Michele Bachmann

Go Beavers

You may be "trying" to be objective, but you're not doing a good job at it. Your disdain for Obama is clouding your judgement, and I'm saying this because you have a background in economics. With this background I'm assuming you're aware that there are many variables at play with regard to the economy; things occur from decisions made by politicians in the past, market forces past and present, global economics, things the prez has no control over, etc. You're putting the entire crappy economy on Obama''s shoulders. As much as I'd like to blame the current recession on Bush Jr. 100%, I know that wouldn't be valid because of these other factors at play. I also know that I can't say Bush's policies aren't still effecting the economy. The economy doesn't get reset every presidential election.

When you say economic statistics "prove" anything, you're again not being objective. There can be a correlation that suggests cause and effect, but at that point people start to apply theory, and theory is always debatable.

I actually somewhat agree to this: I don't necessarily think a President is to solely to blame for an economy's performance. The Fed, for instance, is also to blame, which gets at why Keynesian economics (practiced now by the FED and our administration) is so bad. But, the reality is Presidents do get blamed. It's a harsh reality, but it's real. Bush got blamed, as will Obama.

What I don't agree with is that you can not gauge an economy under one President and compare it to another. The economy right now is miserable, and yes, I can say that the economy is worse now than it was at anytime under George Bush. And the term recession doesn't really show how bad it is. If you use the textbook definition of recession to look at our economy, we're no longer in recession. Yet, we still haven't gained back what we've lost since Obama took office. Not in jobs, not in housing, production and not even in the stock market. We haven't even gotten back to where we were during the Bush Presidency. That's just facts. Hard to live with if Obama's your boy, but unfortunately for your side, it's a real data.

You can gauge it from one to the next, but who is at fault is the debate. Bush lit the flaming bag of poo, and Obama had to stomp it out. I guess you gave Obama 2 1/2 years to clean his shoes. Do you think that it was possible to have all economic indicators back to 2007 levels that fast? Any guess as to what things would be like if McCain won? I know you have a man-crush on Ron Paul. What would things have been like if we were living in his free-market fantasy land for the last 2 1/2 years?

markin ball

Go Beavers wrote:

You may be "trying" to be objective, but you're not doing a good job at it. Your disdain for Obama is clouding your judgement, and I'm saying this because you have a background in economics. With this background I'm assuming you're aware that there are many variables at play with regard to the economy; things occur from decisions made by politicians in the past, market forces past and present, global economics, things the prez has no control over, etc. You're putting the entire crappy economy on Obama''s shoulders. As much as I'd like to blame the current recession on Bush Jr. 100%, I know that wouldn't be valid because of these other factors at play. I also know that I can't say Bush's policies aren't still effecting the economy. The economy doesn't get reset every presidential election.

When you say economic statistics "prove" anything, you're again not being objective. There can be a correlation that suggests cause and effect, but at that point people start to apply theory, and theory is always debatable.

I actually somewhat agree to this: I don't necessarily think a President is to solely to blame for an economy's performance. The Fed, for instance, is also to blame, which gets at why Keynesian economics (practiced now by the FED and our administration) is so bad. But, the reality is Presidents do get blamed. It's a harsh reality, but it's real. Bush got blamed, as will Obama.

What I don't agree with is that you can not gauge an economy under one President and compare it to another. The economy right now is miserable, and yes, I can say that the economy is worse now than it was at anytime under George Bush. And the term recession doesn't really show how bad it is. If you use the textbook definition of recession to look at our economy, we're no longer in recession. Yet, we still haven't gained back what we've lost since Obama took office. Not in jobs, not in housing, production and not even in the stock market. We haven't even gotten back to where we were during the Bush Presidency. That's just facts. Hard to live with if Obama's your boy, but unfortunately for your side, it's a real data.

You can gauge it from one to the next, but who is at fault is the debate. Bush lit the flaming bag of poo, and Obama had to stomp it out. I guess you gave Obama 2 1/2 years to clean his shoes. Do you think that it was possible to have all economic indicators back to 2007 levels that fast? Any guess as to what things would be like if McCain won? I know you have a man-crush on Ron Paul. What would things have been like if we were living in his free-market fantasy land for the last 2 1/2 years?

