|
Current feelings on Obama's Administration and upcoming midterms (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
I obviously can’t comment on the entirety of this thinly-veiled partisan piece, I just thought this part was amusing
| quote: |
He has expanded the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care |
Because the private sector has done such a bang-up job thus far, right? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I obviously can’t comment on the entirety of this thinly-veiled partisan piece, I just thought this part was amusing
Because the private sector has done such a bang-up job thus far, right? |
Fannie and Freddie are ill-conceived hybrid institutions that got implicit government backing yet traded for private profits. I'm not going to argue that the private sector didn't have it's share of -ups in all of this, but the government is equally, if not much more liable in the grand scheme of things, from Congress, to the Fed to the regulators who did not do their jobs... |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Fannie and Freddie are ill-conceived hybrid institutions that got implicit government backing yet traded for private profits. I'm not going to argue that the private sector didn't have it's share of -ups in all of this, but the government is equally, if not much more liable in the grand scheme of things, from Congress, to the Fed to the regulators who did not do their jobs... |
Government probably had a role but don't you consider that...even if Fannie and Freddie weren't buying up as many mortgages as they could, chiefly to make a profit, secondarily because Congress wanted them to, that the private sector wouldn't have created its own secondary market and done exactly what Fannie and Freddie did? It wouldn't have been different either way, whether Fannie/Freddie bought mortgages or not. The market would have created its own secondary market. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Government probably had a role but don't you consider that...even if Fannie and Freddie weren't buying up as many mortgages as they could, chiefly to make a profit, secondarily because Congress wanted them to, that the private sector wouldn't have created its own secondary market and done exactly what Fannie and Freddie did? It wouldn't have been different either way, whether Fannie/Freddie bought mortgages or not. The market would have created its own secondary market. |
I'm not so sure about that. There was a shadow banking system that securitized and facilitated a lot of what happened, but Fannie and Freddie were a part of the machine. They had access to artificially lower rates and vastly larger balance sheets with which to securitize and offload risk. I don't have a crystal ball to tell you what could've happened in their absence, but I know that, at the margin, interest rates/funding costs would've been a bit higher which, at the margin, would've certainly kept some marginal buyers out. In any event, you can't blame one without assigning plenty of blame to the other. We can't armchair quarterback and argue about what might have happened. We have to debate what actually did happen. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Perhaps some speculation but given how little is really known about young Obama, what do you expect? I think it's perfectly reasonable to try to analyze a person's past to see who their major influences likely were and how that pertains to how they formed their current opinions on the world. The author cites Obama's own book as a source so I think you might be overplaying your skepticism a bit, but I expect that from Obama supporters in general while I bet people on the right gobble it up. The author (while obviously conservative) is a well respected journalist, not some nut-job blogger. He also provides a unique perspective being an immigrant from India who has also studied a variety of cultures and religious beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%27Souza |
You're kidding, right? If not, let me find some Cindy Sheehan articles to start quoting as "interesting perspectives, her being the mother of a soldier and all."
Dinesh D'Souza couldn't wipe his bum with the facts if they were handed to him on a toilet paper roll.
Even The Weekly Standard is getting in on the ridicule of how pathetic D'Souza's arguments are:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/artic...acy_508809.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs....html?nopager=1 |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You're kidding, right? If not, let me find some Cindy Sheehan articles to start quoting as "interesting perspectives, her being the mother of a soldier and all." |
Please go on. I'm curious where you're going with this.
| quote: | | Dinesh D'Souza couldn't wipe his bum with the facts if they were handed to him on a toilet paper roll. |
Messenger vs. Message.
One of those links is Fergusen's sharp-tongued rebuttal, while the second one is D'Souza's response to it. They seem to contradict each other somewhat so I don't know what exactly to make of it. I'll simply repeat a comment I made earlier to Krypt so I don't get to wear an overtly strong label that I am a dogmatic believer in D'souza.
| quote: |
Perhaps some speculation but given how little is really known about young Obama, what do you expect? I think it's perfectly reasonable to try to analyze a person's past to see who their major influences likely were and how that pertains to how they formed their current opinions on the world. The author cites Obama's own book as a source so I think you might be overplaying your skepticism a bit, but I expect that from Obama supporters in general while I bet people on the right gobble it up. The author (while obviously conservative) is a well respected journalist, not some nut-job blogger. He also provides a unique perspective being an immigrant from India who has also studied a variety of cultures and religious beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%27Souza |
|
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Isn't that basically what TARP turned out to be? A failed attempt by government to create jobs? Only they blew it all on benefits and transfer payments. The goverment created a bunch of temporary census jobs. Rah!
|
Really Shakka? Please. Let's not try to distort reality. We both know TARP (enacted under Bush ... and rightly so) had absolutely nothing to do with job creation and everything to do with restoring credibility and most importantly liquidity in the markets. Since when did you become an anti-TARP tinfoil hatter?
