• 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!

Gallup: Americans Blame Government More than Wall Street for Bad Economy.

It is not effective in the US under any circumstance. It never plays well here.

That's just silly emotional nonsense. Whether or not it "plays" well has no bearing on it's effectiveness for showing displeasure in the government or wall street. If someone's goal is to demonstrate their displeasure in the US government, stomping on the flag is highly effective at achieving that goal, since it clearly demonstrates that displeasure. Don't allow your personal emotions regarding the action to allow you to reach a false conclusion about it's effectiveness at achieving it's desired goal. Think rationally, not emotionally.
 
Seriously, the chicken or the egg. Is that where the far-righties really want to go?


So, the teabaggies want Big Gov off the backs of the people, but they DEMAND that Obama fix the W. cluster-f economy and provide jobs for everyone. Are they completely daft.

Try this one on -- Big Gov DID NOT properly REGULATE WALL STREET. So, like the parents who let their children run amok... they are at fault when the table gets knocked over.

For the love of Christ, will you far-righties PLEASE google MORAL HAZARD.

I said Please.

Dude. This thread is about the poll results. Government intervention in the housing market created the housing bubble. Threads everywhere here about it. Government created the moral hazards by its expansion of Fannie and Freddie to underwrite sub-primes. Virtually anytime government gets involved in picking winners and losers in the free-market, it creates moral hazards.

The Conservatives and Tea Party do not want Obama to "provide jobs everywhere". That's the OWS flea-baggers.
 
30% is pretty much your given liberal Democrat base. The OWS folks will just have to stomp the American flag with greater effort, litter the streets with higher mounds of trash, crap bigger in the gutters, and block more traffic, until the rest of us see it as they do.

Blaming "the federal government" is pretty nebulous, and I would suggest that even some of those OWS probably agree that the federal government played a role. Although the things that they blame the federal government for, are probably not the same things you blame the federal government for.

The federal government shares some of the blame for allowing/encouraging Wall Street's bad behavior, but make no mistake about it: Wall Street *did* behave badly. Ultimately the collapse was caused by an unsustainable run-up of private sector debt (fueled by banks that were run like casinos, shoving cash out at anyone who wanted it). Deleveraging from all that excess debt will not be easy and it will take a very long time. Financial crises are fundamentally different than a run-of-the-mill recession, and if the current crisis is anything like the average financial crisis in other countries, it will take us about 7-10 years to recover.
 
Last edited:
That's just silly emotional nonsense. Whether or not it "plays" well has no bearing on it's effectiveness for showing displeasure in the government or wall street. If someone's goal is to demonstrate their displeasure in the US government, stomping on the flag is highly effective at achieving that goal, since it clearly demonstrates that displeasure. Don't allow your personal emotions regarding the action to allow you to reach a false conclusion about it's effectiveness at achieving it's desired goal. Think rationally, not emotionally.

Apparently this is all over your head. Enemies of America burn our flag. Americans burning the flag is not seen as a legitimate protest against our government. Maybe in commie-land such is the norm. We ain't commie here. Communism is a five-spiral crash over and over.

You are grossly misinformed about flag burning here. Probably not the only thing either :)
 
Blaming "the federal government" is pretty nebulous, and I would suggest that even some of those OWS probably agree with that. Although the things that they blame the federal government for, are probably not the same things you blame the federal government for.

And blaming "corporate greed" nails it ?

Blaming government is not at all nebulous. It is as simple as Reagan said "Government is the problem". Government initiated the housing bubble.
 
Last edited:
And blaming "corporate greed" nails it ?

No. "Corporate greed" is pretty nebulous too. There certainly were some greedy banks and insurance companies that were responsible for a lot of problems, but that alone doesn't explain the financial crisis. I suspect that the finance industry is no more or less greedy than it has always been.

Blaming government is not at all nebulous. It is as simple as Reagan said "Government is the problem". Government initiated the housing bubble.

I don't disagree that the government shares the blame for the housing bubble, but the housing bubble was merely a symptom of the largest financial crisis, rather than the cause as is often depicted in the media. For example, I would say that the federal government helped cause the crisis by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, by allowing wealth disparity to grow over the last 30 years, by indirectly subsidizing mortgages through the tax code, and by not raising interest rates during the middle part of the last decade.
 
