Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com
FollowShare with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.
Yes. He Did.
25 thoughts on “Yes. He Did.”
Comments are closed.
Thanks to Idiot George and his band of Repubicant Losers, even Warren Buffet couldn’t save it. What did old George W. Bush say, “We are gonna lose this sucker”. Looks like your King admitted losing it before Obama was even elected. Way to go Repubicants! You destroyed the United States.
Funny “ME”. Better look at the years 1977 and 1999 for the answers of the faltering Housing crisis. The legislation from these two separate years needs to be reformed
But everything ONE TERM NOBAMA has done, doesn’t work.
Silly Me..
What were the Democrats in the Senate and the House doing for 2 of those 8 years your complaining about. Where was the Leadership from them.. they kepted spending money..
Warren Buffet dose not make government policy..
Nice duck and dodge. I distinctly remember Republicans bashing any and all regulation of the markets.
MiniMe and Spaced Out –
On April 1, Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic wrote,
“Regulators have handed out hundreds of billions of dollars and shredded shareholder equity in several companies to stem a systemic risk they’ve never been able to coherently or cogently define. Moreover, what has been disclosed, for instance about AIG’s counterparties, severely undercuts some of the claims of systemic risk.”
http://www.mortgagenews2.com/#g/article/174190
His main points are that the inability of the Feds to quantify the claims of systematic risk (originally used to justify the concept of “too big to fail”) and more specifically their over estimation of potential impact of an AIG failure, have been used to justify Federal seizure of private company’s assets without due process (applies as well to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or for that matter GM and Chrysler).
The Federal Government has been itself instrumental in the creating and amplifying systematic risk in the financial system and creating the current economic crisis by,
1) Inducing easy money policy through the Federal Reserve for too long after 9/11.
2) Allowing the tenfold growth of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, not to mention the FHA, in residential lending capital markets since the 1970’s,
3) Mandating CRA, sub-prime and other higher risk programs which flooded the financial system and RE capital markets with lower quality loans, accentuated by Clinton administration pressure starting in 1994,
4) Enacting Sarbanes Oxley legislation in 2002, the implementing legislation for #5 above enforced by the SEC, which drives Public Companies to go Private, prevents others from going Public including many Hedge Funds that were heavily involved in the activities leading to the collapse of the capital markets, not to mention the tremendous regulatory costs to all business both large and small with little success in creating the proposed transparency intended,
5) Complicity in the systematic expansion of risk through the encouragement of use of derivatives such as Credit Default Swaps (Basel International Banking Accords and auditors looking the other way) to amplify bank’s capital reserves further over-inflating risky lending in capital markets and,
6) SEC’s promulgating of International Accounting Standards including MTM, which arbitrarily and unnecessarily discounts the value of performing assets based on presently illiquid capital markets.
The combined impact of all these Federal Government actions led to overvaluation of financial assets and tremendous increase in the system’s risk. Without the perfect storm created by the convergence of all these federal actions the collapse of the capital markets would have been far less dramatic and the economy far more stable. We owe this all to the erosion of the Constitutional limitations of Federal Goverment to socially engineer the private sector of our economy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I saw a similar type cartoon with George Bush as Curious George hiding under the Big YELLOW Hat with Republicans trying to get in. In the background America was sliding into the ocean while Wallstreet bankers were driving the other direction in shinny new Cadilacs. I think the yellow hat was a symbol for Republicans and Bush being gutless in solving the economic crisis.
Funny, dis-abel, Bush is no longer in office, it’s all The Bama’s play now.
But, for “gutless,” I refer you back to the 2003 New York Times article, New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Bush tried to reain in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and was defeated by Democrats blocking the effort.
Abel
And now the President and Democrats in Congress are flying around in new shiny jets, throwing money at all their special interest lobbys, in denial of the gravity of the economic crisis.
