• 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!

Republicans Must Apologize for Kansas and Louisiana

Absentglare said:
Baahahaha wow !!!!!!!

The economy didn't completely collapse (like the state government), therefore it wasn't failed policy !!!!
Click to expand...
No...the economy IS growing...and why is someone who lives in Colorado so desperate to smear himself with ****? How much of your life have you spent demanding RATS in this country apologize for the devastation they have caused in every major city and to the minority communities that have supported them? Oh...wait...you LIKE that ****...dont you?
 
Vern said:
it really was bush's fault. Not only did he preempt all state laws against predatory lending but the regulators work for bush. Banks just weren't allowed to do what they did until Bush's regulators let them. Bush's working group says it started late 2004.

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement that a lot of Bush's policy decisions were at fault here, but it's also impossible to argue that the whole process of deregulation was bad decision making exclusive to George Bush or that what came before Bush didn't allow Bush to add on top of what he did. You can also directly link Glass-Steagall in 1999 and CMFA of 2000 as two things that helped cause (or make worse) the 2008 financial collapse. We can also discuss how Clinton went along with Alan Greenspan (who was basically the architect of the collapse), and so on. I think Reagan's role in pushing the country over the edge in it's commitment and the role that played in all of the economic downturns also goes without saying.
 
VanceMack said:
No...the economy IS growing...and why is someone who lives in Colorado so desperate to smear himself with ****? How much of your life have you spent demanding RATS in this country apologize for the devastation they have caused in every major city and to the minority communities that have supported them? Oh...wait...you LIKE that ****...dont you?
Click to expand...

Your desperate attempt to deflect by insulting me personally demonstrates that you acknowledge the weakness of your own position.
 
Absentglare said:
Your desperate attempt to deflect by insulting me personally demonstrates that you acknowledge the weakness of your own position.
Click to expand...
Hey...you are the one anxious to smear **** all over yourself. Don't try to pin that on me. So when ARE you planning on demanding the RATS apologize?
 
Absentglare said:
No, job and GDP growth should be higher if the tax cuts helped in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

They did go higher did you not read your own chart again? you are comparing a state to the rest of the US.
talk about apples to oranges. lol

Lol, if you blame President Carter for the bulk of the economic situation in the early 80s, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

umm yea that was his mess that he left. it was a economic disaster. inflation in the double digits, unemployment in the double digits, interest rates in the double
digits. umm yea that is what most people call a disaster.
and we all know that you never know what you are talking about.
 
VanceMack said:
Hey...you are the one anxious to smear **** all over yourself. Don't try to pin that on me. So when ARE you planning on demanding the RATS apologize?
Click to expand...

You're only digging a bigger ad hominem hole of desperation.
 
ludin said:
They did go higher did you not read your own chart again? you are comparing a state to the rest of the US.
talk about apples to oranges. lol



umm yea that was his mess that he left. it was a economic disaster. inflation in the double digits, unemployment in the double digits, interest rates in the double
digits. umm yea that is what most people call a disaster.
and we all know that you never know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

No, i'm looking at the rebound from President Bush 2 recession by comparing it to the US average as a control group.

President Carter endured the unusual case of an oil supply shock.
 
Absentglare said:
You're only digging a bigger ad hominem hole of desperation.
Click to expand...

And you are still covered in **** expecting others to explain their pooh.
 
VanceMack said:
And you are still covered in **** expecting others to explain their pooh.
Click to expand...

I will not entertain your nonsense here any further. Feel free to articulate a real argument and i may elect to respond to it. Since you have brought nothing new to the discussion, my prior statements still apply.

Absentglare said:
Your desperate attempt to deflect by insulting me personally demonstrates that you acknowledge the weakness of your own position.
Click to expand...

Absentglare said:
You're only digging a bigger ad hominem hole of desperation.
Click to expand...
 
Absentglare said:
I will not entertain your nonsense here any further. Feel free to articulate a real argument and i may elect to respond to it. Since you have brought nothing new to the discussion, my prior statements still apply.
Click to expand...

You still are covered in ****. When will you demand the RATs apologize for destroying every major city and minorities in America?
 
sangha said:
I hold the repubs accountable for raising unemployment and the dems accountable for lowering it
Click to expand...

That is understandable, considering you bias and disregard for economic knowledge.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I'm in agreement that a lot of Bush's policy decisions were at fault here, but it's also impossible to argue that the whole process of deregulation was bad decision making exclusive to George Bush or that what came before Bush didn't allow Bush to add on top of what he did. You can also directly link Glass-Steagall in 1999 and CMFA of 2000 as two things that helped cause (or make worse) the 2008 financial collapse. We can also discuss how Clinton went along with Alan Greenspan (who was basically the architect of the collapse), and so on. I think Reagan's role in pushing the country over the edge in it's commitment and the role that played in all of the economic downturns also goes without saying.
Click to expand...

without the flood of bad mortgages, there is no mortgage bubble. No mortgage bubble, no financial crisis. As far as things that made the financial crisis worse, I can see the relationship quite clearly with Bush's changes to the net capital rule. Investment banks were allowed higher leverage and that money flowed into the MBS market. They borrowed money to buy assets at inflated values. There is no connection between Glass-Steagall in 1999 and CMFA of 2000 and the "dramatically lower lending standards" that started late 2004.

