Bush and the US economy

[Damocles]

Forgot to add... you are correct, it was 1960. So if it has been since 1960, how can you not blame both parties for the debacle?

Because they want to ignore problems if they are from part of the "team" they chose to join. I prefer to work toward electing people who also recognize problems, even if it is in their own party.

 

[evince]

Forgot to add... you are correct, it was 1960. So if it has been since 1960, how can you not blame both parties for the debacle?

Super I have never said the Dems were perfect but I have said repetedly that they are the fiscal party compared to the Rs.

 

[uscitizen]

Fourth page, first paragraph begins by talking about the massive US debt that China holds. Then the author states this....

"Most likely these creditors will not call in their loans—if they ever did, there would be a global financial crisis."

Ok, the debt is issued as t-bills, notes and bonds. They either have call features or they don't. But even the rare ones that do have call features are callable by the US... not by the holders of the debt. The holders of the debt could certainly sell their bonds on the open market for whatever the going market rate is at the time of sale, but they cannot call the debt and have the US pay prior to the maturity of the debt. They could also refuse to buy additional debt issued by our inept government, but again that doesn't give them any ability to call in payment of the debt they hold.

This is likely the smartes thing the author put forth in the four pages....

"What is required is in some ways simple to describe: it amounts to ceasing our current behavior and doing exactly the opposite. It means not spending money that we don’t have, increasing taxes on the rich, reducing corporate welfare, strengthening the safety net for the less well off, and making greater investment in education, technology, and infrastructure."

The above quote almost redeems the authors ineptitude on the subject to that point. But obviously he is biased and doesn't like Bush (I cannot blame him for not liking Bush, but to place blame on the bad policies of the past 4 plus decades is quite sad).

Yeah just plain ignorant, it is the same stuff that I heard last night on the PBS newshour from some other finiancial experts....

Their economic forcast word was "GRIM"

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

At any point when the abuse became apparent the policy could have been tightened.

There have been warnings about the Bubble coming for years.

Bush and the R congress did nothing because housing was the sector keeping the economy rolling because people were taking money out and upgrading and even buying cars and shit.

Yes you are biased because you see the Reagan years as something great for the country yet he is responsible for alot of our debt.

Yet, if you pay attention, you would notice that I also said Clinton was good for the country.... and he is responsible for the same amount of debt Reagan was. Reagan had O'Neil's Congress to deal with and Clinton had Newt. I have never said that the debt was a good part of their administrations. But take a look at where our country was coming out of the Viet Nam era.

From 1982 to 2000 our country had the greatest bull run in our history. Reagan did many good things to help lead us to where we are today. He was not perfect, but yes, I do think he was the best President since Ike. Clinton is third on my list behind Reagan and Ike.

Also note Desh... while I agree Bush and the Reps in Congress turned a blind eye to the mortgage industry.... but so did the Dems. Or can you show me one example of a bill that they introduced and supported en mass that would have changed lending practices?

and again.... the lenders and the individuals were the major component. We do not HAVE to have the government tell us what is affordable. For the most part the consumers knew that they were buying more than they could afford. The lenders are equally culpable as they too knew that eventually rates would go up. Bottom line, yes the politicians could have done something, but to blame one person/party for the debacle is biased and ridiculous.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah just plain ignorant, it is the same stuff that I heard last night on the PBS newshour from some other finiancial experts....

Their economic forcast word was "GRIM"

ok, your lack of detail has me confused... were you agreeing with me, disagreeing? What were you calling ignorant? what the author wrote or what I wrote?

 

[evince]

I blame the party in charge of the entire government at the time which was the Republican party.

Which is the only thing that can be done.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Super I have never said the Dems were perfect but I have said repetedly that they are the fiscal party compared to the Rs.

I know you have SAID that repeatedly and repeatedly I have shown you why you are wrong. NEITHER one has been fiscally responsible. NEITHER one.

Reagan added 1.6 trillion to the national debt. So did Clinton. Reagan had a Dem led congress, Clinton had a Rep led Congress. Bush has been a nightmare. Carter and Bush Sr. were not much better. (talking fiscally)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I blame the party in charge of the entire government at the time which was the Republican party.

Which is the only thing that can be done.

The only thing that can be done? What a cop out...and a load of crap. Did the government FORCE anyone to take out a loan? Did the government FORCE lenders to loan the money?

Did the Dems TRY to do ANYTHING? If not they are equally culpable. To act otherwise is to simply put on party blinders and begin the chant...."the other party did it, the other party did it"

 

[Cancel7]

Right Desh. Not one thing that I wrote in this thread is incorrect with regards to his bias. He mixes the truth with his bias and thus fails to accurately convey what has led this country to where we are today.

Tell me desh...

1) Is Bush responsible for individuals taking out these loans that led to foreclosure? Or is it the responsibility of the individual and the lender?

2) When was the last fiscal year the government lowered our national debt?

That’s a good question SF. I’m not sure of the answer. I know that it was hard to turn on a tv at one point without hearing that guy going on and on about his “ownership society” and “higher and higher levels of home ownership”.

Does the fish rot from the head? I’ve always noticed it does. Is this a coincidence? What about the regulatory situation and enforcement of such?
Yeah, there are some questions.

 

[uscitizen]

ok, your lack of detail has me confused... were you agreeing with me, disagreeing? What were you calling ignorant? what the author wrote or what I wrote?

