That's it! I'm calling it. Bernie Sanders will be the Democratic nominee in 2016.

[Ken Brown]

I share your concerns, but the "liberal" problems behind economic woe were greatly due to Congress.

Shalom Revoltingest, how so? Can you explain how the "liberal" problems behind economic woe were greatly due to Congress? I would sure like to understand that better. Are you referring to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd when you suggest the economic woe's blame to? Here is a letter about the leadership of those two men implementing Carter's and Clinton's Fair Housing Policies of giving loans to poor people by lowing borrowing standards.

Letter: The housing bubble was mandated by the government, Barney Frank

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Adramelek]

I've got to tell you folks, back in the early 1990's in my early 20's I was a liberal left wing idealist. For a while I thought Bill Clinton and Ale Gore were the **** and I got my news from the late great Peter Jennings of ABC news. What can I say, yes, my dad did influence me and turned me on to conservative talk radio, and the words of Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz did resonate with me immediately. Even though I dislike the Christianity that comes into play at times. The basic conservative message of less government intrusion, lower taxes, and more individual responsibility has always resonated with me in my politics. I have to tell you I would much prefer Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton as President of the US any day of the week. My ideal ticket would be a Donald Trump/Ted Cruz administration, which I would vote for in a New York minute, woohoo! Over a Bernie Sanders/Hillary Clinton administration, no way, no how, no thanks!

 

[Revoltingest]

Shalom Revoltingest, how so? Can you explain how the "liberal" problems behind economic woe were greatly due to Congress? I would sure like to understand that better. Are you referring to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd when you suggest the economic woe's blame to? Here is a letter about the leadership of those two men implementing Carter's and Clinton's Fair Housing Policies of giving loans to poor people by lowing borrowing standards.

Letter: The housing bubble was mandated by the government, Barney Frank

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

I don't single out Frank & Dodd for blame.
(I've long been in real estate, so I'm familiar with what you bring up.)
It's a big issue spanning many decades, but here are some highlights.....
- Congress approves the budget.
- Congress established the tax, subsidy & monetary policies which created real estate boom & bust cycles (thru market inflation).
- Congress authorized needless war expenditures.
- Congress began requiring lenders to make risky loans, & when things became bad, to foreclose upon weak borrowers.
- Our lax attention to domestic security was due to both parties.

 

[Ken Brown]

I don't single out Frank & Dodd for blame.
(I've long been in real estate, so I'm familiar with what you bring up.)
It's a big issue spanning many decades, but here are some highlights.....
- Congress approves the budget.
- Congress established the tax, subsidy & monetary policies which created real estate boom & bust cycles (thru market inflation).
- Congress authorized needless war expenditures.
- Congress began requiring lenders to make risky loans, & when things became bad, to foreclose upon weak borrowers.
- Our lax attention to domestic security was due to both parties.

Shalom Revoltingest, to be sure, your points about the role of Congress is valid, but Fannie and Freddie played a major role in the crisis, as they held over half of the sub-prime loans, and that stems from Barney Frank's role as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and from Carter's and Clinton's acts that they proposed in lowering borrowing standards to the poor, which as you point out, Congress did approve. The blame is mainly LIBERAL Governmental policies in which the Democrats were at the forefront to extend their "goodwill" to the poor and underprivileged borrowers.

Barney Frank, in August 2010, admitted this:

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie ... it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."

And here is the mindset of how these Liberal elitist's think. Barrack Obama, as a young lawyer in 1995, was involved with suing Citibank for anti-discrimination for not issuing loans to poor African Americans in Chicago. Citibank finally caved and issued loans to Obama's 186 plaintiffs, to which only 19 (as of 2012) still owned their homes with clean credit ratings. Obama tries to blame Bush for the crisis, but he is really the pot calling the kettle black. Here is a link to an article explaining Obama's role in the financial crisis:

Obama's Role in the Financial Crisis

Do we really want our next President to be someone who would make Obama appear to be conservative, as Sanders surely would. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[metis]

Shalom Revoltingest, to be sure, your points about the role of Congress is valid, but Fannie and Freddie played a major role in the crisis, as they held over half of the sub-prime loans, and that stems from Barney Frank's role as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and from Carter's and Clinton's acts that they proposed in lowering borrowing standards to the poor, which as you point out, Congress did approve. The blame is mainly LIBERAL Governmental policies in which the Democrats were at the forefront to extend their "goodwill" to the poor and underprivileged borrowers.