And to your revisionist history, here is a reminder of actual events and Bush/other Republican concerns together with the Democrat denials of GSE problems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo
And by the way, Abel/Mini Me, Buffet is now having buyers remorse over your big O. And just incidently Berkshire Hathaway sold off Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2000 before the Bush Administration even raised concerns citing accounting concerns.
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2000ar/2000letter.html (under subheading investments)
Seems everyone but the Democrats wanted to face reality, rather than try to recreate it! Yawn, guess there is nothing unusual about that!!
Indeed, Abel, they were gutless about taking the actions that were needed. Being too spineless to solve a problem is one thing but doing everything to make the problem worse is a whole new level of incompetance and irresponsibility. Whatever pipe dreams the Democrats harbor about how economies work, they cannot possibly be so stupid that they believe you can reverse debt by spending at a level approaching desperation while undercutting free trade agreements and contemplating an array of measures to vastly increase the cost of energy.
Keith –
“…they cannot possibly be so stupid that they believe you can reverse debt by spending at a level approaching desperation while undercutting free trade agreements and contemplating an array of measures to vastly increase the cost of energy.”
So how else do you explain it?
Opening up the freight train to full boil and smashing up the works good and proper. They cannot fix the problem so they’ve seemingly decided to cause a massive train wreck, counting on their media syncophants and their insistantly guillable supporters to spread the idea that the wreckage is the fault of the Republicans.
That, or they’re secret admirers of Lenin and yearn to be that pack of Bolshevik thugs sitting atop a pile of bodies with a nation in their iron fist. But I wouldn’t assume such a horrid thing of anyone short of another Stalin.
Keith
“But I wouldn’t assume such a horrid thing of anyone short of another Stalin.”
Oh Ouch! Brutal!!
Your graphical representation of the economy is misleading and ignorant. Thanks for making good conservatives look stupid
cn,
My first impression of the graph, was similar to your statement; but then I realized, that the red, is a predicted future (what those who made the cartoon are predicting will happen) as opposed to what has happened.
The Republicans who post here, are not so stupid, as to have forgotten who was in power when the majority of the damage was done.
They may be making quick assumptions as to the major causes, based on what they want to believe more then facts; but I see plenty of that from both sides.
They believe that the current policies will make things worse instead of better. But they do understand that the most recent damage occurred while Republicans were in power.
The bail outs are a problem, and completely unfair to the competitors of the companies getting them.
They’re also aware of the fact, one that seems to regularly escape the notice of most media folks and political operatives (not to mention the public at large) that timing does not always correlate with cause. 9/11 happened while Bush was president but by the time he was sworn into office, only a sweepingly revolutionary approach to domestic security could have stopped it. Most of the damage occured at the tail end of a Republican administration but the red flags had been starting to pop up before Bush even took office.
All that said, however, the irresponsible policies of the Democrats can be blamed on no one but themselves and the administration that’s cheering from the sidelines.
Eileen also forgets that Democrats controlled Congress during the final 2 years of the Bush administration and that both Bush and McCain tried to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 and 2005, blocked by Democrats.
Yes, they could have been more forceful and Republicans did jump on spend, spend, spend bandwagon, but does that excuse spending at an even higher level today, so much that trillions must be borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia?
Borrowing means debt and debt must be repaid, regardless of which party does it.
But, one thing the Republicans have not done yet and Democrats have, is take over private businesses and begin setting wages.
Government backing auto warranties is scary to me. I get paid half of what a repair takes now. Will the government reduce that even further or pass more restrictions of car owners receiving warranty coverage?
Will owners have to submit requests to government in triplicate for warranty coverage and wait for congressional decisions on their repair?
Shameful that so many freely hand their lives over to bureaucrats who wrap everything in massive red tape.
Eileen you said,
“The Republicans who post here, are not so stupid, as to have forgotten who was in power when the majority of the damage was done.
They may be making quick assumptions as to the major causes, based on what they want to believe more then facts; but I see plenty of that from both sides.
They believe that the current policies will make things worse instead of better. But they do understand that the most recent damage occurred while Republicans were in power.”