I was just saying other experts agree with what the article wrote about China holding much of our debt, and possible outcomes.
Also dumping of the dollar was discussed on PBS last night. It is expected that China will gradually dump their dollars as it will too negatively impact them if they do it rapidly.
But dumping of the dollar is expected to grow.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That’s a good question SF. I’m not sure of the answer. I know that it was hard to turn on a tv at one point without hearing that guy going on and on about his “ownership society” and “higher and higher levels of home ownership”.

Does the fish rot from the head? I’ve always noticed it does. Is this a coincidence? What about the regulatory situation and enforcement of such?
Yeah, there are some questions.

No question better leadership could have helped to stop the problem, but to act as though a practice that really ramped up in the 1990's is somehow Bush's fault is ridiculous. The bulk of the responsibility goes to the lenders and borrowers.

Keep in mind, Clinton also championed the increases in home ownership and loans to small businesses. The politicians did it because it makes people feel all warm and cozy.... right up to the point they lose their homes.

The main problem I see is that, like the S&L situation, the government seems intent on bailing out the lenders and the homeowners... which means that we will yet again fail to learn the lesson needed to avoid repeating this mistake in the future.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I was just saying other experts agree with what the article wrote about China holding much of our debt, and possible outcomes.
Also dumping of the dollar was discussed on PBS last night. It is expected that China will gradually dump their dollars as it will too negatively impact them if they do it rapidly.
But dumping of the dollar is expected to grow.

Ok, but there is a difference to saying that China holds a huge chunk of our debt and saying that they are able to call that debt in. They are not able to do so. They CAN sell the bonds on the open market or they can hold them to maturity. That is the extent of what they can do with the bonds themselves.

They can also dump the dollar, but that will effect the debt they hold as well and they know it.

I do not disagree with the dollar declining, I also think it will continue.

But that does not change the fact that the author was incorrect in his statement.

 

[Cancel7]

No question better leadership could have helped to stop the problem, but to act as though a practice that really ramped up in the 1990's is somehow Bush's fault is ridiculous. The bulk of the responsibility goes to the lenders and borrowers.

Keep in mind, Clinton also championed the increases in home ownership and loans to small businesses. The politicians did it because it makes people feel all warm and cozy.... right up to the point they lose their homes.

The main problem I see is that, like the S&L situation, the government seems intent on bailing out the lenders and the homeowners... which means that we will yet again fail to learn the lesson needed to avoid repeating this mistake in the future.

Clinton is DLC, which you never get, but I do.

You think the government has a choice now? You see the house of cards falling down don’t you? They have to bail it out. The only thing keeping our service economy going has been consumer spending, financed in large part by home values. You know it, I know it, and the government knows it. You are talking avoiding recession, but the fact is, we’d get off easy if a recession is the only price we pay. Take a look at the income inequality gap, and you start to understand it’s not the only price we’re going to pay, and very little of this happened by chance.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I blame the party in charge of the entire government at the time which was the Republican party.

Which is the only thing that can be done.

Out of curiosity Desh, if the Dems do indeed win the WH and maintain control of both houses of Congress.... will they get the blame for everything that happens in the economy while they are in charge?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Clinton is DLC, which you never get, but I do.

You think the government has a choice now? You see the house of cards falling down don’t you? They have to bail it out. The only thing keeping our service economy going has been consumer spending, financed in large part by home values. You know it, I know it, and the government knows it. You are talking avoiding recession, but the fact is, we’d get off easy if a recession is the only price we pay. Take a look at the income inequality gap, and you start to understand it’s not the only price we’re going to pay, and very little of this happened by chance.

Yes, I understand that Bill Clinton was a moderate/centrist dem. But I will ask you the same question I asked Desh.... Did the "progressive" Dems or any dems for that matter do anything to stop these practices?

 

[Damocles]

Out of curiosity Desh, if the Dems do indeed win the WH and maintain control of both houses of Congress.... will they get the blame for everything that happens in the economy while they are in charge?

No, they'll all use the Bush excuse... For decades we are going to be hearing about this guy. And it is our own danged fault.

 

[evince]

The only thing that can be done? What a cop out...and a load of crap. Did the government FORCE anyone to take out a loan? Did the government FORCE lenders to loan the money?

Did the Dems TRY to do ANYTHING? If not they are equally culpable. To act otherwise is to simply put on party blinders and begin the chant...."the other party did it, the other party did it"

Look The Rs had all the power and the dems were completely treated like trash.

When it comes to holding government resposible for what they could have done you look at the people who were in charge. The Rs held all the power and investigated NOTHING.

They did very little and it is there fault. I dont balme the powerless I blame the powerful.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Look The Rs had all the power and the dems were completely treated like trash.

When it comes to holding government resposible for what they could have done you look at the people who were in charge. The Rs held all the power and investigated NOTHING.

They did very little and it is there fault. I dont balme the powerless I blame the powerful.

That is a cop out. Clinton encouraged this practice as did many dems in Congress. They did nothing to try to curb these practices. Neither did the Reps. BOTH parties are to blame on the political front.

But I beg you, please quit acting as though it is the politicians that are largely responsible. The lenders and borrowers are the ones to blame. They borrowers for taking out more in loans than they could afford and the lenders for letting them.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, they'll all use the Bush excuse... For decades we are going to be hearing about this guy. And it is our own danged fault.

I know.

 

[Cypress]

No, they'll all use the Bush excuse... For decades we are going to be hearing about this guy. And it is our own danged fault.

For years, who has been saying that we need to reign in and regulate predatory lending practices? Liberals? Or conservatives?