When confronted with nonsense, he wastes the idiots...was Sully even there?
Obama vs. House GOP: Best TV ever
The president smoothly mocks House Republicans, in an entertaining U.S. take on the prime minister's question time
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/01/29/obama_gop/
"The president smoothly mock[ed] House Republicans, in an entertaining U.S. take on the prime minister's question time. Two days after his feisty State of the Union speech, Obama's trip to the [House Republican conference's] retreat started off slowly....And then the question-and-answer session got started, and the event turned into a spectacle, the kind of thing that hasn't been seen in American politics in years -- and probably won't again, once the people responsible for putting it together go back to look at the video. The ironic, detached style and professorial wonkiness that has sometimes made it hard for Obama to connect on a visceral level since he took office worked perfectly in Baltimore. And what could have been a dangerous event politically.... turned into a presidential seminar, instead. The whole thing basically went like that: Republican asks obnoxious question rooted in Glenn Beck-ian talking points; Obama swats it away, makes the questioner look silly, and then smiles at the end. It got so bad, in fact, that Fox News cut away from the event before it was over. Democratic operatives around Washington watching it had pretty much the same reaction: "Where the hell has this guy been?"
FOTD thinketh the WH boys are polishing up their stilettos...
Loved that part about how stimulus had no earmarks in it.
I've seen different spins on this story, some saying that the Republicans gave the President a sound drubbing, others, like this Salon piece, had it the other way 'round. Is there a video tape we can see to decide it for ourselves?
Quote from: Ed W on January 31, 2010, 04:21:20 PM
I've seen different spins on this story, some saying that the Republicans gave the President a sound drubbing, others, like this Salon piece, had it the other way 'round. Is there a video tape we can see to decide it for ourselves?
Not if you watch FNC. They only showed about 4 minutes of it. CNN showed the entire thing. Some republicans were heard to say 'we should not have let that on camera'. I think the President stuck it to them. He made it seem now that all the repubs are out to do is to block everything he's for, instead of the compromise that democracy is about.
There's a full copy here. (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/29/re-great-political-television/) Be warned: It's an hour+ long.
I watched the whole thing live (yay snow day!) and was blown away. Obviously I come to it with my own biases but it's pretty clear that Obama demolishes some of the weaker GOP talking points lobbed at him. Guido will, of course, have a different opinion of what went down.
I think it amounted to the equivalent of the Prime Minister's Questions in Parliament, and it was a hugely necessary back and forth. I didn't know how important a direct dialogue like that was until it was shown to me.
Quote from: Ed W on January 31, 2010, 04:21:20 PM
I've seen different spins on this story, some saying that the Republicans gave the President a sound drubbing, others, like this Salon piece, had it the other way 'round. Is there a video tape we can see to decide it for ourselves?
I linked to the C-SPAN video on youtube in another thread when Guido was going on about Obama's supposed lies.
Quote from: Hoss on January 31, 2010, 04:23:36 PM
Not if you watch FNC. They only showed about 4 minutes of it. CNN showed the entire thing. Some republicans were heard to say 'we should not have let that on camera'. I think the President stuck it to them. He made it seem now that all the repubs are out to do is to block everything he's for, instead of the compromise that democracy is about.
...and the GOP Congressmen can say that the White House is blocking their progresss, and basically the whole lot of them in DC are playing the proverbial fiddle...
This you will enjoy....but there's nothing here to like.
Counterpoint?
REPUBLICAN PARTY ADMISSION TESThttp://rackjite.com/archives/4510-REPUBLICAN-PARTY-ADMISSION-TEST.html
REPUBLICAN PARTY ADMISSION TEST
1. Can you say "my country right or wrong"? Yes No
2. Are you more or less intolerant than you think you are? More Less
3. How much do you hate sharing your stuff? A lot Very much
4. Do you whine about taxes every: 15 seconds 30 seconds 2 minutes
5. Check number of guns owned: a dozen a baker's dozen Not enough
6. How many people would you enjoy shooting? 1 more than 1
7. Who do you hate most? Blacks Immigrants Gays Liberals
8. Hours a day spent hating above choice? 8 hrs 12 hrs 24 hrs
9. Would you kill anyone speaking ill of your mother? Probably Yes
10. Are you an Aggie? (If not sure check Yes) Yes No
11. What upsets you more? Nuclear-warfare Genocide Affirmative Action?
12. Check machinery you can operate: Revolver Pez can opener
13. What organizations are you a member of? VFW KKK NRA
14. What sports do you participate in? Shooting Shooting Shooting
15. Put these words in the correct order. God Race Country Family
16. Can you quote Readers Digest without feeling like an idiot? Yes No
17. Hours a day do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? 1 hr 2 hrs 3 hrs
18.Does this questionnaire piss you off? Yes No
Circle each answer and send a copy to:
RNC
310 First Street, SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Please include copy of picture ID (you know why)
An audio version is available for illiterate Republicans. Demand for the audio version is high.
