First time I can recall seeing him talk without smirking!
No - what would have been impressive would have been him actually doing something about it.
Bush is kind like the boy who cried wolf. Even if he were telling the truth or part of it, his credibility is not so hot.
The neocon method has been fear. They sold making a new agency and giving up our constitutional protections was to keep us safe from AlQueda. The Patriot Act was written before 911 and was all of a sudden fully ready to vote on. Just sign on the dotted line.
Then we go to war to protest us from Iraqs nuclear bombs. The proof would be the mushroom cloud. Fear ,they are coming for your children.So we attack to protect us from weapons of mass destruction.The neos had planned this atatck for a long time.
This admin tries to scare the people into giving powers to them that go beyond the range of previous administrations. Fear ,fear fear. Use it and then loot the system.
I am more afraid of giving our rights and powers to a group who have lied over and over.
We now have a economic crisis that threatens the system. A depression looms. They have a bill already written. Just sign on the dotted line . Trust us ,big neo con brother will take care of you. The bailout is not paid for by corpoprate taxes. It is not taking money from the wealthy who have looted us for 8 years. It has to loot the average tax payer from what ever they have left.
When will we ever learn.?
This is debatable, but the question surely is why two government-backed lenders were as balls-deep in the subprime market as anyone else. In other words, the issue is not whether they caused the subprime problem, but how they were allowed to expose the taxpayer to so much risk in it. That they did the latter is undebatable.
My understanding is that since they were being run as essentially private entities in which shareholder profit was prioritised, you’ve got a classic moral hazard in which the profits are privatised and the risks nationalised. Rather than perform their nominal function, therefore (to provide liquidity to the housing market), they simply took advantage of their cheap, government backed source of money to push into riskier markets, diving headlong into mortgage-backed securities issued by other banks. This exposed them to the subprime market they were meant to have no part of, and because they run on such little capital (again possible due to their government-backed status), this left them at far greater risk for a given amount of subprime exposure. Thus when everything exploded, they were very quick to go insolvent.
I thought this Economist article was very explanatory (written in July, before they had to be totally rescued). Comprehensible to the non-economist (i.e. me), too, which is always nice.
Does anyone thing waging a 2 trillion dollar war while cutting taxes ,especially for the wealthy, have any thing to do with the so called economic problem.?
You are just not being patriotic, gonzo! :rolleyes:
Pay no attention to the real issues behind the curtain. Here, have some more McKool-aid. All better now?
Is it just me, or is this essentially a pit thread with no swearing? Is this really what GD is like these days?
Looks like they’re just ignoring, Sam.
So, The Leader labored mightily to avert the crisis, but was crushed beneath the massive power of the Dems? And here we are. You buy that?
Well, they did have a minority in both houses. That’s not chopped liver.
Oh, come off it. Sam Stone started by saying that Bush, like Clinton before him, had attempted to address the GSEs, and that they had both been stymied by both parties in Congress. This seems a fair reading of the situation (it’s certainly a basis for debate), but you chose to interpret it as mindless Bush-boosting, and launched into the usual tired partisan rubbish. Why do you do this? Must you always try and shut down debate with empty sarcasm? It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that George Bush actually tried to do something right, you know.
Sure, it’s possible. But this is the guy who launched a ruinously expensive Excellent Military Adventure while cutting taxes. Which is either a bold and innovative approach to government economics, or just plain stupid. You probably have some good reasons why that’s really, really smart. I’m all ears.
And I’ve been paying attention. I’ve noticed how every time someone suggested to GeeDub that maybe the economy wasn’t doing so hot, he’d trot out how great! great! the housing boom was, how we were becoming an “ownership” society.
So I’m thinking maybe if that was just about the only bragging point he had, he might have been a tad reluctant to stifle the goose that was laying the golden bomb. What do you think?
You’re doing it again. Why would my opinions on the sustainability of the GSEs have any bearing whatsoever on my opinion of the war and Bush’s broader fiscal policy? This is stunningly dishonest debate.
That’s as may be, but still has essentially nothing to do with whether Fannie and Freddie represented an unacceptable risk to the taxpayer, whether the Bush admin was right to say so, and whether Congress foxed their efforts to address it. This is less dishonest, but it’s still diversionary. You’ve got a whole list of actual claimed actions that were taken, any of which you could take issue with. Why do you prefer to indulge in handwaving based on an assumption of bad faith? Is it beyond your capability to engage with the facts?
I think you’re going to great lengths to avoid talking about the point at hand, i.e. the viability of the GSEs’ business model, and the realities of who wanted to do what about them and when. Instead you’ve limited yourself to banal generalities aimed at polarising the conversation so no-one can acknowledge any good move made by Bush without carrying the can for everything he’s ever done in office.
This is not a great basis for a debate.
Sam Stone rather mildly contended that in this one instance, Bush (and by extension, Bill Clinton before him) deserved praise for attempting sensible responses to the moral hazard in play at the GSEs. That you somehow read this as implying George Bush is a financial wizard who can do no wrong is nobody’s problem but yours.
I am very partisan, I make no bones. But if you are going to suggest dishonesty on my part, you and I will quickly slip the bounds of civility, as I am a bit prickly about that sort of thing. My white plume, if you will. Or even if you won’t.
I note also that you evade the question by dismissing it as not having any bearing. Didn’t say that it did, but I suggest that smart people tend to do smart things, ignoramuses, not so much. I further suggest that if a man does a stunningly stupid thing on an issue of grave importance, we are justified in having some doubts about him. Do you think this is implausible? Will you explain why?
Further, as freind Squeegee has noted, this is a cut and paste from a White House press release. It has been my experience that these creatures are woefully lacking in candor.
