• 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!

SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Are you seriously trying to mitigate 4 years of failure by arguing the effects of the sub prime collapse were worse than first thought ?

Go back and read the context for which the post was made.
 
Banks too big too fail are why our wise forefathers enacted the Glass-Steagall
Act after the Great Depression. Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Banks too big to fail is a manufactured concept to shift the blame from those who are truly to blame to those who were harmed bh mandated low income loans.
 
Banks too big to fail is a manufactured concept to shift the blame from those who are truly to blame to those who were harmed bh mandated low income loans.

If it makes you happy to believe that, carry on!
 
If it makes you happy to believe that,
carry on!

Its a bummer that so many of my fellow countrymen are so intellectually lazy that they would believe the narrative.
 
Its a bummer that so many of my fellow countrymen are so intellectually lazy that they would believe the narrative.

The idea that any great nation was brought to the brink of ruin by it's lower/"lazy" class is what is intellectually lazy and is so preposterous it could only be sold in America and have anyone actually buy into it...............
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Ok, put the stats of both recessions side by side and let's take a look.....If you have the intellectual honesty to do such, you'd see that they are remarkably similar, that is up to the point where the two differing approaches, Reagan on the one side, and Obama on the other took over, then the picture is striking in the failure of one, and it ain't Reagan....

Reagan's recession didn't last very long, but truth be told he didn't have the entire banking system collapsing around his ears at the time. True, he had to deal with the S&L crisis and the Chrysler bailout (folks tend to foget about those two especially the latter) and if you wish you could also include the OPEC oil embargo that was part and parcel to the Iranian hostage crisis, but none of those incidents measured up to the massive economic crisis that was the housing bubble when it finally burst in 2008. And just so folks know, Glass-Stegall prevented the S&L problem from filtering over into the larger banks. Without it we probably would have experienced a large economic crisis similar to the housing bubble.

On a domestic front, Reagan's recession was self-imposed. Once he revised tax policy, the U.S. economy began to recover. The hostage crisis and the oil embargo quickly became things of the past once he enacted tougher foreign policy mostly against OPEC-nations (particularly Iran). We're not really having the same situations impacting us globally from Iran as Reagan had to deal with despite events being derived from the same troublesome country.
 
Re: SOTU Address:


Well, Bloomberg seems to be taking some editorial liberty here, but take a look at this, and you tell me....

