It matters not who got our economy to this point

[thereisnospoon]

Please understand. I have stated that I am not special........unless I am being compared to complete idiots like you.

I admit my faults without hesitation. For example:

I am certainly guilty of being overtly proud of my three children. To the point of exhaustion. My first son, born on my birthday, is about to become a police officer ( don't worry....you did your time, convict). He will be there to make our community safer.....even if dicks like you dob't want to pay him well My second son, the kindest and most laid-back kid IN THE WORLD......and my daughter. The finest human being ever to be

Your turn. Wanna tell us how dumb you ate?

Ya know, there is one type of parent that leaves most people's eyes glazing over after about 45 seconds. is that parent who brags about their kids accomplishments. As though their kids are something special. Look here. Even if your kid is "one in a million" there are 7,000 people on the planet JUST LIKE HIM OR HER.
If you are proud of your children keep it to less than 30 seconds. After that I'm copping some Z's...

Like I said, one of my many faults. And.....if you can't read that in less than 30 seconds, you might have other things to worry about.

No I was referring to the stories told by beaming parents who think their kids are the greatest thing since the invention of the incandescent light bulb....Those stories.
For example, I have a good friend who once the subject of kids sports comes up, LOOK OUT..He does go on. I usually just put down the phone, let him talk until he says "hey, are you still there"...Those kind of parents.
Then I tell him, "that's great!"...And hopefully change the subject.
It's when parents of this ilk go up to people say at a party or other gathering, and they start this nonsense. Oy vey!....Please keep it to less than a minute.
I have to go to the bathroom a lot...Know what I mean?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ya know, there is one type of parent that leaves most people's eyes glazing over after about 45 seconds. is that parent who brags about their kids accomplishments. As though their kids are something special. Look here. Even if your kid is "one in a million" there are 7,000 people on the planet JUST LIKE HIM OR HER.
If you are proud of your children keep it to less than 30 seconds. After that I'm copping some Z's...

Like I said, one of my many faults. And.....if you can't read that in less than 30 seconds, you might have other things to worry about.

No I was referring to the stories told by beaming parents who think their kids are the greatest thing since the invention of the incandescent light bulb....Those stories.
For example, I have a good friend who once the subject of kids sports comes up, LOOK OUT..He does go on. I usually just put down the phone, let him talk until he says "hey, are you still there"...Those kind of parents.
Then I tell him, "that's great!"...And hopefully change the subject.
It's when parents of this ilk go up to people say at a party or other gathering, and they start this nonsense. Oy vey!....Please keep it to less than a minute.
I have to go to the bathroom a lot...Know what I mean?

I get it.

 

[bobgnote]

The election is still a sack-race, between Obamney and himself. One of the selfs has CRS. The other has DKS. Maybe they won't contract HUB-syndrome, by November.

The economy still offers declining value. The cost structure prohibits most people, from trying to manufacture or farm. Nobody seems to know how to blow up the price of real estate, any further, now that ICE and Border Patrol are so effective, finally.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Barney Frank bi partisan? Who the fuck are you kidding.
The only "bi" in the life of Barney Frank.....well no need to go further with that.

Dante is not very old so forgive him. In fact, The National Journal rates Frank in the top 25 in the House for extreme liberalism

25th
Barney Frank, D-Mass.: 90.8 (Composite Liberal score)

 

[Dr Grump]

OK. Bush fucked up the economy. I'll accept that.

But, after 3.5 fucking years, ANYONE who blames their lack of performance on a predecessor from 3.5 years prior is beyond incompetent.

Shitcan the man. It is beyond time. He simply can't do the job and he readily admits that almost every single fucking day.

I said at the time of the election I wanted McCain to win because:
1) Obama would be blamed
2) Four years was not enough time to fix the mess.

I think I have been proven right on both counts.

Si, there is no way this mess was ever going to be fixed in 3.5 years, no matter who was in the WH

 

[Bfgrn]

The problem, America repeats its mistakes. For example, a number of preventative economic measures were made into law during FDR's terms. As time went by, however, we removed the measures slowly, seemingly convinced the removal will help the economy and bingo another recession. We will probably continue being our own worst enemy because we either forget, are too greedy, or more likely, new generations come along and a "free economy" sounds great and so American, and so we must continue to have recessions and depressions. A "free economy" means good and bad economic periods.

You nailed it regent!

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government non-intervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

L I believe Frank, dems and many spinless pubs...

crazy as a loon, you are.


and it matters because a GOP move is on to take us back in time, putting us right back where it all started.

nice attempt trying to use propaganda blaming Barney Frank


Fact:

In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing -- into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. Frank and Michael Oxley, who was then chairman of the Financial Services Committee, achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it. "If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told me. "Barney, to some extent, is misunderstood -- with this image of him as a fierce partisan. He is an institutionalist. He believes in the House and in the process. He eschews the grandstanding style that so many members use and prefers to work behind the scenes and get something done." Limbaugh falsely asserted "Banking Queen" Barney Frank "created" subprime mortgage crisis | Media Matters for America

Mike Oxley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Michael Garver "Mike" Oxley (born February 11, 1944) is an American politician of the Republican party who served as a U.S. representative from the 4th congressional district of Ohio.