The economy which is still the lagging detriment of 2008 was caused by a combination of Wall Street and Congress. Anyone who can't see that is as blind as a bat.

As for your rhetoric, I can only take away one thing from it.

"Well the OWS can protest, but I'll only approve of it if it's against Obama."

So, why are the protetors demanding more government?
 
Based on reading statement by members, most OWL/99% members don't see the government or business as exclusively responsible. see the unholy alliance of government protection and corporate & financial institutions' greed as the cause. They believe the government's pro-business tax cuts coupled with the anti-regulation & oversight policies and the use of this extra money and freedom from oversight by entities like Big Oil, Big Pharm, Big Healthcare, banks and Wall Street to make unfathomable profits without delivering the promised benefits have caused this crisis.

Why are pro-business tax cuts a bad, when you consider that most corporations in America are small businesses?
 
Wall Street did what Wall Street does: doggedly pursue short-term profits with no thought to long-term consequences. BLAMING Wall Street for creating this disaster is like blaming a dog for chewing the furniture. It's what dogs do if you don't impose discipline on them.

So yes, it is government's fault. It's government's fault for letting Wall Street off its leash.

The government didn't just let them off their leash, they gave them the furniture to chew on and threatend them with punishment, if they didn't start chewing.
 
Seriously, the chicken or the egg. Is that where the far-righties really want to go?


So, the teabaggies want Big Gov off the backs of the people, but they DEMAND that Obama fix the W. cluster-f economy and provide jobs for everyone. Are they completely daft.

Try this one on -- Big Gov DID NOT properly REGULATE WALL STREET. So, like the parents who let their children run amok... they are at fault when the table gets knocked over.

For the love of Christ, will you far-righties PLEASE google MORAL HAZARD.

I said Please.

Actually, we're saying, "get the **** outta the way", and allow the private sector to create jobs. The private sector created this country, not the government.
 
No. "Corporate greed" is pretty nebulous too. There certainly were some greedy banks and insurance companies that were responsible for a lot of problems, but that alone doesn't explain the financial crisis. I suspect that the finance industry is no more or less greedy than it has always been.

I don't disagree that the government shares the blame for the housing bubble, but the housing bubble was merely a symptom of the largest financial crisis, rather than the cause as is often depicted in the media. For example, I would say that the federal government helped cause the crisis by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, by allowing wealth disparity to grow over the last 30 years, by indirectly subsidizing mortgages through the tax code, and by not raising interest rates during the middle part of the last decade.

Without a doubt, the housing bubble enabled and then caused this recession. Glass-Steagle had virtually nothing to do with creating the bubble, and is used by too many liberal politicians to deflect from the government's culpability, and rather try to blame Wall Street.

There's a thread in the "Polls" forum I think, recent, talking about causes for the meltdown. This is not about whether or not government has a regulatory role. This is about government interfering with the markets, which creates the moral hazards that then create the house-of-cards, and then the fall.

Look at Solyndra. Was not guaranteeing them a $530 million loan just one more moral hazard ? Did Solyndra not then go and continue with a terrible business model, as product piled up in their warehouses ? Stimulus is a moral hazard. JOBS is a moral hazard. All subsidize bad financial decisions.
 
Without a doubt, the housing bubble enabled and then caused this recession.

The housing bubble was a symptom of a larger problem: People (and companies, and a handful of governments) were taking on too much debt that they couldn't afford. This situation often leads to real estate bubbles, because real estate is the one physical asset that can't be moved and has a fixed supply...and is therefore a logical place for people to dump their excess cash. To be sure, the government played a role in the housing bubble. Under Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve was far too lax for the middle of the last decade. It should have been pursuing more contractionary policies at that time. Furthermore, the government is STILL subsidizing irresponsibility via the mortgage interest deduction in the federal tax code...to the tune of $70 billion per year. So to these points, I don't disagree at all that the government bears some responsibility.

