• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Signs of declining economic security

I've clearly stated on this forum multiple times that Barrak DID inherit the effects of the collapse of Clintons mandated Housing Bubble.

But C'mon, it's been 5 years. The excuses and blame are just Childish.

The least of our electorate thought it a wise decision to elect a incompetent to deal with a collapse that was so systemic and so entrenched into the markets that it had world wide implications.

And he did a disasterous job. He made it much worse.

What did you folks expect. Obama was a big part of the sub-prime bubble before he ever entered the Senate.

He used to sue banks for " discrimination " as a plaintiffs attorney in Washington.

The GOP ? No they're not perfect, but blame them for what they're repsonsible for.

He also inherited Iraq, Guantanemo, Afghanistan, the job loss due to MANY reason, etc.

I like how you left those things out and Bush IS responsible for BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan as it was HIS choice for all of them as well as the spending and government increases. He also wasted time on flag burning amendments and anti-gay marriage amendments instead of focusing on the housing market as you claim. Sorry, but you cannot ignore those factors no matter how you want to spin everything on Clinton.

Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama have been lousy presidents. At least I can admit that, you cannot fathom anything being Bush's fault.
 
That right there is a strawman. No one said someone couldn't disagree with him. Good honest disagreement is encouraged by me. Birther nonsense. Marxist socialist communist atheist Muslim terrorist ****. And all the other truly stupid idiocy is something else altogether.

This conversation really isn't going anywhere. If, as president, he isn't able to get past a little bit of name calling, he isn't a very effective president in my opinion.

Do some people have irrational opinions of the president? Absolutely. But it seems to me that you are implying that those irrational opinions are an underlying factor behind all Obama opposition and the GOP's noncompliance. That's where I completely disagree. Let's not pretend that Republicans are just going to jump on board when it comes to things like raising taxes, amnesty, or gun control.
 
I waited a day to see how the Demokrats would respond to Obama's abysmal failure.
They haven't.

That says volumes. Their lack of response illustrates clearly Obama has failed miserably, and for that they have no defense.

Your comments are so obsurd, this liberal has nothing to say to you.
 
This conversation really isn't going anywhere. If, as president, he isn't able to get past a little bit of name calling, he isn't a very effective president in my opinion.

Do some people have irrational opinions of the president? Absolutely. But it seems to me that you are implying that those irrational opinions are an underlying factor behind all Obama opposition and the GOP's noncompliance. That's where I completely disagree. Let's not pretend that Republicans are just going to jump on board when it comes to things like raising taxes, amnesty, or gun control.

Another strawman. No one said he couldn't get past it. This is about how he was treated, and being discussed not by him, but us.

I'm implying nothing. I'm stating clearly that we went to nutterville the second he liked he might win. We didn't with any other white president. Bush had to start two wars before that happened. Clinton had to actually sleep with an intern and lie. All Obama had to do was look like he might win.
 
Another strawman. No one said he couldn't get past it. This is about how he was treated, and being discussed not by him, but us.

I'm implying nothing. I'm stating clearly that we went to nutterville the second he liked he might win. We didn't with any other white president. Bush had to start two wars before that happened. Clinton had to actually sleep with an intern and lie. All Obama had to do was look like he might win.

If it doesn't really have implications for his presidency, then I don't really care. I'm sure there are a minority of people with irrational opinions of him due to his race. It may get media attention, but that doesn't exactly make it important. To me, its just noise. If it makes you feel any better, anytime I run across these people in person, I put them in their place and move on from it. And I don't even like the guy.
 
Both. I give plenty to charities in time volunteering and money. I am also a life-time member of the VFW and do volunteer effort there as well. Maybe you would like to share with us how charitable you are with your money and time.

That is excellent. Communities are built from the inside out, not from the top down.
 
If it doesn't really have implications for his presidency, then I don't really care. I'm sure there are a minority of people with irrational opinions of him due to his race. It may get media attention, but that doesn't exactly make it important. To me, its just noise. If it makes you feel any better, anytime I run across these people in person, I put them in their place and move on from it. And I don't even like the guy.