Those indicators were the result of a gigantic bubble as well.

inlet13

markin ball wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

You may be "trying" to be objective, but you're not doing a good job at it. Your disdain for Obama is clouding your judgement, and I'm saying this because you have a background in economics. With this background I'm assuming you're aware that there are many variables at play with regard to the economy; things occur from decisions made by politicians in the past, market forces past and present, global economics, things the prez has no control over, etc. You're putting the entire crappy economy on Obama''s shoulders. As much as I'd like to blame the current recession on Bush Jr. 100%, I know that wouldn't be valid because of these other factors at play. I also know that I can't say Bush's policies aren't still effecting the economy. The economy doesn't get reset every presidential election.

When you say economic statistics "prove" anything, you're again not being objective. There can be a correlation that suggests cause and effect, but at that point people start to apply theory, and theory is always debatable.

I actually somewhat agree to this: I don't necessarily think a President is to solely to blame for an economy's performance. The Fed, for instance, is also to blame, which gets at why Keynesian economics (practiced now by the FED and our administration) is so bad. But, the reality is Presidents do get blamed. It's a harsh reality, but it's real. Bush got blamed, as will Obama.

What I don't agree with is that you can not gauge an economy under one President and compare it to another. The economy right now is miserable, and yes, I can say that the economy is worse now than it was at anytime under George Bush. And the term recession doesn't really show how bad it is. If you use the textbook definition of recession to look at our economy, we're no longer in recession. Yet, we still haven't gained back what we've lost since Obama took office. Not in jobs, not in housing, production and not even in the stock market. We haven't even gotten back to where we were during the Bush Presidency. That's just facts. Hard to live with if Obama's your boy, but unfortunately for your side, it's a real data.

You can gauge it from one to the next, but who is at fault is the debate. Bush lit the flaming bag of poo, and Obama had to stomp it out. I guess you gave Obama 2 1/2 years to clean his shoes. Do you think that it was possible to have all economic indicators back to 2007 levels that fast? Any guess as to what things would be like if McCain won? I know you have a man-crush on Ron Paul. What would things have been like if we were living in his free-market fantasy land for the last 2 1/2 years?

Those indicators were the result of a gigantic bubble as well.

That bubble came into existence because of Keynesian policies, both Fiscal policy (under both Republican and Democratic rule) and Monetary Policy (under Greenspan), utilized Keynesian policies to build the bubble. The FED kept interest rates too low for too long, try to spur the economy post-9/11 and the 2001 recession, the result was a bubble. Meanwhile, President Bush and the Democratic congress pushed for higher home-ownership rates. By the time mortgage rates reset, ARMS were 50% of all mortgages (up from average of about 15%)... some say ARMS were the problem,... not necessarily, rates wouldn't have ever reset that bad if Greenspand didn't start raising them from their historical lows. So, people got f'd when the rates went higher and speculators in the market bailed making matters worse. We all know the story from there. But, if I had to blame anything for the housing bubble, I'd blame Keynesian economics (which was actively practiced by Republicans via Bush, Democrats via Congress, and even free-market economists via Greenspan). The last contributor, Greenspan, was the oddest considering he spent his early life trying to explain that Keynesian economics is wrong. Ironically, his legacy will be his active engagement in trying to "correct" the economy.

That housing bubble was the result of the response to the tech bubble, which caused the 2001 recession. Keynesian economics caused that bubble too, but I digress. Anyway, the housing bubble was "solved" with more Keynesian economics (cept it hasn't worked,... again), probably the largest Keynesian movement ever. Wait and see what happens... Like bubbles? How about a government one? Hence, yeh... Greece is a relevant example of what may happen, cept a hell of a lot worse. Just wait. Seriously, this debt problem is real.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

You may be "trying" to be objective, but you're not doing a good job at it. Your disdain for Obama is clouding your judgement, and I'm saying this because you have a background in economics. With this background I'm assuming you're aware that there are many variables at play with regard to the economy; things occur from decisions made by politicians in the past, market forces past and present, global economics, things the prez has no control over, etc. You're putting the entire crappy economy on Obama''s shoulders. As much as I'd like to blame the current recession on Bush Jr. 100%, I know that wouldn't be valid because of these other factors at play. I also know that I can't say Bush's policies aren't still effecting the economy. The economy doesn't get reset every presidential election.

When you say economic statistics "prove" anything, you're again not being objective. There can be a correlation that suggests cause and effect, but at that point people start to apply theory, and theory is always debatable.