I for one have not forgotten the yrs of massive spending increases during the Bush Administration. Some of which certainly could be justified, but many which could easily be questioned. Equally disappointing were the welcome increases in tax revenue generated by tax cuts that were all but swamped by lack of fiscal discipline. He issued far too few vetoes! That incidentally was frequently a criticism directed at the Bush Administration by a number of Conservatives including Victoria Taft!!!
You said, “I doubt one can make quick assumptions as to the causes of this crisis…” and you are very right. This is a substantially a credit and capital market induced contraction/recession resulting from long term Government social engineering policies, well intended perhaps and meant to stabilize the economy, but in actuality converging to destabilize it in mid 2007.
Its easy to point to the front line, the banks and brokerages, as the cause of problem. They certainly bear responsibility for their own excesses given their laxity in underwriting, overindulgence in making virtually any loan offered and excesses in embracing derivatives. But they are, as much as anything, the more the symptom of a much greater underlying problem.
The decade long easy money policy of the Fed in the late nineties and especially from 9/11 to late 2005 established the environment and the foundation for the massive initial expansion and ultimately the disastrous credit market/economic decline. But other well established secular government programs were the underlying cause of the ultimate collapse. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew tenfold in prominence from the mid 1970’s to 2007 to the point where they accounted for over 50% of all residential mortgage originations. They may have become “too big to fail”, but likewise they dominated the market and among other things were instruments used by Congress and various Administrations to standardized the industry’s underwriting, as well as allegedly “stabilize” the residential capital market. And rather singularly warnings about their size and control came from only one end of the political spectrum. After various accounting scandals and a deterioratiing housing market, their own financial condition worsened with the housing collapse and they began to amplify the contraction in the real estate capital markets, rather than provide needed stability.
With the advent of the Community Redevelopment Act in the late 1970’s the program pretty well languished until the 1990’s when the Clinton Administration pushed banks to embrace expanding the program. This program provided homes to those less privileged perhaps, but collapsed with the turn of housing in 2005-2006, with one study from Harvard suggesting the delinquency rate on sub prime loans was 25% at the end of 2007. Even the GSE’s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, became instruments in pushing CRA loans in 2004 and beyond.
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2008/son2008_homeownership.pdf
Combine the government policy in housing with governments greater policy disaster in the financial industry and they created the perfect storm. We frequently hear that Glass Speigel deregulation (signed by Clinton even thought it was unlikely to be sustain over his veto) was to blame for changes in the banking/brokerage industry that led to this collapse. And while this act blurred the distinction between the Banking and Brokerage Industry, both conduits for investment and assumption of return and risk, it did little to structure policies permitting the investment vehicles and accounting which would ultimately take down the markets. The insistence of the Federal Government in pursing International Banking (Bassel Accords) and International Accounting Standards (including Mark to Market accounting) has led to major changes in the domestic financial industry. The Bassel Accords (original conference in 1988, second in 2004) initially directed at Central Banks to set minimum standards for capital reserves, bank review policies resulted among other things in changed the definition of assets that could be classified as capital reserves. Capital reserves originally limited to gold, demand deposits and treasuries were expanded to include guess what, assets backed by high grade derivatives, and the push toward adopting Bassel gained steam in early – mid 1990’s in this country. With greater reserve bases came greater loan volume and ever increasing leverage.
