Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2014 02:27 pm
@georgeob1,
PS: I missed this, George. It's good to see you back! Smile
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2014 06:41 am
@georgeob1,
The point of the report was that deregulation caused a lot of issues which led to the financial crises of 2008.

Quote:
The majority report finds fault with two Fed chairmen: Alan Greenspan, who led the central bank as the housing bubble expanded, and his successor, Ben S. Bernanke, who did not foresee the crisis but played a crucial role in the response. It criticizes Mr. Greenspan for advocating deregulation and cites a “pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages” under his leadership as a “prime example” of negligence.

It also criticizes the Bush administration’s “inconsistent response” to the crisis — allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse in September 2008 after earlier bailing out another bank, Bear Stearns, with Fed help — as having “added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets.”

Like Mr. Bernanke, Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., predicted in 2007 — wrongly, it turned out — that the subprime collapse would be contained, the report notes.

Democrats also come under fire. The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton’s term, is called “a key turning point in the march toward the financial crisis.”


From the previous link.

I am not saying that regulation always solves problems, just that some regulation is necessary. If this administration has put more regulation in place (to be honest I really wouldn't know) then they were probably attempting to correct the direction of the previous administration.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2014 08:19 am
@revelette2,
Regulation can solve problems and create them. Our financial crisis of 2007 was in major part propelled by a perverse combination of Federal subsidies for Mortgage loans on property; Federal enforcement of specified fractions of mortgage loans to "disadvantaged minorities" under a mindless quota formula; and the widespread securitization of mortgage loans by Government-controlled and subsidized quasi corporations (Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac), both of which collapsed after huge Federal bailouts which far eclipsed those to major banks. The politicians who pushed these policies were all careful to solemnly deny they had any part in the collapse, but that laughably defies common sense.

The Greek financial collapse was created by the mindless borrowing of successive Greek governments to sustain their popularity and political power through grossly inflated government employment and restrictive regulation of free labor markets. This contributed to the destruction of Greece's economic productivity and its financial system, and correcting both has been a painful
process for the population.

Hong Kong, which has long practiced a fairly raw form of free market capitalism with minimal regulation, has seen its financial crises as well. However they are generally relatively mind and swiftly resolved, with prompt healthy recoveries.
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2014 11:24 am
@georgeob1,
I am aware of the conservative talking points.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 12:45 pm
Quote:
As formidable as Mrs. Clinton looks even before declaring herself a candidate, liberals are casting about for a committed populist to run against her in 2016. They see the former secretary of state and senator as too closely aligned with large corporations and question whether she can be counted on to narrow the income gap in America.

They hope to either recruit a candidate able to capture the nomination outright or at least give Mrs. Clinton enough of a scare that she embraces progressive policy goals. Their aim is to make the primary process a debate over the Democratic Party’s direction, rather than an uncontested march by Mrs. Clinton to the nomination.

Guy Saperstein, a Democratic donor and part-owner of the Oakland A’s baseball team, met privately at his home near San Francisco last week with Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who has long championed liberal causes. Mr. Sanders says he is considering a presidential bid and wants to gauge whether he can raise enough money.

In their conversation, Mr. Saperstein said, he told Mr. Sanders that he couldn’t support him until he is assured Ms. Warren, of Massachusetts, won’t run. But he said he isn’t inclined to give money to Mrs. Clinton in any scenario, saying he is “extremely concerned” about what he called her “closeness to Wall Street.”


http://online.wsj.com/articles/liberals-seek-alternative-to-hillary-clinton-1414193312

THat is her major problem....we proved with putting The Professor in the chair that we wanted change, so much so that we were willing to elect someone as unknown and as unproven as he was. That did not work, he has been generally incompetent, is a dick, and he did not deliver change. It is impossible for Hillary to at this point rebrand herself into being an agent of change, except that having a person with a pussy in the chair would be new, which is cosmetic not consequential.

She also has the problem of her record of being a defense hawk when we are sick of war and when we no longer trust our leaders to exercise good judgement about entering wars. Her years of being an irrelevant Sec of State, and that almost no one is interested in having the Clinton drama front and center again.

There is a wide opening for D's to run against her. THey most certainly should, as she is a one time loser already, and the best person should get the job anyways.
0 Replies
 
One Eyed Mind
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 12:57 pm
ITT: A thread full of pro-republican/anti-democrat,

instead of pro-good idea or leader/anti-bad idea or leader.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 03:11 pm
Well, five months have passed and Hillary is still in the race, so perhaps her ambition fpr power is greater than her perceptions of the fairly common-sense reasons for her to pass it up. That said, Elizabeth Warren is still keeping herself visible as a ready alternative.

The forthcoming election will undoubtedly provide a basis for the reassessment of all these calculations. I fell less confident of my ability to predict political outcomes lately, but there does appear to be a significantly growing public disenchantment with our sainted President, and a growing, pervasive unease about both his competence and the competence of a government that is reaching ever more intrusively into our lives. How all this may manifest itself in the coming elections and the political recalculations of the various actors on the scene that will quickly follow, is something we will have to wait to see.