Glass-Steagle had virtually nothing to do with creating the bubble, and is used by too many liberal politicians to deflect from the government's culpability, and rather try to blame Wall Street.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall enabled commercial banks to behave like casinos. I don't have a problem with banks borrowing money from depositors and loaning it out to debtors at a higher interest rate (and I think most of us would agree that we need something like the FDIC to protect depositors). I also don't have a problem with investment banks gambling the funds of their own investors on foolish high-risk investments if they want to. What I have a problem with is allowing banks to do both. As you said, moral hazard is a problem. Well, this is the biggest moral hazard our financial system faces. By allowing banks to perform both of these functions, it essentially allows them to keep the profits from their gambles when they pay off, and foist the losses off on the taxpayers when they don't.
 
Last edited:
Who cares who is "more responsible". They both are and both should face reforms. The gallup poll is a typical bait-switch done by the media to obfuscate the issue.
 
The Tea Party and OWS need to come together where they agree and agree to put their differences aside until they are able to accomplish something where they agree.

Absolutely, 100% true. But if DP is any indication, they're far more interested in demonizing each other. Which is exactly what Washington and Wall Street both want.
 
The housing bubble was a symptom of a larger problem: People (and companies, and a handful of governments) were taking on too much debt that they couldn't afford. This situation often leads to real estate bubbles, because real estate is the one physical asset that can't be moved and has a fixed supply...and is therefore a logical place for people to dump their excess cash. To be sure, the government played a role in the housing bubble. Under Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve was far too lax for the middle of the last decade. It should have been pursuing more contractionary policies at that time. Furthermore, the government is STILL subsidizing irresponsibility via the mortgage interest deduction in the federal tax code...to the tune of $70 billion per year. So to these points, I don't disagree at all that the government bears some responsibility.

You are half right, but very much half wrong. The bubble was not caused by folks taking on "too much debt". Our capitalist market had always been able to ebb and flow with normal housing market dynamics. The bubble was hyper-inflation. And you have to look at what got that started.

New buyers enabled by Fannie and Freddie underwriting sub-primes at a rate that increased five-fold in the 90's.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall enabled commercial banks to behave like casinos. I don't have a problem with banks borrowing money from depositors and loaning it out to debtors at a higher interest rate (and I think most of us would agree that we need something like the FDIC to protect depositors). I also don't have a problem with investment banks gambling the funds of their own investors on foolish high-risk investments if they want to. What I have a problem with is allowing banks to do both. As you said, moral hazard is a problem. Well, this is the biggest moral hazard our financial system faces. By allowing banks to perform both of these functions, it essentially allows them to keep the profits from their gambles when they pay off, and foist the losses off on the taxpayers when they don't.

No. If it had all just been private banks etc, with their own money, we still would have had basic market forces keeping things relatively in check. The banks and other lenders made loans to sub-primes because Fannie and Freddie underwrote the risk. At the height of the bubble, Fannie and Freddie had half the market. That is government underwriting half of the entire risk market. Your last sentence sweems to say that banks performing two functions enabled them to keep profits and shed losses. They were able to do that , but it was because of Fannie and Feddie, and then such as TARP. You do not mention either.

No doubt Greenspan could have jacked interest rates beginning in about 2000 to stifle this. But the bubble was created by government, not the repeal of Glass Steagle.

I have debated this too many times. You are a bit misinformed. I am not going to waste more time on it. You can go to a thread more devoted to this, and learn there.
 
Last edited:
And we would agree that many are blind as a bat.

Your last line is pretty ignorant though. The OWS folks are not protesting politicians to any degree. In fact, I think you will find that they support bigger government so as to better enable redistribution. You would be correct had you said something closer to my being opposed to class warfare fomented by a major political party, to now include the finges of lawlessness.

The TP was blamed for all the same tactics... racism and lawlessness, death threats, even cutting a gas line to somebody's house, vandalism, terror threats, etc. etc. It's funny to me how all the TPers were so angry and pissed when the left wing media stereotyped them all, but they are doing it to the OWSers now. The point is, this is a free country and they are all Americans protesting and voicing their opinion. Some people in the TP were racist and waved racist signs, and some of the OWS protesters have broken laws. So ****ing what?
 