Didn't say it was important to you either. Merely that race played a role here.
 
Put the blame on the recession where it belongs.

In today's news:
The Financial Crisis Cost More Than $14 Trillion: Dallas Fed Study

7/30/2013


The financial crisis likely cost at least a year's worth of U.S. economic output, a new Fed study finds.

Worse, it's hurting the economy even now and will hurt it for years to come.

That is the cheerful conclusion of a new study by economists at the Dallas Federal Reserve, entitled "How Bad Was It? The Costs and Consequences of the 2007–09 Financial Crisis."

So how bad was it? Really, really bad:

The economists say a "conservative" estimate of the damage is $14 trillion, or roughly one year's U.S. gross domestic product. This is based on how much output was lost during the crisis and Great Recession, along with all the damage done to potential future economic growth.

This is a factoid worth keeping in mind the next time bank lobbyists and flaks warn, as they habitually do,

that new rules and regulations could slow the U.S. economy. Will rules to safeguard the economy vaporize $14 trillion in GDP? No? Then they're probably worth doing.

"Given our range of estimates, the tepid economic recovery, and the litany of other adverse effects stemming from the Second Great Contraction, we suggest that the total domestic cost is likely greater than the equivalent of an entire year's output," the Dallas Fed economists write. "Thus, it is crucial to identify the primary causes and implement effective policy to avoid future episodes whose magnitude could exceed even the staggering costs and consequences of the most recent financial crisis."

The Dallas Fed's numbers are consistent with a handful of other recent studies that have found crisis costs of anywhere from $13 trillion to $17 trillion to $22 trillion.

read more:

The Financial Crisis Cost More Than $14 Trillion: Dallas Fed Study
 
He also inherited Iraq, Guantanemo,
Afghanistan, the job loss due to MANY reason, etc.

I like how you left those things out and Bush IS responsible for BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan as it was HIS choice for all of them as well as the spending and government increases. He also wasted time on flag burning amendments and anti-gay marriage amendments instead of focusing on the housing market as you claim. Sorry, but you cannot ignore those factors no matter how you want to spin everything on Clinton.

Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama have been lousy presidents. At least I can admit that, you cannot fathom anything being Bush's fault.

The IRAQ narrative has already been dealt with on this forum multiple times.

The Democrats voted to go to war and in the late 90s Clinton and his administration were making multiple public statements about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

" One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iras the capacity to develop weappns of Mass Destruction "
Clinton 1998

" If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of Mass Destruction program ".
Clinton 1998.

So spare me ok ? Every critique coming fron the left of George Bush is absolute nonsense.

A manufactured set of narratives placed before ignorant people that led to the election of Obama and our perpetual economic stagnation.
 
The IRAQ narrative has already been dealt with on this forum multiple times.

The Democrats voted to go to war and in the late 90s Clinton and his administration were making multiple public statements about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

" One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iras the capacity to develop weappns of Mass Destruction "
Clinton 1998

" If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of Mass Destruction program ".
Clinton 1998.

So spare me ok ? Every critique coming fron the left of George Bush is absolute nonsense.

A manufactured set of narratives placed before ignorant people that led to the election of Obama and our perpetual economic stagnation.

Yes, the Iraq decision from Congress was giving Bush the OK to order the actions. Congress didn't say he HAD to do it. Bush made that decision. Sorry, but the righty spin can't get passed that fact. It was Bush's decision to go into Iraq.

Yet again you have shown intellectual dishonesty to not put ANY blame to Bush. I have plenty of criticism over Obama's actions which is what led to me not voting for him in 2012. Do you have any honesty whatsoever?
 
Put the blame on the recession where it belongs.

