EnviroDude: Another thread where the Obama defenders will rally around their Clueless in Chief. You can always tell because they try to vote the thread down.

Economy suxars and it's bush's fault? I'm sorry, when was the last annual fiscal budget voted for in the Senate? How many trillions have disappeared without any accounting?

Obama would have done better to give us taxpayers the money than the special interest Wall Street and foreign fat cats.

Budgets, how do they work?

Weaver95: NeedlesslyCanadian: Yep. The out-of-control spending and against-all-advice deregulation spearheaded by the last clown in office had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all. Obama is completely responsible in every way for the collapse that was well underway for at least 6 months before he sat in the big chair. Completely his fault.

6 months?  our problems began with the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

That argument is one of those red flagsk that instantly tells you that the proponent has no idea what they're talking about. The "repeal" of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the financial crisis of 2008. The fact that investment and commercial banks could be housed in one company helped stop the crisis.

Here is one explanation why from 2008. And another author observes that Canada had no equivalent of Glass-Steagall, but didn't suffer the same crisis as the rest of the world because they had much more strict lending requirements and smarter (but not more) regulation. Left-wing economist Brad DeLong says Glass-Steagall's "repeal" was not a major cause of the crash in a rare moment of bipartisan consensus.

Hell, even Obama's own Treasury Secretary recently said that Glass-Steagall rules had nothing to do with the collapse.

It's an article of faith for some people that Glass-Steagall's repeal caused the crisis. That position is dead wrong and doesn't match the facts. The combined banks were not the ones that got into the biggest trouble.

If you want a villain, blame the completely unregulated "shadow market" for credit default swaps - that actually did help cause the crisis.

There is one good side to that argument - if you hear someone say that Glass-Steagall caused the crisis, you know instantly that that person has no clue what they're talking about.

andrewagill: A lot of this was the dotcom bubble and other internal US policies, which may not be Clinton's fault solely, but the Clinton administration, Congress and the Fed are pretty much the groups to blame for much of it.

Not just the dotcom bubble, but the property values bubble is what truly screwed us over. As people saw their property values rise, way too many took out loan after loan on the inflated value of their homes. They spent this borrowed money freely on consumer goods, which gave the illusion in 2002 and 2003 of a better economy than there really was. When home values started to collapse, all those loans went bad. Trillions disappeared. We are still trying to come to grips with that. Basically, in the early 2000s, people borrowed trillions from the future and refused to give it back. It's amazing we are not in worse shape than we are.

fta "Unemployment would be close to 7 percent instead of the current 8.2 percent, he said, without the government spending cuts demanded by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives."

Mike_LowELL: violentsalvation: Figured but sometimes it is hard to tell.

I could tell it was a joke. Everything liberals say is a joke! LOL!!!

Woah. Meta.

WombatControl: Weaver95: NeedlesslyCanadian: Yep. The out-of-control spending and against-all-advice deregulation spearheaded by the last clown in office had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all. Obama is completely responsible in every way for the collapse that was well underway for at least 6 months before he sat in the big chair. Completely his fault.

6 months?  our problems began with the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

That argument is one of those red flagsk that instantly tells you that the proponent has no idea what they're talking about. The "repeal" of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the financial crisis of 2008. The fact that investment and commercial banks could be housed in one company helped stop the crisis.

Here is one explanation why from 2008. And another author observes that Canada had no equivalent of Glass-Steagall, but didn't suffer the same crisis as the rest of the world because they had much more strict lending requirements and smarter (but not more) regulation. Left-wing economist Brad DeLong says Glass-Steagall's "repeal" was not a major cause of the crash in a rare moment of bipartisan consensus.

Hell, even Obama's own Treasury Secretary recently said that Glass-Steagall rules had nothing to do with the collapse.

It's an article of faith for some people that Glass-Steagall's repeal caused the crisis. That position is dead wrong and doesn't match the facts. The combined banks were not the ones that got into the biggest trouble.

If you want a villain, blame the completely unregulated "shadow market" for credit default swaps - that actually did help cause the crisis.

There is one good side to that argument - if you hear someone say that Glass-Steagall caused the crisis, you know instantly that that person has no clue what they're talking about.

Didn't Tim Geithner used to work for goldman sacs?? I'm shocked he would downplay the importance of glass steagall!

When did Rush put out this Senate makes budget bills talking point.