I've only listened to about 25 minutes so far, but I'm impressed with Obama's responses. I've got the rest on my iPod. If any of you are still trying to find it, I know that MSNBC had a video of it and I know you can get it on iTunes from one of the White House podcasts.
One thing I have yet to hear since President Obama took office which I heard many times from snipey libs during the Bush Admin was: "He's not MY President". Interesting study in class.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2010, 12:20:15 PM
One thing I have yet to hear since President Obama took office which I heard many times from snipey libs during the Bush Admin was: "He's not MY President". Interesting study in class.
Whore's it!
You see it every day and hear it as well.....it's disguised hatred....at least we were honest about Shrub.
Quote from: FOTD on February 01, 2010, 12:23:47 PM
Whore's it!
You see it every day and hear it as well.....it's disguised hatred....at least we were honest about Shrub.
Yeah, I'm sure hearing pure racism and hatred when people rail on the record spending deficits proposed by POTUS Obama.
Simmer down you two.
Conan was right. I really disliked the Bush administration. I am sure at times my emotions got to me and I spoke out too strongly, even calling him and the vice-president ugly names.
I've seen less of it toward Obama, but I know some people who keep sending me e-mails that are very unkind and sometimes very racist. It pisses me off and I tell them.
If anything, the fervor has not been focused on the democrat president as much as it has been on all democrats. People badmouth Reid and Pelosi as much as Obama. With Bush, it went more on him.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2010, 12:20:15 PM
One thing I have yet to hear since President Obama took office which I heard many times from snipey libs during the Bush Admin was: "He's not MY President". Interesting study in class.
I have to admit I haven't heard that precise language, but there're some pretty excellent analogues out there, either delegitimizing his citizenship, making laughable accusations about his radical leftism, his Krazy Kommunist agenda, etc; also some really peachy examples of racist dogwhistle stuff in and amongst the Tea Parties get-togethers (seen any of the Obama-as-Witch-Doctor posters? classic!).
I try really hard not to participate in the "your side does it too" equivocation -- everything deserves to be judged on its individual merits. But I'd say there's just as much anti-Obama out there as there was anti-Bush. The difference? Bush actually had several years of f***-up-ery before libs truly got up in arms. Obama's had one solid year.
Quote from: we vs us on February 01, 2010, 12:37:59 PM
Bush actually had several years of f***-up-ery before libs truly got up in arms. Obama's had one solid year.
Someone forgot about the fallout of the 2000 election and how the libs got up in arms over Bush before he was even sworn in.
Quote from: guido911 on February 01, 2010, 01:24:48 PM
Someone forgot about the fallout of the 2000 election and how the libs got up in arms over Bush before he was even sworn in.
FOTD did not forget....he had inside background info out of Austin. We were doomed!
BTW Gwee, don't recall bush ever having constructive dialog with the Dems. Can you imagine the results. Obama displays brains while all Shrub would expose was his string entanglement. Not even his puppet master would sit down to discuss issues unless it was about war. Not until the panic from Paulsen did the parties have to work together.
Quote from: FOTD on February 01, 2010, 01:27:13 PM
BTW Gwee, don't recall bush ever having constructive dialog with the Dems.
Yep, that whole "No Child Left Behind" thing was rammed through by Bush. The swimmer had nothing to do with it.
Quote from: guido911 on February 01, 2010, 01:24:48 PM
Someone forgot about the fallout of the 2000 election and how the libs got up in arms over Bush before he was even sworn in.
You know, you're right. I'll agree with you that there was a lot of bad blood from the election, though I think that especially during and after 9/11, most of the anti-bush voices fell into a bit of a lull, except for some of the fringy folks that Fox News tried to push forward as faces of the "liberal elites" (pro tip: Ward Churchill doesn't count as the face of mainstream liberalism at all, anywhere.)
Of course, the run up to war in Iraq erased all of that, but I'm sure you remember well enough.
Quote from: we vs us on February 01, 2010, 03:32:36 PM
You know, you're right. I'll agree with you that there was a lot of bad blood from the election, though I think that especially during and after 9/11, most of the anti-bush voices fell into a bit of a lull, except for some of the fringy folks that Fox News tried to push forward as faces of the "liberal elites" (pro tip: Ward Churchill doesn't count as the face of mainstream liberalism at all, anywhere.)