Barney Frank bi partisan? Who the fuck are you kidding.
The only "bi" in the life of Barney Frank.....well no need to go further with that.

Republicans who served with Barney Frank say he was bi-partisan...so who are you arguing with?

oh yeah, FOX News vs Congressmen who actually served with Frank.

OK

"In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing -- into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. "

:

 

[thereisnospoon]

crazy as a loon, you are.


and it matters because a GOP move is on to take us back in time, putting us right back where it all started.

nice attempt trying to use propaganda blaming Barney Frank


Fact:


Mike Oxley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Michael Garver "Mike" Oxley (born February 11, 1944) is an American politician of the Republican party who served as a U.S. representative from the 4th congressional district of Ohio.

Barney Frank bi partisan? Who the fuck are you kidding.
The only "bi" in the life of Barney Frank.....well no need to go further with that.

Republicans who served with Barney Frank say he was bi-partisan...so who are you arguing with?

oh yeah, FOX News vs Congressmen who actually served with Frank.

OK

"In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing -- into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. "

:

Meanwhile Frank received ratings of "extremely liberal"...But you claim he's bi-partisan.
Yeah ok.
BTW, Frank was one of the people who stated categorically there was nothing wrong with Fannie/Freddie.
Bi partisan...Video: Democrats insist “nothing wrong” at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004 « Hot Air
Free Frank Warner: Barney Frank opposed regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, but no one reminds him

Yep..Frank wanted to rein in Fannie/Freddie...All righty then

 

[Bfgrn]

Barney Frank bi partisan? Who the fuck are you kidding.
The only "bi" in the life of Barney Frank.....well no need to go further with that.

Republicans who served with Barney Frank say he was bi-partisan...so who are you arguing with?

oh yeah, FOX News vs Congressmen who actually served with Frank.

OK

"In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing -- into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. "

:

Meanwhile Frank received ratings of "extremely liberal"...But you claim he's bi-partisan.
Yeah ok.
BTW, Frank was one of the people who stated categorically there was nothing wrong with Fannie/Freddie.
Bi partisan...Video: Democrats insist “nothing wrong” at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004 « Hot Air
Free Frank Warner: Barney Frank opposed regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, but no one reminds him

Yep..Frank wanted to rein in Fannie/Freddie...All righty then

Here is your BIG problem...Fannie/Freddie did NOT cause the financial disaster. PRIVATE lenders did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Republicans who served with Barney Frank say he was bi-partisan...so who are you arguing with?

oh yeah, FOX News vs Congressmen who actually served with Frank.

OK

"In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing -- into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. "

:

Meanwhile Frank received ratings of "extremely liberal"...But you claim he's bi-partisan.
Yeah ok.
BTW, Frank was one of the people who stated categorically there was nothing wrong with Fannie/Freddie.
Bi partisan...Video: Democrats insist “nothing wrong” at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004 « Hot Air
Free Frank Warner: Barney Frank opposed regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, but no one reminds him

Yep..Frank wanted to rein in Fannie/Freddie...All righty then

Here is your BIG problem...Fannie/Freddie did NOT cause the financial disaster. PRIVATE lenders did.

The shareholders of those private lenders ended up with huge loses.
Thanks to guys like Barney Frank, the taxpayer is stuck with the losses of Fannie and Freddie. Probably a couple hundred billion in losses when it's all counted up.

 

[bobgnote]

Bill Clinton signed measures deregulating energy, 1996, banks, 1999. Obama bailed banks, 2008. Obama didn't do an energy policy, but he sure did Obamneycare.

No value can issue, Americans can't manufacture, and we can't compete, except at invasions.

With no value and a ton of costs, from butt-surfers, what do any of you think will happen, now that illegal immigration cannot push up the already maxed real estate market? SHIT will happen.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Republicans who served with Barney Frank say he was bi-partisan...so who are you arguing with?

oh yeah, FOX News vs Congressmen who actually served with Frank.

OK

"In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing -- into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. "

:

Meanwhile Frank received ratings of "extremely liberal"...But you claim he's bi-partisan.
Yeah ok.
BTW, Frank was one of the people who stated categorically there was nothing wrong with Fannie/Freddie.
Bi partisan...Video: Democrats insist “nothing wrong” at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004 « Hot Air
Free Frank Warner: Barney Frank opposed regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, but no one reminds him

Yep..Frank wanted to rein in Fannie/Freddie...All righty then

Here is your BIG problem...Fannie/Freddie did NOT cause the financial disaster. PRIVATE lenders did.

That's your opinion. The facts say otherwise.
There was a bi partisan committee which warned the House Banking Committee about the impending problems with Fannie/Freddie....Those comment in defense of Fannie/Freddie are illustrated in the video links.
There is no deniability for Frank and the Democrats here.
The bottom line of the federal government manipulated tyhe housing market by interfering with it.. The government set all of the rules and conditions. They told the banks what to do and how to proceed. The govt through Fannie/Freddie assured the banks the loans would be guaranteed if they defaulted...
The bottom line is the government HAD NO BUSINESS entering into the marketplace.
This is another example of ignoring the laws of unintended consequences.
Good intentions paving the way to hell.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The bottom line is the government HAD NO BUSINESS entering into the marketplace.
.

yes exactly, the entire Federal government was organized to subvert the free market by getting people into homes the free market said they could not afford.