The early 1980s recession was a severe recession in the United States which began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982.[2][3] The primary cause of the recession was a contractionary monetary policy established by the Federal Reserve System to control high inflation.[4] In the wake of the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis, stagflation began to afflict the economy of the United States.
[edit]Unemployment
Unemployment had risen from 5.1% in January 1974 to a high of 9.0% in May 1975. Although it had gradually declined to 5.6% by May 1979, unemployment began rising again thereafter. It jumped sharply to 6.9% in April 1980 and to 7.5% in May 1980. A mild recession from January to July 1980 kept unemployment high, but despite economic recovery unemployment remained at historically high levels (about 7.5%) through the end of 1981.[5] In mid-1982, Rockford, Illinois had the highest unemployment of all Metro areas with 25%.[6] In September 1982, Michigan led the nation with 14.5%. Alabama was second with 14.3% and West Virginia was third with 14.0%. The Youngstown–Warren Metropolitan Area had an 18.7% rate, the highest of all Metro areas. Stamford, Connecticut had the lowest with 3.5% unemployment.[7]
The peak of the recession was in November and December 1982, when the nationwide unemployment rate was 10.8%, highest since The Great Depression. As of 2011, it is still the highest since the 1930s.[8] In November, West Virginia and Michigan had the highest unemployment with 16.4%. Alabama was in third with 15.3%. South Dakota had the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, with 5.6%. Flint, Michigan had the highest unemployment rate of all Metro areas with 23.4%.[9] In March 1983, West Virginia's unemployment rate hit 20.1%. In the Spring of 1983, thirty states had double digit unemployment rates. When Reagan won re-election in 1984, the latest unemployment numbers (August 1984) showed West Virginia still had the highest in the nation, 13.6%, with Mississippi in second with 11.1%, and Alabama in third with 10.9%.[10]
[edit]Inflation
Inflation, which had averaged 3.2% annually in the post-war period, had more than doubled after the 1973 oil shock to a 7.7% annual rate. Inflation reached 9.1% in 1975, the highest rate since 1947. Inflation declined to 5.8% the following year, but then edged higher. By 1979, inflation reached a startling 11.3% and in 1980 soared to 13.5%.[2][11] A brief recession occurred in 1980. Several key industries—including housing, steel manufacturing and automobile production—experienced a downturn from which they did not recover through the end of the next recession. Many of the economic sectors that supplied these basic industries were also hard-hit.[12] Each period of high unemployment was caused by the Federal Reserve, as it substantially increased interest rates to reduce high inflation; each time, once inflation fell and interest rates were lowered, unemployment slowly fell.[13]
Determined to wring inflation out of the economy, Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker slowed the rate of growth of the money supply and raised interest rates. The federal funds rate, which was about 11% in 1979, rose to 20% by June 1981. The prime interest rate, a highly important economic measure, eventually reached 21.5% in June 1982.[3][14]
[edit]Financial industry crisis
The recession had a severe effect on financial institutions such as savings and loans and banks.
[edit]Banks
The recession came at a particularly bad time for banks due to a recent wave of deregulation. The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) had phased out a number of restrictions on banks' financial practices, broadened their lending powers, and raised the deposit insurance limit from $40,000 to $100,000 (raising the problem of moral hazard).[15] Banks rushed into real estate lending, speculative lending, and other ventures just as the economy soured.
By mid-1982, the number of bank failures was rising steadily. Bank failures reached a post-depression high of 42 as the recession and high interest rates took their toll.[16] By the end of the year, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) had spent $870 million to purchase bad loans in an effort to keep various banks afloat.[17]
In July 1982, Congress enacted the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 (Garn–St. Germain), which further deregulated banks as well as deregulating savings and loans. The Garn–St. Germain act authorized banks to begin offering money market accounts in an attempt to encourage deposit in-flows, removed additional statutory restrictions in real estate lending, and relaxed loans-to-one-borrower limits. The legislation encouraged a rapid expansion in real estate lending at a time when the real estate market was collapsing, increased the unhealthy competition between banks and savings and loans, and encouraged overbuilding of branches.[15]
The recession affected the banking industry long after the economic downturn technically ended in November 1982. In 1983, another 50 banks failed—easily beating the Great Depression record of 43 failures set in 1940. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) listed another 540 banks as "problem banks" on the verge of failure.[17]
In 1984, the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company, the nation's seventh-largest bank (with $45 billion in assets), failed. The FDIC had long known of Continental Illinois' problems. The bank had first approached failure in July 1982 when the Penn Square Bank, which had partnered with Continental Illinois in a number of high-risk lending ventures, collapsed. But federal regulators were reassured by Continental Illinois executives that steps were being taken to ensure the bank's financial security. After Continental Illinois' collapse, federal regulators were willing to let the bank fail in order to reduce moral hazard and encourage other banks to rein in some of their more risky lending practices. But members of Congress and the press felt Continental Illinois was "too big to fail." In May 1984, federal banking regulators were forced to offer a $4.5 billion rescue package to Continental Illinois.[15]
Continental Illinois may not have been "too big to fail," but its collapse could have caused the failure of some of the biggest banks in the United States. The American banking system had been significantly weakened by the severe recession and the effects of deregulation. Had other banks been forced to write off loans to Continental Illinois, institutions such as Manufacturer's Hanover Trust Company, Bank of America and perhaps Citicorp would have been insolvent.[18]

Early 1980s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The idea that any great nation was brought to the brink of ruin by it's lower/"lazy" class is what is intellectually lazy and is so preposterous it could only be sold in America and have anyone actually buy into it...............

Good evening, Bonz.

I believe you have studied Roman history. What explanation do you give to explain the "bread and circuses," created by the elite for the masses, that preceded the eventual downfall of the Roman Empire? I'm not being snarky here, I am curious. :)
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Well, Bloomberg seems to be taking some editorial liberty here, but take a look at this, and you tell me....



The data is from, Steven Landefeld, director of the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, hardly a left wing outfit!
 
Re: SOTU Address:

The Reagan Recession and the latest episode should only be contrasted in terms of historical importance. The causing factors, severity and subsequent recoveries were markedly different.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

The data is from, Steven Landefeld, director of the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, hardly a left wing outfit!


Didn't say that it was, I was merely saying that everyone would like to believe that the tough times they are in at present, are the toughest....But when data is actually looked at objectively, that may not be the case.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

This recovery may be the weakest on record. Unemployment was lower on every day of the GWB administration than it has been on any day of the BHO administration.:eek:
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Didn't say that it was, I was merely saying that everyone would like to believe that the tough times they are in at present, are the toughest....But when data is actually looked at objectively, that may not be the case.

The data shows this recession was the most severe. The chances were great we could have gone into another great depression. With the 1980 recession and the 2001 recession, not so much.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

The data shows this recession was the most severe. The chances were great we could have gone into another great depression. With the 1980 recession and the 2001 recession, not so much.

What data?
 
The idea that any great nation was brought to the brink of ruin by it's lower/"lazy"
class is what is intellectually lazy and is so preposterous it could only be sold in America and have anyone actually buy into it...............

Lol....it's happening now. With 60 million idiots voting Obama back into office.