The TP was blamed for all the same tactics... racism and lawlessness, death threats, even cutting a gas line to somebody's house, vandalism, terror threats, etc. etc. It's funny to me how all the TPers were so angry and pissed when the left wing media stereotyped them all, but they are doing it to the OWSers now. The point is, this is a free country and they are all Americans protesting and voicing their opinion. Some people in the TP were racist and waved racist signs, and some of the OWS protesters have broken laws. So ****ing what?

In the words of Marx ... Groucho Marx .... (paraphrase) "What am I to believe ? You, or my lying eyes ?":)
 
In the words of Marx ... Groucho Marx .... (paraphrase) "What am I to believe ? You, or my lying eyes ?":)

What are you really trying to say? I know what you're saying, but why not just argue it? Or does saying it sound like such a bad hack job to yourself that you can't even type it out?
 
The great majority of Americans are driving by those camps, driving by those protesters, driving by on their way to work and getting on with their lives...dealing with the day to day stresses we all have to deal with. Most people can see a 15.5 trillion dollar debt and completely disfunctional federal government, their failed 'solutions,' and recognize the problem for what it is. is 'Wall Street', this undefinable entity, to 'blame'? Well...for what? The market exists to make money for brokers, shareholders, investors (pssst...hey...just in case most of you that work and have 401ks and retirement accounts missed it...thats YOU). Thats what they do.
 
What are you really trying to say? I know what you're saying, but why not just argue it? Or does saying it sound like such a bad hack job to yourself that you can't even type it out?

<sigh>

Big dogs pee in tall weeds.
 
You are half right, but very much half wrong. The bubble was not caused by folks taking on "too much debt". Our capitalist market had always been able to ebb and flow with normal housing market dynamics. The bubble was hyper-inflation. And you have to look at what got that started.

New buyers enabled by Fannie and Freddie underwriting sub-primes at a rate that increased five-fold in the 90's.



No. If it had all just been private banks etc, with their own money, we still would have had basic market forces keeping things relatively in check. The banks and other lenders made loans to sub-primes because Fannie and Freddie underwrote the risk. At the height of the bubble, Fannie and Freddie had half the market. That is government underwriting half of the entire risk market. Your last sentence sweems to say that banks performing two functions enabled them to keep profits and shed losses. They were able to do that , but it was because of Fannie and Feddie, and then such as TARP. You do not mention either.

No doubt Greenspan could have jacked interest rates beginning in about 2000 to stifle this. But the bubble was created by government, not the repeal of Glass Steagle.

I have debated this too many times. You are a bit misinformed. I am not going to waste more time on it. You can go to a thread more devoted to this, and learn there.

This is mostly myth. The private banks collateralized the sh*t mortgages and sold them to many investors -- not just F&F, or even mostly F&F. F&F were more victims of the GR than they were perpetrators.
 
This is mostly myth. The private banks collateralized the sh*t mortgages and sold them to many investors -- not just F&F, or even mostly F&F. F&F were more victims of the GR than they were perpetrators.

That is absurd. FF cannot be a "victim". They are government. The were GSE's: Government Sponsored Enterprises. All of their losses fall on you and me and every other taxpayer. That is why they waded deep into the markets as they did, acting as a tool of government, putting sub-prime folks in homes. They eventually ended up on the hook for half of all mortgages in the US, primarily because they were the King and Queen of the moral hazard. That is not the work of a victim. They were the overwhelming perpetrators.
 
That is absurd. FF cannot be a "victim". They are government. The were GSE's: Government Sponsored Enterprises. All of their losses fall on you and me and every other taxpayer. That is why they waded deep into the markets as they did, acting as a tool of government, putting sub-prime folks in homes. They eventually ended up on the hook for half of all mortgages in the US, primarily because they were the King and Queen of the moral hazard. That is not the work of a victim. They were the overwhelming perpetrators.

Dude, you know not of what you speak. In fact F&F were private. The government covered up their losses, just like it covered up the losses of Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, and AIG -- but it was not obligated to do so.
 
Back
Top Bottom