Seems like all the Fark Contards at the same time seem to think the Senate, which the Dems have a slight majority in, is some super chamber that does everything. You guys know Boner is running the House right?

WombatControl: There is one good side to that argument - if you hear someone say that Glass-Steagall caused the crisis, you know instantly that that person has no clue what they're talking about.

You're always so much more persuasive if, while making your point, you can be the biggest dick you possibly can.

Wall Street shill Tim Geithner himself acknowledges that his view isn't even widely accepted. So basically on the side of Glass-Steagall repeal contributed to the financial crisis you have:

1) Everyone with a modicum of objectivity.

2) Reality.

On the side of "the real key to recovery is to just trust the bankers," you have:

1) Tim Geithner, and

2) Some Canadian blogger. Also, his blog sucks.

Personally, I don't think this is a Bush or a Obama thing. Here's what I think happened.

Our economy had been moving towards high skilled jobs for a while. Low skilled positions were being gradually outsourced and automated.

Against this backdrop, we suffered a massive financial shock due to a combination of Democrat meddling in the housing industry (by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to acquire endless quantities of subprime loans, causing banks to try to generate endless amounts of them to fill that demand) and Republican deregulation of the finance industry (preventing us from seeing how bad the problem was getting). That combination was a ticking time bomb which eventually blew, triggering the financial crisis of 2008.

The shock caused financial stress on most companies, who reacted by becoming more efficient. The way that they did so was to get rid of many of their low skill positions, which they were gradually getting rid of anyway. This caused a number of aftershocks which caused further stress, dropping us into a recession from 2008 to 2009.

The economy recovered by early 2010, with companies returning to normal behavior. Profit margins were at record highs due to the efficiency improvements implemented during the crisis, creating a stock market boom. However, there was no paired boom in hiring as the efficiency gains were made by laying off those positions. Instead, companies replaced those positions as needed with automation or outsourcing.

So instead of a traditional bust followed by a boom, we have a shock followed by business as normal, with little hope of the unemployed finding a new position as their skills don't align with corporate needs. Their purchasing power is also lost, creating a long term hit to our GDP. Until those workers are retrained or a need for low skill workers opens up, unemployment will not improve. The combination of structurally high unemployment and the paired GDP hit creates the "lost decade" effect where the country moves forward but at the end of ten years it feels like all we've managed to do is get back to where we were.

That's my $0.02 on where we are and where we are going. Only time will tell.

NeedlesslyCanadian: Yep. The out-of-control spending and against-all-advice deregulation spearheaded by the last clown in office had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all. Obama is completely responsible in every way for the collapse that was well underway for at least 6 months before he sat in the big chair. Completely his fault.

Your analysis of the situation, condensed into headline form, would result in fewer page clicks.

DEMOCRATS AND 0BAMA ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THE BAD!!! NO GOOD!!!

RESPOND TO ME REPEATEDLY, AS I AM DISINGENUOUSLY PRESENTING AN ANTAGONISTIC WORLDVIEW!!!

WombatControl: Weaver95: NeedlesslyCanadian: Yep. The out-of-control spending and against-all-advice deregulation spearheaded by the last clown in office had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all. Obama is completely responsible in every way for the collapse that was well underway for at least 6 months before he sat in the big chair. Completely his fault.

6 months?  our problems began with the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

That argument is one of those red flagsk that instantly tells you that the proponent has no idea what they're talking about. The "repeal" of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the financial crisis of 2008. The fact that investment and commercial banks could be housed in one company helped stop the crisis.

Here is one explanation why from 2008. And another author observes that Canada had no equivalent of Glass-Steagall, but didn't suffer the same crisis as the rest of the world because they had much more strict lending requirements and smarter (but not more) regulation. Left-wing economist Brad DeLong says Glass-Steagall's "repeal" was not a major cause of the crash in a rare moment of bipartisan consensus.

Hell, even Obama's own Treasury Secretary recently said that Glass-Steagall rules had nothing to do with the collapse.

It's an article of faith for some people that Glass-Steagall's repeal caused the crisis. That position is dead wrong and doesn't match the facts. The combined banks were not the ones that got into the biggest trouble.

If you want a villain, blame the completely unregulated "shadow market" for credit default swaps - that actually did help cause the crisis.

There is one good side to that argument - if you hear someone say that Glass-Steagall caused the crisis, you know instantly that that person has no clue what they're talking about.

the combined banks did not get into trouble? HAHAHAHAHA.