Who could deny it with a straight face??

 

[thereisnospoon]

The bottom line is the government HAD NO BUSINESS entering into the marketplace.
.

yes exactly, the entire Federal government was organized to subvert the free market by getting people into homes the free market said they could not afford.

Who could deny it with a straight face??

Not sure I understand what that means.

 

[bobgnote]

The bottom line is the government HAD NO BUSINESS entering into the marketplace.

yes exactly, the entire Federal government was organized to subvert the free market by getting people into homes the free market said they could not afford.

Who could deny it with a straight face??

Not sure I understand what that means.

Simple. The US Government has been undermining VALUE, for generations. When immigration pushed real estate to its top end, the whole Fannie and Freddie and financial hedge was doomed to fail, sooner or later.

When energy was deregulated, and states got their own contracts, a lot of money was wasted, on middlemen, and inflation was pushed, around the world, on the strength of the US economy. But the US economy cannot manufacture, without government contracts, to which all processes have become addicted.

There is no free market. That has been a myth, for a long time. We do not enjoy freedom, and we pay for drug and other wars, designed to consume petroleum products and raise the CO2 concentration.

The government-affected markets all have a huge carbon footprint, warming is accelerating, and value is always questionable, so some collapse can occur, at any moment.

 

[itfitzme]

Meanwhile Frank received ratings of "extremely liberal"...But you claim he's bi-partisan.
Yeah ok.
BTW, Frank was one of the people who stated categorically there was nothing wrong with Fannie/Freddie.
Bi partisan...Video: Democrats insist “nothing wrong” at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004 « Hot Air
Free Frank Warner: Barney Frank opposed regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, but no one reminds him

Yep..Frank wanted to rein in Fannie/Freddie...All righty then

Here is your BIG problem...Fannie/Freddie did NOT cause the financial disaster. PRIVATE lenders did.

That's your opinion. The facts say otherwise.
There was a bi partisan committee which warned the House Banking Committee about the impending problems with Fannie/Freddie....Those comment in defense of Fannie/Freddie are illustrated in the video links.
There is no deniability for Frank and the Democrats here.
The bottom line of the federal government manipulated tyhe housing market by interfering with it.. The government set all of the rules and conditions. They told the banks what to do and how to proceed. The govt through Fannie/Freddie assured the banks the loans would be guaranteed if they defaulted...
The bottom line is the government HAD NO BUSINESS entering into the marketplace.
This is another example of ignoring the laws of unintended consequences.
Good intentions paving the way to hell.

That is all great, except it doesn't mean they caused it. Like all free market processes, everyone is a follower, a price taker.

Freddie and Fannie are not the only private, free market companies in the business. They don't write mortgages, they don't sell houses.

The problem is, the government didn't set the rules and conditions.

"THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY REPORT", http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf

"Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle,and the Housing Market Crisis", “Flip This House”: Investor Speculation and the Housing Bubble - Liberty Street Economics, www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr514.pdf

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problem is, the government didn't set the rules and conditions.

too stupid but perfectly liberal !! Most of the federal government was organized with rules, conditions, regulations, and programs all of which had a bias to get people into the homes the Republican free market said they could not afford.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

crazy as a loon, you are.


and it matters because a GOP move is on to take us back in time, putting us right back where it all started.

nice attempt trying to use propaganda blaming Barney Frank


Fact:


Mike Oxley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Michael Garver "Mike" Oxley (born February 11, 1944) is an American politician of the Republican party who served as a U.S. representative from the 4th congressional district of Ohio.

Barney Frank bi partisan? Who the fuck are you kidding.
The only "bi" in the life of Barney Frank.....well no need to go further with that.

Republicans who served with Barney Frank say he was bi-partisan...so who are you arguing with?

oh yeah, FOX News vs Congressmen who actually served with Frank.

OK

"In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing -- into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. "

:

some things, like facts, deserve repeating around here

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Barney Frank bi partisan? Who the fuck are you kidding.
The only "bi" in the life of Barney Frank.....well no need to go further with that.

Republicans who served with Barney Frank say he was bi-partisan...so who are you arguing with?

oh yeah, FOX News vs Congressmen who actually served with Frank.

OK

"In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing -- into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. "

:

some things, like facts, deserve repeating around here

In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie

So once he was in the majority, and head of his committee, he must have been successful in regulating Fannie and Freddie much more tightly.

You have a link to that legislation?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Republicans who served with Barney Frank say he was bi-partisan...so who are you arguing with?

oh yeah, FOX News vs Congressmen who actually served with Frank.

OK

"In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing -- into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. "

:

some things, like facts, deserve repeating around here

In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives -- tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie

So once he was in the majority, and head of his committee, he must have been successful in regulating Fannie and Freddie much more tightly.

You have a link to that legislation?

moron, but that time things were in motion...and we all know how supply side economics and free market reforms worked out for the people versus the banks and financial system