Unemployment rate under republicans, and then Pelosi took over in 2007.

[g5000]

How muich context does an unemployment rate chart need?

Context is everything, fool.

Those are government reported FACTS.

I know that you libs don't like to face the reality that obama has been a terrible president, but sooner or later that reality is going to smack you in the face--maybe when you get the bill for your medical policy next january.

Another profoundly ignorant person joins the conversation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Uhhh, OK, so I guess you are saying that the events of 05 were caused by clinton and not bush. right. If correlation is not causation then -------------- does it work both ways or not?

We always hold presidens responsible for what happens during their terms, except for obama who is never held responsible for anything. Why is that? Is it racist to hold him responsible?

The causes of the crash are many. Bear in mind, when I say "Wall Street", I mean financial institutions of all stripes around the world. Brokers, banks, investment banks, hedge funds, GSEs, etc.

1) Wall Street getting into securitization in a big way, which led to high demand for securities, which in turn led to the massive relaxation of lending standards to feed that demand. I call this "throwing the underwriting rules of the Universe out the window."

2) Ratings agencies not understanding the products they were rating, and accepting the bullshit being fed to them by Wall Street. They sacrificed their principles for money.

3) Domestically, Clinton and the Republican Congress completely deregulating securites with the CFMA and the FSMA.

4) Domestically, Bush scaling down the policing of Wall Street. While he was growing the size of every agency, including creating a massive new cabinet level department, he shrank only two agencies. The SEC and the EPA.

5) Irresponsible borrowers the world over accepting the money being thrown at them by Wall Street.

 

[Redfish]

Context is everything, fool.



Another profoundly ignorant person joins the conversation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Uhhh, OK, so I guess you are saying that the events of 05 were caused by clinton and not bush. right. If correlation is not causation then -------------- does it work both ways or not?

We always hold presidens responsible for what happens during their terms, except for obama who is never held responsible for anything. Why is that? Is it racist to hold him responsible?

The causes of the crash are many. Bear in mind, when I say "Wall Street", I mean financial institutions of all stripes around the world. Brokers, banks, investment banks, hedge funds, GSEs, etc.

1) Wall Street getting into securitization in a big way, which led to high demand for securities, which in turn led to the massive relaxation of lending standards to feed that demand. I call this "throwing the underwriting rules of the Universe out the window."

2) Ratings agencies not understanding the products they were rating, and accepting the bullshit being fed to them by Wall Street. They sacrificed their principles for money.

3) Clinton and the Republican Congress completely deregulating securites with the CFMA and the FSMA.

4) Bush scaling down the policing of Wall Street. While he was growing the size of every agency, including creating a massive new cabinet level department, he shrank only two agencies. The SEC and the EPA.

5) Irresponsible borrowers accepting the money being thrown at them by Wall Street.

OK, but none of those things were done by one party only, they were all bi-partisan actions----and they were all huge mistakes.

 

[jknowgood]

Which laws did Pelosi pass that made the unemployment rate go up?

No laws, just doing what liberals do when in power. Try to make everyone equal, that by itself can hurt an economy. Stocking her jet made the liqour store owner weathy.

Makes no sense...

Congress passes legislation and that legislation has a positive or negative effect. Which legislation from the Democrats led to a collapse? Which laws did Pelosi pass that made everyone equal?

I'm talking about the liberal war on the rich, from day one pelosi wanted to do away with bushes tax cuts for everyone. Just one for example.

 

[g5000]

Uhhh, OK, so I guess you are saying that the events of 05 were caused by clinton and not bush. right. If correlation is not causation then -------------- does it work both ways or not?

We always hold presidens responsible for what happens during their terms, except for obama who is never held responsible for anything. Why is that? Is it racist to hold him responsible?

The causes of the crash are many. Bear in mind, when I say "Wall Street", I mean financial institutions of all stripes around the world. Brokers, banks, investment banks, hedge funds, GSEs, etc.

1) Wall Street getting into securitization in a big way, which led to high demand for securities, which in turn led to the massive relaxation of lending standards to feed that demand. I call this "throwing the underwriting rules of the Universe out the window."

2) Ratings agencies not understanding the products they were rating, and accepting the bullshit being fed to them by Wall Street. They sacrificed their principles for money.

3) Clinton and the Republican Congress completely deregulating securites with the CFMA and the FSMA.

