A question for American friends - Politics

I simply don't see the connection however between the mortgage issue which you've explained pretty well, and the tax cut, wars, fiscal responsibility of Washington issue.

Fair point and the connection is indirect at best. As you can probably tell, I'm not a huge fan of the Republican party so my perspective is by no means unbiased.

My beef with W's regime is simple: Complete and utter fiscal irresponsibilty that has hamstrung us in our search for solutions to this problem we now face. If Bush had simply rolled back his tax cuts once the economy got back on its feet in 2003, we would have plenty of money in the fiscal coffers to provide needed infrastructure spending and other stimuli.

There is simply no assurance that Barack Obama or anyone else will restore any more credibility or fiscal responsibility in Washington. His voting record has not demonstrated this previously, and the gross fiscal irresponsibility of congress shows no sign of abating. One only has to look at all the crap earmarks etc added into the bailout by our Washington leaders. Wishful thinking at best.

You are right ... there is no assurance ... we'll have to wait and see ...

Part of my "wishful thinking"/hope stems from knowing a bit about the financial team he is assembling ... they are "my kind" of economists and thinkers.

Putting his personal foibles aside, Clinton did pretty well and I expect similar from Obama.

"My beef with W's regime is simple: Complete and utter fiscal irresponsibilty......."

Humm ..... lets see:

Carter pushes for semi-governmental organizations, Fani & Freddi, to loosen requirementsfor backing up lower income loans

Clinton continues this strategy

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are chairmen of US government financial oversight committees

Barneu Franks is openly sleeping with director of Fanni Mae

Dodd is highest recipent of Fanni & Fredi political cash contributions, oBama is second and Franks is third

Three years ago Franks leads fight to stop more stringent controls on Fanni mae

So it's all Bush's fault?? Drink some more Kool Aid my friend and quit crying about 2000 & 2004 !

Oh yea, lets not forget Jamie Gorlick - she was responsible for the DOJ ruling that precluded CIA and FBI from sharing information that resulted in "the dots not being connected relative to 911" and now she is on Fannie Mae staff. This person has done more damage to the USA than Pollard and Rosenbergs combined!

"My beef with W's regime is simple: Complete and utter fiscal irresponsibilty......."

 

Humm ..... lets see:

 

Carter pushes for semi-governmental organizations, Fani & Freddi, to loosen requirementsfor backing up lower income loans

 

Clinton continues this strategy

 

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are chairmen of US government financial oversight committees

 

Barneu Franks is openly sleeping with director of Fanni Mae

 

Dodd is highest recipent of Fanni & Fredi political cash contributions, oBama is second and Franks is third

 

Three years ago Franks leads fight to stop more stringent controls on Fanni mae

 

So it's all Bush's fault?? Drink some more Kool Aid my friend and quit crying about 2000 & 2004 !

 

Oh yea, lets not forget Jamie Gorlick - she was responsible for the DOJ ruling that precluded CIA and FBI from sharing information that resulted in "the dots not being connected relative to 911" and now she is on Fannie Mae staff. This person has done more damage to the USA than Pollard and Rosenbergs combined!

Seems you haven't bothered to read the thread.

Putting his personal foibles aside, Clinton did pretty well and I expect similar from Obama.

Granted, Clinton did very well, but in a hugely different environment. Three major things, the dot com explosion, the energy crunch(or lack of it), and pre 9/11. Of these 3 things the only one we can truly harness and turn to our advantage is the energy issue.

Clinton's environment was one that facilitated the deregulation that was unfolding and allowed it to flourish.

Only one thing will get us out of this mess; producing more then we consume. I am not an economist, but this is basic arithmetic.

As a small business owner, I have always understood as well, that increasing production is also the much more important component of this formula, so that if I am to place emphasis on anything it will be increasing production before cutting spending. (Though cutting unnecessary spending is of course critical)

Raising taxes, new health care initiatives etc, etc, will do nothing to help us be more productive in the short and medium term.

The key will be which candidate is more aggressive in doing two things, cutting spending and government waste, and who will be most aggressive in developing the sector which could be our NEW dotcom - energy.