Barney Frank, in August 2010, admitted this:

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie ... it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."

And here is the mindset of how these Liberal elitist's think. Barrack Obama, as a young lawyer in 1995, was involved with suing Citibank for anti-discrimination for not issuing loans to poor African Americans in Chicago. Citibank finally caved and issued loans to Obama's 186 plaintiffs, to which only 19 (as of 2012) still owned their homes with clean credit ratings. Obama tries to blame Bush for the crisis, but he is really the pot calling the kettle black. Here is a link to an article explaining Obama's role in the financial crisis:

Obama's Role in the Financial Crisis

Do we really want our next President to be someone who would make Obama appear to be conservative, as Sanders surely would. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Fannie & Freddie only had 40% of the mortgages in 2008 and they were losing ground, especially to those firms in the shadow-banking system. And to blame this on "liberal government" is way off base as both sides need to accept the blame.

When Glass-Steagall was repealed, Clinton and most Republicans were for it. In 2005, Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress could have made adjustments that could have maybe helped to prevent the Great Recession, but instead they actually made it more likely by allowing pension investments to be put into stocks. Also, in congressional testimony in 2009, Greenspan said he knew we were in trouble but hoped for a "soft landing". He said he operated out of the wrong paradigm whereas he thought investment bankers would self-regulate and not take large risks. He also stated the shadow-banking system was so new and ever-changing that even he couldn't figure some aspects of it out.

Every single president going back to Eisenhower, tried to make getting home mortgages easier, with the exception of this presidency. The housing market is the single most effective one when it comes to stimulating the economy, so our national politicians saw this as the Golden Egg to help make their legacy better.

 

[Revoltingest]

Shalom Revoltingest, to be sure, your points about the role of Congress is valid, but Fannie and Freddie played a major role in the crisis, as they held over half of the sub-prime loans, and that stems from Barney Frank's role as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and from Carter's and Clinton's acts that they proposed in lowering borrowing standards to the poor, which as you point out, Congress did approve. The blame is mainly LIBERAL Governmental policies in which the Democrats were at the forefront to extend their "goodwill" to the poor and underprivileged borrowers.

Barney Frank, in August 2010, admitted this:

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie ... it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."

And here is the mindset of how these Liberal elitist's think. Barrack Obama, as a young lawyer in 1995, was involved with suing Citibank for anti-discrimination for not issuing loans to poor African Americans in Chicago. Citibank finally caved and issued loans to Obama's 186 plaintiffs, to which only 19 (as of 2012) still owned their homes with clean credit ratings. Obama tries to blame Bush for the crisis, but he is really the pot calling the kettle black. Here is a link to an article explaining Obama's role in the financial crisis:

Obama's Role in the Financial Crisis

Do we really want our next President to be someone who would make Obama appear to be conservative, as Sanders surely would. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

I also included (even if not named) Fannie & Freddie in my claim.
But they're creatures created & supported by Congress.
Some individual players are more culpable than others, but there was widespread bi-partisan history behind this.

 

[Ken Brown]

Fannie & Freddie only had 40% of the mortgages in 2008 and they were losing ground, especially to those firms in the shadow-banking system. And to blame this on "liberal government" is way off base as both sides need to accept the blame.

When Glass-Steagall was repealed, Clinton and most Republicans were for it. In 2005, Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress could have made adjustments that could have maybe helped to prevent the Great Recession, but instead they actually made it more likely by allowing pension investments to be put into stocks. Also, in congressional testimony in 2009, Greenspan said he knew we were in trouble but hoped for a "soft landing". He said he operated out of the wrong paradigm whereas he thought investment bankers would self-regulate and not take large risks. He also stated the shadow-banking system was so new and ever-changing that even he couldn't figure some aspects of it out.

Every single president going back to Eisenhower, tried to make getting home mortgages easier, with the exception of this presidency. The housing market is the single most effective one when it comes to stimulating the economy, so our national politicians saw this as the Golden Egg to help make their legacy better.