Lehman Brothers was not an ivnestment bank, but also in the business of sub-prime mortgage lending and consumer credit.

I guess you never heard of Wachovia Securities? A financial services advisory practice with over $1 trillion in assets?

AIG Capital Markets was the result of AIG playing regulatory arbitrage. AIG's trading arm was severely limited in how much it could expand under the NY State Insurance regulator. it bought a small bank, thus placing its capital trading activities under the hopeless OCC. Sure, MBIA and Ambac got farked up, but didn't use any taxpayer money to fix themselves.

Weaver95: chiett: It's ALL Bush's fault ..... La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La ....
(fingers in ears)

well..Clinton did his bit, then Bush certainly made issues worse. by tthe time it got around to Obama it was an avalanche in motion....lots of inertia behind that disaster, and plenty of people from both parties contributed to the disaster.

putting Glass-Steagal back in place wouldn't hurt.

Here is my take. It does not help much to argue and bicker over who killed who who was in charge of congress or the presidency. Despite my low opinion of politicians, I don;t think they collectively tried to cause this problem. I think they acted short-sightedly and selfishly, but that's sort of how they operate anyway.

My concern is what are they doing NOW to fix the known problem that we have NOW? It's one thing to not have foreseen this, but it's another thing to be in charge and not do anything to fix it. Or at least anything that is getting much of a result.

sorry, my second sentance should read: Lehman Brothers was not ONLY an investment bank.

Came for the "bbuuttt Bush" circle jerk. Leaving satisfied.

FlashHarry: GAT_00: Woah now, the GOP doesn't want to be talking about specifics.

mittens accidentally got specific this weekend. he said that the recovery should be seeing 500,000 jobs a month - a figure that has only happened 16 months since the great depression, 14 under democratic presidents.

I think we're in for a election season of stupid gaff after stupid gaff from Mittens. He can't keep his mouth shut even though he rarely makes sense. He'll prove he knows nothing about business or the economy beyond vulture capitalism. He can gut business really well to make money for himself and a select few. Everything else requires the 5.0 upgrade and he will never have that.

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: BigBooper: WinoRhino: 9) Repeal Citizens United and get the money out of politics.

Repeal? Just how does one "repeal" a supreme court decision?

Now the court can overturn itself, but the chances of that is astonishing low. We could change the makeup of the court, but again, not going to happen. Side note for the ignorant: congress decides how many justices are on the court; they could in theory double the size of the court.
Or the constitution could be amended. Then again that would require congress to remove their heads from their collected asses.

Which one of those would you consider a repeal?

A couple of different ways.

1) A new case based on the Citizens United decision is brought before the Supreme Court and Kennedy gets his head out of his ass and changes his vote. I don't see why you think the court's makeup won't change. I don't think Thomas has many years left in him...

2) I also wouldn't set aside the possibility of new legislation or a constitutional amendment being brought up post 2012.

We already know court packing won't work. If FDR couldn't do it, I highly doubt in today's political environment Obama could.

1) I wasn't clear when I mentioned the makeup of the court. I meant a change in the number of justices only, not a change in justices. But even with a change in justices, the times that the court has reversed a previous decision is extraordinarily rare.

2) A constitutional amendment being brought is VERY different from one being passed. For an amendment to pass, a vote must pass with a two thirds majority in both houses, and then 3/4 of the states must ratify that amendment. If you think that's going to happen, I have good news, your space ship is coming with the next comet!

Of course the final "it aint gunna happen" way is that a new constitutional convention is called. We can scrap the old constitution any time we want! We only need the legislatures in 2/3rds of the states to call the convention, and then 3/4 of the states to ratify the new constitution. Yea.... even if you think we should do that like I do, we won't see it in our life times.

Mearen: Came for the "bbuuttt Bush" circle jerk. Leaving satisfied.

Glad you're satusfied. Feel free to not come back!

trots

FlashHarry: GAT_00: Woah now, the GOP doesn't want to be talking about specifics.

mittens accidentally got specific this weekend. he said that the recovery should be seeing 500,000 jobs a month - a figure that has only happened 16 months since the great depression, 14 under democratic presidents.