In today's news:


read more:

The Financial Crisis Cost More Than $14 Trillion: Dallas Fed Study

Lol. This is quite a pathetic study. Its saying nothing more than "well if we lived in a perfect world and recessions never happened, then we would've produced $14T more over some unmentioned period of time." Well no **** sherlock. Comparing a fantasy, alternative reality where growth is permanently fixed at some arbitrary to a real world actuality is absolutely useless. Its like me saying "well us not having 20% growth every single year has cost us a quadrillion dollars!" Its unrealistic expectations. Furthermore, it isn't offering any proof that the new rules/regulations would A. prevent a future crisis or B. cost less then $14T in economic impact over a period of time.
 
Yes, the Iraq decision from Congress was giving Bush the OK to order the actions. Congress didn't say he HAD to do it. Bush made that decision. Sorry, but the righty spin can't get passed that fact. It was Bush's decision to go into Iraq.

Yet again you have shown intellectual dishonesty to not put ANY blame to Bush. I have plenty of criticism over Obama's actions which is what led to me not voting for him in 2012. Do you have any honesty whatsoever?

LOL. In otherwords "we gave the okay, but its completely your fault." And you want to talk about dishonesty.
 
LOL. In otherwords "we gave the okay, but its completely your fault." And you want to talk about dishonesty.

Sorry, but the decision to go into Iraq was Bush's. No spin about that. I can say the same about some decisions Obama has made as well. That's personal responsibility. My work had given me the ok to purchase items needed for a task to do. However, what I purchased was MY choice and MY responsibility. Same with Bush's decision, it was HIS choice and HIS responsibility.
 
Lol. This is quite a pathetic study. Its saying nothing more than "well if we lived in a perfect world and recessions never happened, ...

This last recession was unlike any other I ever experienced.
The financial meltdown cost us much more than any other recession since the Great depression.

I think most of the blame for this past recession falls on the pure greed of the financial institutions.

Although the financial institutions would like us to believe and have led us to believe that mandated mortgage lending is the reason they are in trouble ,
I believe the Credit Default Swaps are the real reason that our financial institutions were in dire straights.

This last recession was unlike any other I ever experienced.
In the past we had manufacturing crisis, fuel crisis, inflation crisis, dot. com crisis etc.

In the last 40 years every other recession our country was in those who had very good or excellent credit were able to get loans. Those loans may have come with double digit interest but they were still available.

This last recession was different because the lending institutions did not have the money to loan.

I think the problem started way before the mandated mortgage lending.
I think it stated back in 1997 when the JP Moragn came up with a wonderfully evil ( my words) idea to free up their monies called Credit Default Swaps.

The Credit Default Swaps were invented in 1997 by a team working for JP Morgan. They were designed to shift the risk of default to a third-party, as this shifted risk did not count against their regulatory capital requirements. In essence the swaps were created as a regulatory loophole


Basically banks used to need to keep monies on hand to back up loans. The financial institutions decided they could free up more money for loans if they had a 3rd party be responsible if a loan was defaulted.
Kind of like an insurance policy but unlike a real insurance company which is regulated these 3rd party companies are not regulated and did NOT have the money to pay the defaults and that is why our financial institutions are in such a mess.

The banks kept lending money they did not really have until lots of defaults are coming in with no one to pay the defaults.
Then the financial institutions almost collapsed and we the taxpayers ended up bailing them out.

More info on Credit Default Swaps:

Credit Default Swaps: The Next Crisis? - TIME
 
Yes, the Iraq decision from Congress was giving Bush the OK to order the actions. Congress didn't say he HAD to do it. Bush made that decision. Sorry, but the righty spin can't get passed that fact. It was Bush's decision to go into Iraq.

Yet again you have shown intellectual dishonesty to not put ANY blame to Bush. I have plenty of criticism over Obama's actions which is what led to me not voting for him in 2012. Do you have any honesty whatsoever?

Are you honest enough to admit that anyone running for president that had a real chance to win in 2000 would have made the exact same decision Bush made? And lets look at it from the opposite angle. Given what had recently happened at the time, and the then current political climate and the head of the CIA (appointed by a Democrat) saying it was a slam dunk Iraq had nukes, what if he doesn't invade Iraq? Would you or anybody else that has been critical of his decision to go to war with Iraq supported Bush's decision not to? I doubt it. At that point those critical of Bushes decision just shift the argument to he's letting Iraq get away with murder, shooting at America's military, murdering his own people, supporting terrorist and so on.
 
