Political Roundtable Quasar of Mayhem part III

[hands11]

"To argue that we are somehow on the cusp of a new era of growth is hopelessly naive."

You said that, not me.

Besides, using your logic you get the same result. Jobs started going down under the R and it was a D controlled house that turned things around once Obama took office. Well, up until the R got in the house and it dipped back down. And in spit of their best efforts, private sector jobs have been added 20 straight months. Its the public sector jobs their policies have been cutting that is a drag on the economy. Now if they would get out of the way there, we could actually recover. Then that extra 2 trillion that is sitting on the sidelines might actually find some demand to fill.

[nate33]

No hands11. The jobs started going down during the last year and half of the Bush administration, which coincided with the Democrats taking over Congress. Jobs continued to decline until two years into the Obama administration, which coincided with Republicans regaining control of Congress.

I realize the correlation does not mean causation, but the correlation of House control and the economy is much more clear and obvious than the correlation between presidential administrations and the economy..

[hands11]

No hands11. The jobs started going down during the last year and half of the Bush administration, which coincided with the Democrats taking over Congress. Jobs continued to decline until two years into the Obama administration, which coincided with Republicans regaining control of Congress.

I realize the correlation does not mean causation, but the correlation of House control and the economy is much more clear and obvious than the correlation between presidential administrations and the economy..

Wrong, jobs were going down before the Dems got there.



Then the job situation hit bottom May 2009 has been trending up since then. That would be with the Dems in all three branches and a slim majority in the Senate for 5 mouths and over the next two years. The Republicans didnt show up in the house until Jan 2011. The job recovery was turned around and in positive territory by the time they got there. And since Jan 2011, what at all have the R done to help create jobs considering it is pubic sector jobs that are hurting. Police, firefighter, teachers, etc. Their only major accomplishment was dragging out the debt ceiling increase to pay the bills for things we already legislative spent money on which resulted in lowering our credit rating. Well they also have been busy limiting voters rights, breaking up unions, voting on a ton of anti abortion bills, and talking down the economy while asking for Obama birth certificate and questioning his foreign policies which resulted in four terrorist leaders being killed.

[nate33]

Yes, the rate of job growth dropped under Bush, but it was still substantially positive. It went negative after Dems took the House.

[hands11]

Yes, the rate of job growth dropped under Bush, but it was still substantially positive. It went negative after Dems took the House.

Six straight years of job growth decline before the Dems ever showed up.

Come on NATE. You are really reaching.

[nate33]

hands11, you seem to think that the change in the rate of growth is more important than the actual growth rate. I'd much rather have a job growth of 8%, 7% and 6% (like we had in the last years of Bush with Republicans running the House), than the negative job growth rate we've had since 2008. I simply don't think Obama deserves much credit for the recent, anemic turnaround. If you drive employment levels down to depths not seen in 70 years, and then throw a trillion dollars of stimulus money at the economy, of course you're going to get some growth. But growth by artificial stimulus won't last. If you look at the debt generated per job created, it's enough to make you want to cry.

[willbcocks]

Whether pro life or pro choice, the most consistent thing both political parties have done over the past 30 years is to screw over the unborn.

Cut retirement packages of recent employees while keeping their own? Check.

Running up huge deficits while keeping taxes low? Check.

Bailing out banks to save their stock portfolios while keeping student loans as the only debts that cannot be escaped through bankruptcy? Check.

And now the ponzi scheme is over because the job market has tanked. The future of people in my age bracket and the bracket below mine is bleak because of the political mentoring of previous generations. I feel incredibly lucky to have the job I do, but so many people I know are in bad situations.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-wealth-gap-bet ... 59922.html

[hands11]

hands11, you seem to think that the change in the rate of growth is more important than the actual growth rate. I'd much rather have a job growth of 8%, 7% and 6% (like we had in the last years of Bush with Republicans running the House), than the negative job growth rate we've had since 2008. I simply don't think Obama deserves much credit for the recent, anemic turnaround. If you drive employment levels down to depths not seen in 70 years, and then throw a trillion dollars of stimulus money at the economy, of course you're going to get some growth. But growth by artificial stimulus won't last. If you look at the debt generated per job created, it's enough to make you want to cry.

Nate, you seem to have a problem recognizing cause and effect, trends/momentum and perspective. That and you exaggerate.

So where are these Trillions you speak of ?

And do you remember what we went through. Banking collapse, housing collapse, state tax base drying up with massive firing, and one of the big three auto company on the verge of going out of business. You do a wonderful job of politician R spin. You could run for office. You fit right in with what I have seen from them over the last 20-30 years.

Also, what about the cost of the jobs added under Bush. Talk about anemic. And he was handed a golden egg. That is a far cry from what Obama was handed.