4) Bush scaling down the policing of Wall Street. While he was growing the size of every agency, including creating a massive new cabinet level department, he shrank only two agencies. The SEC and the EPA.

5) Irresponsible borrowers accepting the money being thrown at them by Wall Street.

OK, but none of those things were done by one party only, they were all bi-partisan actions----and they were all huge mistakes.

Yes. Which is why I consider anyone who tries to pin it on one party or another an ignorant idiot. And it wasn't just bi-partisan, it was GLOBAL.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How muich context does an unemployment rate chart need? Those are government reported FACTS.

I know that you libs don't like to face the reality that obama has been a terrible president, but sooner or later that reality is going to smack you in the face--maybe when you get the bill for your medical policy next january.

You are no more a conservative than I am a lib.

You did not give us the reasons for the economy's collapse, which was bedrocked on the unwise decisions by the Republican Congress from 1994 to 2006 and complaint presidents.

A freshman HS debate squad would tear your OP without any problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uhhh, OK, so I guess you are saying that the events of 05 were caused by clinton and not bush. right. If correlation is not causation then -------------- does it work both ways or not?

We always hold presidens responsible for what happens during their terms, except for obama who is never held responsible for anything. Why is that? Is it racist to hold him responsible?

Your arguing is lame. (1) We are asking you to defend your OP with context and nuance. You won't? (2) We can talk about Obama once you have answered the issue of context and nuance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uhhh, OK, so I guess you are saying that the events of 05 were caused by clinton and not bush. right. If correlation is not causation then -------------- does it work both ways or not?

We always hold presidens responsible for what happens during their terms, except for obama who is never held responsible for anything. Why is that? Is it racist to hold him responsible?

The causes of the crash are many. Bear in mind, when I say "Wall Street", I mean financial institutions of all stripes around the world. Brokers, banks, investment banks, hedge funds, GSEs, etc.

1) Wall Street getting into securitization in a big way, which led to high demand for securities, which in turn led to the massive relaxation of lending standards to feed that demand. I call this "throwing the underwriting rules of the Universe out the window."

2) Ratings agencies not understanding the products they were rating, and accepting the bullshit being fed to them by Wall Street. They sacrificed their principles for money.

3) Clinton and the Republican Congress completely deregulating securites with the CFMA and the FSMA.

4) Bush scaling down the policing of Wall Street. While he was growing the size of every agency, including creating a massive new cabinet level department, he shrank only two agencies. The SEC and the EPA.

5) Irresponsible borrowers accepting the money being thrown at them by Wall Street.

OK, but none of those things were done by one party only, they were all bi-partisan actions----and they were all huge mistakes.

Now you are learning.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No laws, just doing what liberals do when in power. Try to make everyone equal, that by itself can hurt an economy. Stocking her jet made the liqour store owner weathy.

Makes no sense...

Congress passes legislation and that legislation has a positive or negative effect. Which legislation from the Democrats led to a collapse? Which laws did Pelosi pass that made everyone equal?

I'm talking about the liberal war on the rich, from day one pelosi wanted to do away with bushes tax cuts for everyone. Just one for example.

Son, the war is over. Did you hear? The rich won a long, long time ago.

 

[g5000]

With all due disrespect, you are utterly full of brainwashed shit.

The irony here is rich!

The partisan paradigm in which you willfully imprison yourself prevents you from seeing reality.

It appears you like pictures. Well, here are some pictures.

 

[Theowl32]

There are a lot of myths in regards about Bush deregulating corporations so they could prey on low-income borrowers, the reality is that he actually imposed some of the most aggressive, unproductive and ultimately harmful regulations in American history.

The primary regulatory law passed under Bush was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), which criminalized accounting misstatements of public companies. What this means is that a CEO, who most likely is not an accountant or tax lawyer, is criminally responsible for accounting errors, thus making the CEO subject to criminal prosecution.

Essentially, the result of SOX was creating a decline in companies seeking their Initial Public Offering (IPO) in the United States. Instead, US companies sought to escape the draconian aspects of the American based Sarbanes-Oxley Act by taking their companies public in London, England or other European or offshore jurisdictions that were more hospitable to business and public companies. The closest thing that Bush came to deregulating anything was with respect to the lobbying efforts conducted by Henry “Hank” Paulson while he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Paulson, who was the former Treasury Secretary under Bush (during the financial crisis in 2008), as well as the former Goldman Sachs CEO, lobbied the SEC to encourage the regulatory agency to change policies with respect to permitting banks to increase their leverage allowances.