Of course, the run up to war in Iraq erased all of that, but I'm sure you remember well enough.
Yeah, and how fast the Dems who supported and talked-up the run up ran for cover when it became politically expedient. The most damning of all which has been conveniently ignored was former President Bill Clinton saying in the days prior to the Iraq invasion that there was no doubt unaccounted for WMD in Iraq on the day he left office. Wonder what ever happened to those WMD that President Clinton was so sure about?
I would venture a guess that Clinton was going on evidence offered by the Bush Whitehouse gang.
Quote from: joiei on February 01, 2010, 04:05:00 PM
I would venture a guess that Clinton was going on evidence offered by the Bush Whitehouse gang.
Uh, Joiei...he was convinced there were unaccounted for WMD on the day HE left office...
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2010, 04:13:45 PM
Uh, Joiei...he was convinced there were unaccounted for WMD on the day HE left office...
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom
line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want
to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here.
For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since
1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and
missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by
Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry,
and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made
a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.
Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and
may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to
develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to
the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering
them " Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons
throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and
we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that
Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and
that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and
biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking
nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force
— if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to
our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to
develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five
years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress
Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to
do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam
Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his
missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort,
and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage
biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we
need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
The plan to overthrow Saddam was drawn up by the neo con crowd in the late '90s and finalized the day that the SCOTUS appointed GWB as president. The question becomes - how much longer can Obama ignore these war crimes, crimes against humanity and Treason? Some would say there is no treason, just gunboat diplomacy.
Plan to oust Saddam drawn up two years before the invasion
Secret document signalled support for Iraqi dissidents and promised aid, oil
and trade deals in return for regime changehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/plan-to-oust-saddam-drawn-up-two-years-before-the-invasion-1885155.html
" Ed Davey, the Foreign Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said the document called into question Mr Blair's evidence and should have been made public before his hearing on Friday. "A plan to back Iraqis seeking to oust Saddam may have been far less damaging and certainly more legal than what happened. Yet it shows that Blair's intent was always for regime change from an early stage and before 9/11," he said. "Yet again, it seems that critical documents have not been declassified, hampering the questioning of Blair and others."
* Tony Blair is to be recalled by the Chilcot Inquiry to give further evidence, according to The Guardian. It claims that Mr Blair will be questioned in both public and in private after the panel raised concerns that his evidence relating to the legality of the invasion conflicted with that given by the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith."
Quote from: we vs us on February 01, 2010, 12:37:59 PM
The difference? Bush actually had several years of f***-up-ery before libs truly got up in arms. Obama's had one solid year.
Wow! I guess Obama is "better" than George II. Obama screwed things up in only one year while it took George II several years.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 01, 2010, 06:25:54 PM
Wow! I guess Obama is "better" than George II. Obama screwed things up in only one year while it took George II several years.
He's different, not better. And he didn't "screw things up in only one year." And you want to know why? You're gonna love this:
It's still not entirely his recession yet.
Why? The things that he's done to attack it have neither had enough time to work through the system nor crash it (which would, I assume, be your view). By most accounts the stimulus is peaking now (positive Q4 GDP growth of %5.7 is proof positive, IMO) and the downside of this peak -- which would be a double dip recession as the stimulus money elapses or expires or is spent -- will come in mid to late 2010 (Q2-4).
Likewise he's just now rolling out new (and IMO weak) banking regulations to be taken up by Congress; I would bet there wouldn't be significant pluses or minuses from that legislation till at least 2011 or so.
Tangentially, the TARP was a Bush II project and it's just now being wound down, and I'd argue that's another signpost for how long some of these stratagems take to work through the system. BTW, I didn't like but understood the need for TARP when it happened. I am pleasantly surprised to see that most of it has been paid back and that in some cases the USA has made a profit on the loans we made.
So yes, he's going to "own" this recession in the end, just like now he supposedly completely and utterly "owns" Afghanistan. But not quite yet.
Quote from: we vs us on February 01, 2010, 07:57:33 PM
He's different, not better.
What? I thought you were among the "Bush was the worst president ever" bunch. This would automatically make Obama better than Bush. Maybe I have you confused with someone else.
QuoteIt's still not entirely his recession yet.
I reluctantly have to agree with "entirely" and "yet". If the economy turns and continues to recover reasonably quickly he will be a hero. Otherwise, another Hoover.
Quote
Likewise he's just now rolling out new (and IMO weak) banking regulations to be taken up by Congress; I would bet there wouldn't be significant pluses or minuses from that legislation till at least 2011 or so.
