I'm not a big Romney fan (there were better GOP Candidates in my book) but another Obama administration would be a disaster for the US and the West in general.
Printable View
I'm not a big Romney fan (there were better GOP Candidates in my book) but another Obama administration would be a disaster for the US and the West in general.
Because Obama wants to destroy Merica and will lead us to 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000 years of darkness.
A bigger disaster than the Bush administration which crippled the worlds economics which we are still experiencing?Quote:
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood
Bush tried to reform FM and the government policies which started the crisis, but was called heartless by the libs and stopped by democratic Congressmen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Seems like a regular thing to happen to presidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Yep! The bubble broke on Bush but the whole mess started under Clinton and Oboma got to spend his share on “Too Big to Fail” of course the rest of the world never thought of Banking Regulations before that, did they?
Seems to me there is enough blame for everyone to get a large share.
please give me some actual numbers and data on that beyond durr bush was president in 2008Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
The setup for the bubble bursting took place when the GOP controlled Congress all the way from 1992 to 2006.
I don't believe there is a politician who can claim blame or credit for the meteoric rise of mortgage-backed securities or sub-prime lending. The markets did an exemplary job of committing suicide without any outside help. Indeed, for those who want to put it all on Fannie or Freddie, note that the definition of "subprime" in the USA is a loan that does not meet the Fannie or Freddie minimum guidelines.
A little bit of detail:
During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions.
Yes, it's well known that it's conservatives that favor heavy regulation of the financial markets while liberals take a much more laissez-faire attitude. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Are you listening to yourself?
Actually, it was big government that started the problem. Without government regulation there would have been no Fannie or Freddie. Bush wanted to roll back the BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Again, the subprime crisis was a private market phenomenon. The private-label securitization-backed assets were a market phenomenon. I do not understand why it's so hard to understand that markets can behave irrationally. After all, markets are made of people, and people can be irrational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Fannie and Freddie got into subprime mortgages, with great trepidation, only in 2005 and 2006, and only because they were losing so much market share to Wall Street. Among other things, the Wallison-Pinto case relies on inflated data — Pinto classifies just about anything that is not a 30-year-fixed mortgage as “subprime.” The reality is that Fannie and Freddie followed the private sector off the cliff instead of the other way around. [...]
[A]s of the second quarter of 2010, the delinquency rate on all Fannie and Freddie guaranteed loans was 5.9 percent. By contrast, the national average was 9.11 percent. The Fannie and Freddie Alt-A default rate is similarly much lower than the national default rate. The only possible explanation for this is that many of the loans being characterized by the S.E.C. and Wallison/Pinto as “subprime” are not, in fact, true subprime mortgages.
Sorry, but if you believe that then it demonstrates to me that you have not even a basic understanding of the sub-prime debt disaster in particular, nor of the financial markets in general. Trying to explain it to you would simply be a waste of time, as you would not be likely to understand the explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Well, it happened before 2008 and Obama walked into it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
But I learnt it all like nearly 8 years ago from the "Anti-Bush Game" where you fight off Bush Jr and Voltron for ruining America before the actual crisis. For example:
https://i746.photobucket.com/albums/...amefigures.png
He did that during the boom years/his first term.
Then Obama ended up inheriting a mess from his predecessor and faced the second great depression, along with the whole stimulus packages used to try to restore the economy and you know what? Things in America are actually improving now America is getting its finances in order which will end up reversed under Romney and end up pummelling further when more tax breaks are introduced for the super rich and reversing welfare plans which are for the most vulnerable in society.
:laugh4:Did you arrive at this bit of information psychically or is this just a partisan attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Typical Republican policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
It is effectively their manifesto or is pointing this out classified as a purely partisan attack?Quote:
Romney and Ryan have failed to provide specifics about how they would reduce the fiscal deficit, relying on "trust me" assertions. But the overarching direction of their proposals is clear: more tax cuts, disproportionately benefiting those at the top, coupled with significantly lower non-defence discretionary spending, disproportionately hurting everybody else – and weakening the economy's growth prospects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
I have no love for either American Political Party but let me tell you this is more partisan tripe.
It is not a 100% lie it is just not the truth.
Everyone knows that these guys lie. They just think they will tell the truth when they are elected.
I never thought I would see the day when the Presidential race was down to a Kenyan Muslim and a Satan Worshipper. This is truely the end times, and the rapture is inevitable, so please leave your goox XBOX games and tastey fatty cakes where I can easily find them.
Markets can behave irrationally when government creates perverse incentives. Call it Alt-A or subprime, it's a loan sensible banks would not make without regulatory prodding. Having been pressured into taking on these turd sandwiches, they did the sensible thing and packaged them as MBS's and sold them off. It turned out to be quite profitable- so the practice continued, cheered on by regulators. Bankers were making money, and the regulators were meeting their goal of issuing loans to people who couldn't afford them. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
This is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Markets can behave irrationally by themselves. There is no shortage of examples where maximizing the short term profits have destabilized and ruined companies in the future, to the detriment of all but a few at the top. This has nothing to do with governments and everything to do with human stockholders demanding higher returns on their stock immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Ah, Austrian Economics, we meet again. For those who don't know, under Austrian Economic theories, all bad things are due to government interference, and markets are perfect if left in a state of pristine isolation. Never mind that market panics and crashes existed long before any systematic regulation. It's all the government's fault, somehow!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Read the Austrian theory for unemployment for a few laughs. "What if people want to work, but can't get a job? In almost every case, government programs are the cause of joblessness."
1 Internet to the first person to identify the logical fallacy exhibited above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Believing in Austrian Economics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Why didn't you cite any examples if there's no shortage?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It doesn't really matter though. Of course there are badly managed businesses out there- and they should and do go out of business.... unless the government bails them out, thereby nationalizing risk while privatizing reward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Point being that I just got you to recognize that large private institutions do make irrational decisions all the time, undermining the argument that somehow the private sector as a whole would never veer into the wrong direction unless it was government's fault.
You did?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It did?Quote:
undermining the argument that somehow the private sector as a whole would never veer into the wrong direction unless it was government's fault.
Are you telling me none of this contributed to the housing bubble- it was all just personal greed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
All it takes is for enough businesses to be badly managed all at once...and you have yourself a market failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Ok, now it's time... examples? Show me instances when simultaneous bad management of "enough" companies was the sole cause of "market failure".Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Just look at 2007/2008. Honestly, I probably should have just made the general point Lemur made because pointing out the obvious must be a bad tactic if your opponent simply demands for examples when there are many all around him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou