8 years of peace and prosperity destroyed by Republicans

[Spamature]

Yet to this day they will not take responsibility for it.

They didn't write the bills that deregulated Wall Street.

The Home Ownership Society was somebody else's agenda.

The war wasn't their fault. They had bad intelligence

The ensuing chaos is was not their fault.

Reading post from right wingers today they try to disassemble and cast blame on the present for their sins of the past is outright disgusting.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Bill Clinton heavily deregulated Wall Street, and Bush continued that heavy deregulation, possibly even moreso.

However, your attempt to pin it on one party is not only revealing, but factually incorrect... and alarmingly so.

 

[middleview]

Bill Clinton heavily deregulated Wall Street, and Bush continued that heavy deregulation, possibly even moreso.

However, your attempt to pin it on one party is not only revealing, but factually incorrect... and alarmingly so.

1. You are correct that the legislation that deregulated Wall Street was signed by Clinton...but it was written by Phil Gramm and it was passed by a republican congress.
2. The legislation was passed in 1999 and 2000. It would not have been implemented for at least a year...so Clinton saw none of the new rules come into effect.
3. Bush and the republicans passed and signed the America Dreams act...(Mortgage downpayment assistance act). It made no-down loans federally guaranteed for the first time.
4. The Bush administration relaxed rules on Bank liquidity. They could borrow three times as much money as before. That meant that they could borrow $40 for every $1 in deposits.
If their investments dropped just 3% they were insolvent....and that is what happened when variable rate mortgages reset and people started to default in big numbers.

The number of people in the SEC enforcement groups was cut and investigations were canceled...

No, one party isn't solely to blame....but the republicans were in control and did nothing but make it worse.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

1. You are correct that the legislation that deregulated Wall Street was signed by Clinton...but it was written by Phil Gramm and it was passed by a republican congress.
2. The legislation was passed in 1999 and 2000. It would not have been implemented for at least a year...so Clinton saw none of the new rules come into effect.
3. Bush and the republicans passed and signed the America Dreams act...(Mortgage downpayment assistance act). It made no-down loans federally guaranteed for the first time.
4. The Bush administration relaxed rules on Bank liquidity. They could borrow three times as much money as before. That meant that they could borrow $40 for every $1 in deposits.
If their investments dropped just 3% they were insolvent....and that is what happened when variable rate mortgages reset and people started to default in big numbers.

The number of people in the SEC enforcement groups was cut and investigations were canceled...

No, one party isn't solely to blame....but the republicans were in control and did nothing but make it worse.

So I was correct then.

I did notice THIS tidbit though:

but it was written by Phil Gramm and it was passed by a republican congress.

Can we always mention the legislation passed under Bush that has recieved so much scrutiny, or any "bad" acts of legislation under the Bush era, were signed by a democrat congress?

I always here how BUSH did this, and OBAMA did that.

Now, it wasn't CLINTON did this.. we must know it was passed by a GOP Congress.

It's just interesting that you feel the need to sneak that in there. I'm fine with acknowledging the Congress involved. However, If you look at the numbers, a GOP Congress produces positive growth and a Democrat Congress makes it crash, so it might not do well for your debates in the future.

 

[Spamature]

So I was correct then.

I did notice THIS tidbit though:

but it was written by Phil Gramm and it was passed by a republican congress.

Can we always mention the legislation passed under Bush that has recieved so much scrutiny, or any "bad" acts of legislation under the Bush era, were signed by a democrat congress?

I always here how BUSH did this, and OBAMA did that.

Now, it wasn't CLINTON did this.. we must know it was passed by a GOP Congress.

It's just interesting that you feel the need to sneak that in there. I'm fine with acknowledging the Congress involved. However, If you look at the numbers, a GOP Congress produces positive growth and a Democrat Congress makes it crash, so it might not do well for your debates in the future.

There wasn't a Democratic congress until Jan 2007 and there was a Democratic Super Majority for a total of only 14 weeks between 2009 and 2011. So a year under bush the Dems had control after 2002 for a little better than a year before the economy went down the tubes and the power the override the GOP after 2009 was much shorter than that.

 

[middleview]

So I was correct then.

I did notice THIS tidbit though:

but it was written by Phil Gramm and it was passed by a republican congress.

Can we always mention the legislation passed under Bush that has recieved so much scrutiny, or any "bad" acts of legislation under the Bush era, were signed by a democrat congress?

I always here how BUSH did this, and OBAMA did that.

Now, it wasn't CLINTON did this.. we must know it was passed by a GOP Congress.

It's just interesting that you feel the need to sneak that in there. I'm fine with acknowledging the Congress involved. However, If you look at the numbers, a GOP Congress produces positive growth and a Democrat Congress makes it crash, so it might not do well for your debates in the future.

The economic recession officially started in December 2007....since the official start is after two consecutive quarters of negative growth...that means the down turn started around August 2007. What did the democrats, who gained the majority in January 2007, do in 8 months that cause the recession? You think the democrats made it crash...so be specific...what did they do?

As I said...Clinton signed Gramm's legislation. I think Clinton should have known...Byron Dorgan certainly did....and predicted 10 years to the next recession.

As far as your whining about hearing that "Bush did this and Obama did that"....try disputing anything in any of my posts.....

 

[middleview]

There wasn't a Democratic congress until Jan 2007 and there was a Democratic Super Majority for a total of only 14 weeks better 2009 and 2011. So a year under bush the Dems had control after 2002 and the power the override the GOP after 2009 was much shorter than that.

In fact there was never a filibuster proof senate. Look into the date that Al Franken was actually seated and the last time Ted Kennedy was well enough to attend a session and cast a vote.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

try disputing anything in any of my posts.....

Why would I do that when your posts are proving that my original point was correct?

We're on the same team here, proving Sam wrong.

 

[middleview]

Why would I do that when your posts are proving that my original point was correct?

We're on the same team here, proving Sam wrong.

Not nearly:

If you look at the numbers, a GOP Congress produces positive growth and a Democrat Congress makes it crash

 

[Queen Titania]

Yet to this day they will not take responsibility for it.

They didn't write the bills that deregulated Wall Street.

The Home Ownership Society was somebody else's agenda.

The war wasn't their fault. They had bad intelligence

The ensuing chaos is was not their fault.

Reading post from right wingers today they try to disassemble and cast blame on the present for their sins of the past is outright disgusting.

Peace? You don't know the meaning of the word!

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/bill-clinton-aggressor

 

[Lukey]

Bill Clinton heavily deregulated Wall Street, and Bush continued that heavy deregulation, possibly even moreso.

However, your attempt to pin it on one party is not only revealing, but factually incorrect... and alarmingly so.

Bush was not a "de-regulator" nor was "deregulation" the cause of the financial crisis.



When I called Ms. Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/?_r=0

 

[middleview]

Bush was not a "de-regulator" nor was "deregulation" the cause of the financial crisis.

View attachment 27186

When I called Ms. Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/?_r=0

Glass Steagall wasn't the only thing that happened. You really are pretty one dimensional.

I've posted all the info you needed to see the outcome of the Bush adminstration's policies.
A completely deregulated derivates market, allowing financial companies to choose which federal regulators to work with (AIG chose the Office of Thrift Supervision)...the layoff of about 150 people from SEC investigations and enforcement groups....the change in liquidity for banks....The Mortgaged Downpayment Assistance act....The lack of oversight for ratings of derivatives....Moody's, Fitch's, D&B....all rated crap as AAA grade investments. Lehman got an AA+ rating two weeks before they went bankrupt by hiding $50b in debt. UBS and others were caught fudging Libor....

This was not a business cycle recession...any more than the one after the S&L deregulation was....it was fraud and theft on a grand scale.

 

[Sickofleft]

Yet to this day they will not take responsibility for it.