Finally, in 2004 the SEC removed the cap on the amount of leverage (risk) allowed in the banking sector. For those unfamiliar with the term leverage, it is defined by Investopedia as:

1. The use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment.

2. The amount of debt used to finance a firm's assets. A firm with significantly more debt than equity is considered to be highly leveraged.


Based on the facts, a rational being can only conclude that the federal government, in conjunction with Democrats, to include Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack “Barry” Obama, are responsible for all deregulatory efforts that fed the housing bubble, which was the impetus of the financial collapse.

The only affect Bush had on the current economic recession in the United States was in signing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and agreeing to bailout the auto industry. As for any hand Bush had in deregulating the banking sector is limited to his continuation of democrat led financial deregulatory reforms.

 

[Theowl32]

With all due disrespect, you are utterly full of brainwashed shit.

The irony here is rich!

The partisan paradigm in which you willfully imprison yourself prevents you from seeing reality.

It appears you like pictures. Well, here are some pictures.

You want to ignore through your biased half baked bullshit, then you feel free and do that. You are as ignorant as the day as long. Again, with all due disrespect, you have little to no clue what you are talking about.

You can TRY with all your might to pretend the unemployment rate when the republicans were in charge (majority power) was not low, while the media did not say shit about it. We all know why the media did not say a thing about that fact in 2006 don't we? Don't we? When were those midterm elections? Oh, in 2006?

You and your types can pretend that the media (MSM) is not in the bag for the democraps. Meanwhile why don't you ignore the false numbers about the unemployment numbers put out in 2012. Not to mention that the praetorian media (that clearly brainwashes you and your types) CHEERED ABOUT 7.8 precent. CHEERED, about the number that was a lie. SEVEN POINT EIGHT. Meanwhile the price at the pump was the highest in the history of the country. I say that cause that same praetorian media, harped on a daily basis about the high gas prices in 2006. ON A DAILY BASIS.

You can show me charts of Finland, Ireland and Icealnd and think your making some sort of point. You are not making any point at all. In no way does that refute the employment facts about the BIG TAX party who sells utopia to ignorant minds such as yours.

Yeah, the big tax party was a major factor too about those unemployment numbers. Companies seeing the writing on the wall, on advice of their consultants, lawyers etc etc began to protect cash assets and mass lay offs ensued upon the democommies taking over power.

All we do know is republicans held majority of the power from 1994 till 2006. Yes, majority of the power till 2006.

Democommies have held majority power since 2007 till present. No matter what that BSNBC tries to tell you, the democrats have had the majority of the power, and they have been nothing short of an total and complete disaster since.

Feel proud of yourself. I know you do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There are a lot of myths in regards about Bush deregulating corporations so they could prey on low-income borrowers, the reality is that he actually imposed some of the most aggressive, unproductive and ultimately harmful regulations in American history.

The primary regulatory law passed under Bush was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), which criminalized accounting misstatements of public companies. What this means is that a CEO, who most likely is not an accountant or tax lawyer, is criminally responsible for accounting errors, thus making the CEO subject to criminal prosecution.

Essentially, the result of SOX was creating a decline in companies seeking their Initial Public Offering (IPO) in the United States. Instead, US companies sought to escape the draconian aspects of the American based Sarbanes-Oxley Act by taking their companies public in London, England or other European or offshore jurisdictions that were more hospitable to business and public companies. The closest thing that Bush came to deregulating anything was with respect to the lobbying efforts conducted by Henry “Hank” Paulson while he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Paulson, who was the former Treasury Secretary under Bush (during the financial crisis in 2008), as well as the former Goldman Sachs CEO, lobbied the SEC to encourage the regulatory agency to change policies with respect to permitting banks to increase their leverage allowances.

Finally, in 2004 the SEC removed the cap on the amount of leverage (risk) allowed in the banking sector. For those unfamiliar with the term leverage, it is defined by Investopedia as:

1. The use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment.

2. The amount of debt used to finance a firm's assets. A firm with significantly more debt than equity is considered to be highly leveraged.


Based on the facts, a rational being can only conclude that the federal government, in conjunction with Democrats, to include Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack “Barry” Obama, are responsible for all deregulatory efforts that fed the housing bubble, which was the impetus of the financial collapse.