Are you honest enough to admit that anyone running for president that had a real chance to win in 2000 would have made the exact same decision Bush made?

We only know the actions that have happened, not that COULD have happened. We can play "What-if" games all day long and not prove each other wrong because it is "what-if". But the FACTS remain that Bush made the decision to go in there.

And lets look at it from the opposite angle. Given what had recently happened at the time, and the then current political climate and the head of the CIA (appointed by a Democrat) saying it was a slam dunk Iraq had nukes, what if he doesn't invade Iraq? Would you or anybody else that has been critical of his decision to go to war with Iraq supported Bush's decision not to? I doubt it. At that point those critical of Bushes decision just shift the argument to he's letting Iraq get away with murder, shooting at America's military, murdering his own people, supporting terrorist and so on.

Yet again, the DECISION and the RESPONSIBILTY STILL lies with Bush. There is no spin that can change that. You can try to mitigate it, you can try to justify it, but the decision and the responsibility STILL lies with Bush on the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

Obama is responsible for continuing it, surging it, and leaving it. However, that doesn't change the FACT that Bush is the one responsible for the decision to go in there.

Why you and others cannot understand that is beyond me. IT'S ELEMENTARY.
 
Both. I give plenty to charities in time volunteering and money. I am also a life-time member of the VFW and do volunteer effort there as well. Maybe you would like to share with us how charitable you are with your money and time.

Plenty...I give about 10% of my income, and personal time as well.
 
This last recession was unlike any other I ever experienced.

The financial meltdown cost us much more than any other recession since the Great depression.

I think most of the blame for this past recession falls on the pure greed of the financial institutions.

Although the financial institutions would like us to believe and have led us to believe that mandated mortgage lending is the reason they are in trouble ,
I believe the Credit Default Swaps are the real reason that our financial institutions were in dire straights.

This last recession was unlike any other I ever experienced.
In the past we had manufacturing crisis, fuel crisis, inflation crisis, dot. com crisis etc.

In the last 40 years every other recession our country was in those who had very good or excellent credit were able to get loans. Those loans may have come with double digit interest but they were still available.

This last recession was different because the lending institutions did not have the money to loan.

I think the problem started way before the mandated mortgage lending.
I think it stated back in 1997 when the JP Moragn came up with a wonderfully evil ( my words) idea to free up their monies called Credit Default Swaps.

The Credit Default Swaps were invented in 1997 by a team working for JP Morgan. They were designed to shift the risk of default to a third-party, as this shifted risk did not count against their regulatory capital requirements. In essence the swaps were created as a regulatory loophole


Basically banks used to need to keep monies on hand to back up loans. The financial institutions decided they could free up more money for loans if they had a 3rd party be responsible if a loan was defaulted.
Kind of like an insurance policy but unlike a real insurance company which is regulated these 3rd party companies are not regulated and did NOT have the money to pay the defaults and that is why our financial institutions are in such a mess.

The banks kept lending money they did not really have until lots of defaults are coming in with no one to pay the defaults.
Then the financial institutions almost collapsed and we the taxpayers ended up bailing them out.

More info on Credit Default Swaps:

Credit Default Swaps: The Next Crisis? - TIME

Oh it DID start way before 1997. Try 1993.
Credit Default Swaps were just a financial tool used to collateralize risk investments like MBSs and NO they were not the cause of the Collapse.

They were a regulatory MUST for investment banks.

From 1997 to 2000 Fannie and Freddie were the originators of hundreds of billions in toxic AAA rated MBSs.

That goes back to the policies that lowered Capital Requirements for loans purchased by Fannie and Freddie from 10% to 3% and the push for banks to lower their lending standards by the Clinton administration.

