165 posts
CraigBert — Jan 20, 2013[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1357320750/25#48 date=1358720949]Can ya spell out what you think happened?
You're asking Hooky to spell? :D ;D
That was a good one. ;D ;D
BINGEWOOD — Jan 20, 2013Can ya spell out what you think happened?
So you haven't read the thread?
Can you?
A recession is two quarters in a row of negative growth. You may define it as something else because, let's face it, you watch a lot of fox news, and they have their own invented facts.
Good try. Cause the articles I posted were from fox news, right? ::)
Actually, you originally said we were in recession when Clinton left office, which is totally untrue. Now you're saying Clinton is to blame for a recession that started almost 8 years after he left office. Ok, sure, why not? If you live in a universe full of untruth, it's totally logical to blame Clinton for everything. After all, he was the last Democratic president before GW Bush, and lord knows, if things go wrong, there must be a Democrat behind it somewhere, right?
charger — Jan 21, 2013Actually, you originally said we were in recession when Clinton left office, which is totally untrue. Now you're saying Clinton is to blame for a recession that started almost 8 years after he left office. Ok, sure, why not? If you live in a universe full of untruth, it's totally logical to blame Clinton for everything. After all, he was the last Democratic president before GW Bush, and lord knows, if things go wrong, there must be a Democrat behind it somewhere, right?
Now your admitting you haven't read the thread. At least my post, anyway.
This is why I was asking you to spell out what you're thinking, it's hard to tell what you're saying.
Your one to talk. ;D ;D
I've already said it. No need to do it again. Read the thread. Hint.... All the answers to the quiz are there. ;D
Charger knows what I'm saying. And he knows it's correct.
Oh boy... It's not a quiz. It's hard to understand what you are/not saying. Is the point just that you feel that Clinton played some role? That's it?
Did you read the thread or my post?
That question seems to be the other part.
Albaqoikeee!!!
Doesn't make sense to answer questions you know the answers to, if you read the thread.
Read this sentence:
Hookbender — Jan 22, 2013Doesn't make sense to answer questions you know the answers to, if you read the thread.
Do you see what I'm saying about hard to understand what you're thinking?
YOU know the answers you have in your head, YOU aren't really getting the thoughts out. Just saying, "You haven't read the thread", doesn't clear anything up, especially if you have read the thread.
Hookbender — Jan 16, 2013This might help show you a portion of Clinton's role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession
Plenty of blame to go around. It wasn't all Clinton's fault, nor was it all Bush's fault.
"Sub-prime lending as a cause
Further information: Sub-prime mortgage crisis
GAO Historical Data
Based on the assumption that sub-prime lending precipitated the crisis, some have argued that the Clinton Administration may be partially to blame. This GAO chart plainly demonstrates that sub-prime and Alt-A loans clearly peaked after 2003.
Others have pointed to the passage of the GrammLeachBliley Act by the 106th Congress, and over-leveraging by banks and investors eager to achieve high returns on capital.
Government deregulation as a cause
In 1992, the Democratic-controlled 102nd Congress under the George H. W. Bush administration weakened regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the goal of making available more money for the issuance of home loans. The Washington Post wrote: "Congress also wanted to free up money for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy mortgage loans and specified that the pair would be required to keep a much smaller share of their funds on hand than other financial institutions. Whereas banks that held $100 could spend $90 buying mortgage loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could spend $97.50 buying loans. Finally, Congress ordered that the companies be required to keep more capital as a cushion against losses if they invested in riskier securities. But the rule was never set during the Clinton administration, which came to office that winter, and was only put in place nine years later."
Others have pointed to deregulation efforts as contributing to the collapse. In 1999, the Republican-controlled 106th Congress, under Bill Clinton, passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the GlassSteagall Act of 1933. This repeal has been criticized by some for having contributed to the proliferation of the complex and opaque financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis. However, some economists object to singling out the repeal of GlassSteagall for criticism. Brad DeLong, a former advisor to President Clinton and economist at the University of California, Berkeley and Tyler Cowen of George Mason University have both argued that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis by allowing for mergers and acquisitions of collapsing banks as the crisis unfolded in late 2008."
^^^^^^^^^^ You put this up as explaining the point you are making. These are the only parts that mention Billory. ^^^^^^^^^^
See the problem?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bill-clinton-dnc-speech-fact-check-finds-president-claims-compromise-stretch-article-1.1153053
CLINTON: "I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. ... I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history."