The only affect Bush had on the current economic recession in the United States was in signing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and agreeing to bailout the auto industry. As for any hand Bush had in deregulating the banking sector is limited to his continuation of democrat led financial deregulatory reforms.

The Congress was controlled from 1994 to 2006 by the Pubs, my friend.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow, the retards are drinking the revisionist piss already! I suppose I should not be surprised since they have the memory retention of goldfish.

I guess that whole GLOBAL derivatives bubble thing has been erased from their ichthyological minds.

The Icelandic financial crisis, the Irish banking crisis, the Royal Bank of Scotland, the British banks, the German banks, the Italian banks, the Spanish cajas.

Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley.

Bush's SEC unanimously granting a captial reserve waiver to the five biggest broker dealers in 2004, which was was one of the chief causes for their collapse in 2008.

Somehow that was Pelosi's fault!!!

So much ignorance, so little time!

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis." -- Democrats right up until the whole thing blew up

The same was being said about the entire secondary market, by everyone. The GSEs were certainly part of the problem. But by 2005, they were less than half of that market.

The GSEs were competition to Wall Street, and Wall Street wanted the GSEs portfolios wound down so they would get the business.

You have it upside down and backwards.

"Less than half the market" isn't a so what but its "THEY HAD HALF THE MARKET!!!! AND THEY SET THE STANDARD FOR AAA RATED PAPER!!!!"

You can't have a national housing collapse without a national housing policy driving it.

The S&L's were boring businesses until Carter decided to form Freddie Mac, a twin of Fannie Mae, but their mission was to buy loans from S&L's. It took less than a decade for the S&L industry to collapse. National Policy = National Collapse

Fannie Mae, a 5,000 person GSE that buys mortgages from banks

Freddie Mac, a 5,000 person GSE that buys mortgages from banks

Why do we need 2 5,000 person entities doing the exact same thing?

 

[Moonglow]

So what we do yesterday has no influence on tomorrow. Killer,,, party time,,, with all the coke I can snort,,, and it won't affect me tomorrow.

 

[Theowl32]

There are a lot of myths in regards about Bush deregulating corporations so they could prey on low-income borrowers, the reality is that he actually imposed some of the most aggressive, unproductive and ultimately harmful regulations in American history.

The primary regulatory law passed under Bush was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), which criminalized accounting misstatements of public companies. What this means is that a CEO, who most likely is not an accountant or tax lawyer, is criminally responsible for accounting errors, thus making the CEO subject to criminal prosecution.

Essentially, the result of SOX was creating a decline in companies seeking their Initial Public Offering (IPO) in the United States. Instead, US companies sought to escape the draconian aspects of the American based Sarbanes-Oxley Act by taking their companies public in London, England or other European or offshore jurisdictions that were more hospitable to business and public companies. The closest thing that Bush came to deregulating anything was with respect to the lobbying efforts conducted by Henry “Hank” Paulson while he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Paulson, who was the former Treasury Secretary under Bush (during the financial crisis in 2008), as well as the former Goldman Sachs CEO, lobbied the SEC to encourage the regulatory agency to change policies with respect to permitting banks to increase their leverage allowances.

Finally, in 2004 the SEC removed the cap on the amount of leverage (risk) allowed in the banking sector. For those unfamiliar with the term leverage, it is defined by Investopedia as:

1. The use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment.

2. The amount of debt used to finance a firm's assets. A firm with significantly more debt than equity is considered to be highly leveraged.


Based on the facts, a rational being can only conclude that the federal government, in conjunction with Democrats, to include Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack “Barry” Obama, are responsible for all deregulatory efforts that fed the housing bubble, which was the impetus of the financial collapse.

The only affect Bush had on the current economic recession in the United States was in signing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and agreeing to bailout the auto industry. As for any hand Bush had in deregulating the banking sector is limited to his continuation of democrat led financial deregulatory reforms.

The Congress was controlled from 1994 to 2006 by the Pubs, my friend.

I am not your friend guy......

In 1997 former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, lead a campaign to prevent the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from regulating derivative markets. Ironically, in 2007 Rubin was Chairman of the Board of Citigroup which lost $50 billion because of bad subprime derivative trades. Listening to the Democrat lies emanate from the Obama 2012 re-election campaign which is denigrating capitalism, while falsely blaming deregulation has been nauseating to listen to. The lies about Bush’s deregulatory record is startling, when there is a willful continuous failure to point out that financial deregulation was completed under the democrat led Clinton Administration with the repeal of the 1930s era Glass-Steagall Act.