Both candidates have energy policies, neither of which is complete and comprehensive. Obamas and the Democrats are short on things we can and must do immediately like Nuclear and drilling, McCain and the Republicans are short on developing new and initially expensive technologies. Neither seems to emphasize what government can do to facilitate a grassroots energy inversion - like leveling the economic playing field, and mandating that consumers can sell back energy to the grid. If our next administration is savvy in harnessing this concept of what Thomas Friedman calls the Manhattan Project of Energy, and Congress gets out of the way, America has huge potential to produce it's way out of this mess. If not, my children and I are screwed

Wow, many thanks to Jeremy for giving a better explanation of the causes and stakes than I have come across elsewhere.

My beef with W's regime is simple: Complete and utter fiscal irresponsibilty that has hamstrung us in our search for solutions to this problem we now face. If Bush had simply rolled back his tax cuts once the economy got back on its feet in 2003, we would have plenty of money in the fiscal coffers to provide needed infrastructure spending and other stimuli.

I'm amazed that I almost never hear anyone pointing out what seems so obvious and important to me: that the neocon Laffer-curve-inspired economic nonsense about taxation has put the US in a spectacularly weak position to cope with problems -- and even a mullet like me who never took an economics class could see that years ago. Big deficit spending can be a good tool, but it's a lousy standard operating procedure.

Some journalist quoted Dick Cheney as saying, "Deficits don't matter. Reagan proved that." I don't think Cheney meant that deficits don’t matter ECONOMICALLY; I think he meant that deficits don't prevent the administration from successfully claiming to be fiscal responsible. The popular belief about Reagan is completely at odds with the dramatic rise in deficit spending that took place while he was president. I think it's likely that the Bush gang felt they could reap the benefits while taking none of the blame. They were winning the PR game.

I think they probably felt the same way about the occupation of Iraq -- but just getting everyone to call it a WAR rather than an occupation was and continues to be a great PR/propaganda victory. McCain/Palin can run against the "defeatocrats", because the political discourse supports the validity of defeat/victory as possible scenarios in Iraq (despite what Petraeus said about "victory" recently). In contrast, the political discourse does NOT support the validity of asking, "Do you support or oppose the continued OCCUPATION of Iraq?"

I think language matters, a lot, and I think opposition to the continued presence in Iraq would be much greater if progressives had been successful in referring to it as an occupation for the past 3+ years. As an Israeli politician told Cheney years ago, you can't win an occupation. You can only choose the size of your humiliation.

I'd say any discussion about how the US elects its representatives must mention the roles of rhetoric and media in shaping the terms of discourse.

For the blame game folks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM

I dont think the US presidents before Bush JR were too bad. Sure, they have their good and bad points, and you can be for or against them, but none has been so widely seen as completely incompetent as W. Even his father wasn't so bad. Inside the US Bush may still have some support, and maybe some loners in britain, but in the rest of the world he's pretty much seen as a huge douche bag idiot. It's such a shame because the US is still (as long as it lasts) economically a major player and vital to many parts of the world.

 

Im hoping the democrats will get back into power and the US can mend some deep wounds in their own country and abroad.

I'm expat in the UK now and originally from Canada and I completely agree with your view point.

I hope the deomcrats get into power again.

I met a group of fellow North Americans at a festival earlier this year from New York, they spent the first hour apologizing for their current government. I felt quite sorry to see this. America has loads to be proud of, but the current Mr.Bush needs to go, as Alan Greenspan once commented' He spends the tax payer's money like a drunk who won the lotto'. ... RB

I'm expat in the UK now and originally from Canada and I completely agree with your view point.

 

I hope the deomcrats get into power again.

 

I met a group of fellow North Americans at a festival earlier this year from New York, they spent the first hour apologizing for their current government. I felt quite sorry to see this. America has loads to be proud of, but the current Mr.Bush needs to go, as Alan Greenspan once commented' He spends the tax payer's money like a drunk who won the lotto'. ... RB

Remember, they were from New York. The reality is that Mr. Bush (as much as I disapprove of him) or any other president, cannot spend the money by himself. The only segment of our government that presently has a lower approval than the president is Congress (presently Democrat). When you follow all the stuff that Congress adds into bills, earmarks etc it makes you want to puke. Politicians in general see our taxes as a huge pot of gold that they can do what they want with. Our budget system is screwed as well. Any department has to spend it's alloted budget every year whether it needs to or not, otherwise it's budget is decreased - now there's a way to save money. Impartial accounting groups figure that Obamas budget will take us $100m more into the red in the first four years than McCains. And then McCain had to go choose Palin to pander to the religious right.