I think we're in for a election season of stupid gaff after stupid gaff from Mittens. He can't keep his mouth shut even though he rarely makes sense. He'll prove he knows nothing about business or the economy beyond vulture capitalism. He can gut business really well to make money for himself and a select few. Everything else requires the 5.0 upgrade and he will never have that.


You put out all the right trigger words....good job!

Amid new signs that Europe is in a double-dip recession and US.... "It's now been about five years since the recession began...."

Yeup. All Obama's fault.

I've heard about the possibility of a lost decade from the time even before Obama was elected. It happened to Japan already, despite trying everything to get their economy going.

To be fair, it probably is Obama's fault that we are looking at a lost decade, and not the Great Depression II.

TV's Vinnie: No, that "lost decade" started in 2001, when Dubya really started to effect the country.

Keep trying to pin this on Obama, who's been trying to clean up the mess that Bush-Cheney have made, while the republicans keep stealing the housekeeping cart, Subbo.

I love how all you libs have conveniently forgotten that Bush Jr. inherited a recession when he took over.

BigBooper:

1) I wasn't clear when I mentioned the makeup of the court. I meant a change in the number of justices only, not a change in justices. But even with a change in justices, the times that the court has reversed a previous decision is extraordinarily rare.

2) A constitutional amendment being brought is VERY different from one being passed. For an amendment to pass, a vote must pass with a two thirds majority in both houses, and then 3/4 of the states must ratify that amendment. If you think that's going to happen, I have good news, your space ship is coming with the next comet!

Of course the final "it aint gunna happen" way is that a new constitutional convention is called. We can scrap the old constitution any time we want! We only need the legislatures in 2/3rds of the states to call the convention, and then 3/4 of the states to ratify the new constitution. Yea.... even if you think we should do that like I do, we won't see it in our life times.

fark yeah, I've always wanted a space ship!

Just because an amendment to the Constitution hasn't happened in nearly forty years, doesn't preclude it from ever happening. For my money, while I agree it's a longshot, I see that as far more likely than another court packing plan put forward by Obama. For instance, did you know there is a major effort being put forward by a large number of states to begin bypassing the electoral system. That's something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime, but it very well may end up happening by 2016. Don't write off the possibility of something like an amendment just because it looks too hard. Stranger things have happened.

And courts do reverse themselves rarely, but only on the issues where they've been proven wrong, or a large amount of the populace agrees the decision was messed up. Citizen's United may not quite fit that description yet, but I believe after this set of elections you'll see major public opinion swing against it.

I don't ever see a constitutional convention ever being called again in the lifetime of our republic. Honestly, I'd rather see California's State constitution rewritten first.

Wow, subby troll stepped up to the plate and smacked it out of the park this morning.

Starving Zimbabwe Trillionaire: TV's Vinnie: No, that "lost decade" started in 2001, when Dubya really started to effect the country.

Keep trying to pin this on Obama, who's been trying to clean up the mess that Bush-Cheney have made, while the republicans keep stealing the housekeeping cart, Subbo.

I love how all you libs have conveniently forgotten that Bush Jr. inherited a recession when he took over.

ugh... he also inherited a huge surplus and that didn't quite work out did it?

Cool, it's the 1980's again, I'm soooo getting a Flock of Seagulls hairdo.

CaptainBeefheart: Didn't Tim Geithner used to work for goldman sacs?? I'm shocked he would downplay the importance of glass steagall!

Not only has he never worked at Goldman Sachs, he's never worked at any bank.

DGS

Much the same, subby, the new coach for the Charlotte Bobcats next season is 100% to blame for their losing record and the low attendance/revenue levels.

This is easy!

I believe Michael Jordan would be to blame.

Clearly this is time to cut taxes on the investors, deregulate and offshore as many jobs as possible. The upcoming wars will solve our employment problems. Remember citizen, soldiers are your heroes and the wars protect your freedoms.

/man I am getting cynical in my old age

Starving Zimbabwe Trillionaire: I love how all you libs have conveniently forgotten that Bush Jr. inherited a recession when he took over.

He also inherited an anti-terrorism director who thought we needed to go after Bin Laden. Bush sure showed him!

hurdboy: Knight of the Woeful Countenance: 3) Raise the Federal minimum wage. Seriously. $10 isn't going to put your small business under. If it will, you suck at business.

