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

[Underhill]

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..

I'm not claiming Obama was better than average, only that Bush was much worse. But as someone else pointed out, there is usually a delay between policy shift and the affects of those shifts. You can almost guarantee that anything done in a presidents second term won't have an impact till the 2nd or third year of the next guys term.

But literally the only thing Obama has been able to do for the last 6 years was threaten veto when it comes to budgets... In a way it's the worst of both worlds. Republicans can increase spending on 'security' and can't cut spending on social programs because of the veto. So you end up with increases all the way around.

 

[Underhill]

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

If there was someone who had a chance...

 

[metis]

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

I never stated nor implied that it didn't, but that blame needs to also be shared by investors, including many of the large banks and mortgage companies, that were willing to take reckless risks. Fannie and Freddie were only a part of the problem, and the much greater problem was with the shadow-banking system that operated like a casino with no rules.

 

[Ken Brown]

I never stated nor implied that it didn't, but that blame needs to also be shared by investors, including many of the large banks and mortgage companies, that were willing to take reckless risks. Fannie and Freddie were only a part of the problem, and the much greater problem was with the shadow-banking system that operated like a casino with no rules.

Shalom metis, sorry again, but you are stating and implying that the government DOES NOT deserve more blame, by you saying the "much greater problem was with the shadow-banking system that operated like a casino with no rules." You can't have it both ways metis. One or the other deserves MORE blame, and I contend emphatically that it is the GOVERNMENT, and not the banks.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say you live in a city that requires that every person walking on the side of the road is to be given a ride to where they want to go. What do you think is going to happen? All the drivers (banks) are going to stop driving, and take up walking on the side of the road (selling their cars to Fanny and Freddie, and then let them drive the people around). Now, who is at fault (the greater fault) that the transportation system failed, the drivers (banks), or the GOVERNMENT for implementing such a stupid policy? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[metis]

Shalom metis, sorry again, but you are stating and implying that the government DOES NOT deserve more blame, by you saying the "much greater problem was with the shadow-banking system that operated like a casino with no rules." You can't have it both ways metis. One or the other deserves MORE blame, and I contend emphatically that it is the GOVERNMENT, and not the banks.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say you live in a city that requires that every person walking on the side of the road is to be given a ride to where they want to go. What do you think is going to happen? All the drivers (banks) are going to stop driving, and take up walking on the side of the road (selling their cars to Fanny and Freddie, and then let them drive the people around). Now, who is at fault (the greater fault) that the transportation system failed, the drivers (banks), or the GOVERNMENT for implementing such a stupid policy? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

You simply do not understand that this issue is much more complex than what you are saying. The single biggest problem was in regards to the fact that the government did not reign in the shadow-banking system that operated with almost no regulations, along with the mistake of repealing Glass-Steagall, and this is not just my opinion but was also the opinion of major economists, including Greenspan, Paulson, and Bernanke, with each of those three are Republicans, btw.

So, yes the government is ultimately responsible since it didn't keep up with the changes in the market place, such as what Greenspan told Congress. Now, if you don't understand or agree with that, then you're basically going off on your own tangent that's devoid of what we know. Either way, this discussion between you and I just ended, as if you cannot accept the reality of what the experts have been consistently saying, then there's no common ground for us to continue on.

 

[Revoltingest]

You simply do not understand that this issue is much more complex than what you are saying. The single biggest problem was in regards to the fact that the government did not reign in the shadow-banking system....

Oh, dear....have you not been paying attention to my many lectures on this?
The banking fiasco certainly deserves attention, but more important that enabling factors of mis-regulation are the causes behind the failures.
Mortgage backed securities failed because of the bursting housing bubble.
I know...you're saying, "Duh! Everyone knows that. We all saw The Big Short....fine movie, btw.".
But consider why the mortgages failed.
Its because the economy began tanking on 9.11.2001.
The attack was the trigger, but the many risk factors were decades in the making.....
Government policy encouraged home speculation.
- Tax advantages (deductable interest & property taxes) were a subsidy which lowered ownership cost, allowing higher prices.
- Monetary policy is to create inflation (around 4%) by expanding the money supply faster than economic growth. Homeowners treat houses not just as a dwelling, but also as a hedge against inflation.
- Capital gains is untaxed for most homeowners, encouraging speculation & turnover.
Government actually required risky lending.....
- The Community Reinvestment Act
- Auditors required "diversity" in lending.
Government essentially created the highly leveraged loan.
- Maggie Mae created the PMI market, allowing 80+% LTV....even 100%.

Government exacerbated the crisis thru mismanagement.
- Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac wouldn't allow troubled borrowers to renegotiate loans.
- Banks were forced to foreclose upon troubled borrowers they were working with, thereby turning a probability of failure into 100% failure (eg, RBS, Charter One, Citizens NA).
- The bail-outs were directed not at the source (borrowers in trouble), but at the lenders.

There's more but this begins to paint the picture.

 

[metis]

Oh, dear....have you not been paying attention to my many lectures on this?
The banking fiasco certainly deserves attention, but more important that enabling factors of mis-regulation are the causes behind the failures.
Mortgage backed securities failed because of the bursting housing bubble.
I know...you're saying, "Duh! Everyone knows that. We all saw The Big Short....fine movie, btw.".
But consider why the mortgages failed.
Its because the economy began tanking on 9.11.2001.
The attack was the trigger, but the many risk factors were decades in the making.....
Government policy encouraged home speculation.
- Tax advantages (deductable interest & property taxes) were a subsidy which lowered ownership cost, allowing higher prices.
- Monetary policy is to create inflation (around 4%) by expanding the money supply faster than economic growth. Homeowners treat houses not just as a dwelling, but also as a hedge against inflation.
- Capital gains is untaxed for most homeowners, encouraging speculation & turnover.
Government actually required risky lending.....
- The Community Reinvestment Act
- Auditors required "diversity" in lending.
Government essentially created the highly leveraged loan.
- Maggie Mae created the PMI market, allowing 80+% LTV....even 100%.

Government exacerbated the crisis thru mismanagement.
- Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac wouldn't allow troubled borrowers to renegotiate loans.
- Banks were forced to foreclose upon troubled borrowers they were working with, thereby turning a probability of failure into 100% failure (eg, RBS, Charter One, Citizens NA).
- The bail-outs were directed not at the source (borrowers in trouble), but at the lenders.

There's more but this begins to paint the picture.

Which is why I wrote this on my last post: "You simply do not understand that this issue is much more complex than what you are saying" in response to Mr. Brown's post.

There were many factors that came to feed into what happened, but according to the economists I've mentioned, plus others that I didn't mention, they point out that it was basically the mostly unregulated shadow-banking system, which btw had roughly 60% of all the business-lending transactions in 2007, that was the single biggest culprit. It basically was a house of cards, whereas it could take small hits, but when the big one hit the fan with the mortgage defaults, that house began to crumble. Greenspan's testimony in front of one of the Congressional subcommittees was very telling on this.

BTW, I haven't seen "The Big Short" yet, so how was it? True to life or more "Hollywoodized"? The best documentary I saw on this was a two-hour program on PBS whereas they took the viewer step by step, including interviewing many who were involved in this one way or another, through what transpired. It was broadcast I believe in 2010 but might have been 2011. I don't know if it's still available, nor do I know what the title was. A lot of help I am, eh?

 

[Revoltingest]

Which is why I wrote this on my last post: "You simply do not understand that this issue is much more complex than what you are saying" in response to Mr. Brown's post.

There were many factors that came to feed into what happened, but according to the economists I've mentioned, plus others that I didn't mention, they point out that it was basically the mostly unregulated shadow-banking system, which btw had roughly 60% of all the business-lending transactions in 2007, that was the single biggest culprit. It basically was a house of cards, whereas it could take small hits, but when the big one hit the fan with the mortgage defaults, that house began to crumble. Greenspan's testimony in front of one of the Congressional subcommittees was very telling on this.

BTW, I haven't seen "The Big Short" yet, so how was it? True to life or more "Hollywoodized"? The best documentary I saw on this was a two-hour program on PBS whereas they took the viewer step by step, including interviewing many who were involved in this one way or another, through what transpired. It was broadcast I believe in 2010 but might have been 2011. I don't know if it's still available, nor do I know what the title was. A lot of help I am, eh?

First, it was a really well made clever & entertaining movie.
I went in expecting something boring & preachy, but it was interesting & light on the preaching.
I can't speak to the accuracy of the shorting part, but the reckless lending practices matched what I saw as a broker.
The exaggerated some, but they captured the spirit.
I highly recommend it.....& think it Oscarworthy for direction & script.

Btw, it's the first time I ever thought Steve Carell to be a good actor.
Christian Bale was of course excellent, but not an Oscarworthy role.

 

[metis]

First, it was a really well made clever & entertaining movie.
I went in expecting something boring & preachy, but it was interesting & light on the preaching.
I can't speak to the accuracy of the shorting part, but the reckless lending practices matched what I saw as a broker.
The exaggerated some, but they captured the spirit.
I highly recommend it.....& think it Oscarworthy for direction & script.

Btw, it's the first time I ever thought Steve Carell to be a good actor.
Christian Bale was of course excellent, but not an Oscarworthy role.

I'm debating whether to see it at the movies or just wait for it to come on HBO or whatever. We only normally go to about 1-2 movies per year, although last year we splurged and went 4 times!

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm debating whether to see it at the movies or just wait for it to come on HBO or whatever. We only normally go to about 1-2 movies per year, although last year we splurged and went 4 times!

I spend money on good movies so they'll be encouraged to make more.
But I'm still a cheapskate....senior discount....no popcorn.

 

[metis]

I spend money on good movies so they'll be encouraged to make more.
But I'm still a cheapskate....senior discount....no popcorn.

Ditto on all the above. Last year, "The Theory of Everything" and the movie about the Enigma project (can't remember the name) really were great movies, imo. "Black or White" I thought was quite good as well.

 

[That one dude...]

Ditto on all the above. Last year, "The Theory of Everything" and the movie about the Enigma project (can't remember the name) really were great movies, imo. "Black or White" I thought was quite good as well.

I think you're thinking of "The Imitation Game", which I would agree is a good movie.

On topic, though, I'm pretty sure at this point I'd vote for Bernie.

 

[metis]

I think you're thinking of "The Imitation Game", which I would agree is a good movie.

On topic, though, I'm pretty sure at this point I'd vote for Bernie.

Yep, and thanks for being my memory while mine is off on a senior trip somewhere.

 

[Revoltingest]

Drudge Report just posted results of its presidential poll.
Among its readers who voted, it's between Trump & Sanders.
Hillary isn't even in the running.

**DRUDGE SUPER POLL** WHO IS YOUR PICK FOR PRESIDENT? (Poll Closed)
TRUMP 36.05% (413,399 votes)

SANDERS 29.69% (340,387 votes)

CRUZ 19.23% (220,501 votes)

RUBIO 4.92% (56,444 votes)

PAUL 3.23% (37,030 votes)

CARSON 1.42% (16,232 votes)

KASICH 1.32% (15,183 votes)

FIORINA 1.02% (11,689 votes)

CHRISTIE 1.02% (11,641 votes)

BUSH 0.9% (10,305 votes)

CLINTON 0.88% (10,096 votes)

SANTORUM 0.2% (2,294 votes)

O'MALLEY 0.12% (1,408 votes)

Total Votes: 1,146,609

 

[Midnight Rain]

Drudge Report just posted results of its presidential poll.
Among its readers who voted, it's between Trump & Sanders.
Hillary isn't even in the running.

**DRUDGE SUPER POLL** WHO IS YOUR PICK FOR PRESIDENT? (Poll Closed)
TRUMP 36.05% (413,399 votes)

SANDERS 29.69% (340,387 votes)

CRUZ 19.23% (220,501 votes)

RUBIO 4.92% (56,444 votes)

PAUL 3.23% (37,030 votes)

CARSON 1.42% (16,232 votes)

KASICH 1.32% (15,183 votes)

FIORINA 1.02% (11,689 votes)

CHRISTIE 1.02% (11,641 votes)

BUSH 0.9% (10,305 votes)

CLINTON 0.88% (10,096 votes)

SANTORUM 0.2% (2,294 votes)

O'MALLEY 0.12% (1,408 votes)

Total Votes: 1,146,609

Which I think shows 2 points.

1) More people support Sanders than the Media recognizes.

2) The people that support Hillary only ever support her because they don't think Sanders will get the primary. Which is ironic.

 

[columbus]

Which I think shows 2 points.

1) More people support Sanders than the Media recognizes.

Actually the second point is that Drudge readers who respond to drudgy polls don't reflect electorate. It is like asking shivafan for an opinion.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

He gets a lot of press actually. That's more of factor than most people would like to admit, at least about themselves.

 

[columbus]

SANDERS 29.69% (340,387 votes)

I wonder how many of these voters are ruthless rich people who figure that Sanders can be kept busy tilting (ineffectually) at windmills, while they get richer.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder how many of these voters are ruthless rich people who figure that Sanders can be kept busy tilting (ineffectually) at windmills, while they get richer.
Tom

Actually, that is exactly what I hope, including his more peaceful foreign policies.
And yes, I'm working on moving from the merely ruthless to the "ruthless rich".

Btw, Drudge readers are a diverse bunch, including many lefties, especially journalists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which I think shows 2 points.
1) More people support Sanders than the Media recognizes.
2) The people that support Hillary only ever support her because they don't think Sanders will get the primary. Which is ironic.

Don't let Drudge poll voters mean too much to you.
But I'll agree that Bernie is faring quite well.