Shalom metis, you should read this article to get up to date about how Bush tried to fix Fanny and Freddie:

Bush Administration Tried to Reform Freddie and Fannie Five Years Ago

That was in 2003/2004, and Chris Dodd and Barney Frank halted the reform that President Bush proposed:

"Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said."

Here is another good article to get someone educated about what happened:

Bush and McCain tried to REFORM Fanny and Freddie

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Millennials don't have the same fear of the word "socialist" that their parents and grandparents had.

That is a very good point. Even those who grew up during the end of the Cold War knew of "evil Communist Russia" and were raised to view socialism and communism as inherently vile philosophies. Millennials were born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, so of course the American and Capitalist pride wasn't bombarded into their thinking - many of them are barely even old enough to recall the swell in American pride after 9/11 and the calls to "go shopping." Millennials also inherited a problem that Generation X knows, and that is the declining value of a high school and even college degree, crippling school debt, and difficulty finding good jobs.

 

[esmith]

You might want to take a quick look at the evidence.
The federal debt nearly doubled under Reagan/Bush. Then it dropped by nearly a third under Clinton I. Then it doubled again under Bush II. Then it leveled off under Obama.

The Democratic party has become the party of fiscal sanity
Tom

Numbers are in trillions, dates are from Oct to Oct
National Debt 1989 - 1993 2.9 to 4.4 gain of 1.5 (H.W. Bush)
National Debt 1993 - 2001 4.4 to 5.8 gain of 1.4 (Clinton)
National Debt 2001 - 2009 5.8 to 11.9 gain of 6.1 (G.W. Bush)
National Debt 2009 - 2016 11.9 to 18.1 gain of 6.2 (Obama)
above data from: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Now let's look at the National Deficit by President
H.W. Bush 1.03 deficit
Clinton 63 billion surplus
G.W. Bush 3.3 Trillion deficit
Obama 6.6 Trillion deficit
above data from http://useconomy.about.com/od/people/fl/Deficit-by-President.htm
Debt at the start of 2016 was $18.1 trillion

Below Chart only goes to 2012

 

[metis]

Shalom metis, you should read this article to get up to date about how Bush tried to fix Fanny and Freddie:

Bush Administration Tried to Reform Freddie and Fannie Five Years Ago

That was in 2003/2004, and Chris Dodd and Barney Frank halted the reform that President Bush proposed:

"Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said."

Here is another good article to get someone educated about what happened:

Bush and McCain tried to REFORM Fanny and Freddie

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

I checked out both links and they are right-wing websites. If you have any desire to know the truth, not only go for more neutral sites, but also you actually might check on Greenspan's congressional testimony that I watched on CSpan. Maybe it's available on YouTube, so maybe check that out.

BTW, Bush stated that we were in no financial crisis during the summer of 2008 even after undoubtedly most of us knew we were in trouble. Even when the poop hit the fan, most of the congressional Republicans voted to allow the banks to collapse, which many economists are quite sure would have led us into a depression. Even Bush and Paulson were troubled by their refusal to save what was clearly an impending doom.

 

[Ken Brown]

I checked out both links and they are right-wing websites. If you have any desire to know the truth, not only go for more neutral sites, but also you actually might check on Greenspan's congressional testimony that I watched on CSpan. Maybe it's available on YouTube, so maybe check that out.

BTW, Bush stated that we were in no financial crisis during the summer of 2008 even after undoubtedly most of us knew we were in trouble. Even when the poop hit the fan, most of the congressional Republicans voted to allow the banks to collapse, which many economists are quite sure would have led us into a depression. Even Bush and Paulson were troubled by their refusal to save what was clearly an impending doom.

