skin in the game and were just after their commission.
Furthermore, many of the bad loans written were not subprime at all.
The above would have resulted in a manageable problem. But the larger banks that bought all these loans had merged with brokerages (previously prohibited by Glass Steagel, but allowed by the Grahm, Leach Bliley Act - R-TX, R-IA, R-VA). Prior to the GLB Act these brokerages had a self interest to check on the value of the assets they were bunding for sale to their customers. That was no longer true. So they were sold all over the world.
And to put the icing on the cake the rise of derivitaives meant that their were $trillions of untracked dollars in bets riding on these bundled loans and know one knew where the bad ones were. and entirely opaque system.
Brooksley Borne, Clinton's head of the commodities and Trade Commission saw the danger of the derivitives in the early 90's as they emerged and wanted to regulate them t=like the insurance that they are she was stymied at every turn by Clinton's men Paul Ruben and Larry Summers who were on a mission to out Con the Cons and by Allen Greenspan the faux guru who's idolatry of Ayn Rand has been destroyed by the reality caused by his ideology. If you want to know how to blame the Clinton Administration for the crisis it's not CRA, it's the failure to regulate deriviatives which they had the authority to do plenty of warning from Ms. Borne.
Phil Gramm also bears responsibility here. Gramm attached a complex, 262-page amendment to an omnibus appropriations bill moving toward passage as Congress was moving toward Christmas recess. Written by Wall Street investment-bank lawyers, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act had no hearing before any committee and was unread by almost every member of Congress. It mandated sweeping deregulation of investment banks, declaring off-limits to regulators most over the counter derivatives, credit derivatives, credit defaults, and swaps.
Thanks for reading all that. Yes I've noticed the increase in drone attacks. The whole mess is very disturbing. I wouldn't put it past Obama or any other President with the possible exception of Carter to try that or something similar if in fact that is the reason for the increase. Maybe it's just that he don't have enough enemies yet and we need to have more families of the dead to hate us for our extrajudicial killings.
We have gone over the CRA vs Repeal of GS before. The more I look into it, the more I see missing in your analysis. You failed to mention Freddie and Fannie's culpability and President Bush's 2005 reforms that were were rebuffed by Democrats in congress led by Christopher Dodd and Barny Franks. I can still see Frank arrogantly lisping at Republicans. Telling them the banking sector and the government banks in particular are doing just fine (just before the crisis).
Clearly repeal of GS did not help, but equally clear is that the seed of the crisis is stamped with the letters CRA.
I'd love to show you the errors in your anti-Rand stance. Perhaps another thread would be better for a debate on weather it's more healthy for a country's economy to be based on the productiveness of it's citizens or on how much they can mooch.
For the record, I don't think that The One is using the drone strikes to boost mid-term election prospects. Barack Antionette is way to busy golfing during the day and partying at night for such machiavellian nonsense.
46.35 Days :)
Well Nemo, you've been dished up some revisionist history. The fact is that the Fannie Mae reform you're talking about died in a Republican controlled Senate Committee in 2005: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@X
Btw: "Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably." means the committee rejected it but may reconsider it if amended at brought back to the committee. It never was and never even got close to a vote on the Senate floor.
Apparently the American Enterprise Institute didn't even like that bill and said it was worse than current law. http://www.aei.org/paper/22705
So it was a bad bill, wouldn't have fixed the problem and even if it could have been the fix that was needed, its intiation in 2006 would have been WAY too late to prevent the Recession that started in 2007. the ingredients were already cooked in and the repeal of Glass Steagal was the main ingredient. You have very infirm footing in this argument.
As for the potential Rand rant, I think I'll pass for now. The way you've framed your premise; "it's more healthy for a country's economy to be based on the productiveness of it's citizens or on how much they can mooch." is a simplistic, false, black/white dichotomy typical of the Con mindset and not really a worthy basis for reasoned debate. SO I'll spar myself the silliness.
And honestly I cannot phathom why you'd incessently push on the drone issue to elicit a response from me only to follow up with the mindless uttering that caps off you last post. I should have stuck with my instincts and avoided the subject and by doing so your nonsense.
Catch ya later on down the trail.
Post a Comment