Obama on Trump

[Mycroft]

Sometimes I wonder if Trump only exists to give the work experience girl at Madame Tussauds an excuse to put her half-melted attempt in a suit and hide it behind a bear. He is, essentially, a bouncy castle with Alzheimer’s

 

[Revoltingest]

I gotta be brief. Krugman won a Nobel Prize as did Stiglitz, although not for this, but I certainly would not claim them to be infallible. I can't believe you said he was "lacking in reason".

I've read his public commentary, & found it more petulant, prejudicial, presumptive partisan, & perhaps another alliterative word or two.

Our banking system is linked in so many different ways to banks, lending institutions, etc. through the country and the world. In 2007, 70% of the commercial loans was through the shadow-banking system that was largely unregulated. The estimate was that four of the five largest banks were in danger of default, and if that had been allowed to go under, the snowball effect would then kick in and begin to shut down one bank and business after another after another...

Unlike manufacturers, the assets of banks aren't lost when the bank fails.
Loans receivable are still due, with no loss in value.
Deposits are insured by the fed, & this is the extent of a bail-out I'd allow, ie, rescue the depositors, not the banks.
Only the shareholders of the bank would lose, & this would only be their equity, which would be low for a bank in trouble.
Essentially, the bank bail-outs were a give-away to shareholders, boosting their stock value to more than it was worth.
And with lenders like Countrywide, there'd be no depositors to protect.

Now, can you imagine the panic that would have set in that would have been far worse than it was in 2009? And what do people do when panic sets in? Well, we know what they do-- they stop spending. Then what happens? I don't recall which economist said it, but he said that the effect could have been worse than during the Great Depression since we had a higher percentage of our GDP involved in credit. IOW, it was like a house-of-cards that could have easily been a far worse catastrophe.

I say that my proffered approach would've done far more to mitigate the depression than what was done.
This is because we'd have avoided the tax increases to subsidize non-critical companies,
but we would've helped those who affect many other jobs in other businesses, & millions
of property owners who wouldn't have had to lose their properties, & be forced into bankruptcy.
(Bankruptcy is a common result of owners not being able to pay the high income tax upon
failed loan principal & interest. This is a factor utterly ignored by economists like Krugman
because they've no experience in real estate.)
Saving the borrowers might've even had the effect of saving some banks/lenders....win win!
But the Bush & Obama era politicians focused solely upon big companies (who donate money to campaigns).

 

[YmirGF]

But if you remember correctly, most of the Republicans in Congress voted against saving the banks even though they were warned by Paulson and Bernanke, both Republicans btw, that this could end us up in another depression.

At the same time, Democrats controlled the house and senate, so they didn't need any Republican votes, period. My point is that had anyone else been in the same position, they would have likely done exactly what the advice they were given told them to. It's not as if Obama (or his administration) are economic geniuses. Getting back to the first point, many are quick to blame the Bush administration prior to the economic fiasco and yet the Democrats were in charge of the House and the Senate for the final two years of his tenure. Jus' sayin'... Those sitting Dems had no crystal ball to see what was coming down the tube and had done nothing to thwart the economic collapse prior to the events that unfolded.

 

[Revoltingest]

At the same time, Democrats controlled the house and senate, so they didn't need any Republican votes, period. My point is that had anyone else been in the same position, they would have likely done exactly what the advice they were given told them to. It's not as if Obama (or his administration) are economic geniuses. Getting back to the first point, many are quick to blame the Bush administration prior to the economic fiasco and yet the Democrats were in charge of the House and the Senate for the final two years of his tenure. Jus' sayin'... Those sitting Dems had no crystal ball to see what was coming down the tube and had done nothing to thwart the economic collapse prior to the events that unfolded.

Differences do occur because presidents get their advice from chosen economists.
One selects one's camp form a spectrum spanning free-market to socialist leanings.
This determines much.

 

[YmirGF]

Differences do occur because presidents get their advice from chosen economists.
One selects one's camp form a spectrum spanning free-market to socialist leanings.
This determines much.

I understand, RevoltingOne, however given the way this dropped into people's laps, it wasn't exactly the time, given the urgency, for one to start shopping around for a variety of opinions. The point being, when you hold a gun to people's heads their reactions are fairly predictable.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand, RevoltingOne, however given the way this dropped into people's laps, it wasn't exactly the time, given the urgency, for one to start shopping around for a variety of opinions. The point being, when you hold a gun to people's heads their reactions are fairly predictable.

I just point out that opinions are essentially shopped for beforehand.
How?
A prez typically has a particular predisposition towards an economic agenda.
He'll select economists from this group, & their prescriptions are at that time determined.
(Eg, a Krugman type will always want increased gov spending, taxation & regulation.)
There were many different options.
But the worst ones were chosen.