I actually somewhat agree to this: I don't necessarily think a President is to solely to blame for an economy's performance. The Fed, for instance, is also to blame, which gets at why Keynesian economics (practiced now by the FED and our administration) is so bad. But, the reality is Presidents do get blamed. It's a harsh reality, but it's real. Bush got blamed, as will Obama.

What I don't agree with is that you can not gauge an economy under one President and compare it to another. The economy right now is miserable, and yes, I can say that the economy is worse now than it was at anytime under George Bush. And the term recession doesn't really show how bad it is. If you use the textbook definition of recession to look at our economy, we're no longer in recession. Yet, we still haven't gained back what we've lost since Obama took office. Not in jobs, not in housing, production and not even in the stock market. We haven't even gotten back to where we were during the Bush Presidency. That's just facts. Hard to live with if Obama's your boy, but unfortunately for your side, it's a real data.

You can gauge it from one to the next, but who is at fault is the debate. Bush lit the flaming bag of poo, and Obama had to stomp it out. I guess you gave Obama 2 1/2 years to clean his shoes. Do you think that it was possible to have all economic indicators back to 2007 levels that fast? Any guess as to what things would be like if McCain won? I know you have a man-crush on Ron Paul. What would things have been like if we were living in his free-market fantasy land for the last 2 1/2 years?

If McCain won, I have no clue what would have happened. I assume things "may" be a bit better. But, I don't know. I really have no idea how he would have dealt with economics, he was not a Governor. So, it's impossible to say.

Ron Paul.... I can answer. Things would have been worse in 2008-2009, but much better now and I bet we would have returned or increased past to pre-recession employment, production, market status.

The problem with Keynesian economics is it "can" work in the short run. But, it creates problems down the road. That's why Keynes was quoted as saying "in the long run, we're all dead". He knew it. Anyway, if Ron Paul was elected, and we didn't respond to the problem with intervention, I think things would have been worse in the nearest term, but the durations would have been much, much shorter. In other words, rather than the Dow at 6K... coulda gone to 4.5 or 5K. But, would have shot right back up once we turned the corner. The largest plus of non-intervention and self-regulation is the fact that you don't build another bubble that you'll have to deal with down the road.

Keynesian intervention is a never-ending process. Everything that is solved by Keynesian economics is solved with a long process that costs more and more money, and in the end it just creates another larger problem to solve with Keynesian economics. And, hence the snowball effect, that creates people like me who absolutely hate Keynesian economics. I know it's wrong and doesn't work.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

That bubble came into existence because of Keynesian policies, both Fiscal policy (under both Republican and Democratic rule) and Monetary Policy (under Greenspan), utilized Keynesian policies to build the bubble. The FED kept interest rates too low for too long, try to spur the economy post-9/11 and the 2001 recession, the result was a bubble. Meanwhile, President Bush and the Democratic congress pushed for higher home-ownership rates. By the time mortgage rates reset, ARMS were 50% of all mortgages (up from average of about 15%)... some say ARMS were the problem,... not necessarily, rates wouldn't have ever reset that bad if Greenspand didn't start raising them from their historical lows. So, people got f'd when the rates went higher and speculators in the market bailed making matters worse. We all know the story from there. But, if I had to blame anything for the housing bubble, I'd blame Keynesian economics (which was actively practiced by Republicans via Bush, Democrats via Congress, and even free-market economists via Greenspan). The last contributor, Greenspan, was the oddest considering he spent his early life trying to explain that Keynesian economics is wrong. Ironically, his legacy will be his active engagement in trying to "correct" the economy.

That housing bubble was the result of the response to the tech bubble, which caused the 2001 recession. Keynesian economics caused that bubble too, but I digress. Anyway, the housing bubble was "solved" with more Keynesian economics (cept it hasn't worked,... again), probably the largest Keynesian movement ever. Wait and see what happens... Like bubbles? How about a government one? Hence, yeh... Greece is a relevant example of what may happen, cept a hell of a lot worse. Just wait. Seriously, this debt problem is real.

So the cycle of bubble building and then popping has been happening for awhile, now. The latest was a huge bubble, which left a huge mess after it popped. So Obama is one of the worst presidents because he uses Keynesian economics in response to the problem? The same way many other presidents have, but somehow he is just beyond horrible.

I know the debt problem is real. It can be easily solved, but with discomfort. I just don't buy the whole "we're just like Greece".