[hands11]

Look Nate, you can run this in circles all you want. Bottom line. Bush and the Rep totally blow it with their tax spending and tax brackets. They drove up the debt and widened the income gap. They did nothing to restrain Wall Street ( Clinton deserves some blame there). They asked nothing of us collective after 9/11. They massively expanded government ( war and HLS). And it wasn't only Bush. The same crap happened under Reagan.

Then the whole thing was unraveling as Obama came into office. The stimulus plan was the same type to stuff they normally did in the past, even under R rule. And it helped a ton. Private rate growth continues, so the idea that we are over-regulated is BS. My company is planning on hiring. The slow down has actually given us a chance to look closer at what we can do better and we have regrouped. The problem is public sector jobs and that steams from the lack of local government funds, the way the R governors are redistributing them, and the poison pill the 2006 R congress feed the Postal Service by making them fund pensions and healthcare of 75 year in a 10 year period. The post office was a huge government program success until the R got their hands in it. Why, they hate successful government programs and they want to break unions.

The R as a party has been a disaster for this country since Nixon was impeached and left office during his term. That said, I long for the days of someone as smart as Nixon.

McCain and Sarah. Really. McCain graduated like 3rd from the bottom of his class.
GWB Jr ? and Dr Evil ? Oil frat boy who couldn't speak the language and oil man waterboarding prick.
We got to see what a country run by rich oil people and neocons looks like. It sucked.
Then you have Reagan who was a bad or worse because he installed in a generation of people that government is always the problem. That is the disease we still live with today. He tripled the debt and dysfunctioned the nation with this message of anti American government and unions. And the guy was an actor for God sake.

I love for the days of smart R like W F Buckley. Instead we have Newt as the intellectual leader of this group and we get garbage like Mitt, Perry and Cain. Oh and Boehner.

[Nivek]

Jeebus this is a stupid debate. The party in power at the moment job losses began -- either presidency or the House -- had NOTHING to do with those job losses. The job losses were the inevitable result of a bursting debt bubble. The job losses resulted from YEARS of policy decisions made by people of both parties. Trying to pin blame/credit for the economy on one party or another is silly. It's Lucky Shirt Theory and nothing more.

[hands11]

Jeebus this is a stupid debate. The party in power at the moment job losses began -- either presidency or the House -- had NOTHING to do with those job losses. The job losses were the inevitable result of a bursting debt bubble. The job losses resulted from YEARS of policy decisions made by people of both parties. Trying to pin blame/credit for the economy on one party or another is silly. It's Lucky Shirt Theory and nothing more.

I understand you think both party are equally crappy and it doesn't make a bit of difference between then.

I totally disagree.

Sure they may are tied to money but there still is a vast difference between the two parties, their messaging, polices, how they govern and who they back.

Of course macro themes play a role. I have consistently said our biggest problem is the retiring baby boomers and the pop of the equity bubble they created. But that is not to say there is nothing we could have done to mitigate that effect and plan for it.

Example, the perception drug benefit that was unfunded is going to have a huge effect.

[Severn Hoos]

hands, I think you may want to take advantage of that perception drug benefit yourself....

[Nivek]

Jeebus this is a stupid debate. The party in power at the moment job losses began -- either presidency or the House -- had NOTHING to do with those job losses. The job losses were the inevitable result of a bursting debt bubble. The job losses resulted from YEARS of policy decisions made by people of both parties. Trying to pin blame/credit for the economy on one party or another is silly. It's Lucky Shirt Theory and nothing more.

I understand you think both party are equally crappy and it doesn't make a bit of difference between then.

I totally disagree.

Sure they may are tied to money but there still is a vast difference between the two parties, their messaging, polices, how they govern and who they back.

Of course macro themes play a role. I have consistently said our biggest problem is the retiring baby boomers and the pop of the equity bubble they created. But that is not to say there is nothing we could have done to mitigate that effect and plan for it.

Example, the perception drug benefit that was unfunded is going to have a huge effect.

hands: Umm okay. I agree, the parties are different. What does that have to do with the point I made?

To restate: The Great Recession was a result of long-term policy decisions and economic activities -- some of which the government had no real role in aside from stuff like making a mortgage too easy to get. No one forced people to borrow more money than they could afford to pay back, for example. No one forced lending institutions to hand out money to anyone who asked for it, for example.

Back to the point: if The Great Recession was the result of long-term decisions and activities, then which party was in power when the Recession actually occurred is irrelevant. It wasn't caused by them. Same thing with job losses/gains.

And please show me the Democrat plan to prepare for and mitigate against the Great Recession. Must have missed that one.

[hands11]

Thanks S, but I am on no perception drugs and have no need for them.

So I just heard we have just passed the productively level pre 2008.

Technology advancement have made us so much more productive. So what do we do with the millions of people who don't have jobs ? This is the bigger problem. Population, productivity and longevity.

At the end of the day, productivity and population growth are what needs addressed.