Nice to know that "you" recognize the lag in these situations. Funny how no one recognized that at the end of Bill Clinton's administration. The industry I worked in at the time was on its way down well before the 2000 election. I
almost voted for Algore just to give them the proper credit for the declining economy.
Quote
So yes, he's going to "own" this recession in the end, just like now he supposedly completely and utterly "owns" Afghanistan. But not quite yet.
We'll see.
Quote from: we vs us on February 01, 2010, 07:57:33 PM
He's different, not better. And he didn't "screw things up in only one year." And you want to know why? You're gonna love this:
It's still not entirely his recession yet.
Why? The things that he's done to attack it have neither had enough time to work through the system nor crash it (which would, I assume, be your view). By most accounts the stimulus is peaking now (positive Q4 GDP growth of %5.7 is proof positive, IMO) and the downside of this peak -- which would be a double dip recession as the stimulus money elapses or expires or is spent -- will come in mid to late 2010 (Q2-4).
Likewise he's just now rolling out new (and IMO weak) banking regulations to be taken up by Congress; I would bet there wouldn't be significant pluses or minuses from that legislation till at least 2011 or so.
Tangentially, the TARP was a Bush II project and it's just now being wound down, and I'd argue that's another signpost for how long some of these stratagems take to work through the system. BTW, I didn't like but understood the need for TARP when it happened. I am pleasantly surprised to see that most of it has been paid back and that in some cases the USA has made a profit on the loans we made.
So yes, he's going to "own" this recession in the end, just like now he supposedly completely and utterly "owns" Afghanistan. But not quite yet.
Not to entirely crush the groove but a sudden growth of 5.7% is a suspect number, comparing data from prior quarters. Especially when there's been no job creation and much of this growth has arguably been via government expenditures, not necessarily business-to-business nor business-to-consumer which would be a better sign of overall health. At best, it signals we might have finally hit a plateau, let's hope. It's taken over a year after the rest of the country has felt it, but for certain the recession has finally landed at my company's doorstep.
President Obama has little choice in terms of any new banking regs being very strong at this point. Credit is still very tight, banks that have money are sitting on it or investing in bonds, they don't want your deposits either, based on savings and CD rates. Just wait until the commercial real estate crisis hits the fan and see how much chaos happens in the credit markets. I hope like hell all the indications are wrong, but it's not sounding that way. I suggest Congress and the Executive Branch keep as much a hands-off approach
as possible right now other than encouraging smart lending and ensuring as much as possible legit credit needs are served while keeping the tax payer from being on the hook for more disasters as much as possible.
What happened with the sub-prime fiasco was innocent enough in it's genesis: make sure credit is more accessible for everyone so everyone can share in the American dream. The problem is, there were sign posts way, way before this collapse ever happened and Democrats and Republicans alike have that blood on their hands. When lenders started advertising: "We will loan up to 110% equity, no credit check, blah blah blah" that's when the feds should have paid attention. That was going on a full 10 to 15 years before this collapse. Another bad signal is when real estate markets are growing at 5 to 10% a year, it's time to take a look at what kind of greed is spurring that.
I'm not suggesting that the government kill free markets either, but this gradual, un-checked permissiveness which cause huge bubbles and sudden bursts to be followed by costly reactive measures is the wrong approach. I think The FED may have to alter some philosophy in adjusting rates perhaps accepting that there can be a slower rate of GDP growth and a slightly higher rate of unemployment might have to become an acceptible standard over the long-haul. Obviously, we've seen the damage caused by ridiculous profit cycles followed by utter busts.
I simply don't think politicians have a clue how best to deal with regulating industries and they are not in an objective position if they accept campaign contributions and perks from those they are charged with regulating. For them it all becomes about creating more revenue via punitive taxation or asserting more control for the simple sake of power or pleasing yet another special interest who will feed their coffers in an attempt to stay in control. Or worse yet, simply passing window dressing when they have not a clue about the true consequences of their legislation.
Problem is, all these politicians were feeding from the same trough that was making billionaires out of traditional lenders and investment banks. What true over-sight can any of us expect when members of Congressional oversight committees were participating in the orgy by accepting generous contributions from the industry they are charged with overseeing and partaking in unusually low interest rates not available to anyone other than a very, very select few on their homes?
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 01, 2010, 08:51:55 PM
I almost voted for Algore just to give them the proper credit for the declining economy.
Christ on a crutch, what warped and horrible reasoning to even
consider voting for anyone.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 01, 2010, 08:55:59 PM
Christ on a crutch, what warped and horrible reasoning to even consider voting for anyone.
I considered it but in the end I couldn't do it.