I'll add that it's when things are most dire & urgent that one should carefully consider remedies.
To decide in haste can create longer lasting problems.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

BTW, had GM and Chrysler both been allowed to go under, your house and mine would probably be worth about $1.95 on a good day.

If they went under I probably wouldn't have a house, nor would my parents.

 

[Revoltingest]

For reference......
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
Perusing his agenda (which is rather incomplete), it actually looks better than what we see from typical Dems & Pubs.
I'd like to know more about foreign policy, especially military adventurism.

Edit....
Found more.....
http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm
Too socially conservative for me.

 

[esmith]

For reference......
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
Perusing his agenda (which is rather incomplete), it actually looks better than what we see from typical Dems & Pubs.
I'd like to know more about foreign policy, especially military adventurism.

Edit....
Found more.....
http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm
Too socially conservative for me.

Agree with what was put forth, in the most part, with the first link.
As far as the second link not sure of the validity of the "on the issues". Yes, I would suspect that what was written was spoken but as far as I know I haven't seen anything from the "official where he is"as of now.. With all the flip flopping going on amongst most candidates I'm sure positions have changed or been altered. I will have to wait until March 7th to make up my mind. (Our primary is March 8th)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd like to know more about foreign policy, especially military adventurism.

His position of less military adventurism is the only position I've seen that I agree with him on - which almost makes me want to start supporting bombing the hell out of Iran just so I absolutely do not have to say I agree with Trump on anything.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For reference......
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
Perusing his agenda (which is rather incomplete), it actually looks better than what we see from typical Dems & Pubs.
I'd like to know more about foreign policy, especially military adventurism.

Americans don't know their roots: study your ancestry. (Apr 2010)
Something tells me he isn't considering the very significant portion of Americans who are of Hispanic, Latin, and aboriginal heritage, especially with this comment:
This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish. (Sep 2015)
And though I do agree with his positions on trade, it's hard to believe him when he is saying Chinese labor is bad but he has stuff made over there anyways.

 

[Revoltingest]

His position of less military adventurism is the only position I've seen that I agree with him on - which almost makes me want to start supporting bombing the hell out of Iran just so I absolutely do not have to say I agree with Trump on anything.

Well, we've already had a hand in killing over a million of them so far.....what difference would a few hundred thousand more make, eh?
If so, then Hillary's the one.
Trump.....giving peace a bad name.

 

[metis]

At the same time, Democrats controlled the house and senate, so they didn't need any Republican votes, period. My point is that had anyone else been in the same position, they would have likely done exactly what the advice they were given told them to. It's not as if Obama (or his administration) are economic geniuses. Getting back to the first point, many are quick to blame the Bush administration prior to the economic fiasco and yet the Democrats were in charge of the House and the Senate for the final two years of his tenure. Jus' sayin'... Those sitting Dems had no crystal ball to see what was coming down the tube and had done nothing to thwart the economic collapse prior to the events that unfolded.

They did in the Senate because of 60% that was needed, and the first vote went down to defeat. After that, the stock market took a big-time noser, one of the worst in WJ history, so more Republicans were willing to join in to finally get the bill through.

Bush in 2005, through an executive order if my memory is correct, allowed the banks to put retiree investments into the shadow-banking system, and that was never reversed. Just because the Dems controlled Congress does not mean that they could expect Bush to sign a bill that would have gone against what he was allowing, plus there was still that pesky 60% Senate rule.

Alan Greenspan told a congressional committee in 2009 that he knew we were in trouble because of the casino-type gambling that was going on within our shadow-banking system as early as 2005 but was unable to do anything about it. He said he was hoping for a "soft landing" but unfortunately this wasn't going to be the case. I watched his testimony on C-Span, btw.

Where there was Democratic contribution to this was back in 1999 when Clinton got convinced that ending some of the provisions of Glass Steagall would help both the housing industry and economic growth in general, even though many economists, including Krugman, warned him that this was very dangerous.

 

[metis]

I've read his public commentary, & found it more petulant, prejudicial, presumptive partisan, & perhaps another alliterative word or two.

Unlike manufacturers, the assets of banks aren't lost when the bank fails.
Loans receivable are still due, with no loss in value.
Deposits are insured by the fed, & this is the extent of a bail-out I'd allow, ie, rescue the depositors, not the banks.
Only the shareholders of the bank would lose, & this would only be their equity, which would be low for a bank in trouble.
Essentially, the bank bail-outs were a give-away to shareholders, boosting their stock value to more than it was worth.
And with lenders like Countrywide, there'd be no depositors to protect.