VINNY GOOMBA

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

That bubble came into existence because of Keynesian policies, both Fiscal policy (under both Republican and Democratic rule) and Monetary Policy (under Greenspan), utilized Keynesian policies to build the bubble. The FED kept interest rates too low for too long, try to spur the economy post-9/11 and the 2001 recession, the result was a bubble. Meanwhile, President Bush and the Democratic congress pushed for higher home-ownership rates. By the time mortgage rates reset, ARMS were 50% of all mortgages (up from average of about 15%)... some say ARMS were the problem,... not necessarily, rates wouldn't have ever reset that bad if Greenspand didn't start raising them from their historical lows. So, people got f'd when the rates went higher and speculators in the market bailed making matters worse. We all know the story from there. But, if I had to blame anything for the housing bubble, I'd blame Keynesian economics (which was actively practiced by Republicans via Bush, Democrats via Congress, and even free-market economists via Greenspan). The last contributor, Greenspan, was the oddest considering he spent his early life trying to explain that Keynesian economics is wrong. Ironically, his legacy will be his active engagement in trying to "correct" the economy.

That housing bubble was the result of the response to the tech bubble, which caused the 2001 recession. Keynesian economics caused that bubble too, but I digress. Anyway, the housing bubble was "solved" with more Keynesian economics (cept it hasn't worked,... again), probably the largest Keynesian movement ever. Wait and see what happens... Like bubbles? How about a government one? Hence, yeh... Greece is a relevant example of what may happen, cept a hell of a lot worse. Just wait. Seriously, this debt problem is real.

So the cycle of bubble building and then popping has been happening for awhile, now. The latest was a huge bubble, which left a huge mess after it popped. So Obama is one of the worst presidents because he uses Keynesian economics in response to the problem? The same way many other presidents have, but somehow he is just beyond horrible.

I know the debt problem is real. It can be easily solved, but with discomfort. I just don't buy the whole "we're just like Greece".

Congress and the President are always equally to blame for overspending, and every president in US History has been guilty of it.

However, it is The Fed's fault far more than it is President Obama's, Bush's, etc... They print the money. They monetize the debt. They NEVER object to Congress' spending. They put us on the hook to countries like China. They have attempted to bail out Greece and other foreign countries and central banks by giving them billions without any congressional or presidential approval. They have bailed out huge corporations in secret, whether authorized by TARP or not. They have legalized the fraudulent the fractional reserve banking system by which banks can loan people that they don't even have in reserves, and still expect people to pay back loans on money that doesn't exist- and when they can't, the banks take their property. They are the ones who set the interest rates artificially low causing artificial booms via cheap credit and have done so for almost a century, and their only solutions are to replace the ill effects / contraction of the economy following one boom with another boom. Ben Bernanke himself has said repeatedly that The Fed caused the Great Depression, and few people deny that. It's the road to recovery that's highly debated, but the answers of any Fed chair are simply to keep implementing the same monetary policies that caused the expansion and malinvestment in the first place.

Electric_Delta

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

ok, 8 years of bush fucking it up and pissing away a surplus and hemmoraging jobs, and 2 years of obama trying to fix it. somethng doesn't add up....

What has he done again to fix it? Where again did the stimulus money go?

it saved the economy from total collapse, but yeah it did nothing :roll: i am not repeating myself in yet another thread about the benefits/detriments of the stimulus....look it up yourself.

I'm sure Goldman Sachs would agree with your position.

gimmesometruth27

^^^^

so you would have been fine it the auto industry, the last bastion of any sort of american manufacturing, went under? if that is your postion i am not surprised...

actually most of those auto bailouts have been repaid with interest, so it actually made you money.

as far as goldman sachs and the "too big to fail" banks go, they can go fuck themselves. they steal people's homes after giving them predatory loans, and still give their employees record bonuses. that is nothing more than predatory capitalism.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

So the cycle of bubble building and then popping has been happening for awhile, now. The latest was a huge bubble, which left a huge mess after it popped. So Obama is one of the worst presidents because he uses Keynesian economics in response to the problem? The same way many other presidents have, but somehow he is just beyond horrible.

I know the debt problem is real. It can be easily solved, but with discomfort. I just don't buy the whole "we're just like Greece".

I understand you're underlying point, but I don't agree. Obama is worse than a Bachmann. She has actively discussed Keynesian economics and has said in many interviews she is very much against it. That's the main reason I'm for her. She was articulate when discussing this issue.