Given the same choices, I would still vote the same.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2010, 08:54:33 PM
What happened with the sub-prime fiasco was innocent enough in it's genesis: make sure credit is more accessible for everyone so everyone can share in the American dream. The problem is, there were sign posts way, way before this collapse ever happened and Democrats and Republicans alike have that blood on their hands. When lenders started advertising: "We will loan up to 110% equity, no credit check, blah blah blah" that's when the feds should have paid attention. That was going on a full 10 to 15 years before this collapse. Another bad signal is when real estate markets are growing at 5 to 10% a year, it's time to take a look at what kind of greed is spurring that.
I'm disputing that. The real-estate bubble is well-documented to have inflated big-time during the aughts. It began in earnest shortly after the precipitous decline in the economy after the 9/11 attacks. The big cheeses in Washington thought loosening credit would boost the economy, without ever considering what would happen if property prices fell.
And I saw the loosening of financial regulatory strings myself when my wife and I saw an astounding rise in our mortgage credit limit from 2001 to 2004 that was way, way above our modest income increases at the time. We both knew that something was horribly amiss.
And the recovery is definitely happening. The company I work for saw a healthy increase in the second half of '09, and our sales were up 15% in January from the previous January. A chunk of that 5.7% GNP increase in the last quarter was due to inventory being filled. But a portion of that is from the recovery, too.
It's just too bad that unemployment is the last thing to turn around in a recovery. Reagan felt that kind of pain in the '80s. There was no meaningful drop in the jobless rate until mid-1983. It took 3 1/2 years for Reagan to see the jobless rate fall below the level from when he first took office.
RW gets it....
The recession ended much to the dismay of the fright. But it will be a slow crawl to gain back employment from the %20 level. 2010 will be a rough year in the financial markets. Besides, it's an election year with a grand obstructionist party whose real desire is to make voters believe their misery was brought on rapidly by the dims.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 01, 2010, 09:14:26 PM
our sales were up 15% in January from the previous January.
Certainly better than nothing or decreasing but up 15% of not much is still not much.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2010, 08:54:33 PM
Not to entirely crush the groove but a sudden growth of 5.7% is a suspect number, comparing data from prior quarters. Especially when there's been no job creation and much of this growth has arguably been via government expenditures, not necessarily business-to-business nor business-to-consumer which would be a better sign of overall health. At best, it signals we might have finally hit a plateau, let's hope. It's taken over a year after the rest of the country has felt it, but for certain the recession has finally landed at my company's doorstep.
President Obama has little choice in terms of any new banking regs being very strong at this point. Credit is still very tight, banks that have money are sitting on it or investing in bonds, they don't want your deposits either, based on savings and CD rates. Just wait until the commercial real estate crisis hits the fan and see how much chaos happens in the credit markets. I hope like hell all the indications are wrong, but it's not sounding that way. I suggest Congress and the Executive Branch keep as much a hands-off approach as possible right now other than encouraging smart lending and ensuring as much as possible legit credit needs are served while keeping the tax payer from being on the hook for more disasters as much as possible.
What happened with the sub-prime fiasco was innocent enough in it's genesis: make sure credit is more accessible for everyone so everyone can share in the American dream. The problem is, there were sign posts way, way before this collapse ever happened and Democrats and Republicans alike have that blood on their hands. When lenders started advertising: "We will loan up to 110% equity, no credit check, blah blah blah" that's when the feds should have paid attention. That was going on a full 10 to 15 years before this collapse. Another bad signal is when real estate markets are growing at 5 to 10% a year, it's time to take a look at what kind of greed is spurring that.
I'm not suggesting that the government kill free markets either, but this gradual, un-checked permissiveness which cause huge bubbles and sudden bursts to be followed by costly reactive measures is the wrong approach. I think The FED may have to alter some philosophy in adjusting rates perhaps accepting that there can be a slower rate of GDP growth and a slightly higher rate of unemployment might have to become an acceptible standard over the long-haul. Obviously, we've seen the damage caused by ridiculous profit cycles followed by utter busts.
I simply don't think politicians have a clue how best to deal with regulating industries and they are not in an objective position if they accept campaign contributions and perks from those they are charged with regulating. For them it all becomes about creating more revenue via punitive taxation or asserting more control for the simple sake of power or pleasing yet another special interest who will feed their coffers in an attempt to stay in control. Or worse yet, simply passing window dressing when they have not a clue about the true consequences of their legislation.
Problem is, all these politicians were feeding from the same trough that was making billionaires out of traditional lenders and investment banks. What true over-sight can any of us expect when members of Congressional oversight committees were participating in the orgy by accepting generous contributions from the industry they are charged with overseeing and partaking in unusually low interest rates not available to anyone other than a very, very select few on their homes?
