Why Democratic Presidents Don't Work

So Obama, where are all the forking jobs that you and your lapdog mainstream media always credit you with having somehow magically farted into existence? You ROARED into office on a feces pot full of wild and over the top promises about how you were going to kick economic rump and have everyone living the high life in no time at all. So Obama . . . just where in the hell are you hiding all your endlessly touted economic beef?

[/FONT]


[FONT=Helvetica Neue, HelveticaNeue, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The class warfare the Democratic Party engages in is a cynical political ploy designed to shift the target of public ire away from themselves and this president. But in reality Obama and the Democratic Party leadership ARE the generally clueless and incompetent managers of the nation's economy. They substituted impractical but 'feel-good' socialist-based dreams and schemes for hard, cold logic and a fundamental understanding of how and why a capitalistic based economy actually works.

In reality it is quite possible for a Democratic Party president to be a good president and a competent shepherd of the national economy . . . but obviously not this one.[/FONT]

 

I think we all saw how well it worked under GW.

 

Oh aye he was crap for sinking us an additional three to five trillion dollars in debt and I despised the man for a great many reasons . . . and yet what ultimately caused the Great Recession of 2008 were the worthless mortgages that the Democrats in the House and Senate forced banks to finance for people that they KNEW could never sustain the payments. But, yes, I thought that G.W. Bush was also stinking garbage as president.

 

I sometimes wonder wonder if all right wingers live in a bizarro world disconnected from the realities of this world. Under Obama, wealthy capitalists have thrived, while everyone else has suffered. Obama is either the most incompetent socialist in the history of the planet, or (and this is the conclusion a minimal level of intelligence will lead one to) Obama is a crony capitalist just like every US president for the last several decades.

 

I don't know that the Democrats have any kind of monopoly on this s*^% sandwich. The wars Bush persecuted probably didn't help gas prices. His budget increased at the same time he cut taxes, which probably wasn't very good for the dollar. People had been warning congress and the president about the potential for catastrophe inherent in affordable housing legislation for almost two decades and Bush didn't spearhead any initiative to prevent it...

 

The class warfare began with The Beast Himself, Ronald (6 letters) Wilson (6 letters) Reagan (6 letters) of 666 St Cloud Rd.

That's when wealth began to become more concentrated after 50 years of being more evenly distributed, that's when open season on labor unions was declared, that's the basic tax structure that has been at work gutting the middle class since 1981.
And of course it's still happening, that tax structure is still in place.....

 

Oh I agree right down the line about Bush. He was the second worst president I ever saw in regards to the economy; that person being Jimmy Carter . . . until Obama came along. Sheesh! What are we now . . . 18 trillion dollars in national debt on his watch with no end in sight?

 

isnt obama trying to give deregulating home loan guidelines a second try?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

 

Obama is a nation hating socialist with Marxist leanings and his reasons for doing what he's doing has got almost nothing to do with actual liberalism. He just uses mouthings about liberalism as a front. It's sort of how G.W. Bush pissed all over the concept of fiscal conservatism while playing his own game for his own reasons using conservatism as his cover. Bush and Obama are polar opposite MUTUALLY evil spiritual twins. Back to back political and fiscal whammys. Who'd a thunk it?

 

Do even a small amount of research and that narrative falls apart completely. First, the real estate bubble extended beyond the borders of the United States. Many countries had real estate bubbles at the same time. So to say that was all the result of Democratic policies to promote home ownership among the poor, doesn't make sense.

So a factor with global repercussion would need to be found. It just so happens such a factor exist and it is the rapid expansion of the derivatives market and securitzation of housing debt. That is without question the driving force behind the housing bubble. When a bank can make a loan and then sell off the consolidated debt to investors, they have NO risk in making a loan. They can give a no money down loan on a 500K house because the risk of default will be passed on to the bank or investment firm that buys the securitized debt. On top of that, that process led to rapid expansion in housing prices, and as long as housing prices continued to expand, that also meant there was no risk as a house could be foreclosed and sold off again for the same amount or more money.