They didn't write the bills that deregulated Wall Street.

The Home Ownership Society was somebody else's agenda.

The war wasn't their fault. They had bad intelligence

The ensuing chaos is was not their fault.

Reading post from right wingers today they try to disassemble and cast blame on the present for their sins of the past is outright disgusting.

[Unwelcome language removed] you.

 

[Lukey]

Glass Steagall wasn't the only thing that happened. You really are pretty one dimensional.

I've posted all the info you needed to see the outcome of the Bush adminstration's policies.
A completely deregulated derivates market, allowing financial companies to choose which federal regulators to work with (AIG chose the Office of Thrift Supervision)...the layoff of about 150 people from SEC investigations and enforcement groups....the change in liquidity for banks....The Mortgaged Downpayment Assistance act....The lack of oversight for ratings of derivatives....Moody's, Fitch's, D&B....all rated crap as AAA grade investments. Lehman got an AA+ rating two weeks before they went bankrupt by hiding $50b in debt. UBS and others were caught fudging Libor....

This was not a business cycle recession...any more than the one after the S&L deregulation was....it was fraud and theft on a grand scale.

Glass Steagall is what most people point to as evidence of "deregulation." As for regulating derivatives trading, it's harder than it sounds:

By the time the Securities and Exchange Commission finalized a rule last month to regulate derivatives under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the big banks that dominate the multitrillion-dollar market had already figured out how to game it.

This is not a tale, however, of how wily banks always find a way around the rules. In this case, the S.E.C. has written and passed a rule that is custom built for evasion, all the while insisting, unconvincingly, that it does not have the legal authority to be any tougher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/opinion/another-failure-to-regulate-derivatives.html

If we'd just let firms that trade derivatives fail when they screw up, you don't have to regulate the trading. The market will "regulate" the bad actors into bankruptcy. Same with leverage. Why are we telling investment firms how much leverage they can or can't use? If they use to much and go under - good! That favors the smaller entities, which tend to take less risk, rather than "too big to fail" leviathan banks. Regulation doesn't avoid financial problems, it just redirects the bad guys' efforts and punishes the good guys who have to spend half their day filling out paper work instead of earning profit for their shareholders. All recessions are the same - malinvestment leads to imbalances that have to be worked out. There's always fraud occurring so the idea that "massive fraud" contributed more or less to this one is belied by the lack of convictions. There were far more after the tech bubble burst yet no one is claiming "massive fraud" caused that recession.

 

[middleview]

Glass Steagall is what most people point to as evidence of "deregulation." As for regulating derivatives trading, it's harder than it sounds:

By the time the Securities and Exchange Commission finalized a rule last month to regulate derivatives under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the big banks that dominate the multitrillion-dollar market had already figured out how to game it.

This is not a tale, however, of how wily banks always find a way around the rules. In this case, the S.E.C. has written and passed a rule that is custom built for evasion, all the while insisting, unconvincingly, that it does not have the legal authority to be any tougher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/opinion/another-failure-to-regulate-derivatives.html

If we'd just let firms that trade derivatives fail when they screw up, you don't have to regulate the trading. The market will "regulate" the bad actors into bankruptcy. Same with leverage. Why are we telling investment firms how much leverage they can or can't use? If they use to much and go under - good! That favors the smaller entities, which tend to take less risk, rather than "too big to fail" leviathan banks. Regulation doesn't avoid financial problems, it just redirects the bad guys' efforts and punishes the good guys who have to spend half their day filling out paper work instead of earning profit for their shareholders. All recessions are the same - malinvestment leads to imbalances that have to be worked out. There's always fraud occurring so the idea that "massive fraud" contributed more or less to this one is belied by the lack of convictions. There were far more after the tech bubble burst yet no one is claiming "massive fraud" caused that recession.