Obama, I believe, is a Keynesian. Most likely, he just doesn't even know what the word means. But, he probably would side with every ideology that a Keynesian would. He thinks this stuff works. He would use it actively and often. Bush, for instance, used Keynesian economics only when on a ledge. Clinton was similar to Bush in that regard. In my opinion, Obama is the worst of the four mentioned because he thinks Keynesian economics (regardless of whether he knows the word or not) is the answer for all economic problems. He's wrong.

I never meant we're just like Greece, obviously our countries are different. Yes, it can be solved by a decrease in spending, hence, no more Keynesian spending.

inlet13

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

That bubble came into existence because of Keynesian policies, both Fiscal policy (under both Republican and Democratic rule) and Monetary Policy (under Greenspan), utilized Keynesian policies to build the bubble. The FED kept interest rates too low for too long, try to spur the economy post-9/11 and the 2001 recession, the result was a bubble. Meanwhile, President Bush and the Democratic congress pushed for higher home-ownership rates. By the time mortgage rates reset, ARMS were 50% of all mortgages (up from average of about 15%)... some say ARMS were the problem,... not necessarily, rates wouldn't have ever reset that bad if Greenspand didn't start raising them from their historical lows. So, people got f'd when the rates went higher and speculators in the market bailed making matters worse. We all know the story from there. But, if I had to blame anything for the housing bubble, I'd blame Keynesian economics (which was actively practiced by Republicans via Bush, Democrats via Congress, and even free-market economists via Greenspan). The last contributor, Greenspan, was the oddest considering he spent his early life trying to explain that Keynesian economics is wrong. Ironically, his legacy will be his active engagement in trying to "correct" the economy.

That housing bubble was the result of the response to the tech bubble, which caused the 2001 recession. Keynesian economics caused that bubble too, but I digress. Anyway, the housing bubble was "solved" with more Keynesian economics (cept it hasn't worked,... again), probably the largest Keynesian movement ever. Wait and see what happens... Like bubbles? How about a government one? Hence, yeh... Greece is a relevant example of what may happen, cept a hell of a lot worse. Just wait. Seriously, this debt problem is real.

So the cycle of bubble building and then popping has been happening for awhile, now. The latest was a huge bubble, which left a huge mess after it popped. So Obama is one of the worst presidents because he uses Keynesian economics in response to the problem? The same way many other presidents have, but somehow he is just beyond horrible.

I know the debt problem is real. It can be easily solved, but with discomfort. I just don't buy the whole "we're just like Greece".

Congress and the President are always equally to blame for overspending, and every president in US History has been guilty of it.

However, it is The Fed's fault far more than it is President Obama's, Bush's, etc... They print the money. They monetize the debt. They NEVER object to Congress' spending. They put us on the hook to countries like China. They have attempted to bail out Greece and other foreign countries and central banks by giving them billions without any congressional or presidential approval. They have bailed out huge corporations in secret, whether authorized by TARP or not. They have legalized the fraudulent the fractional reserve banking system by which banks can loan people that they don't even have in reserves, and still expect people to pay back loans on money that doesn't exist- and when they can't, the banks take their property. They are the ones who set the interest rates artificially low causing artificial booms via cheap credit and have done so for almost a century, and their only solutions are to replace the ill effects / contraction of the economy following one boom with another boom. Ben Bernanke himself has said repeatedly that The Fed caused the Great Depression, and few people deny that. It's the road to recovery that's highly debated, but the answers of any Fed chair are simply to keep implementing the same monetary policies that caused the expansion and malinvestment in the first place.

I'd agree with this. But, at the heart of what you mentioned is, once again, Keynesian economics. For those who don't know, Keynesian refers to both Fiscal Policy (President/Congress) AND Monetary Policy (The Fed).

VINNY GOOMBA

inlet13 wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

So the cycle of bubble building and then popping has been happening for awhile, now. The latest was a huge bubble, which left a huge mess after it popped. So Obama is one of the worst presidents because he uses Keynesian economics in response to the problem? The same way many other presidents have, but somehow he is just beyond horrible.

I know the debt problem is real. It can be easily solved, but with discomfort. I just don't buy the whole "we're just like Greece".

Congress and the President are always equally to blame for overspending, and every president in US History has been guilty of it.