Shalom metis, my question to you would be to ask what was not true on those "right-wing" websites? If someone would use the logic of going to a "neutral" site about controversial issues, then when some would say the "holocaust" never took place, and argue you shouldn't go to "Jewish" sites, but rather go to a "neutral" site to determine the truth as to what actually happened, I'm sure you would disagree with that logic, wouldn't you? Truth is truth, and if something is true, whether or not from a "biased" site, or a "neutral" site, the truth should not be ignored. Here is a link to a person who was on the committee investigating the cause of the meltdown (FCIC). I would think that he is "unbiased" and you could possibly listen to him as he rejected the "majority report" of the committee and gave his reasons for it:

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

 

[metis]

Shalom metis, my question to you would be to ask what was not true on those "right-wing" websites? If someone would use the logic of going to a "neutral" site about controversial issues, then when some would say the "holocaust" never took place, and argue you shouldn't go to "Jewish" sites, but rather go to a "neutral" site to determine the truth as to what actually happened, I'm sure you would disagree with that logic, wouldn't you? Truth is truth, and if something is true, whether or not from a "biased" site, or a "neutral" site, the truth should not be ignored. Here is a link to a person who was on the committee investigating the cause of the meltdown (FCIC). I would think that he is "unbiased" and you could possibly listen to him as he rejected the "majority report" of the committee and gave his reasons for it:

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

I'm not going to waste my time. I have read about a dozen books on the Great Recession written by economists, including two Nobel Prize winners in economics, plus I closely followed the debate on CSpan dealing with it. You can believe in whatever you want to believe in, but I simply am not going to waste time providing less partisan links only for you or someone else to come back with another highly partisan source. Been there, done that, burned the T-shirt.


Added: BTW, I highly suggest you reread your own link because it isn't saying what you claim it does, such as this quote from it:
The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Therefore, it is obviously quite logical that since the meltdown started under Bush & Co., as Greenspan also stated he was at least partially the blame for, that to then blame "the liberals" for this alone is complete nonsense.

 

[Underhill]

This wasn't due to presidential affiliation.
'Recall that Under Bush 1, the economy finally began improving just before Clinton assumed office.
(There are phase lags between political policy & economic results.)
And Clinton accomplished some good because he worked well with Newt Gingrich.

Of course, I fault the Pubs for being tax & spend big government crony capitalists, as are the Dems.
Reagan might be the best practitioner of Keynesianism, ironically.

Btw, I was recruited to join SDI (Reagan's Star Wars) research, but I turned it down.
(I knew the astrophysicist in charge of it all.)
Are you impressed?
No?
Well, you shouldn't be.....but I was flattered.

I think, contrary to political propaganda, that it doesn't matter which party is in charge. They all spend exactly as much as they can get away with. Gingrich and Clinton cut spending because there was a national movement to do so. Other than that brief blip, they have been almost indistinguishable in gross spending.

 

[Underhill]

I've got to tell you folks, back in the early 1990's in my early 20's I was a liberal left wing idealist. For a while I thought Bill Clinton and Ale Gore were the **** and I got my news from the late great Peter Jennings of ABC news. What can I say, yes, my dad did influence me and turned me on to conservative talk radio, and the words of Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz did resonate with me immediately. Even though I dislike the Christianity that comes into play at times. The basic conservative message of less government intrusion, lower taxes, and more individual responsibility has always resonated with me in my politics. I have to tell you I would much prefer Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton as President of the US any day of the week. My ideal ticket would be a Donald Trump/Ted Cruz administration, which I would vote for in a New York minute, woohoo! Over a Bernie Sanders/Hillary Clinton administration, no way, no how, no thanks!

Well, nobody is perfect.

 

[Underhill]

Numbers are in trillions, dates are from Oct to Oct
National Debt 1989 - 1993 2.9 to 4.4 gain of 1.5 (H.W. Bush)
National Debt 1993 - 2001 4.4 to 5.8 gain of 1.4 (Clinton)
National Debt 2001 - 2009 5.8 to 11.9 gain of 6.1 (G.W. Bush)
National Debt 2009 - 2016 11.9 to 18.1 gain of 6.2 (Obama)
above data from: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Now let's look at the National Deficit by President
H.W. Bush 1.03 deficit
Clinton 63 billion surplus
G.W. Bush 3.3 Trillion deficit
Obama 6.6 Trillion deficit
above data from http://useconomy.about.com/od/people/fl/Deficit-by-President.htm
Debt at the start of 2016 was $18.1 trillion

Below Chart only goes to 2012

I look at the Bush/Obama transition as a house of mirrors.

Bush tax cuts took affect in 2003 and 2007 but two additional cuts took place after he left office but as part of bills he passed.