Don't you remember Janet Reno threatening banks with prosecution if they didn't play ball ? I do.

Clintons long list of executive orders in his National Homeowners Strategy turned the affordable housing iniative into a nightmare.
 
Sorry, but the decision to go into Iraq was Bush's. No spin about that. I can say the same about some decisions Obama has made as well. That's personal responsibility. My work had given me the ok to purchase items needed for a task to do. However, what I purchased was MY choice and MY responsibility. Same with Bush's decision, it was HIS choice and HIS responsibility.

Okay, but the Democratic brass has to accept responsibility for standing behind that decision. Its hypocrisy to say "yeah we supported it, but we deny any responsibility."
 
Okay, but the Democratic brass has to accept responsibility for standing behind that decision. Its hypocrisy to say "yeah we supported it, but we deny any responsibility."

The responsibility for the decision to go to war was Bush's entirely. Congress merely authorized it as an option, which can also be saber rattling and not out and out war. And in a post 9/11 environment, at the time, few dared, politically, to not support giving the president that option.
 
This last recession was unlike any other I ever experienced.
The financial meltdown cost us much more than any other recession since the Great depression.

I think most of the blame for this past recession falls on the pure greed of the financial institutions.

Although the financial institutions would like us to believe and have led us to believe that mandated mortgage lending is the reason they are in trouble ,
I believe the Credit Default Swaps are the real reason that our financial institutions were in dire straights.

This last recession was unlike any other I ever experienced.
In the past we had manufacturing crisis, fuel crisis, inflation crisis, dot. com crisis etc.

In the last 40 years every other recession our country was in those who had very good or excellent credit were able to get loans. Those loans may have come with double digit interest but they were still available.

This last recession was different because the lending institutions did not have the money to loan.

I think the problem started way before the mandated mortgage lending.
I think it stated back in 1997 when the JP Moragn came up with a wonderfully evil ( my words) idea to free up their monies called Credit Default Swaps.

The Credit Default Swaps were invented in 1997 by a team working for JP Morgan. They were designed to shift the risk of default to a third-party, as this shifted risk did not count against their regulatory capital requirements. In essence the swaps were created as a regulatory loophole


Basically banks used to need to keep monies on hand to back up loans. The financial institutions decided they could free up more money for loans if they had a 3rd party be responsible if a loan was defaulted.
Kind of like an insurance policy but unlike a real insurance company which is regulated these 3rd party companies are not regulated and did NOT have the money to pay the defaults and that is why our financial institutions are in such a mess.

The banks kept lending money they did not really have until lots of defaults are coming in with no one to pay the defaults.
Then the financial institutions almost collapsed and we the taxpayers ended up bailing them out.

More info on Credit Default Swaps:

Credit Default Swaps: The Next Crisis? - TIME

Thank you captain hindsight. I still haven't seen any evidence from the article you quoted off the HP that A. any regulation or rule would prevent a future financial crisis or B. said regulations or rules wouldn't cost the country in economic growth.

The HP seems seems to justify any new proposed rules or regulations by saying "oh the difference between reality and our made up fantasy world where recessions never happen and growth is always fixed at some spectacular percentage is $15T. $15T is a lot of money so obviously banks should be regulated." If you're going to use studies that come up with imaginary numbers as your proof of "where the blame lies," you might as well just start talking about fairies and unicorns while you're at it.
 
The responsibility for the decision to go to war was Bush's entirely. Congress merely authorized it as an option, which can also be saber rattling and not out and out war. And in a post 9/11 environment, at the time, few dared, politically, to not support giving the president that option.

So, IYV, politicians votes are merely expedient to their future elections?
 
The responsibility for the decision to go to war was Bush's entirely. Congress merely authorized it as an option, which can also be saber rattling and not out and out war. And in a post 9/11 environment, at the time, few dared, politically, to not support giving the president that option.

Exactly.
The United Nations conducted WMD searches and when they could not any WMDs President Bush ordered them to leave and started dropping bombs on Iraq.
 
Back
Top Bottom