No. Someone working part-time doesn't need a "living wage." If you work full-time, and graduated high school (or earned a GED), there's no reason to be earning minimum wage. Really, there's not. Why is it an issue? Many labor organizations index their pay brackets to the Federal minimum. Raise the minimum wage, see all your members get raises. If you think that cute English major barista needs more cash, throw a five in the tip jar when you get your latte.

Hey what a great plan. I bet you'd be happy to see your employer cut your pay and put a tip- jar on your desk. You don't need a living wage anymore than that barista does, right?

Can't anyone wrest that infernal time machine away from him?

hurdboy: Knight of the Woeful Countenance: 5) Scrap the Healthcare bill and get serious about doing single payer/Medicare for All.

Agree vehemently. The Democrats will never let it happen.

lolwut?

Its the DEMOCRATS who you feel are the most against single payer plan? Not, you know, the republicans? I mean I know folks love to keep trotting out this super majority claim that Obama was ramming anything we personally liked down the throats of americans for his first two years, but come the fark on.

It's almost like... the decade of lost home values has had some further impact.

Interesting.

GOP's fault? Meh. Dems fault? Eh.

Bankers fault? Eyup.

I can't believe how many people insist on blaming the President I like, while refusing to see that the real cause of all of our problems is the President I don't like. The President I don't like, aided by the party I don't like, caused our current difficulties, and it's frustrating to see how many people are blind to this obvious fact!

By the way, the poster that mentioned the President I like in a positive way had a very good point. You guys on the other side need to pay attention.

WombatControl: There is one good side to that argument - if you hear someone say that Glass-Steagall caused the crisis, you know instantly that that person has no clue what they're talking about.

Lol, wrong. Without the repeal, none of what your links say happened could have happened. The banks just would not have been able fark up the securities market otherwise, your intentional ignorance aside.

The lack of demand brought up in the article certainly has nothing to do with the shrinking middle class. Nope. Not a thing.

mrshowrules


Gwyrddu: I've heard about the possibility of a lost decade from the time even before Obama was elected. It happened to Japan already, despite trying everything to get their economy going.

To be fair, it probably is Obama's fault that we are looking at a lost decade, and not the Great Depression II.

Good point. Like blaming the heart surgeon for the bypass.


Yeah - but can you blame the surgeon for his sloppy procedures and amature mistakes causing staph infection that kills the patient?


/I would like to see his doctor's diploma

namatad: it is a little creepy
the job creators have had the bush tax cuts for 10 years now?
so, um, WHERE are all the jobs???
seriously

In my line of work, I deal with owners of small to medium-sized businesses. I talk to them all the time.

Without exception, every single one of them has, since the beginning of the 2008 election cycle, been waiting.

They've parked their money. They are making no bold moves. They are not expanding any businesses. They are taking on no major new hires. They are not doing any major real estate transactions.

They are waiting for Obama to be elected out of office.

This is true across a wide range of business types. Insurance companies, car dealers, bankers, medical providers, medical equipment, construction, commercial real estate, industrial equipment manufacturers, newspapers, accountants, restauranteurs, etc.

Every single one.

They are waiting because they cannot trust Obama. They do not know what new changes in taxes, lending, or employment rules he'll try to implement next. Obama has killed all of the economic growth that would have otherwise occurred. He killed it with his agenda and his rhetoric.

When Romney is elected (not something I support, actually, but is obviously the most likely outcome), the result will be a sharp increase in new economic growth.

There is a massive amount of pent-up demand, a lot of bargains out there waiting to be bought, a lot of opportunities waiting to be exploited. But none of the businessmen who are actually in a position to create and expand these businesses are doing anything until Obama is gone.

Right or wrong, that's the reality.

I don't get the impression that any of the Leftist media or any Fark commenters have the rhetorical skill to convince them to adopt a different strategy, either.

namatad:so, the only fair experiment, is to reverse the bush cuts and actually increase the tax on the 1% by the amount they were cut for the last 10 years.
and we can come back in 2022 and see what happened.

There are no experiments in economics, because causation is complex. As a result, there are no control groups.

Starving Zimbabwe Trillionaire: TV's Vinnie: No, that "lost decade" started in 2001, when Dubya really started to effect the country.

Keep trying to pin this on Obama, who's been trying to clean up the mess that Bush-Cheney have made, while the republicans keep stealing the housekeeping cart, Subbo.

I love how all you libs have conveniently forgotten that Bush Jr. inherited a recession when he took over.

You auto-lose when you say the word "libs".