THE FACTS: Clinton is counting on voters to recall the 1990s wistfully and to cast a vote for Obama in hopes of replicating those days in a second term. But Clinton leaves out the abrupt downward turn the economy took near the end of his own second term and the role his policies played in the setting the stage for the historic financial meltdown of 2008.
While the economy and markets experienced a record expansion for most of the rest of Clinton's two-term presidency, at the start of 2000, there were troubling signs. Then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned in February 2000 that "we are entering a period of considerable turbulence in financial markets."
Sure enough, the tech-heavy Nasdaq composite stock index and the Dow Jones industrial average both peaked in March 2000. The bursting of the high-tech bubble dragged down the economy and markets through the rest of the year. From September 2000 to January 2001 when Clinton left office, the Nasdaq dropped 46 percent. Even now, in 2012, the Nasdaq has not returned to its 2000 peak. By March 2001, the economy toppled into recession.
Also, as president, Clinton supported the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a law dating back to the Great Depression that separated banking from high-risk financial speculation. Robert Rubin, who had been Clinton's first treasury secretary, helped broker the final deal on Capitol Hill that enabled the repeal legislation to pass. Some financial historians say the repeal of the law paved the way for banks to invest in risky investments like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations that played a role in the 2008 financial meltdown.
By the way Charger, not all economist define a recession as you do.
Recession at the end of/after Clinton was the dot com bubble goes kabloooey!!! Greenspan knew that shit had been marketed as gold during the dot com bubble and the market, which had been going up up up, was about to get turbulent. This isn't the one that came at the end of Bush's presidency. That "greatest" recession came after the real estate bubble, Bush's "kick ass" economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession
Clinton didn't veto the bill put forth by these "liberals":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GrammLeachBliley.jpgWhich passed the Congress of the time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrammLeachBliley_ActDo you think of Clinton as a liberal?
Not really. He pretty much did what republicans say they are gonna do. Maybe with the exception of smaller government. I'd vote for him today though, over any clown in the last years since he left office. He could even have sex with Nancy during the campaign and I'd still vote for him. ;D
Obama's main problem is he has never run a business and he's having trouble running government. Apparently he has no negotiating skills.
I really don't classify people I vote for in one party or the other. I don't believe either party is committed to anything but getting elected these days. So the one who's for the most of what I like is the one I vote for. I'm not sure I could even tell you what either party stands for today, to be honest with you. I don't care about the tags. I don't care about the party. Liberal, conservative, who gives a fuck.
Nancy Reagan?...or that comic strip chick?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession
"In a 1975 New York Times article, economic statistician Julius Shiskin suggested several rules of thumb for defining a recession, one of which was "two down consecutive quarters of GDP". In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten. Some economists prefer a definition of a 1.5% rise in unemployment within 12 months."
http://www.answers.com/topic/recession
"An extended decline in general business activity, typically two consecutive quarters of falling real gross national product."
I'm willing to accept that the dot com bubble burst shortly after Bill Clinton left office, but I am not willing to accept the basic premise of this thread, which has now been totally lost, that we ever needed the Bush tax cuts.
Obama's main "problem", as you stated it, is he has never run a business and has no negotiating skills. This sounds like parroting of conservo talking points. Not sure what you mean.
Mitt Romney ran a lot of businesses. He couldn't run a freaking campaign, even though he spent 7 years doing it. I'd say Obama's running things pretty damn well, got things moving in the right direction, and I definitely like the new "no compromises, no bullshit" approach. He learned pretty well from the last 4 years that negotiating up front with Republicans was a no-win situation, and every time he gave major concessions, they refused to vote for what they agreed to, or dropped their agreements, or asked for more. Now he knows better. It will be an interesting 4 years, and I predict good things, for America, if not for the Republican party.
Hookbender — Jan 24, 2013Not really. He pretty much did what republicans say they are gonna do. Maybe with the exception of smaller government. I'd vote for him today though, over any clown in the last years since he left office. He could even have sex with Nancy during the campaign and I'd still vote for him. ;D
Obama has made the government smaller. Or do you not pay attention to the jobs numbers...private sector jobs are the main ones we've been gaining in the dozens of months of consistent job growth. It's the public sector jobs that are dragging the numbers down. And before you go off on your "but the debt/deficit, blah blah" rant, the reason those are so large is that we are still paying for Iraq and Afghanistan and the foolish Bush Tax Cuts. Oh, and the fact that banks and companies are fucking over the economy with their greed.
Obama's main problem is he has never run a business and he's having trouble running government. Apparently he has no negotiating skills.
