is the model u want here, Pri?
if u do, pack for europe..they'll welcome u with open arms....or do u want communisim? follow the ussr model? if yes, go direct to moscow...
resulted in the worst economic crisis since the great Depression. GWB is the only POTUS to have an MBA. If Mitt is elected, he'll be the 2nd to have a MBA.
Is this the rationale behind "MBA Republicans" ? : "we fucked up the economy & only we have the know-how to fix it" ?!
Little cognitive dissonance there, don't you think ?
Even ror anyone who has only set foot in a law library, to say that Bush was 8 years of unregualted laissez faire is physically insane. The thousands of pages of federal codes and tens of thousands of federal regulations that were in effect during those eight years makes ones head swim. If you added up the number of code sections in effect from the Congress and the regulations from administartive agencies, this is just a joke.
Name the field - banking, insurance, securities....... Tens of thousands of statutes and regs in effect.
Also, much of the disaster was caused by regulation in the form of the government encouraging banks to give questionable loans with them guaranteed. A true anti-regulationist laissez faire approach would have been for the govt to say, "You loan to who you want to, but we are not encouraging you to make loans to people with low credit ratings and were are not guaranteeing anything."
Fannie and Freddie were 100% creatures of government legislation and they are still causing losses of millions. To say they are "de-regulation" is a paradox. You don't deregulated by passing laws
And three years later, it is still Bush. The buck stops there forever.
Is this the rationale behind "MBA Republicans" ? : "we fucked up the economy & only we have the know-how to fix it" ?!
Little cognitive dissonance there, don't you think ?
Btw, much of the 2008 financial collapse was brought about by repeal of part of the Glass-Steagall act, which was pushed by the banks, the financial sector & their GOP allies in Congress.( see below )
Wake up from your buffet-induced coma and join us in the 21st Century . . . . . .
he's the dorky looking guy in the bread line---take your pick------LOL !
-- Modified on 4/26/2012 6:15:57 PM
When it refutes what you claim it says?
You said "much" of the collapse was brought by the partial repeal of Glass-Steagall, the article says "Richard Parsons ...said the financial crisis was PARTLY caused by a regulatory change that permitted the company’s creation" and “To SOME extent what we saw in the 2007, 2008 crash was the result of the throwing off of Glass-Steagall”. Since when did "partly" and "some" become your "much"?
And you claim this change was pushed by the banks, financial sector and GOP allies?
From the article...
"Banks are growing because CORPORATIONS and OTHER CLIENTS want them to, and management must meet the challenge."
“But it got that way because there was a MARKET NEED and institutions find and follow the needs of the marketplace."
Granted, "corporations and other clients" could be include banks/financial sector but the article did not delineate it as such so it could just as easily be any other sort of corporation or sector. Last I looked, "market" tended to refer to something a good deal larger than just banks/financial sector/GOP allies...
Now, I don't have a dog in this fight and don't claim any special knowledge about the situation, but if you're going to link an article (theoretically, to validate to your argument), why not try reading it first? And if you get so far as to read it, how about not inserting the words you may have wished they used but using the words that were actually published?
Just a thought....
Btw, I wrote previous post in response to phil
blaming "much of the financial disaster on Dems & Fannie Mae Freddie Mac "lending practices".
"CORPORATIONS & OTHER CLIENTS & MARKET NEED" brought about the '29 stock market crash & the great depression, which in turn brought upon financial reforms such as the SEC & Glass-Steagall. Sometimes even the most financially savy people can become moronic through greed & need to be protected from themselves by the government.
The bill overturning part of Glass-Steagall
was called Gramm-Leach-Bailey, all named after its GOP congressional creators.
Lastly, you should drop your patronizing tone---makes you sound "bitchy".
-- Modified on 4/26/2012 4:29:17 PM
Between what the previous article said - and what you said it said. THAT was the point of my post. NOT the topic of the article. Remedial reading comprehension anyone?
Lesson learned: When Pri posts links, ignore them. They are as relevant to his post as teats are to a warthog.
Lastly, you whining about my tone makes you sound.... whiny.
in the above post. Phil said much of the economic damage was caused by Freddie Mac/ Fannie Mae. He listed no other causes. To please your pedantic, parsing mind, I should have said much of the damge was ALSO caused by repeal of part of Glass-Stegall. But, I didn't think that needed to be spelled out because it was so obvious, even someone with 1/2 a brain could figure it out. It didn't occur to me that you even lack THOSE cognitive skills.
But, what can I expect from a partisan hack who hides behind a chickenshit alias ?