However, it is The Fed's fault far more than it is President Obama's, Bush's, etc... They print the money. They monetize the debt. They NEVER object to Congress' spending. They put us on the hook to countries like China. They have attempted to bail out Greece and other foreign countries and central banks by giving them billions without any congressional or presidential approval. They have bailed out huge corporations in secret, whether authorized by TARP or not. They have legalized the fraudulent the fractional reserve banking system by which banks can loan people that they don't even have in reserves, and still expect people to pay back loans on money that doesn't exist- and when they can't, the banks take their property. They are the ones who set the interest rates artificially low causing artificial booms via cheap credit and have done so for almost a century, and their only solutions are to replace the ill effects / contraction of the economy following one boom with another boom. Ben Bernanke himself has said repeatedly that The Fed caused the Great Depression, and few people deny that. It's the road to recovery that's highly debated, but the answers of any Fed chair are simply to keep implementing the same monetary policies that caused the expansion and malinvestment in the first place.

I'd agree with this. But, at the heart of what you mentioned is, once again, Keynesian economics. For those who don't know, Keynesian refers to both Fiscal Policy (President/Congress) AND Monetary Policy (The Fed).

Of course!

OnTheEdge

Really good post Inlet. And you put up some convincing arguements. But if your looking for people to meet you in the middle your on the wrong forum. The Train holds home to the leftist of the left, nothing is there fault. The only time you'll find them agreeing with you is if you're negatively talking about Obama and war in the same sentence. Anything else falls in the laps of the right. I've wasted many valuable hours on the train while being called an idiot, a racist, or just plain stupid. Meanwhile, they call american soldiers " the real terorists". I don't argue here anymore. Just stop in to read the latest and sometimes state my opinion on certain subjects. But anyways, your post are refreshing, I enjoy reading them, I especially like watching the left squabble while they still try to blame everything on Bush.

inlet13

OnTheEdge wrote:

Really good post Inlet. And you put up some convincing arguements. But if your looking for people to meet you in the middle your on the wrong forum. The Train holds home to the leftist of the left, nothing is there fault. The only time you'll find them agreeing with you is if you're negatively talking about Obama and war in the same sentence. Anything else falls in the laps of the right. I've wasted many valuable hours on the train while being called an idiot, a racist, or just plain stupid. Meanwhile, they call american soldiers " the real terorists". I don't argue here anymore. Just stop in to read the latest and sometimes state my opinion on certain subjects. But anyways, your post are refreshing, I enjoy reading them, I especially like watching the left squabble while they still try to blame everything on Bush.

Thank you. I won't be here long. I can't take arguing politics for long stretches.

gimmesometruth27

OnTheEdge wrote:

Really good post Inlet. And you put up some convincing arguements. But if your looking for people to meet you in the middle your on the wrong forum. The Train holds home to the leftist of the left, nothing is there fault. The only time you'll find them agreeing with you is if you're negatively talking about Obama and war in the same sentence. Anything else falls in the laps of the right. I've wasted many valuable hours on the train while being called an idiot, a racist, or just plain stupid. Meanwhile, they call american soldiers " the real terorists". I don't argue here anymore. Just stop in to read the latest and sometimes state my opinion on certain subjects. But anyways, your post are refreshing, I enjoy reading them, I especially like watching the left squabble while they still try to blame everything on Bush.

are you excusing bush for everything? because if it were not for his dumbass policies we would be nowhere near the mess we are in right now.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

That bubble came into existence because of Keynesian policies, both Fiscal policy (under both Republican and Democratic rule) and Monetary Policy (under Greenspan), utilized Keynesian policies to build the bubble. The FED kept interest rates too low for too long, try to spur the economy post-9/11 and the 2001 recession, the result was a bubble. Meanwhile, President Bush and the Democratic congress pushed for higher home-ownership rates. By the time mortgage rates reset, ARMS were 50% of all mortgages (up from average of about 15%)... some say ARMS were the problem,... not necessarily, rates wouldn't have ever reset that bad if Greenspand didn't start raising them from their historical lows. So, people got f'd when the rates went higher and speculators in the market bailed making matters worse. We all know the story from there. But, if I had to blame anything for the housing bubble, I'd blame Keynesian economics (which was actively practiced by Republicans via Bush, Democrats via Congress, and even free-market economists via Greenspan). The last contributor, Greenspan, was the oddest considering he spent his early life trying to explain that Keynesian economics is wrong. Ironically, his legacy will be his active engagement in trying to "correct" the economy.