The Glass-Steagall Act was passed in the 1933 Banking Act, which erected a firewall between commercial banking activities and investment banking business activities. Key to understanding the importance of this regulatory act, is that it was implemented under Franklin Delano Roosevelt to prevent a future banking crisis and the ensuing depression caused by the collapse experienced in the 1930s Great Depression.

The impetus for eliminating Glass-Steagall began in 1998 predicated on the business relationship between Citi Bank and Salomon Smith Barney. This relationship was approved by the Federal Reserve Board, in conjunction with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). With the support and approval of the SEC, President Bill Clinton declared the Glass-Steagall Act to be “no longer relevant”.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The republicans had majority of the power from 1994 till 2006.

Yes, 1994.....till.....2006.

The last time the republicans had majority power, the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent. Of course, the media reported virtually the ENTIRE time that the gas prices were too high and the economy was HORRIBLE during this time.

Get that? The same praetorian media which attacked Bush for the high gas prices during 2006 due to crony capitalism (BUSH OIL BUSH OIL BUSH OIL narrative) never mentioned a thing about the low unemployment rate.

What does the same praetorian media do in the 2012 campaign? They let out cheers and joy for the lying unemployment rate "dropping to 7.8 percent" AND they hardly made a mention that the gas prices were the highest ever at the pump.

Get that?

Funny, how the left think it is conservatives that are brainwashed by FOX News.

Hey, why does FOX News employ so many liberals on their staff and let them contribute on such a regular basis, and ALL of those other networks hardly employ anyone with conservative voices?

Can you all explain that? No, don't try. I will make the list of the liberals on FOX News, and I will then ask you to name the conservatives on those other networks. I will make you look more foolish than you already do. So....don't make....me do it.


Back to the graph and facts about the unemployment rate and what happened after the democrats took over the senate, house and Pelosi stole the hammer in 2007.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BYW4anrHl_8/TULUZsytgdI/AAAAAAAAA5w/api1QP8v3oQ/s1600/unemployment_rate_by_president.png[/IMG[/quote]

That's fascinating, but unless you can show cause and effect it's meaningless.

Can you?

 

[Redfish]

The republicans had majority of the power from 1994 till 2006.

Yes, 1994.....till.....2006.

The last time the republicans had majority power, the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent. Of course, the media reported virtually the ENTIRE time that the gas prices were too high and the economy was HORRIBLE during this time.

Get that? The same praetorian media which attacked Bush for the high gas prices during 2006 due to crony capitalism (BUSH OIL BUSH OIL BUSH OIL narrative) never mentioned a thing about the low unemployment rate.

What does the same praetorian media do in the 2012 campaign? They let out cheers and joy for the lying unemployment rate "dropping to 7.8 percent" AND they hardly made a mention that the gas prices were the highest ever at the pump.

Get that?

Funny, how the left think it is conservatives that are brainwashed by FOX News.

Hey, why does FOX News employ so many liberals on their staff and let them contribute on such a regular basis, and ALL of those other networks hardly employ anyone with conservative voices?

Can you all explain that? No, don't try. I will make the list of the liberals on FOX News, and I will then ask you to name the conservatives on those other networks. I will make you look more foolish than you already do. So....don't make....me do it.


Back to the graph and facts about the unemployment rate and what happened after the democrats took over the senate, house and Pelosi stole the hammer in 2007.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BYW4anrHl_8/TULUZsytgdI/AAAAAAAAA5w/api1QP8v3oQ/s1600/unemployment_rate_by_president.png[/IMG[/quote]

That's fascinating, but unless you can show cause and effect it's meaningless.

Can you?[/QUOTE]

and you have cause and effect proof that bush caused the current unemployment rate, 9/11, katrina, Sandy, the housing bubble, the dot.com crash, toe nail fungus, and aids in africa?

 

[Kosh]

The far left needs a political power base so the more people on unemployment the more control they think they have.

Allow more jobs to be created by taking out the uncertainty and you will not have this problem.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The causes of the crash are many. Bear in mind, when I say "Wall Street", I mean financial institutions of all stripes around the world. Brokers, banks, investment banks, hedge funds, GSEs, etc.

1) Wall Street getting into securitization in a big way, which led to high demand for securities, which in turn led to the massive relaxation of lending standards to feed that demand. I call this "throwing the underwriting rules of the Universe out the window."

2) Ratings agencies not understanding the products they were rating, and accepting the bullshit being fed to them by Wall Street. They sacrificed their principles for money.

3) Clinton and the Republican Congress completely deregulating securites with the CFMA and the FSMA.

4) Bush scaling down the policing of Wall Street. While he was growing the size of every agency, including creating a massive new cabinet level department, he shrank only two agencies. The SEC and the EPA.

5) Irresponsible borrowers accepting the money being thrown at them by Wall Street.

OK, but none of those things were done by one party only, they were all bi-partisan actions----and they were all huge mistakes.

Yes. Which is why I consider anyone who tries to pin it on one party or another an ignorant idiot. And it wasn't just bi-partisan, it was GLOBAL.

I love to watch the reactions to G5000 first they insult him while claiming thats an liberal characteristic. Then they dont believe him and asks for proof which then leads to my favorite part...

Admitting he was right and only taking unbridge with how he said it or grammar. Totally dropping the factual spat

 

[JakeStarkey]

There are a lot of myths in regards about Bush deregulating corporations so they could prey on low-income borrowers, the reality is that he actually imposed some of the most aggressive, unproductive and ultimately harmful regulations in American history.

The primary regulatory law passed under Bush was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), which criminalized accounting misstatements of public companies. What this means is that a CEO, who most likely is not an accountant or tax lawyer, is criminally responsible for accounting errors, thus making the CEO subject to criminal prosecution.

Essentially, the result of SOX was creating a decline in companies seeking their Initial Public Offering (IPO) in the United States. Instead, US companies sought to escape the draconian aspects of the American based Sarbanes-Oxley Act by taking their companies public in London, England or other European or offshore jurisdictions that were more hospitable to business and public companies. The closest thing that Bush came to deregulating anything was with respect to the lobbying efforts conducted by Henry “Hank” Paulson while he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Paulson, who was the former Treasury Secretary under Bush (during the financial crisis in 2008), as well as the former Goldman Sachs CEO, lobbied the SEC to encourage the regulatory agency to change policies with respect to permitting banks to increase their leverage allowances.

Finally, in 2004 the SEC removed the cap on the amount of leverage (risk) allowed in the banking sector. For those unfamiliar with the term leverage, it is defined by Investopedia as:

1. The use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment.

2. The amount of debt used to finance a firm's assets. A firm with significantly more debt than equity is considered to be highly leveraged.


Based on the facts, a rational being can only conclude that the federal government, in conjunction with Democrats, to include Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack “Barry” Obama, are responsible for all deregulatory efforts that fed the housing bubble, which was the impetus of the financial collapse.

The only affect Bush had on the current economic recession in the United States was in signing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and agreeing to bailout the auto industry. As for any hand Bush had in deregulating the banking sector is limited to his continuation of democrat led financial deregulatory reforms.

The Congress was controlled from 1994 to 2006 by the Pubs, my friend.

I am not your friend guy......

In 1997 former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, lead a campaign to prevent the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from regulating derivative markets. Ironically, in 2007 Rubin was Chairman of the Board of Citigroup which lost $50 billion because of bad subprime derivative trades. Listening to the Democrat lies emanate from the Obama 2012 re-election campaign which is denigrating capitalism, while falsely blaming deregulation has been nauseating to listen to. The lies about Bush’s deregulatory record is startling, when there is a willful continuous failure to point out that financial deregulation was completed under the democrat led Clinton Administration with the repeal of the 1930s era Glass-Steagall Act.

The Glass-Steagall Act was passed in the 1933 Banking Act, which erected a firewall between commercial banking activities and investment banking business activities. Key to understanding the importance of this regulatory act, is that it was implemented under Franklin Delano Roosevelt to prevent a future banking crisis and the ensuing depression caused by the collapse experienced in the 1930s Great Depression.

The impetus for eliminating Glass-Steagall began in 1998 predicated on the business relationship between Citi Bank and Salomon Smith Barney. This relationship was approved by the Federal Reserve Board, in conjunction with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). With the support and approval of the SEC, President Bill Clinton declared the Glass-Steagall Act to be “no longer relevant”.

None of which, my friend, excuses that the Congress, the Republican congress, had a yea or nay on it.

I do agree eliminating Glass-Steagall was a terrible experiment, one continued on by both parties.