-- Modified on 4/26/2012 9:08:27 PM
You can't be taken seriously. Apparently you can't keep 2 topics in two threads separate, nor can you intelligently stick to one topic in one thread as simple as posting a fucking link that doesn't refute the point you're trying to make.
Pedantic.... no, elementary. Simple. Clean. Logical. I make no apologies that the convoluted bullshit that you try to pass off as argument is what it is, and it's somewhat annoying. If you're going to be a complete idiot, go for it. But have the common sense to use links that support your point. Parsing, yeah. It's called critical thinking. You parse shit out and look at each side of it and see what validity each has and how they fit together to make a whole. You question assumptions. Like the assumption that you have a fucking clue what you're talking about or that the links you post will have fuck-all to do with the topic.
Chickenshit alias partisan hack, that's me. Find some other insults to throw my way. No one but you buys that your personal attacks are anything more than an attempt to deflect attention from the utter wasteland that is that thing that sits atop your shoulders.
As well as a few stupid pictures, spell checking, and self-flatulating LMAO's.
Hey, it's Pri's style....
*****Mr. Dorgan’s views about the repeal of Glass-Steagall were echoed by then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008 as he campaigned for president.
“By the time the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework,” Mr. Obama said in a speech on the economy at Cooper Union in New York in March 2008. “Instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one,” thereby encouraging “a winner take all, anything goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy.”
Today, President Obama seems to have softened his views a bit when it comes to Glass-Steagall. The administration’s proposal for overhauling financial regulatory system makes no mention of resurrecting the firewall between commercial banks and investment banks and still allows insurance companies to deal in securities. The change of heart may have something to do with the fact that one of his senior economic advisers is Mr. Summers.*****
And who is Lawrence Summers?????
“""""Today, Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,” then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said at the time. “This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.”"""""
Yup, Bush did it.
& of course, you didn't address what I had to say. Phil only said Fannie Mae responsible for great deal of economic collapse. I said part of repeal of Glass-Stegall ALSO responsible for great deal of economic collapse. Linked articles backed me up & anyone with knowledge of recent history & Economics 101 knows that ( which lets you out ).What you call "critical thinking" most would call "Sophistry". Since that term obviously is unknown to an uneducated simpleton such as yourself, I've included link below for your benefit.
You called your line of arguments "elementary & simple" which were the only accurate statements in your hysterical screed.
Lastly, I'll take YOU seriously, when you overcome your fear of me & stop hiding behind your skirt & chickenshit alias.
Grow a pair. If you can.
"physically insane"? How is that possible? What does that mean?
Bad writing done quickly and hitting "post" without proof reading. That is the explanation of why I said it. (Ooops. It happens to the best of us.)
So I’m sure you didn’t mean to give Bush credit for that, did you? Besides, Priapus did not mean there was “no regulation” during the Bush years – which is the way you answered his post – but rather that Bush promoted letting businesses operate with as little federal regulation as possible.
At the same time, he advocated pushing home ownership and to accomplish this goal encouraged making risky mortgages. The Fannie and Freddie standards for mortgage loans and guaranteed were actually loosened during the Bush years and we saw the rise of no down payment mortgages, no doc mortgages etc.
As for “regulation in the form of the government encouraging banks to give questionable loans,” encouraging banks to make loans is hardly a regulation.
The Bush DOJ also effectively dropped the Microsoft anti-trust case by agreeing to a slap on the wrist settlement after we had spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, including hiring David Boies at $800 an hour. And the DOJ anti trust division was like working at Club Med during Bush years.
So while Priapus’s caption is inartfully worded (he should have said “substantially contributed” rather than "resulted") and should be read literally about as much as your “physically insane” comment, his core point –for once - is correct.
Name the field - banking, insurance, securities....... Tens of thousands of statutes and regs in effect.
Also, much of the disaster was caused by regulation in the form of the government encouraging banks to give questionable loans with them guaranteed. A true anti-regulationist laissez faire approach would have been for the govt to say, "You loan to who you want to, but we are not encouraging you to make loans to people with low credit ratings and were are not guaranteeing anything."
Fannie and Freddie were 100% creatures of government legislation and they are still causing losses of millions. To say they are "de-regulation" is a paradox. You don't deregulated by passing laws
And three years later, it is still Bush. The buck stops there forever.
Is this the rationale behind "MBA Republicans" ? : "we fucked up the economy & only we have the know-how to fix it" ?!
Little cognitive dissonance there, don't you think ?
Yes, there are many regulations on the books. In a country that's been around for 200 plus years, you're bound to get a few laws built up.
However, maybe you ought to ask a government regulator (aka Willy) if those regulations were enforced during the Bush administration.