I don't think I've ever agreed with
everything you've ever written and, aside from a quibble here or there . . . spot on ;)
I think the recession is easing, but there's actually a pretty raucous ongoing argument in my industry about whether to batten down the hatches for round two or to expect a slow rebound. It's pretty radical to believe in the slow rebound, especially after how far things have fallen. There's a lot of paranoia, and conflicting senses of optimism and abject fear of the double dip.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 01, 2010, 09:32:15 PM
Certainly better than nothing or decreasing but up 15% of not much is still not much.
You're assuming wrongly that the previous January was bad for my company.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 01, 2010, 10:34:44 PM
You're assuming wrongly that the previous January was bad for my company.
Congratulations.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 01, 2010, 09:14:26 PM
I'm disputing that. The real-estate bubble is well-documented to have inflated big-time during the aughts. It began in earnest shortly after the precipitous decline in the economy after the 9/11 attacks. The big cheeses in Washington thought loosening credit would boost the economy, without ever considering what would happen if property prices fell.
And I saw the loosening of financial regulatory strings myself when my wife and I saw an astounding rise in our mortgage credit limit from 2001 to 2004 that was way, way above our modest income increases at the time. We both knew that something was horribly amiss.
And the recovery is definitely happening. The company I work for saw a healthy increase in the second half of '09, and our sales were up 15% in January from the previous January. A chunk of that 5.7% GNP increase in the last quarter was due to inventory being filled. But a portion of that is from the recovery, too.
It's just too bad that unemployment is the last thing to turn around in a recovery. Reagan felt that kind of pain in the '80s. There was no meaningful drop in the jobless rate until mid-1983. It took 3 1/2 years for Reagan to see the jobless rate fall below the level from when he first took office.
I'm glad your company is up, right now. Indicators are maybe Q3 we will see a turn for us. I'm in a business to business situation and we rely on manufacturing, commercial real estate, oil & gas, chemicals, ag, etc. We aren't completely dead but our business doesn't indicate a recovery right now and it's way off from a year ago. The comapny is very conservatively run by someone who tends the till very smartly but refuses to cut corners when it comes to customers and employees. They've made it through worse times.
Banks started getting very agressive and loosening the purse strings after the contraction toward the end of Bush I's term. A lot of the pain of the S & L bust was being forgotten by then. The shilling for more risky 2nd mortgages started in the mid-'90's and very loose credit card policies started before that. I worked in lending and finance until early '91 so I was a pretty astute observer of the industries trends at one time. President Clinton, I think, had great intentions to advance minorities for the right reasons, but he seldom understood the potential consequences of his actions. He was pushing for the Community Reinvestment Act, which had been largely ignored under Reagan and Bush to become more active and to use it as a tool to reinvigorate urban areas.
Consequently, Henry Cisneros over at HUD developed rules designed to increase approval rates by 20% for minority loan applications out of thin air. Just a simple edict from the government: "Make more loans, or there will be consequences." No matter that the borrowers or their property wouldn't have normally qualified under prudent lending policies. Suddenly what was considered rubbish by credit standards could be construed as racism or redlining if banks balked. What choice did they have? Start lending to people who had a better chance of not paying them back and using marginal to totally unacceptible real estate for collateral. The resulting debacle of ever-increasing stakes, profiteering, and the whole shadow market of credit swaps is well known but not well understood even on Wall St. or in D.C.
Keep in mind also that the relative security of the tech bubble in the late '90's was financed largely on borrowed money. Remember all the ridiculous IPO's which made instant billionaires out of a select few and fueled a totally bogus inflation of home values in Silicon Valley and other parts of the country? A LOT of tech jobs were created, paid for, and subsequently lost on over-valued stock offerings and risky commercial lending, that also resulted in a lot of foreclosures at the time, yest risky lending was allowed to continue. Bush's biggest mistake was not simply allowing the cataclysm to happen in '01 and '02. Instead, we kept putting Fix-A-Flat in the tires and they eventually blew out.
All this was set in motion long before Bush came into office, he simply didn't have the balls to deal with it effectively on his watch when the blow could have been softened and perhaps this cataclysm might have been averted.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2010, 10:55:54 PM
Consequently, Henry Cisneros over at HUD developed rules designed to increase approval rates by 20% for minority loan applications out of thin air. Just a simple edict from the government: "Make more loans, or there will be consequences." No matter that the borrowers or their property wouldn't have normally qualified under prudent lending policies. Suddenly what was considered rubbish by credit standards could be construed as racism or redlining if banks balked. What choice did they have? Start lending to people who had a better chance of not paying them back and using marginal to totally unacceptible real estate for collateral. The resulting debacle of ever-increasing stakes, profiteering, and the whole shadow market of credit swaps is well known but not well understood even on Wall St. or in D.C.