Or was that a good thing ?
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Ok, put the stats of both recessions side by side and let's take a look.....If you have the intellectual honesty to do such, you'd see that they are remarkably similar..
To the contrary, the latest episode dwarfed Reagan's recession in peak to trough losses in employment, output, in addition to sitting on top a mountain of personal debt completely alien to the recovery of the 80's. Add in the structural damage wreaked upon the financial and housing industries and you'll find that in no manner were the two episodes of similar severity or origins.
 
Good evening, Bonz.

I believe you have studied Roman history. What explanation do you give to explain the "bread and circuses," created by the elite for the masses, that preceded the eventual downfall of the Roman Empire? I'm not being snarky here, I am curious. :)

I think when we read "ancient" history we tend to forget the actual time spans involved: The Roman Empire was Christian when Rome fell and had been for a hundred years. It also wasn't the capital, Constantinople was. Entertainment had shifted years before from the excitement of the Coloseum to the more mundane horse races held at the Circus Maximus. The complaint about about "bread and circuses" was like trying to find comments about lazy British urchins of the late 1700's applicable to London today.............Though I realize there are those who try....................
 
Re: SOTU Address:

Stop right there...This is a lie, put forth through platitudinal talking points from the first Obama campaign, and carried forth by disingenuous liberals running cover for their President who has failed miserably to right the ship....

Lets put the historical revisionism aside ok? But if you do want to compare the two presidents, here are some things to keep in mind:
The 1982 recession and the 2008 financial crisis were not the same. In the early-1980s, the country was fighting a decade of stagflation. Paul Volcker, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, decided to wring inflation out of the economy by sharply raising interest rates. The medicine worked to cure inflation, but it threw the economy into a deep recession. Recovery came when the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates again and sparked an investment boom.

In contrast, the 2008 financial crisis was the result of a credit bubble. It came when the Federal Reserve was already trying to stimulate the economy with low interest rates. It was — and is — global in nature, and for the economy to recover, households need to dig themselves out of debt such that they can begin spending again. Unlike the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates, that takes time. A long time. To attach some numbers to this story, in 1982, household debt amounted to about 45 percent of GDP. In 2009, it was 100 percent. Those numbers imply very different recoveries.

The 1980s were not all about Reagan. The effect Volcker’s policies were having on the economy was well understood. Here’s the New York Times, in 1983: “As the recession deepened in 1982, the United States and the rest of the industrialized world focused on high interest rates as the cause - and on Paul A. Volcker as the culprit.” The House majority leader, Democrat Jim Wright, called for Volcker to resign. Reagan officials were unhappy, too. “A question that seems to be in the minds of many people in the Reagan Administration and the business community is whether the Federal Reserve should pull back a bit from its restrictive monetary policy and let the President’s economic recovery package have its intended stimulative effect on the economy.”

Be very skeptical of any discussion of the recession or recovery of the early-1980s in which Volcker — or at least the Federal Reserve -- is not a primary actor. You’re likely reading a piece that deifies Reagan rather than a piece of actual economic analysis.

The 2000s are not all about Obama. Key decisions about regulating financial derivatives were made under Clinton. The credit bubble built under Bush. The initial response to the financial crisis — which set us on a path that was hard to reverse after-the-fact — was made by Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. The pace of recovery has been substantially slowed by the European debt crisis and the rise in oil prices that resulted from the Arab Spring.

Contrary to popular belief, taxes are lower under Obama than they were under Reagan. In 1983, when Reagan was trying to get the economy out of recession, revenues were 17.5 percent of GDP. In 2010, when Obama was trying to guide the economy into a recovery, revenues were 14.9 percent of GDP.

Taxes are so low under Obama in large part because of the Bush tax cuts and the effects of the financial crisis. But they’re also low because of the tax cuts passed by Obama in the stimulus bill. And remember — Obama’s number here is for 2010. In 2011, Obama further extended and enlarged the Bush tax cuts in the 2010 tax deal.

Obama’s policies have temporarily increased deficits. Reagan’s policies permanently increased them. Reagan’s policies were notable for increasing structural deficits. That is to say, he passed permanent, deficit-financed tax cuts. Long after the recession was over, his tax cuts remained, necessitating the deficit-reduction bills passed by George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Obama’s major deficit-financed policies -- the stimulus and the 2010 tax deal -- have both been temporary. Obama has, in other words, been much more concerned with out-year deficits than Reagan ever was.

When Reagan entered office, taxes were unusually high. When Obama entered office, taxes were unusually low. In 1980, taxes were 19.6 percent of GDP. That was higher than they had ever been outside of wartime. When Obama entered office, taxes were below 15 percent of GDP -- lower than they had been since before the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. This helps explain why Reagan sought a long-term tax cut, while Obama is seeking a long-term tax increase.