Hillary's book did so-so at best, and she has shown herself to be a good deal less sure-footed in her campaign speeches and interviews than her husband. Mitt Romney has reappeared on the stage, very likely in response to the President's increasingly evident political weakness. The public appears as polarized as ever, but the continuing slow economic recovery peresists, and the President's excuses, rationalizations and persistent failures to take responsibility for anything, are starting to wear a bit thin.

Moreover I sense a growing unease in public confidence about the direction of the country and the potential of a government - so plagued by repeated instances of corruption, incompetence and politically motivated misuses of power, to continue as the chief agent for the solution of our problems. This could portend some significant change.
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 03:34 pm
@JPB,
Quote:

My vote is up for grabs at the moment.


I crave for another option, similar to Elizabeth Warren. The more I hear of her ideas the more I dislike Hillary. Of course if Hillary gets the Dem nomination I will vote for her. Hillary was for the war in Iraq of which I vociferously opposed. She is beholden to Wall Street, make no doubt about that. Hillary is too hawk-like in my personal opinion....she spoke out sometime back how she was for arming the Free Syria Army, but Obama was opposed to it. Last week, Panetta's Memoir "Blasts Obama On His Leadership." Speculation is Panetta is supporting Hillary's version of Syria and paving the way by saying she's better than Obama when it comes to foreign policy. Maybe he's hoping for a cabinet position in the Hillary administration.

Yet, in the finality, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. The mere thought of voting for a Republican is alien to me.
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 03:37 pm
@sozobe,
Quote:

Wusses don't get the new health care plan passed in the first place. (Among the many other things he has in fact gotten done.)


I find your entire post terrific -- most engaging, and spot on!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 03:40 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Moreover I sense a growing unease in public confidence about the direction of the country and the potential of a government - so plagued by repeated instances of corruption, incompetence and politically motivated misuses of power, to continue as the chief agent for the solution of our problems. This could portend some significant change.


a just released federal employee morale study points to this same thing

http://fedscoop.com/federal-employee-morale-getting-worse-highlighted-negative-feelings-leadership/
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 03:41 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Moment-in-Time wrote:

I crave for another option, similar to Elizabeth Warren.

Well she's an interesting figure who achieved her academic position as an unusually blonde disadvantaged Cherokee (who has since been disavowed as an impostor by the Cherokees themselves). In view of that i find her charges that "the system is riggedby others for their own benefit, more than a little amusing.
Moment-in-Time
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 04:00 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:

Well she's an interesting figure who achieved her academic position as an unusually blonde disadvantaged Cherokee (who has since been disavowed as an impostor by the Cherokees themselves).


What proof do you have that Elizabeth Warren fabricated her heritage? There are many Native American intermarriages. My father is Native American as is my husband. Native Americans have not had much trouble blending in with the rest of society.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 04:03 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Quote:
What proof do you have that Elizabeth Warren fabricated her heritage?

you missed the point being made on purpose didn't you......
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 04:08 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Moment-in-Time wrote:

Quote:

Well she's an interesting figure who achieved her academic position as an unusually blonde disadvantaged Cherokee (who has since been disavowed as an impostor by the Cherokees themselves).


What proof do you have that Elizabeth Warren fabricated her heritage?


Do the research yourself. She applied for and got designation as a disadvantaged Native American from the university that emploued her and was promoted in that category. Later after the Cherokee Nation disavowed any record of her assumed nationality her excuse was that "my mother said I was 1/32 nd Cherokee".
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Oct, 2014 11:47 am
@georgeob1,
Well then, is a mistake necessarily a lie? I wouldn't necessarily vote for her over Hillary and after 2008, I haven't been wild over Hillary. But then I look to other side and so far none of them come close to Hillary. She made a good senator and worked hard, wish she stayed with that.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Oct, 2014 12:05 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

Well then, is a mistake necessarily a lie?


No it isn't. However the fact is that she knowingly described herself as a native American to take personal advantage of an acelerated academic promotion set aside for such "disadvantaged" groups, not withstanding the fact that she grew up in a thououghly assimilated environment, and was not at all what she claimed. The Cherokee Nation keeps extensive records of their members and later forcefully discvlaimed her asnd denied her allegations. Whether she knew all these facts when she made her claim for special priviledge is something neither of us knows for sure. However for an ambitious political figure whose special theme is that the game of Americvan economic life is "rigged by those seeking special priviledge" this does indeed suggest a level of hypocrisy and deceit that is beyond even the norms for ambitious politicians.

I find it bemusing that the media routinely overlooks this all-t00-evident contradiction. It's a bit like their persistent silence about Al Sharpton's long term tax evasion and the ugly history of the Twana Brawley scam that brought him to public prominence,
0 Replies
 
Jay2know
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2016 11:14 pm
@ossobuco,
I don't even know what I last night. Ho, I had a few insects with chocolate. I heard Hillary will run in 2016, maybe she can hire Bin Laden's family and help Halberton increase their ill gotten gains.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2016 06:56 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Hillary would NOT be any different. In fact Obama is not any different than bush. He has kept every single policy that bush was promoting. I would even go as far as to say that politics in the US is just a public display of displacement. Where the politician claims one thing publicly but does something completely different anyways. Followed by a speech as to why things have not turned out as they were suggested and place blame on something completely absurd. None of this would change if Hillary were president, I am certain of that.

Several very prescient posts on this thread.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/09/2021 at 02:30:35