I'm disputing this, too. The reason this edict was made was because banks were rejecting minorities' applications for no damned good reason at all. There were scores of white applicants that had similar credit histories who were getting approved for loans. What was construed as racism was; the overwhelming evidence could make you draw no other conclusion.
As for the tech bubble in the '90s on borrowed money, that's nothing new. Show me any new fast-rising sector that isn't being built on credit.
Probably the biggest culprit was the Fed. Greenspan had power much farther reaching than anything HUD could've mandated. In response to the collapse of the tech bubble, he kept interest rates low levels for far far too long. Right through 9/11 and into the late 2000's, much later than was warranted. Cheap money caused a lot of the credit build-up. Coupled with Bush II's lax regulation (and a bonafied belief that markets are inherently virtuous and will magically self-correct), all that money was allowed to go wherever it wanted, whether, legal, illegal, or quasi-legal.
Nobody forgot....we read the tea leaves!
It's easy to see through this crap and get to the real truth....
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2010, 10:55:54 PM
Banks started getting very agressive and loosening the purse strings after the contraction toward the end of Bush I's term. A lot of the pain of the S & L bust was being forgotten by then. The shilling for more risky 2nd mortgages started in the mid-'90's and very loose credit card policies started before that.
...
Consequently, Henry Cisneros over at HUD developed rules designed to increase approval rates by 20% for minority loan applications out of thin air.
The ridiculousness regarding credit card approvals didn't really happen until 2003 or 2004. Before then, my lines were pretty rational. By 2006 my SO and I had lines far in excess of our yearly HHI. Not that we used them, but they were sitting there. Each of the big banks had a total CL for me alone of over $20k. Some of them decided to get pissy last year and cut lines drastically, a couple still haven't done much cutting.
Even if what you say about low-income loans being an issue, there simply weren't enough of them made to cause a serious problem. What caused a bigger problem were the middle and high income people who wanted more house than they could really afford. (And in some markets, that would be any house at all, although not here in Tulsa, thankfully)
I'd be interested to see what kind of default stats turn up for FHA loans made when FHA literally only serviced people with terrible credit. (because commercial banks were funding almost anything that moved) Their loss rates in 2006 and 2007 would be very interesting, indeed.
Quote from: nathanm on February 02, 2010, 03:52:44 PM
The ridiculousness regarding credit card approvals didn't really happen until 2003 or 2004. Before then, my lines were pretty rational. By 2006 my SO and I had lines far in excess of our yearly HHI. Not that we used them, but they were sitting there. Each of the big banks had a total CL for me alone of over $20k. Some of them decided to get pissy last year and cut lines drastically, a couple still haven't done much cutting.
Even if what you say about low-income loans being an issue, there simply weren't enough of them made to cause a serious problem. What caused a bigger problem were the middle and high income people who wanted more house than they could really afford. (And in some markets, that would be any house at all, although not here in Tulsa, thankfully)
I'd be interested to see what kind of default stats turn up for FHA loans made when FHA literally only serviced people with terrible credit. (because commercial banks were funding almost anything that moved) Their loss rates in 2006 and 2007 would be very interesting, indeed.
Maybe in your personal experience that's when permissive credit card offers were coming, but I assure you, that had been going on years before that.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2010, 04:10:41 PM
Maybe in your personal experience that's when permissive credit card offers were coming, but I assure you, that had been going on years before that.
Well, yes, the subprime lenders got into it big long before that. But you didn't see the big boys (BoA/MBNA, Amex, Citi, Chase/FirstUSA/BankOne/etc) going completely wild until closer to the mid-00s.
People with high HHI could get good lines in the late 90s, but in that 03-04 timeframe is when they started going crazy and giving anybody with a not-terrible credit score 20 or 30 or 40 thousand in unsecured credit. Each.
Prior to that, there were offers, but the credit lines they'd give on them would be far more restricted. They'd tend to not give out credit lines in excess of your yearly income, for example.
Quote from: nathanm on February 02, 2010, 04:41:29 PM
Well, yes, the subprime lenders got into it big long before that. But you didn't see the big boys (BoA/MBNA, Amex, Citi, Chase/FirstUSA/BankOne/etc) going completely wild until closer to the mid-00s.
People with high HHI could get good lines in the late 90s, but in that 03-04 timeframe is when they started going crazy and giving anybody with a not-terrible credit score 20 or 30 or 40 thousand in unsecured credit. Each.
Prior to that, there were offers, but the credit lines they'd give on them would be far more restricted. They'd tend to not give out credit lines in excess of your yearly income, for example.