I'm off and on this forum a couple months at a time but I'll pay attention for a bit more to see how you stand ... this is like Opus becoming a republican ... I just can't believe it until I get confirmation. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Really Shakka? Please. Let's not try to distort reality. We both know TARP (enacted under Bush ... and rightly so) had absolutely nothing to do with job creation and everything to do with restoring credibility and most importantly liquidity in the markets. Since when did you become an anti-TARP tinfoil hatter? |
You know, you're absolutely right. I misspoke when I said TARP. I clearly meant to say the first round of fiscal stimulus. Sorry for the mix-up and thanks for calling me on it. It was certainly not an attempt to distort reality on my part.
Replace "TARP" with "fiscal stimulus round 1" and the statement stands. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
The stimulus was half-assed to begin with. No wonder it failed. Obama should have done what Roosevelt did. If the private sector is unwilling and/or unable to provide full employment, then the government will step in, in place of it. Once employment is back to healthy levels, then the government can take a step back, and worry about deficits.
Obama is essentially being blamed for the private sector's failure to hire new workers. Why is that Obama's fault, oh laissez-faire capitalists? You want government to keep out of the private sector, but, blame government for the private sector's failures.
Anyways, Obama shouldn't have focused so much on healthcare reform, and instead focused on getting back to full employment. As I said, that could have been done, New Deal style, in my opinion. Call it socialism or whatever, I don't care, Obama is center right wing as far as I'm concerned. And that says a lot about the Republicans, who have shifted off the charts when it comes to right wing politics. How unfortunate, that the party that was in power when all the abuses were occurring, are now about to be back in power, as if these same people are going to fix anything. I don't blame them. I blame the Democrats for throwing this huge opportunity away by not doing enough, i.e. a modern New Deal. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
The stimulus was half-assed to begin with. No wonder it failed. Obama should have done what Roosevelt did. If the private sector is unwilling and/or unable to provide full employment, then the government will step in, in place of it. Once employment is back to healthy levels, then the government can take a step back, and worry about deficits.
Obama is essentially being blamed for the private sector's failure to hire new workers. Why is that Obama's fault, oh laissez-faire capitalists? You want government to keep out of the private sector, but, blame government for the private sector's failures.
Anyways, Obama shouldn't have focused so much on healthcare reform, and instead focused on getting back to full employment. As I said, that could have been done, New Deal style, in my opinion. Call it socialism or whatever, I don't care, Obama is center right wing as far as I'm concerned. And that says a lot about the Republicans, who have shifted off the charts when it comes to right wing politics. How unfortunate, that the party that was in power when all the abuses were occurring, are now about to be back in power, as if these same people are going to fix anything. I don't blame them. I blame the Democrats for throwing this huge opportunity away by not doing enough, i.e. a modern New Deal. |
Firstly, there is a pretty compelling school of thought right now that believes businesses aren't hiring because 1) the end demand is not there because consumers have allowed themselves to become so overleveraged over the last 25-30 years and 2) there is too much uncertainty coming from the government itself due to FinReg, health care, the fear of cap & trade, etc. Companies continue to talk about a lack of visibility and record uncertainty when they are reporting earnings.
Secondly, when I was in Junior High/High School, the common point of view was to believe that FDR's New Deal was the main force that helped pull the nation out of the Depression. However, further study on the subject has largely concluded that it wasn't New Deal projects (several of which were unconstitutional) that pulled the country out of the Depression, rather it was ultimately WWII and the Guns & Butter policies that got the country back to work and helped really boost GDP. The economy did not receive any sustainable boost from the New Deal, rather in the 1934-1937 years, when stimulative policies were pulled back after several years of apparent recovery, that the economy relapsed into severe recession/Depression.
I don't blame the government for private sector failures, I blame them for interfering too much with the private sector's ability to heal itself. I blame the government for fighting the business cycle through irresponsible Greenspan policies through the Great Moderation. We've been robbing Peter to pay Paul for so many years that we allowed excesses to build and the debt burden to build that we find ourselves in this situation today. We've already gotten into two wars and the country clearly doesn't have the appetite or the political will to get into another, so I don't see a repeat of what happened in the 30's-40's as far as a war jump-starting the economy. Fed stimulus and fiscal stimulus (to the extent that there is anymore) can create temporary jobs and make the stock market go higher, which some people will invariably interpret as a signal that our economy is on the mend. However, in the big picture, we're merely hiding our structural problems and kicking the can down the road. We haven't solved anything yet.