I offer a plausible explanation as to why: that GeeDub was reluctant to lose a happy talking point, they being so rare, and all.
Doesn’t appear to have been very effective, given current evidence. And I’m not at all convinced that the “viability of the GSEs business model” is the true central factor in all of this. Be that as it may, these “good moves” don’t appear to have been any more effective than empty gestures and posturings. I suggest that is because they *were *empty gestures and posturings. Perhaps he was well intended, but stymied by the ruthless power of the Democrats.
To be brutally frank, I might find some comfort in the notion that the Democrats had such iron will, but I fear that the record offers me little.
Clearly, it is not your preference.
Have you made note of Shayna, Queen of the Jungle’s post here?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10238757&postcount=85
Is this a factual representation? How does it square with your assertion of a well-intended, but thwarted, Fealess Leader?
Or this?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10240303&postcount=103
I find it hard to square these actions with the presumption of good will you offer. No doubt you have an entirely plausible explanation, The floor is yours.
Then I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Don’t be dishonest, and you won’t get accused of dishonesty. Debate with me, not some cipher you can load with as much negative baggage as you choose. You’re a partisan; that’s fine. But you could do us all the favour of not assuming that everyone who disagrees with you (however mildly) is a mindless Republidrone, or whatever you’re calling them today.
I refuse to be held to ransom in every single bloody thread involving George Bush by being forced to repudiate utterly irrelevant actions of his before I can actually have a conversation without being accused of being a slavish Republican. If you really are that intellectually lazy that you make such inferences right off the bat, then again that problem is yours and not mine. I’m tired of having to preface every independent thought with the disclaimer “I hate George Bush, but”. It’s insulting to all of our intelligences.
That’s nice. Everything in it ought to be very easily verifiable, don’t you think? Shall we proceed with that, or are we going to proceed by first imputing motivations, then inducing what must really have happened based on those assumptions? I’ve been led to believe that the facts have a liberal bias, y’know, so I’m rather surprised to see them being eschewed in favour of, essentially, guessing at what happened.
Which is all very well, but again I’m confused as to why we’re hypothesising reasons why Bush might not have done what he claims he’s done, when we could actually be dealing with whether he did in fact do it. I mean, the press release is right there - is there anything specific in it that you believe is a lie? I mean, let’s just take one bit, eh? How about this:
Do you think that happened? Were they making it up? If you think it’s a lie, shouldn’t it be very easy to check out the FY05 budget and prove it, rather than just saying “oh, well George Bush liked talking about Fannie Mae, so he can’t have done anything”? You scoff at the idea of downtrodden Democrats resisting the might of the Republicans, but as Squink points out, they have controlled both houses for some two years. And as I’ve pointed out twice now, Sam Stone’s original post indicted both parties in Congress, so it’s hard to see why you’re acting as if he said only the Democrats were culpable. Again, you’re seeing only half the argument. Take the partisan specs off for a bit, eh?
In all of what? I’m talking about the necessity of nationalising the GSEs. Do you deny that this has happened? Do you deny that their insolvency was due to venturing into high-risk securities with too small a capital base? What point of fact are you taking issue with? Or are you just secure enough in your conviction that the Bush administration is omni-incompetent that you’re entirely willing to dismiss, prima facie, any suggestion whatsoever that it might have done (or tried to do) something right?
First I’ve seen of it. I’ve responded in that thread. Suffice to say, Eliot Spitzer (rather unsurprisingly) appears to have distorted things considerably. Your other link isn’t opening for me at the moment.
Where did I offer a presumption of good will? I believe that it is a fact that the GSEs were operating in risky markets they had no business entering, using insufficient capital. I believe it is a fact that the government guarantee behind these entities meant that it was the taxpayer that was being put at risk by this behaviour. Indeed, given the subsequent nationalisation, I think this is beyond dispute. And it certainly appears that George Bush and his administration warned against this behaviour on several occasions. I need no presumption of anything; I have the evidence of my eyes. We’re talking about past events; why are you surmising, when there’s fact to be had?
Speaking of facts, I’m pretty sure I recall you railing against fatcat bosses, so here’s a fact for you: between 1998 and 2003, the top five execs of Fannie Mae received $199m in remuneration, essentially gambling using taxpayer guarantees. Are you happy with that? Don’t you wish someone had perhaps done something about it?
Apparently you are convinced that I am blind to any achievement, however minor, of George W. Bush, and that I am incapable of supporting any position of his, however worthy. This is not the case.
In his Jan 31, 2006, State of the Union address, GW expressed his unequivocal opposition to research involving human-animal hybrids, a form of techno-bestiality. I concur completely, and without any reservation whatsoever, and stand shoulder to shoulder with The Leader and wholeheartedly support his brave and courageous stand on this controversial issue. At some considerable personal cost, as many others in the mutant community view my approval with scorn and dismay. I remain resolute, and have expressed precisely those views herein, on more than one occasion.
That’s a true fact, and you could look it up.
Well, that’s nice, dear. I have no idea what it’s supposed to have to do with, well, anything, but I’m sure it gave you pleasure, and that’s the main thing.
Y’know, if you really don’t have a clue what you think about GSEs and their role in the general economic malaise, you could just say so. I wouldn’t think less of you for it; quite the opposite. I’m not pretending to be an economic expert here - indeed I explicitly acknowledged in my very first post that I’m not one. But it’s a bit dispiriting to find such aggressive resistance to debate on actual concrete terms, in a community which so regularly fellates itself regarding the supposed fight against ignorance. My mistake, I suppose.
Wow for a minute there I’m thinking “why is Bush giving a speech?” and then I realize “oh! he’s still president!”. I guess my brain is already in Novemeber…
Must we always lower the bar for this guy?