Frequent leftist critics cite AIG’s issuance of Credit Default Swaps and lack of regulation as the culprit in the collapse of the capital markets. But where did AIG’s initial CDS customers come from — the banking industry not just the brokerage houses, and specifically the money center banks who are regularly subject to audits by any number of bank regulators — the Fed, Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the Treasury, not to mention the SEC. One of the first thing bank auditors check in an exam is the quality and adequacy of the banks reserves. So if the government auditors accept/promulgate the Bassel I and II reserve definitions, is the acceptance of CDS to enhance reserves really a case of lack of regulation?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-banks-used-aigs-swaps-to-dodge-banking-rules-2009-3
Likewise, beginning in the mid to late 1990’s the Clinton Administration and Levitt lead SEC pushed for adoption of International Accounting Standards and Mark to Market Accounting. The Mark to Market mechanism, which requires financial institutions to write down even some fully performing mortgage portfolios on their books to distressed prices (like Merrill Lynch sale last Fall at 22 cents on the dollar) established in illiquid capital markets impairing their capital reserve position and rendering them arbitrarily insolvent. Fortunately earlier this week, there was some abatement of use of this concept.
Over inflated the capital markets with a high proportion of poor quality assets underwritten by a financial system eager to provide the funds, but without sufficient capital adequacy to support the deteriorating markets, led to this crisis. But underlying each of theses factors was Government policy, for the most part embraced by the left, which destabilized the real estate capital markets leading to the crisis. And so the blame for this spans only 8 yrs and the Bush Administration? And the answer to this is more and bigger Government??
oh wow Lew,
2 out of 8 years, and no veto power.
Significance?
compared to
6 out of 8 years, with veto power?
You seem to point this out a lot.
It does not do much to help your credibility.
But whatever.
I am thinking that Obama’s idea of bi-partisan is to adopt policies of both Republicans and Democrats.
Tax like a Democrat.
Borrow like a Republican.
Spend like the two combined.
I don’t suppose any of those whining about over spending voted Libertarian or Constitution?
Eileen, feel free to show me any point yet that B HO has adopted any Republican suggestions.
I’ll wait.
As for Bush not vetoing, look back, hon. We complained about that often too.
What was that about “credibility?”
Have you forgotten the many times most of us say we are conservatives before Republicans? We didn’t agree with the borrowing either.
I guess that joins in with the selective complaints about posting, huh?
I voted for Bob Barr. Obama was starkly unworthy of my vote and McCain was almost as unworthy, especailly after selecting Palin.
I am thinking that Obama’s idea of bi-partisan is to adopt policies of both Republicans and Democrats.
Nope, not the case.
I voted for Sarah Palin. A truly awesome lady. An adorable family. When she makes president she will have a lot of mess to clean up. I do agree that McCain is no better than Obomba. Oh and she is a real threat the Obomba camp, otherwise the smear campaign against her would have never started.
Oh by the way, Ron Paul a well known libertarian, jumped onto the Republican ticket.
I wish Allen Keyes, or Duncan Hunter would have stayed in the race. I would have whole heartily voted for either of them. Had they both stayed in I would have had a real delima.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Republican policies that Obama has adopted;
1) Borrowing
This is something the Republican have historically done more then Democrats.
Obama may break the record on this, but up to now, the Republicans have increased the US debt far more then Democrats.
2) Bail outs of Large corporations.
While both parties do this, it started with a Republican in power (I think Nixon) and the Republicans have been in office for the majority (and largest dollar amount) of the bail outs.
Nope not the case.
Try and vilify Republicans all you want, it doesn’t change what your president is doing now. Messing up all forms of Capitalism, something liberals hate, capitalism. Capitalism is not a part of government or religion, it is what makes America tick. Like it or not.
The more he does this, the more ordinary folks will feel no way out, will be in the news.
Not only is he throwing America under the bus financially, but doing so in speeches to foreign leaders.
As I have said before and I have to say again. It is not about tit for tat. We are not upset to have Democrat for President. No not at all. We are upset about what the results of having THIS Democratic President in office. A man that came from nowhere, that no one bothered to look into his past. Since we were the only people trying to point this out, while the radical left wing media (ABC, CBS, NBC) ignored it totally. It looks as though we were trying to demonize him. Not the case at all either. We didn’t and still don’t want our nation sold down the river to Socialism and Communism.
All things come out in the wash. Soon, very soon.
Obomba is doing what Al-Quaeda failed to do. Bring America to it’s knees financialy.