I think you overplay the New Deal concept, imho. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Firstly, there is a pretty compelling school of thought right now that believes businesses aren't hiring because 1) the end demand is not there because consumers have allowed themselves to become so overleveraged over the last 25-30 years and 2) there is too much uncertainty coming from the government itself due to FinReg, health care, the fear of cap & trade, etc. Companies continue to talk about a lack of visibility and record uncertainty when they are reporting earnings. |
The private sector has record low borrowing rates and $1 trillion in cash on the balance sheet, but despite this, they are unwilling and/or unable to hire workers again, reasons for why, include what you've just outlined. That's fine private sector. If I were the government, I would go full force into infrastructure and educational investment, withdraw completely from Iraq and Afghanistan, drastically reduce the military budget, and yes, you heard it from me, keep the Bush tax cuts until we have full employment again. I would forgive all federal student loans and offer nothing but education grants to whoever wants to attend a state university. I would increase investment in green technology to that of the level of China and Europe. I would have my Treasury Secretary buy up any or all home mortgages on lived in homes and set the interest rate and payment schedule at something the homeowner can afford to pay down. The funds used to do this would buy equity in the bank that made the loan, in exchange for taking them off their books. Using this equity share, I would curtail executive compensation, and boost lending again, until the bank decides to buy us off.
But of course, there's Congress to get in the way of practically everything. Whereas China, wouldn't hesitate to do the things I want to do, because they don't have endless bickering to hold up important laws.
| quote: | | Secondly, when I was in Junior High/High School, the common point of view was to believe that FDR's New Deal was the main force that helped pull the nation out of the Depression. However, further study on the subject has largely concluded that it wasn't New Deal projects (several of which were unconstitutional) that pulled the country out of the Depression, rather it was ultimately WWII and the Guns & Butter policies that got the country back to work and helped really boost GDP. The economy did not receive any sustainable boost from the New Deal, rather in the 1934-1937 years, when stimulative policies were pulled back after several years of apparent recovery, that the economy relapsed into severe recession/Depression. |
The unemployment rate fell 5-10% during Roosevelt's presidency before World War II, and not even mentioning a complete return to full employment during the war. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones doubled in value, by the time World War II came around. Gross Domestic Product also doubled during his presidency BEFORE entering World War II. I'm sorry, but all of that demonstrates New Deal policy worked. Let's face it, when the private sector gets crushed as they did in 1929-1933, and 2007-2009, it takes a long long time to get back to full employment, because who wants to invest so shortly after such huge downturns? That's just capitalism, it's just reality. In that case, the state needs to fill the void, until the private sector decides to hire workers again and the economy gets back on its feet.
| quote: | | I don't blame the government for private sector failures, I blame them for interfering too much with the private sector's ability to heal itself. I blame the government for fighting the business cycle through irresponsible Greenspan policies through the Great Moderation. We've been robbing Peter to pay Paul for so many years that we allowed excesses to build and the debt burden to build that we find ourselves in this situation today. We've already gotten into two wars and the country clearly doesn't have the appetite or the political will to get into another, so I don't see a repeat of what happened in the 30's-40's as far as a war jump-starting the economy. Fed stimulus and fiscal stimulus (to the extent that there is anymore) can create temporary jobs and make the stock market go higher, which some people will invariably interpret as a signal that our economy is on the mend. However, in the big picture, we're merely hiding our structural problems and kicking the can down the road. We haven't solved anything yet. |
All I ever hear is how the high unemployment rate is all Obama and the Democrat's fault. I'm not hearing this from one guy, or even a few people; I'm hearing it en masse, overwhelmingly from Republicans. They lament government intervention, but blame Obama for the private sector's failure and/or unwillingness to high workers again. And liberals are lamenting at how Obama hasn't done enough to lower the unemployment, me included. If Republicans are going to blame Obama for the bad economy, then don't stand in his way when he attempts to boost the economy with government policy. But of course, all Republicans care about is getting back into power.
| quote: | | I think you overplay the New Deal concept, imho. |
The unemployment rate, stock market returns, and GDP growth rate during his years in office BEFORE World War II say an entirely different story. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | [b]Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
The private sector has record low borrowing rates and $1 trillion in cash on the balance sheet, [b]but despite this, they are unwilling and/or unable to hire workers again, reasons for why, include what you've just outlined. |
| quote: | | Let's face it, when the private sector gets crushed as they did in 1929-1933, and 2007-2009, it takes a long long time to get back to full employment, because who wants to invest so shortly after such huge downturns? That's just capitalism, it's just reality. |
See above. I think you're talking out of both sides of your mouth a bit.
| quote: | | In that case, the state needs to fill the void, until the private sector decides to hire workers again and the economy gets back on its feet. |
To an extent I certainly agree, but to an extent I believe reality must be allowed to play out while trying to simply manage the misery through the recovery.
| quote: | | The unemployment rate, stock market returns, and GDP growth rate during his years in office BEFORE World War II say an entirely different story. |
Right...like 2009? It's easy to show a modicum of GDP growth when you're coming off a low base post economic crisis (recall the 5-handle figures we saw in 2009 off crappy comparisons in 2008?). We got that in 2009 and we got that in the mid-30's before everything fell right back apart again. Only during/after WWII did the economy return to sustainable, full-employment. If anything, the "recovery" in the mid-30's was Fed driven moreso than it was FDR-driven, though I'll certainly concede that several of FDR's back-to-work programs provided temporary employment for some. |
|
|
|
|