Sadly in this country we do not have a party that is socially more liberal and fiscally more conservative as many of us would like.

Remember, they were from New York.

Hey! ,

Sadly in this country we do not have a party that is socially more liberal and fiscally more conservative as many of us would like.

The last two Democratic presidents have been far more fiscally responsible than their contemporary Republican "comps".

Hey! ,

 

 

 

The last two Democratic presidents have been far more fiscally responsible than their contemporary Republican "comps".

I do agree on the last one; however I also think he functioned in an almost perfect environment, with the dotcom / technology boom, pre 9/11 and the balance of a congress which at that time was a fiscally responsible Republican congress (2nd term at least). (At least compared to the Democrats and present Republicans in congress).

Don't forgot though that many of the problems we are facing now started in his administration with things like the deregulation acts passed in 1999 (I think), by him and his worshipped economic advisor Rubin. Again, not to defend Bush here, but the whole mortgage thing was not started by him, though Bush did perpetuate it.

Bottom line though Jeremy, is that I'm extremely cynical about all of them, and Obama is no Clinton, or at least he has hardly demonstrated that to me.

Love him or hate him, Clinton was one of our smartest, shrewdest presidents ever, and very much a centrist Democrat.

Obama has shown himself to be mostly an excellent orator when prepared; off the cuff he stutters like the rest of them, and with no apparent centrist tendencies. The blind faith that folks are placing in him to fix things astounds me. Until Americans learn they have to produce more than they consume (which includes health care) we will never get out of our mess.

And then you have Congress........ @#$%^&*.

Just to add, listening to the debate the other night, I was so disappointed in both of them; particularly when handed the 'bait' by Tom Brokaw of the 'Manhattan Project' of energy. Neither of them ran with it as they could have and should have; because if either of them had, I would have had some inkling that maybe one of them could facilitate us dragging ourselves out of this financial mess and coming out on top.

Our choice is to vote for "the tallest of the dwarfs"; whom ever that may be

I would have had some inkling that maybe one of them could facilitate us dragging ourselves out of this financial mess and coming out on top.

That's easy. Take government completely out of the mix. Fannie and Freddie were regulated by the government before this disaster. The problem is you have corrupt people watching over corrupt organizations. W's bail out package was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Should have let the natural market forces correct and move on.

The last two Democratic presidents have been far more fiscally responsible than their contemporary Republican "comps".

Carter was a disaster and engineered the only case of stagflation in US history. Clinton at least sided with Gingrich and they balanced the budget using funds from an artificial economy. There's no question people began pulling money out of their homes as interest rates fell. This lead to consumption and economic growth at unheard of levels. Bush for his part continued those flawed methods to stimulate growth but the difference was congress. A republican congress from 2000-2006 passed some of the largest pork barrel projects ever heard of. They were only exceeded by the Pelosi-Reed congresses of 2006-2008. Unfortunately economic principles like these turned out to be the under-pinnings of this disaster and the few responsible folks are left paying the tab.

Oh and BTW...looks as though you were wrong...they are going to bail out those folks who over extended.

I posted this here because it's the only forum I subscribe to that has an American public.

 

 

Why don't you elect statesmen like Nancy Pelosi to be President instead of the succession of cowboys you seem to get landed with?

More stuff to answer your original question

"My beef with W's regime is simple: Complete and utter fiscal irresponsibilty......."

 

Humm ..... lets see:

 

Carter pushes for semi-governmental organizations, Fani & Freddi, to loosen requirementsfor backing up lower income loans

 

Clinton continues this strategy

 

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are chairmen of US government financial oversight committees

 

Barneu Franks is openly sleeping with director of Fanni Mae

 

Dodd is highest recipent of Fanni & Fredi political cash contributions, oBama is second and Franks is third

 

Three years ago Franks leads fight to stop more stringent controls on Fanni mae

 

So it's all Bush's fault?? Drink some more Kool Aid my friend and quit crying about 2000 & 2004 !

 

Oh yea, lets not forget Jamie Gorlick - she was responsible for the DOJ ruling that precluded CIA and FBI from sharing information that resulted in "the dots not being connected relative to 911" and now she is on Fannie Mae staff. This person has done more damage to the USA than Pollard and Rosenbergs combined!