That housing bubble was the result of the response to the tech bubble, which caused the 2001 recession. Keynesian economics caused that bubble too, but I digress. Anyway, the housing bubble was "solved" with more Keynesian economics (cept it hasn't worked,... again), probably the largest Keynesian movement ever. Wait and see what happens... Like bubbles? How about a government one? Hence, yeh... Greece is a relevant example of what may happen, cept a hell of a lot worse. Just wait. Seriously, this debt problem is real.

You're also leaving out (I think intentionally) overleveraging and crappy loans given out like candy to kids. Both of these seem like the free market at work to me. These things also happened under Bush's watch, or lack of it. You identify the cause of the problems as fed and government policy related, but leave out the unregulated free market aspects. I see this as a lack of objectivity as you want to rely on Ron Paul-esque theories as the answer.

It seems like you would propose the government's response to be a lack of response to the most recent recession. To me this is blind faith to your favorite economic theory. Of course of could be unaware of a time in history when a large economic power experienced a huge recession and the government did little or nothing, and then the country bounced back stronger than before within 2 years. This is my issue with Ron Paul. There is no reality test to his proposals that I'm aware of, but it makes his followers feel good to be able to identify the government/fed as the main source of the problem.

Electric_Delta

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

^^^^

so you would have been fine it the auto industry, the last bastion of any sort of american manufacturing, went under? if that is your postion i am not surprised...

actually most of those auto bailouts have been repaid with interest, so it actually made you money.

as far as goldman sachs and the "too big to fail" banks go, they can go fuck themselves. they steal people's homes after giving them predatory loans, and still give their employees record bonuses. that is nothing more than predatory capitalism.

I agree, it's absurd - BUT - your guy in the White House is bedfellows with those very banks.

OnTheEdge

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

OnTheEdge wrote:

Really good post Inlet. And you put up some convincing arguements. But if your looking for people to meet you in the middle your on the wrong forum. The Train holds home to the leftist of the left, nothing is there fault. The only time you'll find them agreeing with you is if you're negatively talking about Obama and war in the same sentence. Anything else falls in the laps of the right. I've wasted many valuable hours on the train while being called an idiot, a racist, or just plain stupid. Meanwhile, they call american soldiers " the real terorists". I don't argue here anymore. Just stop in to read the latest and sometimes state my opinion on certain subjects. But anyways, your post are refreshing, I enjoy reading them, I especially like watching the left squabble while they still try to blame everything on Bush.

are you excusing bush for everything? because if it were not for his dumbass policies we would be nowhere near the mess we are in right now.

No, i'm not excusing Bush for everything.

gimmesometruth27

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

^^^^

so you would have been fine it the auto industry, the last bastion of any sort of american manufacturing, went under? if that is your postion i am not surprised...

actually most of those auto bailouts have been repaid with interest, so it actually made you money.

as far as goldman sachs and the "too big to fail" banks go, they can go fuck themselves. they steal people's homes after giving them predatory loans, and still give their employees record bonuses. that is nothing more than predatory capitalism.

I agree, it's absurd - BUT - your guy in the White House is bedfellows with those very banks.

he is not my guy. he is just the best of what we had to choose from, and i choose to support him in what he is trying to do. doesn't make him my guy. there are plenty of things i am angry about that he has done, or rather, has NOT done.

gimmesometruth27

OnTheEdge wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

OnTheEdge wrote:

Really good post Inlet. And you put up some convincing arguements. But if your looking for people to meet you in the middle your on the wrong forum. The Train holds home to the leftist of the left, nothing is there fault. The only time you'll find them agreeing with you is if you're negatively talking about Obama and war in the same sentence. Anything else falls in the laps of the right. I've wasted many valuable hours on the train while being called an idiot, a racist, or just plain stupid. Meanwhile, they call american soldiers " the real terorists". I don't argue here anymore. Just stop in to read the latest and sometimes state my opinion on certain subjects. But anyways, your post are refreshing, I enjoy reading them, I especially like watching the left squabble while they still try to blame everything on Bush.

are you excusing bush for everything? because if it were not for his dumbass policies we would be nowhere near the mess we are in right now.

No, i'm not excusing Bush for everything.

then what is it you are actually holding him accountable for??

Jason P

It appears that Bachmann has gotten either new handlers or a better campaign strategy as I've seen various interviews with her over the weekend and she is not coming off as, as some like to say, "bat shit crazy" (a term leading this year's nominees of "Most 'Effed Out Phrase of the Year").