The political system is vastly more polarized today than it was in the 1980s. This rarely gets much attention, but it matters. Reagan negotiated his policies with the Democratic Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill. Many Democrats voted with Reagan to cut taxes, and Reagan subsequently signed multiple pieces of legislation raising taxes to cut down on deficits. If the political system today was more similar to the political system of the 80s, it’s likely that we would have seen both more short-term stimulus and more long-term deficit reduction. Under both Keynesian and non-Keynesian models, that would have helped the recovery. It is hard to say what Reagan’s record would look like if he had faced a divided Congress in our more polarized moment.

During the Recession of the 80's we never saw banks going under, we didn't see housing crash, we didn't see the auto industry come apart, we didn't have two wars going on. Had Obama NOT acted immediately on the issue, we'd have fallen into a depression far worse than the 1930's and it's had Global effects. If you don't grasp that then your partisanship is overwhelming your common sense.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

What data?

As referenced above:

"The National Bureau of Economic Research, the arbiter of U.S. business cycles, last year determined the recession started in December 2007. The private group is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts,

Yesterday’s updates are part of comprehensive revisions that take place about every five years and are more extensive than the changes announced at this time each year. Figures as far back as 1929 can be revised.

Over the most recent period, the third quarter of 2008 underwent one of the biggest changes, going from a 0.5 percent decrease in GDP to a 2.7 percent drop. The new reading better illustrates the effect the September collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. had on the economy and credit markets.

The deeper deterioration last year underscores why Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and his colleagues at the central bank cut the benchmark rate to a record low and extended credit to non-banks for the first time since the 1930s."
 
Lol....it's happening now. With 60 million idiots voting Obama back into office.

Or was that a good thing ?

65 million is closer. I think if the only choice on the ballot was Romney and Obama, I would have voted for Obama as the least worst candidate. But there was other choices on my ballot and I voted for Gary Johnson whom seem to me to actually have a couple of common sense solutions to our problems.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

What data?
CES0000000001_40581_1361322468318.gif


fredgraph.png


Contrasted with the aforementioned recession:

CES0000000001_40694_1361322852328.gif



fredgraph.png


Clear cut really. Add in the steeper losses in overall growth and it's a no brainer that requires some impressive maneuvering to avoid.
 
Is it possible Republicans dont want Hagel in there as a political reason? Hagel has shown he doesnt have the same ideas about foreign policy as most republicans, so when he supports a policy republcans dont like all you will hear is Hagel this and that. The optics will mean lots of pushback for no gain and someone that appears to be tremendously incompetent to boot. The surge was the worst mistake since Vietnam? Apparently not since it worked and casualties actually went down. Thats hyperbolic, attention grabbing drama queen nonsense there. Hagel deserves to get some political slings and arrows from an outrageous comment like that.

The reast of your claptrap happens in both parties, party loyalty does tend to mean something in the pecking order and support you recieve from the party. Thats nothing new. Its also not limited to one side of the other.


You're simply making excuses for this. Another conservative justificationist in full bloom.

Hagel has shown he doesnt have the same ideas about foreign policy as most republicans, so when he supports a policy republcans dont like all you will hear is Hagel this and that.

You know what? That's tough crap. This is the presidents choice for Def. Sec. He's qualified and they all know it. Just because he doesn't square with the Republicans is beside the point. They didn't win the election. The president did. They aren't going to support anything that Obama wants, so are you expecting him to put in a guy that they want?? Why?

The surge was the worst mistake since Vietnam?

No, Not just the surge. The entire war. It was created on a bed of lies. Hegal reaslised that and stood up against it. They hate him for having a conscience which they clearly lack.

Hagel deserves to get some political slings and arrows from an outrageous comment like that.

No he doesn't. The war was a lie. You're saying that he deserves to be hit because he was right and they were wrong? That war cost over 4,000 American lives. For what?? Hegal has a military background. He knows what it's like to have shrapnel floating in your chest unlike the idiot Cruz who has no idea about war but is intent on re-cycling Joe McCarthy.

The reast of your claptrap happens in both parties, party loyalty does tend to mean something in the pecking order and support you recieve from the party. Thats nothing new. Its also not limited to one side of the other.

That might explain the pathetically low approval rating for congress. And who do you think that low approval is aimed at? The GOP, that's who. Party over country. Identity philosophers. Loyalty to the group over the truth. And I really don't care to hear your tu quoque argument about "they do it too". As most of us learned from our mothers growing up as children....two wrongs don't make a right". Your comment is simply justificationist babble.:thumbdown
 
QUOTE=Fenton;1061484549]Lol....it's happening now. With 60 million idiots voting Obama back into office.

Or was that a good thing ?[/QUOTE]

Anything would be preferable to the wingnuts from the Right, anything....................[sorry
 
Unemployment was lower on every day of the GWB administration than it has been on any day of the BHO administration.:catapult:
 
Back
Top Bottom