Do you post drunk or something? These two have nothing to do with one another. Bill Clinton's never run a business, but he is a brilliant negotiator. Of course, none of this matters when the assholes you're trying to negotiate with start with a "bipartisanship means you do what I want" attitude and then make it even worse by rejecting THEIR OWN SUGGESTIONS because you decide to champion them (as Obama has faced since 2009). Please don't try and pretend there's anything President Obama could do to get the Republicans to negotiate short of just rubber-stamping all their ideas.
I really don't classify people I vote for in one party or the other. I don't believe either party is committed to anything but getting elected these days. So the one who's for the most of what I like is the one I vote for. I'm not sure I could even tell you what either party stands for today, to be honest with you. I don't care about the tags. I don't care about the party. Liberal, conservative, who gives a fuck.
I agree with this part. If we decided to reform our electoral process by taking the fundraising out of the hands of those in elected office, shorten the cycle, get rid of partisan gerrymandering and the electoral college and publicly fund elections, we might actually have proper representation in government and get things done...
Tripper
Tripper — Jan 24, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/50#71 date=1358994859]Not really. He pretty much did what republicans say they are gonna do. Maybe with the exception of smaller government. I'd vote for him today though, over any clown in the last years since he left office. He could even have sex with Nancy during the campaign and I'd still vote for him. ;D
Obama has made the government smaller. Or do you not pay attention to the jobs numbers...private sector jobs are the main ones we've been gaining in the dozens of months of consistent job growth. It's the public sector jobs that are dragging the numbers down. And before you go off on your "but the debt/deficit, blah blah" rant, the reason those are so large is that we are still paying for Iraq and Afghanistan and the foolish Bush Tax Cuts. Oh, and the fact that banks and companies are fucking over the economy with their greed.
Obama's main problem is he has never run a business and he's having trouble running government. Apparently he has no negotiating skills.
Do you post drunk or something? These two have nothing to do with one another. Bill Clinton's never run a business, but he is a brilliant negotiator. Of course, none of this matters when the assholes you're trying to negotiate with start with a "bipartisanship means you do what I want" attitude and then make it even worse by rejecting THEIR OWN SUGGESTIONS because you decide to champion them (as Obama has faced since 2009). Please don't try and pretend there's anything President Obama could do to get the Republicans to negotiate short of just rubber-stamping all their ideas.
I really don't classify people I vote for in one party or the other. I don't believe either party is committed to anything but getting elected these days. So the one who's for the most of what I like is the one I vote for. I'm not sure I could even tell you what either party stands for today, to be honest with you. I don't care about the tags. I don't care about the party. Liberal, conservative, who gives a fuck.
I agree with this part. If we decided to reform our electoral process by taking the fundraising out of the hands of those in elected office, shorten the cycle, get rid of partisan gerrymandering and the electoral college and publicly fund elections, we might actually have proper representation in government and get things done...
Tripper
First, I was talking about Clinton, not Obama. I don't understand what your saying here.
Second, Again, I was talking about Clinton, not Obama. And I question whether you mean negotiator, or he gives great speeches. I will argue this point. Obama himself, has been quoted on subjects saying "he would not compromise" and I'm not sure I've seen republicans say that. Maybe they have???? I would say it's 51% Obama's fault and 49% Republicans at fault. I give the extra 1% to Obama because he's, well, The President.
And third, I agree.
They all say they won't compromise, until they do. What are you talking about in particular? Not only do the pubz say it, they do it...
Lets assume your correct, that doesn't excuse Obama's role. Doesn't matter what the subject is, it's a war between the 2.
Hungh? What specifically are you talking about?
Hookbender — Jan 25, 2013First, I was talking about Clinton, not Obama. I don't understand what your saying here.
You were using Clinton as an example to make a point about President Obama's lack of success, so my comments make perfect sense in that context. Sorry you couldn't make the connection. I'll be more explicit next time.
Second, Again, I was talking about Clinton, not Obama. And I question whether you mean negotiator, or he gives great speeches.
I was responding directly to this comment:
Obama's main problem is he has never run a business and he's having trouble running government. Apparently he has no negotiating skills.
How on earth is that talking about Clinton?
I will argue this point. Obama himself, has been quoted on subjects saying "he would not compromise" and I'm not sure I've seen republicans say that. Maybe they have???? I would say it's 51% Obama's fault and 49% Republicans at fault. I give the extra 1% to Obama because he's, well, The President.
Pay attention to the actual things that have happened instead of what the politicians say. Words are not deeds. In practice, President Obama's been a borderline doormat since he was elected, because the Republicans don't want him to get anything done ever, and he wants to get things done so he bends to their will. Hopefully he will become more of a no-compromise leader than he's been. America needs that.