The answer is effectively NO. Every agency that has the tinest thing to do with business were all given the same line. We aren't here to do shit. Our jobs during the Bush administration was to wait for some company to BREAK THE FUCKING LAW, call that company up, and tell them THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. HAVE A NICE DAY.
When the company broke the law again, the same process would happen all over again.
That's why the SEC had nothing better to do than look at porn while the economy collapsed from the biggest single white collar crime wave in world history. That's why Interior Dept. officials snorting coke and had orgies with oil lobbyists. It's why the GSA, whose job it is to make sure gov't isn't wasting money, saw their budget for Vegas parties skyrocket by over 100% every year.
And you don't think the Bush administration was laissez faire? Buddy, it was as close to laissez faire you could get without ripping the entire US Code to pieces. I know. I was fucking there.
It isn't the build up of 200 years. It is the geometrical progressive increase in the number of regulations.
And what you claim the fat ass govt employees did is exactly what they should do. Wait until a law is broken and then call up and demand compliance.
Just what you said implies they should be demanding compliance before they break the law.
Finally, you missed my point of the biggest drain on the economy being Fannie and Freddie and mandated loans.
All those shit loans were not only legal, so there was nothing that could be done, but banks were (and still are) encouraged to give loans to bad credit risks.
If it had been truly de-regulated so the govt had not role - especially guaranteeing the loans - no bank would ever have given that type of loan.
However, maybe you ought to ask a government regulator (aka Willy) if those regulations were enforced during the Bush administration.
The answer is effectively NO. Every agency that has the tinest thing to do with business were all given the same line. We aren't here to do shit. Our jobs during the Bush administration was to wait for some company to BREAK THE FUCKING LAW, call that company up, and tell them THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. HAVE A NICE DAY.
When the company broke the law again, the same process would happen all over again.
That's why the SEC had nothing better to do than look at porn while the economy collapsed from the biggest single white collar crime wave in world history. That's why Interior Dept. officials snorting coke and had orgies with oil lobbyists. It's why the GSA, whose job it is to make sure gov't isn't wasting money, saw their budget for Vegas parties skyrocket by over 100% every year.
And you don't think the Bush administration was laissez faire? Buddy, it was as close to laissez faire you could get without ripping the entire US Code to pieces. I know. I was fucking there.
Are these the stunts you use to get a crack dealer acquitted, Phil ? When it comes to these matters, you're more disingenuous than Bill Clinton.
When I said "unregulated" it was not to be taken LITERALLY. ( as several have said here ) It was meant to say that GWB administration had laughable record of ENFORCING regulations.
One of the factors that aslo contributed to '08 economic collapse was overturning part of Glass-Stegall, a measure pushed by GOP, which you conveniently neglected to mention.
What next from you ? Are you going to say it depends on meaning of "what is is ?"
Incredible.
Today, President Obama seems to have softened his views a bit when it comes to Glass-Steagall. The administration’s proposal for overhauling financial regulatory system makes no mention of resurrecting the firewall between commercial banks and investment banks and still allows insurance companies to deal in securities. The change of heart may have something to do with the fact that one of his senior economic advisers is Mr. Summers.*****
And who is Lawrence Summers?????
“""""Today, Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,” then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said at the time. “This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.”"""""
PS, Google "Robert Rubin and CitiGroup merger".
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Put that & "Obamacare" as big demerits against the POTUS.
Keep in mind, repeal of part of Glass-Steagall was propelled by the GOP.
Now go back to the buffet & have your black & brown prawns------
I'll settle for the first time in months. It's a start.
I'm well aware of the circumstances behind the repeal of G-S. Everyone had a hand in that. As well as many other things "government" did, without which this bubble would have not occured. And if it did, it would be the stockholders feasting on shit. Then they'd think twice about who sits on their boards and vets their top management.
Of course, that makes me a racist.
You think we were allowed to do that? lol! No, we couldn't even ask politely for them to be in compliance. Our job was to tell them what they had to do to be in compliance, that's all.
You know, for average people, when they break the law there are consequences. There are penalties. There are fines. There are prosecutions. But somehow, if you're making a profit, under the Bush administration all that went out of the damn window. Zero enforcement. No consequences for your actions.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If al-Qaeda wanted to make a profit from their terrorist activities, then Osama bin Laden wouldn't have lived in a cave or a bunker in Pakistan, he would have been on the cover of Forbes.
is the model u want here, Pri?
if u do, pack for europe..they'll welcome u with open arms....or do u want communisim? follow the ussr model? if yes, go direct to moscow...