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

If you follow the argument in the last video it does not argue that Fannie Mae was the only cause of the crisis; only that CRA and equal opportunity lending laws when applied to the private sector and Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, initiated a subprime lending boom which subsequently resulted in the crisis we see today of which Fanie Mae and Freddie Mac were a part. The point to be made is that this started long before George Bush, and if any blame is to be laid it should be with our Congress(es). It also does not detract from the fact that clearly Democrats in congress and possibly the senate are far more caught up in the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac component of this than Republicans.

The reality is they are all scumbags, and the first order of the day should be to throw ALL of them out Democrats and Republicans by adopting one rule when you vote: Vote for the guy who is NOT an incumbent. This would also put all the new guys on notice that the same thing will happen to them next time if they don't shape up.

I was thinking of posting that McClatchy story, then see that the link is already here. Some salient points:

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

 

_ More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

 

_ Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

 

_ Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

 

The "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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Clearly those facts make trying to put this on Clinton or Congress pretty difficult. But even noting the origins in the bad mortgage loans, it seems clear that only with the CDS possibilities and other deregulation moves could the bad loans have ever been leveraged into causing the current problems. That's why this seems very relevant:

Gramm was always Wall Street's man in the Senate. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee during the Clinton administration, he consistently underfunded the Securities and Exchange Commission and kept it from stopping accounting firms from auditing corporations with which they had conflicts of interest. Gramm's piece de resistance came on Dec. 15, 2000, when he slipped into an omnibus spending bill a provision called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), which prohibited any governmental regulation of credit default swaps, those insurance policies covering losses on securities in the event they went belly up. As the housing bubble ballooned, the face value of those swaps rose to a tidy $62 trillion. And as the housing bubble burst, those swaps became a massive pile of worthless paper, because no government agency had required the banks to set aside money to back them up.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

---

I don't understand the claim that this started long before Bush. It doesn't seem the facts support that.

If you follow the argument in the last video it does not argue that Fannie Mae was the only cause of the crisis; only that CRA and equal opportunity lending laws when applied to the private sector and Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, initiated a subprime lending boom which subsequently resulted in the crisis we see today of which Fanie Mae and Freddie Mac were a part. The point to be made is that this started long before George Bush, and if any blame is to be laid it should be with our Congress(es). It also does not detract from the fact that clearly Democrats in congress and possibly the senate are far more caught up in the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac component of this than Republicans.

The reality is they are all scumbags, and the first order of the day should be to throw ALL of them out Democrats and Republicans by adopting one rule when you vote: Vote for the guy who is not an incumbent. This would also put all the new guys on notice that the same thing will happen to them next time if they don't shape up.

Agreed that there is plenty of blame to go around for Republicans and Democrates alike, but Fannie and Freddie should receive a relatively small part of it and the CRA none at all. Fannie and Freddie's problems, especially now that they've been taken over by the U.S. gov't, did not freeze worldwide credit markets or destroy the banking system's capital. And the CRA became law in 1977. The subprime lending boom began in 2001. Unless, it leapt through some wormhole in time, it's hard to see how the CRA had anything to do with today's mess. Minorities and poor people did not bring down Lehman and Bear, Stearns.

Agreed that there is plenty of blame to go around for Republicans and Democrates alike, but Fannie and Freddie should receive a relatively small part of it and the CRA none at all. Fannie and Freddie's problems, especially now that they've been taken over by the U.S. gov't, did not freeze worldwide credit markets or destroy the banking system's capital. And the CRA became law in 1977. The subprime lending boom began in 2001. Unless, it leapt through some wormhole in time, it's hard to see how the CRA had anything to do with today's mess. Minorities and poor people did not bring down Lehman and Bear, Stearns.

No, but lending to people who could not afford it (including poor people and minorities) by Lehman, Bear, Stearns, Freddie and Fannie did.

Again CRA did not cause it, but it is one of the factors that got the ball rolling; all the way to Bush bragging about how home ownership was at an all time high. The fact is, it's one thing for private institutions to fail, but Fannie and Freddie should never have been allowed to get into the situation they did as quasi-government institutions and they got into much of the trouble they did courtesy of many of our elected officials. And lest this should be misinterpreted that I am against lending to poor people, I am not. Simply that the loans should be proportionate to what they can afford and what they can conceivably pay back...the microloan program in Bangladesh is a simple example.

Bottom line, there's no free lunch for Democrats or Republicans.... and as I said, I wish we could start by throwing ALL the incumbents out.