1. The difficulty of regulating derivatives doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
2. There have been convictions. The problem is frequently proving intent....it is more a sign of badly written laws than it is a sign of a lack of fraud.
3. UBS just was fined for market manipulation related to Libor....should have been convictions.
4. Your insistance that we can just let the bad actors go under is silly....that is like saying we don't need to enforce rules on people running red lights....the bad actors will all die off and become candidates for a Darwin awards....You act as if the only victim will be the bad actor in that accident that results.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

1. The difficulty of regulating derivatives doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
2. There have been convictions. The problem is frequently proving intent....it is more a sign of badly written laws than it is a sign of a lack of fraud.
3. UBS just was fined for market manipulation related to Libor....should have been convictions.
4. Your insistance that we can just let the bad actors go under is silly....that is like saying we don't need to enforce rules on people running red lights....the bad actors will all die off and become candidates for a Darwin awards....You act as if the only victim will be the bad actor in that accident that results.

Is human life the same as economic business life?

the answer, of course is no. Human life is protected by the Constitution. The right to not go bankrupt doesn't appear anywhere.

There appears to be much more here than your simple narrative of "REPUBS DE-REGULATED AND MADE EVERYTHING BAD".

I mean, I understand why Democrats are trying to inject new conventional wisdom, but it takes all of the intellect out of it.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Not nearly:

If you look at the numbers, a GOP Congress produces positive growth and a Democrat Congress makes it crash

We are certainly on the same team here. A tag-team of truth, putting down Spamature's contention that it was exclusively the Republicans who caused the recession and housing bubble.

Darth Friscus: Middleview, you've not begun to realize your importance. Spamature gave an absolute and never told you the truth...

Middleview Skywalker: He told me enough!... He told me you disagree with me, and we're on opposing sides of this issue.

Darth Friscus: No Middleview.. We agree on many points, especially that Spamature's point is False!!!

Middleview Skywalker: No... that's not true... That's impossible!!!

Darth Friscus: Read Spamature's post, you know it be true...

Middleview Skywalker: NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Nooooooo!!!!

 

[middleview]

Is human life the same as economic business life?

the answer, of course is no. Human life is protected by the Constitution. The right to not go bankrupt doesn't appear anywhere.

There appears to be much more here than your simple narrative of "REPUBS DE-REGULATED AND MADE EVERYTHING BAD".

I mean, I understand why Democrats are trying to inject new conventional wisdom, but it takes all of the intellect out of it.

You simply dismiss the impact of the actions of the Bush administration as if that will actually make your case. So you tell me...what happens if a bank can borrow $40 for every $1 in deposits, uses the debt to invest in derivatives....very risky investments, especially when they are built on variable rate mortgages with no controls on the max reset?

 

[Lukey]

1. The difficulty of regulating derivatives doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
2. There have been convictions. The problem is frequently proving intent....it is more a sign of badly written laws than it is a sign of a lack of fraud.
3. UBS just was fined for market manipulation related to Libor....should have been convictions.
4. Your insistance that we can just let the bad actors go under is silly....that is like saying we don't need to enforce rules on people running red lights....the bad actors will all die off and become candidates for a Darwin awards....You act as if the only victim will be the bad actor in that accident that results.

No one gets killed when a bank skirts regulations so it's not the same thing as not enforcing traffic laws. It is easy to recognize when someone runs a red light, but with complex business regulations it's almost always impossible to tell the difference between intended fraud and incompetence. And the more complex we make the regulations, the more it favors the biggest banks over the smaller ones, and that's how capitalism (slowly) dies. I'm beginning to think that is exactly what the big government lefties want to achieve in their never ending quest to find the most onerous regulatory regime the human mind can envision.

 

[Lukey]

You simply dismiss the impact of the actions of the Bush administration as if that will actually make your case. So you tell me...what happens if a bank can borrow $40 for every $1 in deposits, uses the debt to invest in derivatives....very risky investments, especially when they are built on variable rate mortgages with no controls on the max reset?

Who are they borrowing the money from and do they care if they are not paid back?