Lastly, the one government policy that actually made the most difference had nothing to do with giving loans to poor people, it was the decision to keep interest rates at or near zero throughout that period. A decision made by a man, Allen Greenspan, who was as much of a free market advocate as one can be and still hold a government position. He made this decision based on a principle forwarded by Milton Friedman. This was a massive failure in capitalism and that fact that capitalist propaganda has convinced so many people that it wasn't, means we are inevitably marching towards another failure in capitalism, and then another, and another.

 

Yep . . . apparently he figures that he might as well give the national economy one last major kick right in the goolies before sliming his way out of office at the end of 2016. Great fun, yes?

 

No he is actually a devil worshipping Monarchist. I will offer no evidence, reasoning, or intelligent remark to accompany that state, I will simply assert its truth and hope it gets asserted often enough that enough unassuming people lap up my propaganda!!

 

Obama and the Dem Leadership use class warfare as a glittering target for public ire so that NOBODY will examine their incompetence and corruption. It works. Gotta hand it to them. The cynical political ploy definitely does work where the typical leftwing low-information voter is concerned . . . which seems to be pretty much all of them nowadays.

 

im sure they'll find a way to blame republicans when history repeats itself, dont you worry.

 

Though it does not seem to be anything new. I don't remember exactly but I think I read that Bush's budget was around 124% of the tax revenue and Obama is pushing 130%.
Obama took to waging expensive wars like a fish to water but the housing collapse happened while Obama was stepping through the door. I cant think of anything Obama has done to make things better but the ship was going down before he became captain. No one has any ideas other than to inflate the currency because no one can stand the heat of cutting spending in any specific way.

 

The irony is that our political system automatically promotes arrogant and yet clueless and corrupt egotists into our most important positions of decision making, and power and influence while eliminating most forms of accountability. Then it tops it off by making it NOT in the politician's best interests to risk trying to actually fix anything lest doing so somehow ends up preventing his or her re-election. Democrat or Republican no real differences in that respect. It's an example of tragic-comedy at its most ironic.

 

I've read every one of your self-serving facile points debunked countless times over the years by equally credentialed experts to the point that it's all become just intellectual static of 'he said/she said' meaningless back and forth blather.

I've thought about it and have decided that if Barney Frank hadn't been so hyper corrupt and hadn't rammed something through that he KNEW would eventually have utterly terrible consequences for this nation then The Great Recession of 2008 would never have occurred to the extent that it did. I don't care if you'd rather believe in leftwing fairy tales instead.

 

I gave an example, Reagan lowered tax rates for the wealthy, and they began to accumulate wealth at an accelerated rate, faster than the rate of growth, and that wealth had to come from somewhere and it came from the middle class. And the debt began growing rapidly. And here we are 3 decades later, same tilted tax structure, and the draining of the middle class continues.

Can you support your stated belief, or is your opinion all you need?

 

Obama should cease practicing socialism (Obamacare) and start attending to the capitalistic principles that made this nation great. It's not rocket science . . . except to leftwingers who can find nothing better to do than spit on a long dead and buried president; a president whom Obama praised up one side and down the other on many occasions.

 

I think it may be a contradiction to say that the chairman of the federal reserve is a free market advocate. Dictating interest rates to the country by fiat is not free market anything, it's top down management. Blaming capitalism for the failures of the fed seems strange, I mean I have bean lead to believe that central banking was recommended by Marx as one of the objectives of a communist state. Now that we have that, it's a capitalist institution?

 

Frankly, I don't think you've done -any- legitimate research at all, not even a small amount, because you are repeating a leftist government apologist party line almost verbatim.

You don't think those other countries parroted US stimulus programs or had their own variations for decades? You don't think that other countries also instituted unwise credit and lending policies? And of course we bought their bonds and them ours? So? Globalized security markets are nothing new and nothing sinister... other than when government gets involved. No of course not, it simply must be that because other countries had bubbles that our government was blameless in the US. Perfect sense.

Illicit stimulation of the mortgage market is the most obvious way to boost consumption and falsely heat up the economy we did it for years. This has been true since the Roman Empire and maybe before. Even morons in jackoff countries know this, it's political manipulation 104, not the advanced course. If you can get the mob to buy houses, well they gotta fill them up with stuff, they have to keep the lawn, they get a dog, they have kids... all the primary consumption in an economy rotates around the axis of the family home. We did it for decades in the 20th century, other countries did it for decades. Problem is that once the crack addict is all cracked up and starts shaking, no one wants to reach out and try to take that crack pipe away because all hell breaks lose, bones get broken, things go bad, incumbents aren't reelected. So keep filling that crack pipe over and over for cracky because you want to be the one who took it away and suffered the consequences. Finally cracky just up and keels over dead.