People simply have to have less children. We can't keep adding billions of people to this planet and make it. Why we have a child tax credit is beyond stupid.

[pancakes3]

that's a mighty republican stance on public welfare, hands.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

For a myriad of reasons I trust and respect Ron Paul.

From his wiki page:

Paul was the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate who voted against the Iraq War Resolution,[18][19] and he continues to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties. He believes a just declaration of war after the September 11, 2001, attacks should have been directed against the actual terrorists, Al-Qaeda, rather than against Iraq, which has not been linked to the attacks.

Our preemptive war in Iraq was flat wrong IMO. I agree with Paul on most things. IMO the US does need to scale down military presence in Korea, Japan, and Europe. Paul is definitely right about Iran. Threatening war there is not the way to go. Diplomacy is. I think Paul is right in opposing much of the foreign aid the US gives. I agree with Paul about legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, and prostitution. Where I really agree with him is that the US needs to patrol the border with Mexico much better. Some of the illegal activity there is spreading across to the US. It is like a war zone and very dangerous.

Where I don't agree with him is on the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden. Yeah, we violated Pakistan's sovereignty. There were other ways, but I think Paul is discounting the fact that Bin Laden was near a Pakistani military facility. I think someone in authority on their side knew darned well where Bin Laden was. I am GLAD the US got Bin Laden the way they did. If Pakistani was embarrassed or were violated, tough. Tell them at least we didn't cause huge collateral damage like his guys did on September 11. I wouldn't have cared if they blasted a crater a mile wide to rid the earth of that man.

But other than that, I agree a lot with what Paul has to say.

[popper]

Regarding the jobs and unemployment issue. We desperately need an industrial policy that will bring manufacturing back to the US. Employment levels will remain anemic until we do so.

[nate33]

Jeebus this is a stupid debate. The party in power at the moment job losses began -- either presidency or the House -- had NOTHING to do with those job losses. The job losses were the inevitable result of a bursting debt bubble. The job losses resulted from YEARS of policy decisions made by people of both parties. Trying to pin blame/credit for the economy on one party or another is silly. It's Lucky Shirt Theory and nothing more.

I agree completely, Nivek. And when I reread my recent posts, I can see how I came off as defending Republicans and blaming Democrats exclusively. That was not my intent. My intent was to refute hands11's argument that this is somehow all the fault of Republicans. I should know better by now not to get sucked into these debates with hands11.

[Nivek]

Fair enough nate. I get where you're coming from. It just rankles me to see partisanship take the place of actual thought, analysis and...well...reality. I think the country would be better off if people would spend less time rooting for their team (GOP or Democrat) and more time thinking about what actually works.

[/soapbox]

[nate33]

To restate: The Great Recession was a result of long-term policy decisions and economic activities -- some of which the government had no real role in aside from stuff like making a mortgage too easy to get. No one forced people to borrow more money than they could afford to pay back, for example. No one forced lending institutions to hand out money to anyone who asked for it, for example.

I'm not sure if I can completely agree with this statement. There was definitely some government-inspired strong-arming of the banksto lend to those who weren't credit worthy:

Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

The threat was codified in a 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.

"The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form," the document warned financial institutions.

More:

For the first time, Washington's bank regulators put racial lending at the top of their checklist. Banks that failed to throw open their lending windows to credit-poor minorities were denied expansion plans by the Fed in an era of frenzied financial mergers and acquisitions. HUD threatened to deny them access to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which it controlled. And the Justice Department sued them for lending discrimination and branded them as racists in the press.

"HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices," the official policy statement warned.

The regulatory missive, which had the effect of law, advised lenders to bend "customary" underwriting standards for minority homebuyers with poor credit.

"Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible," it said. "In addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible."

To that end, lenders were directed to "make changes in marketing strategy or loan products to better serve minority segments of the market." They were also advised to "change commission structures" to encourage brokers and loan officers to "lend in minority and low-income neighborhoods" — a practice Countrywide Financial, the poster boy of the subprime scandal, perfected. The government now condemns the practice it once encouraged as "predatory."

FDIC warned banks that even unintentional discrimination was against the law, and that they should be proactive in making "multicultural" loans. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," the agency said in a separate advisory.

Confronted with the combined force of 10 federal regulators, lenders naturally toed the line, and were soon aggressively marketing subprime mortgages in urban areas. The marching orders threw such a scare into the industry that the American Bankers Association issued a "fair-lending tool kit" to every member. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America signed a "fair-lending" contract with HUD. So did Countrywide.

This mess was instigated by the government. Once the sub-prime market got goosed up, it initiated a bubble in the housing markets. House prices went up year after year after year. At that point, investors tried to game the system and get in on some of the price action, which further inflated the bubble. For that, the banks can't blame the government. But the initial problem was definitely fueled by the government's role.