I saw the same thing happening. A lot of it was fueled by commissions earned by the mortgage sellers, with almost no oversight for risk and no consideration of consequences.
I actually buttonholed one of the lending agents a few years ago about those reckless credit lines she was dishing out. She just shrugged; she didn't give a damn.
One of the mistakes we make, though, is to focus on consumer credit and the buyer side of mortgages. It's understandable, since that's how we all experienced the bubble, but that was in reality a relatively small part of the problem.
Our system can deal with bad loans in isolation, even a bunch of them occurring singly. What it can't deal with are bundles of bad loans that are sliced into a series of interconnected securities which are then sold, unregulated, on the open market. It also can't deal with rating companies that would give these bundles A+ ratings, and it can't deal with those highly rated securities being snapped up by pension funds, 401ks, municipal investment funds, etc. And then it can't deal when the underlying loans start to fail. Oh, and don't forget all the AIG crap, billions and billions of dummy insurance policies taken out to secure the securities with the assumption that they would never have to be bailed out. It's one thing to have a property bubble, but we had a securities bubble, too.
Quote from: we vs us on February 02, 2010, 08:22:50 PM
One of the mistakes we make, though, is to focus on consumer credit and the buyer side of mortgages. It's understandable, since that's how we all experienced the bubble, but that was in reality a relatively small part of the problem.
Our system can deal with bad loans in isolation, even a bunch of them occurring singly. What it can't deal with are bundles of bad loans that are sliced into a series of interconnected securities which are then sold, unregulated, on the open market. It also can't deal with rating companies that would give these bundles A+ ratings, and it can't deal with those highly rated securities being snapped up by pension funds, 401ks, municipal investment funds, etc. And then it can't deal when the underlying loans start to fail. Oh, and don't forget all the AIG crap, billions and billions of dummy insurance policies taken out to secure the securities with the assumption that they would never have to be bailed out. It's one thing to have a property bubble, but we had a securities bubble, too.
To be fair, there have thus far been few actual losses on AAA CDO tranches. They're still worthless if you want to sell, but they're still paying. The lower tranches have been largely wiped out, though.
But yes, AIG's unregulated insurance dealings (what is a default swap but insurance?) did cause significant problems because the swaps were a big part of what got the ratings agencies to go along with giving CDOs consisting of subprime mortgages AAA ratings. We were forced to bail them out due to the ripple effects that would have occurred had AIG failed to pay on their swaps.
Even at the big banks holding mortgages, most of the losses thus far have been book losses, not actual nonperforming loans. This despite all the foreclosures. Part of that has been due to the securitization, which spread the risk around.
Fannie and Freddie, thanks to only buying upper tranches have had very few losses, but they've been far more aggressive about booking loss reserves than any of the commercial banks. If the banks were booking reserves like Fannie and Freddie have, they'd
look insolvent, too.
As the recession drags on, we will probably see more of those reserves turning into real losses. How much is, of course, anybody's guess. Given that last I saw, even credit cards weren't looking too terrible, it's still largely a crisis of confidence at the big picture level, even as things have been getting worse for many individuals.
All of this is true, but the tragedy is that no one knows any of this. Most folks think it's greedy people who borrowed too much that caused this crash. Maybe greedy poor people who were pushed into it by the guv. They draw an absolutely straight line between the guy down the street's foreclosure and our teetering economy. It's this guy's fault that banks aren't solvent.
So what's going to happen -- and it's already happening -- is that the public outrage that will drive reform is pushing in the exact opposite direction. Obama and crew are fighting against it mildly, but seem hesitant to try to wrench things back the other direction. Or to try any sort of comprehensive explanation.
It's frustrating to watch this unfold because so many false narratives have already taken hold, and there's no one pushing back on them. It's just layer after layer of demagoguery.
Quote from: we vs us on February 02, 2010, 10:44:31 PM
It's frustrating to watch this unfold because so many false narratives have already taken hold, and there's no one pushing back on them. It's just layer after layer of demagoguery.
Don't expect it to get better, what with paid mouthpieces becoming even more entrenched in Congress.
One of the few good things the Democratic majority has brought us is the continued existence of Fannie and Freddie. There's a good deal of support on the right for shutting them down entirely. That would be great for the big banks, though, given the bigger interest rates they could charge.
The funny thing is that it was largely caused by greedy people who borrowed too much, just not the greedy people who borrowed too much money to buy houses and HDTVs and what have you. That's why we saw the special dispensation for the investment banks to convert to commercial banks so they could get money mainlined from the Fed to replace the funding they could no longer get on the open market.