Spending was affected in much the same way. Bush put us on a reckless path and Obama didn't do enough to fix it.

And before you start telling me how wrong I am, remember this. Obama has had a Republican House and Senate for the vast majority of his terms in the white house. They are the ones who actually hold the purse strings. The only bill he spearheaded that actually made it anywhere before the switch was the health care bill. And there is no way that alone had that kind of impact on the deficits.

 

[esmith]

Spending was affected in much the same way. Bush put us on a reckless path and Obama didn't do enough to fix it.

And before you start telling me how wrong I am, remember this. Obama has had a Republican House and Senate for the vast majority of his terms in the white house. They are the ones who actually hold the purse strings. The only bill he spearheaded that actually made it anywhere before the switch was the health care bill. And there is no way that alone had that kind of impact on the deficits.

And just what spending reductions did the Obama want and the Congress wouldn't give him??????
One must remember that Harry Reid was blocking the budget bills the House was sending to the Senate. And the Obama had the veto power backed up by a no over-ride of the veto by the Democrats..

 

[metis]

When fighting a serious recession/depression, as we were (the former of course), you don't cut spending unless you want a deeper recession/depression.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think, contrary to political propaganda, that it doesn't matter which party is in charge. They all spend exactly as much as they can get away with. Gingrich and Clinton cut spending because there was a national movement to do so. Other than that brief blip, they have been almost indistinguishable in gross spending.

It does matter, but with a great deal of unpredictability.
But it would have more effect to elect someone outside the Big Two.

 

[Ken Brown]

I'm not going to waste my time. I have read about a dozen books on the Great Recession written by economists, including two Nobel Prize winners in economics, plus I closely followed the debate on CSpan dealing with it. You can believe in whatever you want to believe in, but I simply am not going to waste time providing less partisan links only for you or someone else to come back with another highly partisan source. Been there, done that, burned the T-shirt.


Added: BTW, I highly suggest you reread your own link because it isn't saying what you claim it does, such as this quote from it:
The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Therefore, it is obviously quite logical that since the meltdown started under Bush & Co., as Greenspan also stated he was at least partially the blame for, that to then blame "the liberals" for this alone is complete nonsense.

Shalom metis, I'm sorry, I did not blame the liberals ALONE, but what I do blame is the liberal policies of the government PRIOR to Bush was the MAIN catalyst for the meltdown. Here is an article from Forbes about Peter J. Wallison:

Forbes' article about Wallison

And here is a link to the New York Times on their article about Peter J. Wallison:

New York Times article about Wallison

This is an exerpt from the article which states how Wallison saw what happened:

"He contends the true story is not being told for the usual reasons: No one in government has stepped up to take responsibility for poor decisions. It’s easier and more fun to blame the big banks that are not in a position to defend themselves because they are regulated by those that are really to blame. And the media has missed the boat on what happened.

“Everything I see leads me to believe that unless the American people get a whole re-education on this, they are going to continue to believe forever that the financial crisis was caused by the greedy Wall Street banks in the private sector,” he said. “They don’t make any connection to government policy.”

In summary, his argument is that the government housing policies, promulgated by both the executive and legislative branches from the early days of the Clinton administration to the present — with a brief respite at the height of the crisis — encouraged the private sector to make home mortgages of increasingly deteriorating credit quality to people who could not afford them. Officials then encouraged both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the large, quasi-government housing enterprises, to buy those mortgages, package them and sell them as securities to investors worldwide.

Because of these faulty government policies, he said, it “became very sensible” for banks to either make or to buy mortgages and sell them to Fannie and Freddie to feed their insatiable appetite for them. Of course, Wall Street deserves its share of the blame for this, Mr. Wallison concedes, but the government deserves more of it."

You see Metis, anyone who really investigates the meltdown with an eye towards the truth, will concede that the GOVERNMENT deserves more blame. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think who I vote for this election might just depend on who isn't Clinton or Trump. =/

Seriously?

Hillary v Bush?
Hillary v Carson?
Hillary v Cruz?
Hillary v Fiorina?
Hillary v Huckabee?
Hillary v Kasich?
Hillary v Paul?
Hillary b Rubio?
Hillary v Perry?​

"Anyone but Hillary" blather amounts to little more than petulance.