Also, another Bush policy that made the financial crisis worse was letting lehman fail. It panicked rich people. Its why we couldn't bail out AIG fast enough ( and AIG's counterparties got 100% of their money). We were trying to "unpanic" rich people.

"Lehman's collapse was a seminal event that greatly intensified the 2008 crisis and contributed to the erosion of close to $10 trillion in market capitalization from global equity markets in October 2008, the biggest monthly decline on record at the time"
Case Study: The Collapse of Lehman Brothers | Investopedia

And that's when the Bush Recession became the Great Bush Recession. Job loses accelerated and the economy started cratering at depression-esque levels.

"During the first 8 months of the year, job losses were relatively mild, averaging 137,000 per month; then, in September and October, losses accelerated to an average of 351,000 per month. A further acceleration took place during November and December, to an average of 639,000 jobs lost per month."
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/03/art2full.pdf
 
Vern said:
I really cant believe this is still a conservative narrative. Cheney said "deficits don't matter". google it. We mocked conservatives sudden concern for deficits that started 1/20/2009. When conservatives obediently started ranting about deficits in their divisive attacks on the stimulus, we simply pointed out that deficits were not the priority. The economy cratering at -8.2% and losing 700,000 jobs a month was the priority. And get this, we were right. Now you could claim republicans and the conservative media were simply wrong but I think the consistent string of hyperbolic claims that were false proves they knew it was a lie. And not only did they not explain how they were so wrong, you and yours didn't demand an explanation.
Click to expand...

I believe whoever hold the purse strings manufacture the explanations. None of us are privy to the real info.
 
WCH said:
I believe whoever hold the purse strings manufacture the explanations. None of us are privy to the real info.
Click to expand...

did you hit "reply" by mistake? I ask because your reply has nothing to do with my post. Its an odd collection of words so I can only assume you responded to the wrong post. We weren't discussing purse strings, we were discussing who said what.

Lets review, you posted some false narrative that democrats said "deficits don't matter". I explained that it was Cheney who said that. I explained that we mock conservatives for cheney saying that. Maybe that is the source of your confusion of attributing it to democrats. I then explained how you might me misinterpreting what was clearly stated in 2009. That was deficits were not the priority, the collapsing economy was.
 
Vern said:
without the flood of bad mortgages, there is no mortgage bubble. No mortgage bubble, no financial crisis. As far as things that made the financial crisis worse, I can see the relationship quite clearly with Bush's changes to the net capital rule. Investment banks were allowed higher leverage and that money flowed into the MBS market. They borrowed money to buy assets at inflated values. There is no connection between Glass-Steagall in 1999 and CMFA of 2000 and the "dramatically lower lending standards" that started late 2004.

Also, another Bush policy that made the financial crisis worse was letting lehman fail. It panicked rich people. Its why we couldn't bail out AIG fast enough ( and AIG's counterparties got 100% of their money). We were trying to "unpanic" rich people.

"Lehman's collapse was a seminal event that greatly intensified the 2008 crisis and contributed to the erosion of close to $10 trillion in market capitalization from global equity markets in October 2008, the biggest monthly decline on record at the time"
Case Study: The Collapse of Lehman Brothers | Investopedia

And that's when the Bush Recession became the Great Bush Recession. Job loses accelerated and the economy started cratering at depression-esque levels.

"During the first 8 months of the year, job losses were relatively mild, averaging 137,000 per month; then, in September and October, losses accelerated to an average of 351,000 per month. A further acceleration took place during November and December, to an average of 639,000 jobs lost per month."
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/03/art2full.pdf
Click to expand...

Whoa. Without Glass Steagel the issues wouldn't have been widespread as it allowed investment banking and mortgage banking to mix. Denying that had anything to do with it is short sighted at best and naked partisan bull**** at worst.

The markets should have been allowed to fail. That is why it is called risk. If it isn't its crony capitalism and it should not be supported.
 
MrT said:
I am not usually a fan of "Can you imagine what would happen in X did Y, and Z would react." But, I want you to imagine this scenario with me. Suppose that instead of a Tea Party sweeping into power in 2010, we had a liberal wave. And now, let's imagine that Bernie Sanders became the governor of Vermont and a liberal house and senate enacted every liberal policy (free college education, single payer health-care system, raising minimum wages and raised taxes) that they could want.