Tripper
Hookbender — Jan 25, 2013Lets assume your correct, that doesn't excuse Obama's role. Doesn't matter what the subject is, it's a war between the 2.
An analogy: The guy getting punched but isn't fighting is as responsible for the fight as the guy punching him?
A better analogy: The terrorist holding a hostage is as responsible for the situation as the hostage who's trying to get free?
Tripper
Tripper — Jan 25, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/75#77 date=1359075852]First, I was talking about Clinton, not Obama. I don't understand what your saying here.
You were using Clinton as an example to make a point about President Obama's lack of success, so my comments make perfect sense in that context. Sorry you couldn't make the connection. I'll be more explicit next time.
Second, Again, I was talking about Clinton, not Obama. And I question whether you mean negotiator, or he gives great speeches.
I was responding directly to this comment:
Obama's main problem is he has never run a business and he's having trouble running government. Apparently he has no negotiating skills.
How on earth is that talking about Clinton?
I will argue this point. Obama himself, has been quoted on subjects saying "he would not compromise" and I'm not sure I've seen republicans say that. Maybe they have???? I would say it's 51% Obama's fault and 49% Republicans at fault. I give the extra 1% to Obama because he's, well, The President.
Pay attention to the actual things that have happened instead of what the politicians say. Words are not deeds. In practice, President Obama's been a borderline doormat since he was elected, because the Republicans don't want him to get anything done ever, and he wants to get things done so he bends to their will. Hopefully he will become more of a no-compromise leader than he's been. America needs that.
Tripper
Sorry. Still, nothing.
"You were using Clinton as an example to make a point about President Obama's lack of success, so my comments make perfect sense in that context. Sorry you couldn't make the connection. I'll be more explicit next time. "
Except, this is the wrong assumption.
Tripper — Jan 25, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/75#79 date=1359080151]Lets assume your correct, that doesn't excuse Obama's role. Doesn't matter what the subject is, it's a war between the 2.
An analogy: The guy getting punched but isn't fighting is as responsible for the fight as the guy punching him?
A better analogy: The terrorist holding a hostage is as responsible for the situation as the hostage who's trying to get free?
Tripper
I don't see it that way. Because, it's not, that way.
Who does each side represent in the war between the 2?
Pubs represent 2 year olds and obama represents 3 year olds
Ahhh, I see why you are confused...
I guess yer right...confusion could imply curiosity.
Hookbender — Jan 26, 2013[quote author=Tripper link=1357320750/75#82 date=1359138827][quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/75#79 date=1359080151]Lets assume your correct, that doesn't excuse Obama's role. Doesn't matter what the subject is, it's a war between the 2.
An analogy: The guy getting punched but isn't fighting is as responsible for the fight as the guy punching him?
A better analogy: The terrorist holding a hostage is as responsible for the situation as the hostage who's trying to get free?
Tripper
I don't see it that way. Because, it's not, that way.
It IS that way, though. You're willfully denying reality if you think it isn't exactly that. The fucking Republican leadership has come out and said, publicly, that the plan was to obstruct. They have held the country hostage on more than one occasion just to obstruct the president.
If this isn't reality to you, you're not living in reality, you're in the right-wing echo chamber.
President Obama wanted to get things done. He has repeatedly passed REPUBLICAN IDEAS just so SOMETHING could be done. And most times he passed those ideas, there were STILL assholes on the right who refused to support them. I don't know what their motivation was, but it sure wasn't for the good of this country. I like the "racist fucks who huff their own farts in the right-wing bubble" narrative, but that's because I think many if not most of them are science-denying, anti-intellectual boobs who wouldn't know or accept facts if Jesus Himself delivered them to these dipshits directly.
It's just SAD at this point, how much you've conditioned yourself to deny reality in service of your inexplicable distaste for President Obama.
Tripper
Tripper — Jan 28, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/75#84 date=1359161903][quote author=Tripper link=1357320750/75#82 date=1359138827][quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/75#79 date=1359080151]Lets assume your correct, that doesn't excuse Obama's role. Doesn't matter what the subject is, it's a war between the 2.
An analogy: The guy getting punched but isn't fighting is as responsible for the fight as the guy punching him?
A better analogy: The terrorist holding a hostage is as responsible for the situation as the hostage who's trying to get free?
Tripper
I don't see it that way. Because, it's not, that way.
It IS that way, though. You're willfully denying reality if you think it isn't exactly that. The fucking Republican leadership has come out and said, publicly, that the plan was to obstruct. They have held the country hostage on more than one occasion just to obstruct the president.