I say that my proffered approach would've done far more to mitigate the depression than what was done.
This is because we'd have avoided the tax increases to subsidize non-critical companies,
but we would've helped those who affect many other jobs in other businesses, & millions
of property owners who wouldn't have had to lose their properties, & be forced into bankruptcy.
(Bankruptcy is a common result of owners not being able to pay the high income tax upon
failed loan principal & interest. This is a factor utterly ignored by economists like Krugman
because they've no experience in real estate.)
Saving the borrowers might've even had the effect of saving some banks/lenders....win win!
But the Bush & Obama era politicians focused solely upon big companies (who donate money to campaigns).

I disagree with most of the above and I'm quite positive that even Republicans like Paulson and Bernanke would far more likely feel that you're way off-base here. The closed-door meeting of they and top Congressional leaders from both parties in September, 2008, whereas some information did come out about what happened there, had it that they both of them and Bush said we were in danger of a near-complete economic collapse. Why do you think that Bush, a conservative Republican, proposed this bailout to begin with?

Sorry, but events and even Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke, all Republicans, says you simply are wrong. Read "Game Change" if you get a chance.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree with most of the above.....

I am shocked!
Here I thought we were sharing one brain, but it seems you've cleaved your half away.

.....and I'm quite positive that even Republicans like Paulson and Bernanke would far more likely feel that you're way off-base here.

I seldom have much in common with Republicans, including economic issues.

The closed-door meeting of they and top Congressional leaders from both parties in September, 2008, whereas some information did come out about what happened there, had it that they both of them and Bush said we were in danger of a near-complete economic collapse. Why do you think that Bush, a conservative Republican, proposed this bailout to begin with?

Bush was indeed a Republican, but not a conservative.
- He raised both taxes & spending.
- He increased regulation.
- He ramped up foreign adventurism.
Pols love bail-outs for several reasons....
- They believe such help will work.
- They look like effective leaders to voters.
- They reap benefits from corporate welfare.
As you see here, economic reasons are in the minority.

Sorry, but events and even Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke, all Republicans, says you simply are wrong. Read "Game Change" if you get a chance.

Thank you!
To be decried as wrong by such people warms me heart, & shows that I'm on the right path.

But I'm not so interested in opinions of pandering pols about my argument.
It would be more interesting to see your own analysis of why my bail-out proposals
would be less effective than Bush's & Obama's. Which do you disagree with & why?

 

[metis]

I'd rather see your own analysis of why my bail-out proposals would be less effective than Bush's & Obama's.

I already did, which should be rather obvious if one compares what I posted, including my reasons and some of the sources that I used that led me to my opinions, with what your response was. In no way can I see how taking your steps would have prevented an economic meltdown.

 

[Revoltingest]

I already did.....

I missed it.

.....which should be rather obvious if one compares what I posted, including my reasons and some of the sources that I used that led me to my opinions, with what your response was. In no way can I see how taking your steps would have prevented an economic meltdown.

Come on....you're a learned guy.
I'm sure you've more than claims that Bush disagrees with me.

 

[raw_thought]

Trump is playing the tea party! He knows that they are not very bright .Trump was pro-choice ,said that the Dems are better for the economy ...he was a hard core Dem. I guess it is possible for a person to go from left of center to far lunatic right,but it is not likely .Similarly ,how many far right people habe become far left?
Trump isnt stupid. He does not believe the crazy things he says such as, immigration is our #1 problem, Obama is from Kenya, a billion dollar wall will be cost effective (the Mexicans woll pay for it) ,he will lower taxes wjile spending billions more to make us strong again... He just knows that their are lots of sheeple in the US and he will have the joy of shearing them.

 

[metis]

I missed it.

Come on....you're a learned guy.
I'm sure you've more than claims that Bush disagrees with me.

Let's see, I mentioned five economists that I used to help explain my position (Krugman, Stiglitz, Paulson, Bernanke, & Greenspan), two of them Nobel Prize winners (Krugman & Stiglitz). Then I explained my basic position and why, even though you claim I didn't. But you cite not one economist to support your contention, categorically dismiss mine as if your a so much more knowledgeable than they, and then you write the last sentence of yours above, which makes not one iota of sense based on what I actually did write. And now you expect me to somehow further engage with you on this discussion?

No.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Alan Greenspan told a congressional committee in 2009 that he knew we were in trouble because of the casino-type gambling that was going on within our shadow-banking system as early as 2005 but was unable to do anything about it. He said he was hoping for a "soft landing" but unfortunately this wasn't going to be the case. I watched his testimony on C-Span, btw.

I, for one, have been very surprised by Greenspan's turn-around in economic thinking. When someone like him who goes from promoting a Randian approach of free markets to saying he was wrong about the need for regulations, it's really saying something.