And then, six years later, the state of Vermont was in utter ruin. Unemployment skyrocketed, the State turned a massive surplus into a massive debt, schools shut down, and pensions were cut. If that happened, would you want the Democratic candidates to answer questions about the failure of their model blue state failure? Would you be pissed if the media did not ask those questions? What if I told you that the Democratic candidates are proposing national tax plans that are predicated on the same failed models?

And yet, that is the exact scenario that we are seeing in the Republican Primary. Kansas and Louisiana now face a whole host of issues that are a direct result of the ultra-conservative economic policies enacted by their respective republican governors. And yet, the Republican candidates are proposing tax policies that relies on the type of "dynamic scoring" that consistently underestimated the cost of tax cuts in Kansas.



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/gop-must-answer-for-what-it-did-to-kansas.html
Click to expand...
There are, I believe, 30 republican governors out there. Apparently, two of the 30 didn't do a particularly good job--that's assuming the blame lies with them, which is a big and possibly erroneous assumption. So what? Why should every republican apologize for the potential incompetence of two when 28 others are doing a terrific job by any measure?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Whoa. Without Glass Steagel the issues wouldn't have been widespread as it allowed investment banking and mortgage banking to mix. Denying that had anything to do with it is short sighted at best and naked partisan bull**** at worst.

The markets should have been allowed to fail. That is why it is called risk. If it isn't its crony capitalism and it should not be supported.
Click to expand...

It looks like you're saying that without glass steagall, the fallout out from the Bush Mortgage Bubble may not have been as bad. Its good you recognize that it had nothing to do with Bush's housing policies and actions that created the Bush Mortgage Bubble in the first place. a lot of conservatives actually think glass steagall had something to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble. probably more than believe President Obama was born in Kenya.

while calling the bailouts crony capitalism feels good but the fact is main street benefitted from not letting the financial system and auto sector collapse. did we need to bail out AIG's counterparties with no haircut? probably not but the once the panic started, who can say it wasn't necessary.

And can you explain why you think I'm posting "naked partisan bull**** at worst"? If my posts are as bad as you assure us they are then it should be easy to expose. I can explain how Bush's net capital rule made it worse for the Bush Mortgage Bubble and the resulting crisis. I can explain how Bush's bankruptcy reform made the financial crisis worse. But I've never seen any real explanation how Glass-Steagall made it worse. some even said that Glass-Steagall was effectively void before they repealed it.

Here's the thing about Bush's bankruptcy reform

"This paper argues that the U.S. bankruptcy reform of 2005 played an important role in the mortgage crisis and the current recession. When debtors file for bankruptcy, credit card debt and other types of debt are discharged—thus loosening debtors’ budget constraints. Homeowners in financial distress can therefore use bankruptcy to avoid losing their homes, since filing allows them to shift funds from paying other debts to paying their mortgages. But a major reform of U.S. bankruptcy law in 2005 raised the cost of filing and reduced the amount of debt that is discharged. We argue that an unintended consequence of the reform was to cause mortgage default rates to rise.

Did Bankruptcy Reform Cause Mortgage Default to Rise?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Whoa. Without Glass Steagel the issues wouldn't have been widespread as it allowed investment banking and mortgage banking to mix. Denying that had anything to do with it is short sighted at best and naked partisan bull**** at worst.

The markets should have been allowed to fail. That is why it is called risk. If it isn't its crony capitalism and it should not be supported.
Click to expand...

That's like blaming the great depression on money.

We couldn't have had the great depression if we never invented money !!

(Oh- wait, we could have had regulated capitalism and avoided the great depression so money wasn't the real problem)
 
Vern said:
It looks like you're saying that without glass steagall, the fallout out from the Bush Mortgage Bubble may not have been as bad. Its good you recognize that it had nothing to do with Bush's housing policies and actions that created the Bush Mortgage Bubble in the first place. a lot of conservatives actually think glass steagall had something to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble. probably more than believe President Obama was born in Kenya.

while calling the bailouts crony capitalism feels good but the fact is main street benefitted from not letting the financial system and auto sector collapse. did we need to bail out AIG's counterparties with no haircut? probably not but the once the panic started, who can say it wasn't necessary.

And can you explain why you think I'm posting "naked partisan bull**** at worst"? If my posts are as bad as you assure us they are then it should be easy to expose. I can explain how Bush's net capital rule made it worse for the Bush Mortgage Bubble and the resulting crisis. I can explain how Bush's bankruptcy reform made the financial crisis worse. But I've never seen any real explanation how Glass-Steagall made it worse. some even said that Glass-Steagall was effectively void before they repealed it.