If this isn't reality to you, you're not living in reality, you're in the right-wing echo chamber.
President Obama wanted to get things done. He has repeatedly passed REPUBLICAN IDEAS just so SOMETHING could be done. And most times he passed those ideas, there were STILL assholes on the right who refused to support them. I don't know what their motivation was, but it sure wasn't for the good of this country. I like the "racist fucks who huff their own farts in the right-wing bubble" narrative, but that's because I think many if not most of them are science-denying, anti-intellectual boobs who wouldn't know or accept facts if Jesus Himself delivered them to these dipshits directly.
It's just SAD at this point, how much you've conditioned yourself to deny reality in service of your inexplicable distaste for President Obama.
Tripper
And Obama has come out and said he won't compromise. So, what's your fucking gripe Trip? They both are clearly at fault. Reality is that it's fair to say that both are to blame. That is reality. Period. Evidence supports that as you well know.
Fucking everyone wants to get things done. Problem is, Obama became a politician instead of the promised vision of hope he shared with all of us. Thats understandable to a degree, but not excusable. I like Obama a great deal. Before you accuse me of what you are clearly guilty of, read your post and see who has closed the door on reality and is full of hate so much you see things one way. Your hatred for conservatives is evident, along with Charger, but just because I don't agree with a few things Obama does.... don't put me in your group and categorize me in the same fashion you basically describe yourself with in your post. Thats not fair.
I didn't have a whole lot of anger at conservatives before the last 4 years. Going out with the stated mission of making our president fail, completely fucking up the ability of Congress to get anything done, and doing dumb shit like threatening default on our debt, to the point where credit ratings agencies downgrade us? Passing laws all over the country to make it harder for people to exercise their rights? Especially the right to vote?
I have more than enough reason to hate Republicans after 2008-2012. I'm very hopeful that they will disappear and be replaced with something better, a true opposition party that has good ideas and is willing to work to make the country better.
I understand why you hate conservatives, but I think your anger should be pointed in the direction of the system we have. Not the entire thing, just the corruption part. What I mean is, for example, people making a career out of being in the congress. In our system, that just about guarantees corruption, imo.
Hookbender — Jan 31, 2013I understand why you hate conservatives, but I think your anger should be pointed in the direction of the system we have. Not the entire thing, just the corruption part. What I mean is, for example, people making a career out of being in the congress. In our system, that just about guarantees corruption, imo.
Or passing laws and exempting themselves from them as the Senate is famous for...
Hookbender — Jan 31, 2013I understand why you hate conservatives, but I think your anger should be pointed in the direction of the system we have. Not the entire thing, just the corruption part. What I mean is, for example, people making a career out of being in the congress. In our system, that just about guarantees corruption, imo.
heh heh The new conservoz seem werser than the career ones...
Hookbender — Jan 31, 2013I understand why you hate conservatives, but I think your anger should be pointed in the direction of the system we have. Not the entire thing, just the corruption part. What I mean is, for example, people making a career out of being in the congress. In our system, that just about guarantees corruption, imo.
No. A whole bunch of brand new people, including a smattering of "tea party" republicans got elected in 2010... and as far as I can tell, they just made shit worse. If it's going to make the country run better, I'll take the career politician over the local asshole who is extreme enough to beat a moderate in his primary, but also too extreme to do a goddam worthwhile thing for the country. It would be hard to argue that things in this country weren't working a whole lot better before the tea party took over the Republican party.
But it's also not hard to argue that Republicans have been making themselves irrelevant for a long time. And they suck. And I hope they disappear.
Ok. If you feel that strongly about it, nothing I say will make any difference.
It's true, thems pubs be crying big time right now. You mirror their cries and, like them, wish for a do-over on the last 4...
I don't mind Bammer flippin the script (finally), let's see what they get done.
Mirror their cries? Thats way harsh. Thats not the case at all. Remember, I'm an equal opportunity hater, I hate the republicans too.
Your argument is laughable at best. You can't put me in the same picture frame as you and company are. I am neutral, leaning just a tad conservative, and thats a very slight lean.
And it doesn't matter about getting new people anywhere if they know they have the opportunity to make damn good money, and have a very sweet retirement by having a career in congress.
A person who wants to steal shit doesn't go to MLK street to scope out the home he will rob. These guys in congress and the senate are crooks, and they've been stealing from us quite long enough, don't ya think? We should have a dishonorable discharge, or honorable, at the end of these guys 4 year max term.