The derivatives market was a tiny piece of the puzzle, Brooksley Born tried to regulate those markets under the CFTC, the Clinton administration said "NO." As for the securitizations themselves? Total nonissue. I doubt it will do much good for you, but for anyone reading who would like to know what a "securitization" is, it's simply bonds made up of pieces of individual mortgages with similar risk characteristics, nothing sinister at all in itself despite propaganda to the contrary. Same principle as treasury bonds, muni bonds, savings bonds (other than the OID). It's a variable rate loan that pays interest, higher the risk, higher the interest and vice versa. There is more, but that's the gist of it. The problem with raw mortgages is that they each have their own risk parameters. When the government puts a bunch of mortgages into something called a GNMA pool, you have the problem of having all kinds of mortgages in there so it's hard to sell to institutional investors who need risk parameters "just so" at various times. The pool is also not denominated in easy to trade amounts. So securitizations put the mortgages into pools and then slice them up into risk slices called tranches. One tranch with low risk is sold to this institution who needs to fill a particular gap, and other tranches with high or medium risk characteristics are sold to other institutions. There is nothing at all sinister about this, and they are sold to purportedly highly sophisticated investment managers put in charge of billions by pension funds and other large pools of money.

Now, if the above is too verbose or complex, know this summary. If there is or was a problem with securitizations and their risks in themselves, that problem stems right back to government, state and local, as for some (obvious) reason in this country, political hacks, patronage cases and operatives, as opposed to legitimate money managers, end up being given way too much control over large pools of institutional money. That's a part of the government graft engine, with little pieces shaved off here there everywhere. Political HACKS are way too close to money in this country, and if there was any problem with the securitization mechanism itself or the sales process, it goes right back to partisan, patronage politics and localized graft. Bet you never ever heard anyone talking about this phenomenon in US politics, that hacks, patrons, operatives end up guarding large pools of money. Wonder why that is?

Well you are flat wrong in the first sentence, but there is some near-truth in the rest. It's -government insurance- that fuels the fire though. Somehow your source didn't get that part, hmmmmm. Without it, and a couple of other bad govt decisions like CRA and suspending the antitrust laws, the whole thing would never have occured. You have been lied to, notice how facilely they do it. It's not govt malfeasance and error, "it's... those banks out there." "It's those faceless Wall Street derivatives traders... over there... somewhere." "It's those filthy unregulated mortgage brokers!" For partisans, "it's just that GWB administration," or perhaps "only Clinton did it." "It's all those -other fooks'- fault but ours," our central government's fault generally up and down the bloated bureaucratic line.

God forbid if the marks get the idea that the guy hawking tickets to see the armadillo woman doesn't really have their best interest at heart, or that the gal running the midway games waxes the dime toss trays, hell if the suckers ever got a real idea about the carnival, they'd run it right out of town! Can't have that, so lie lie like a rug.

The above is a biased, partisan crock. This is where the leftblog propagandists get ahold of the government blame shell game and add their own special odor of cow sh-t to the proceedings, "let's take a slam at capitalizm while we are at it, eh comrade?" Now, low interest rates did contribute, but in the way that a bottle contributes to launching a bottle rocket. The bottle is not the fuse or powder.

 

ObamaCare isn't socialism, it's from the Heritage Foundation.....

 

Crony capitalism is socialism.

Reagan wasnt a crony capitalist at all.

- - - Updated - - -

That was not the plan from the heritage foundation first off.

Secondly, nationalizing the economy by directing output is a form of socialism. If it was capitalism people would be free to choose what they want to buy. If the government designed a car and forced you to buy it but let private interests run it instead of government bureacrats what is the practical difference?

 

Your point being that the shiniest of two turds is not crap because it's shinier? ^_-

 

That was the plan from the Heritage Foundation, the individual mandate, with subsidies for low income people, its nearly exactly the same as Romney Care, which has been around for 8 years and people here approve of it by a 2 to one margin.

And it's working, just like the actuaries said it would work....I'm not surprised, are you?