Here's the thing about Bush's bankruptcy reform

"This paper argues that the U.S. bankruptcy reform of 2005 played an important role in the mortgage crisis and the current recession. When debtors file for bankruptcy, credit card debt and other types of debt are discharged—thus loosening debtors’ budget constraints. Homeowners in financial distress can therefore use bankruptcy to avoid losing their homes, since filing allows them to shift funds from paying other debts to paying their mortgages. But a major reform of U.S. bankruptcy law in 2005 raised the cost of filing and reduced the amount of debt that is discharged. We argue that an unintended consequence of the reform was to cause mortgage default rates to rise.

Did Bankruptcy Reform Cause Mortgage Default to Rise?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but Im not entirely sure I buy the Fed and money markets crowd telling the reason for problems it was their job to find before they happen not after. Examine a few things. Mortgages started lifting off the CPI back in 96 and went even higher after 2004. It wasn't just the easing of the markets, its was the spreading idea of leveraging risk and selling it to banks that shouldn't have been able to buy it.

BTW, I said short sighted at best and naked partisanship at worst. You are assuming you are on the worst end? Your call.
 
Absentglare said:
That's like blaming the great depression on money.

We couldn't have had the great depression if we never invented money !!

(Oh- wait, we could have had regulated capitalism and avoided the great depression so money wasn't the real problem)
Click to expand...

Yes if there were no buyers for the leveraged risk it could not have happened because the bubble would have both been smaller and popped sooner. You don't get that?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Yes if there were no buyers for the leveraged risk it could not have happened because the bubble would have both been smaller and popped sooner. You don't get that?
Click to expand...

Sure, if we didn't have a mortgage market at all, we would not have had this problem.

But don't kid yourself, there are reasons that lenders started engaging in fraud en masse right around 2004 and loans issued after 2004 performed significantly worse :

486594d32ceb3146cba7a29f4d2d7136.jpg
 
MrT said:
I am not usually a fan of "Can you imagine what would happen in X did Y, and Z would react." But, I want you to imagine this scenario with me. Suppose that instead of a Tea Party sweeping into power in 2010, we had a liberal wave. And now, let's imagine that Bernie Sanders became the governor of Vermont and a liberal house and senate enacted every liberal policy (free college education, single payer health-care system, raising minimum wages and raised taxes) that they could want.

And then, six years later, the state of Vermont was in utter ruin. Unemployment skyrocketed, the State turned a massive surplus into a massive debt, schools shut down, and pensions were cut. If that happened, would you want the Democratic candidates to answer questions about the failure of their model blue state failure? Would you be pissed if the media did not ask those questions? What if I told you that the Democratic candidates are proposing national tax plans that are predicated on the same failed models?

And yet, that is the exact scenario that we are seeing in the Republican Primary. Kansas and Louisiana now face a whole host of issues that are a direct result of the ultra-conservative economic policies enacted by their respective republican governors. And yet, the Republican candidates are proposing tax policies that relies on the type of "dynamic scoring" that consistently underestimated the cost of tax cuts in Kansas.



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/gop-must-answer-for-what-it-did-to-kansas.html
Click to expand...

Liberals need to apologize for California....

California has the Highest Poverty Rate in the Nation...
California Has Highest Rate Of Poverty In The Nation, According To U.S. Census Bureau


California has the nations highest child poverty rate...
More than 1 in 5 California children live in poverty, study finds | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times


1/3 of California households can no longer pay their bills....
1 In 3 California Households Can No Longer Pay Their Bills | Occupy.com


California home to 1/3 of the Nations Welfare recipients...
Economic Characteristics of Households in the United States


California Nations highest unfunded liabilities......
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20141128/california-public-pensions-unfunded-liabilities-staggering-must-be-fixed-editorial

California Ballot imitative too address the States substantial poverty.....
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article51955850.html

California is so broke it had to borrow 9 Billion dollars from the Feds to pay unemployment benefits....
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article23027604.html
 
MrT said:
I'll tell you what is interesting to me. We have four respondents so far that would qualify as conservatives and every. single. one. is using their post to raise and ask for a discussion about a liberal example that they deem to be a failure.

How about you guys at least start your post by addressing the specific examples and data raised by my OP before trying to completely shift the debate? Or better yet, take your other examples to a thread of your own.
Click to expand...

Republicans bad. Liberals good.

We get it.
 
Absentglare said:
Sure, if we didn't have a mortgage market at all, we would not have had this problem.

But don't kid yourself, there are reasons that lenders started engaging in fraud en masse right around 2004 and loans issued after 2004 performed significantly worse :

486594d32ceb3146cba7a29f4d2d7136.jpg
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is when they discovered they could package the risk and sell it by hiding the true value of it they did so? Color me shocked that bankers would try to make money and sell the mortgage and the risk to someone else. Ya don't say.

Now what would have happened if they didn't have the Financial banks to sell it to? Mortgage banks were already leveraged to the legal limits. That is my point, had the financial sector banks been unable to buy the packaged mortgages the market would have cooled and in some cases had setbacks, but there wouldn't have been the implosion we saw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom