Is The Obama Youth Brigade "The Lost Generation"?

[AmericanNation]

The recession happens under a Republican president and this is all the Democrats fault? Wow, that is ridiculous.

30 year time bomb built by democrats.  Bush timidly attempted to dismantle parts of the bomb, but largely failed.  Wall Street bankers (largely dem affiliated) multiplied the power of the bomb the dems built and fought to keep in place.  Does Bush deserve some blame? yes.  Should dems be blamed for their majority contribution? yes.  Should dems be blamed more because they were bigger contributors? yeah, probably, but the blame is diffused to more people specifically than the 2 or 3 Rs involved.  The systemic problem was a pattern over a long period of time in Dem politics / office holders actions, so I think I have basis to generalize their record onto the party. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blcC_kCnf8U
here's an action packed series of primary sources outlining one aspect of the government created mortgage bubble that set off the recession.           

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

30 year time bomb built by democrats.    

Built by Democrats?  Do you realize that the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act of 1984 was introduced in a Republican Senate and was signed into law by Reagan? That's the act that built the time bomb of having AA- or higher rated mortgage backed securities be acceptable as pension obligations.  One can argue whether certain other actions increased the tonnage when it exploded, but the time bomb itself was most definitely a Republican idea that the Democrats of the time also embraced.

[AmericanNation]

30 year time bomb built by democrats.    

Built by Democrats?  Do you realize that the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act of 1984 was introduced in a Republican Senate and was signed into law by Reagan? That's the act that built the time bomb of having AA- or higher rated mortgage backed securities be acceptable as pension obligations.  One can argue whether certain other actions increased the tonnage when it exploded, but the time bomb itself was most definitely a Republican idea that the Democrats of the time also embraced.

nothing wrong with that as long as you don't corrupt the underlying mortgages ...which the dems are responsible for.  You could perhaps chalk that up as a minor contributor or a independently noncontributing but multiplying factor in conjunction.   

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Except that the incentive was there from the very beginning for the corruption of the rating agencies and the underlying mortgages.  In that respect, the method of corruption is immaterial.

[Politico]

Both parties played a role in creating this mess, but arguably the two most pivotal events that got us here were Clinton's signature that repealed Glass-Steagall (hindsight is 20/20) and Carter's signature that approved the Community Reinvestment Act. Without the latter, subprime mortgages never would have followed; without the former, the subprime mortgage crisis would have largely been contained to investment banks with commercial banks (and the money supply) being largely unthreatened, which would have had a less severe impact upon the real economy (e.g., probably would have been more like the aftermath of the '87 stock market crash).

As much as it pains me to defend Bush, whom did not get my vote, he contributed to the crisis but less so than previous presidents; he mostly happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (hard to imagine Kerry's fate being much different had he won in 2004). For example, not many folks in 2001-2007 were issuing accurate warnings, and this includes economists of the highest caliber from both sides of the spectrum. Hindsight is 20/20...

Obviously the buck can only stop with Obama and Democrats with regards to the failure of the 2009 stimulus to deliver the goods as promised. Only a hack would argue otherwise.

[The Mikado]

Both parties played a role in creating this mess, but arguably the two most pivotal events that got us here were Clinton's signature that repealed Glass-Steagall (hindsight is 20/20)

You realize the Senate supported the final bill 90-8, that the effort to get repeal through the Senate committee in the original bill passed on a party line vote, and the Clinton was opposed to Glass-Steagall repeal until it was linked in with the rest of the package in the conference committee package, at which point it was impossible not to veto it, right?

Glass Steagall repeal was basically passed under duress by Clinton.  I don't get how the GOP gets off blaming him for it when it wouldn't have even been there had it not been for unanimous support by Republicans.

[Politico]

Both parties played a role in creating this mess, but arguably the two most pivotal events that got us here were Clinton's signature that repealed Glass-Steagall (hindsight is 20/20)

You realize the Senate supported the final bill 90-8, that the effort to get repeal through the Senate committee in the original bill passed on a party line vote, and the Clinton was opposed to Glass-Steagall repeal until it was linked in with the rest of the package in the conference committee package, at which point it was impossible not to veto it, right?

Glass Steagall repeal was basically passed under duress by Clinton.  I don't get how the GOP gets off blaming him for it when it wouldn't have even been there had it not been for unanimous support by Republicans.

I repeat: Both parties played a role in creating this mess. I have admitted this on multiple occasions. When will you admit it for once?

Your contention that Clinton opposed repealing Glass-Steagall and signed the legislation under "duress" is a Big Brother-style rewriting of history. Look at the big, fat smile on Clinton's face  as he signed off on repealing Glass-Steagall:



At the time, both sides largely agreed that it was a good idea that would increase our global competitiveness. It has since become increasingly clear that we probably need some sort of mechanism that ensures the separation of investment banking and commercial banking on a global scale (perhaps as part of WTO membership?). Even Republicans on Wall Street (and trust me, there are a TON of Democrats on Wall Street too) are increasingly coming around to this idea.

Note: Not all regulations have costs that outweigh the benefits, but that does not imply we need excessive regulation like we have seen under Obama (e.g., Dodd-Frank is a Frankenstein monster compared to Glass-Steagall, which actually has a history of preventing financial crises from the 1930s through to the end of the 20th century; Dodd-Frank only has a history of wasting paper and imposing serious costs upon various entities with undefined benefits and no indication that it will prevent future financial crises).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Politico, the repeal of Glass-Steagal only made the mess wider and faster acting.  It was SMMEA which Reagan signed in 1984 that was ultimately responsible.  It is what cause mortgage-backed securities that never should have been rated as AA- or better to receive that grade by setting a fungible target that needed to be met.  The other causes only made things worse.  SMMEA made it possible.

[Politico]

Politico, the repeal of Glass-Steagal only made the mess wider and faster acting.  It was SMMEA which Reagan signed in 1984 that was ultimately responsible.  It is what cause mortgage-backed securities that never should have been rated as AA- or better to receive that grade by setting a fungible target that needed to be met.  The other causes only made things worse.  SMMEA made it possible.

Mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations alone were not the problem (e.g., plenty of other countries have not had headaches with these products); sub-prime mortgages ultimately caused the mess, and those were created in the wake of Carter's Community Reinvestment Act. This act had good intentions but created perverse incentives and unintended consequences that we only felt the full effect of decades down the road. There's a reason why none of the presidents want to stand next to Carter whenever they're all together; he was easily one of the worst presidents of all-time (right up there with Buchanan, Harding and Andrew Johnson):



Will you at least admit that both parties laid the groundwork for this mess?

[King]

The Republicans laid the groundwork.  The Democrats voted for it.  The fault is split equally, but it was a Republican plan.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Politico, the repeal of Glass-Steagal only made the mess wider and faster acting.  It was SMMEA which Reagan signed in 1984 that was ultimately responsible.  It is what cause mortgage-backed securities that never should have been rated as AA- or better to receive that grade by setting a fungible target that needed to be met.  The other causes only made things worse.  SMMEA made it possible.

Mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations alone were not the problem (e.g., plenty of other countries have not had headaches with these products); sub-prime mortgages ultimately caused the mess, and those were created in the wake of Carter's Community Reinvestment Act. This act had good intentions but created perverse incentives and unintended consequences that we only felt the full effect of decades down the road.

Which other countries treated MBS's as preferred securities for their pension funds as the US did?

Will you at least admit that both parties laid the groundwork for this mess?

That's rich coming from you.

[Politico]

Politico, the repeal of Glass-Steagal only made the mess wider and faster acting.  It was SMMEA which Reagan signed in 1984 that was ultimately responsible.  It is what cause mortgage-backed securities that never should have been rated as AA- or better to receive that grade by setting a fungible target that needed to be met.  The other causes only made things worse.  SMMEA made it possible.

Mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations alone were not the problem (e.g., plenty of other countries have not had headaches with these products); sub-prime mortgages ultimately caused the mess, and those were created in the wake of Carter's Community Reinvestment Act. This act had good intentions but created perverse incentives and unintended consequences that we only felt the full effect of decades down the road.

Which other countries treated MBS's as preferred securities for their pension funds as the US did?

Can you name a single other country that has had problems with MBSs or CDOs? I did not think so.

The investment committee of any pension fund should not be investing in complicated financial instruments they do not understand. Warren Buffet does not do it, so why should they? One should learn early in life to trust no one, but it is especially imprudent to have blind faith in the ratings agencies. The ratings agencies are basically the "little brothers" to the investment banks (i.e., most of the people who work in the ratings agencies are there because they can't/couldn't make it in the investment banks, so if their "big brothers" tell them something is good they tend to take the information at face value). Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but sheep have been getting slaughtered since the beginning of time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have admitted that both parties had a hand in creating this mess. Why can't you?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's rich coming from you.

I have admitted that both parties had a hand in creating this mess. Why can't you?

In your estimation the Democratic hand is much, much heavier than the Republican hand.  I don't see things that way.  Both parties contributed, but in about equal measure, with if either hand being heavy it was the Republican hand.

[Politico]

That's rich coming from you.

I have admitted that both parties had a hand in creating this mess. Why can't you?

In your estimation the Democratic hand is much, much heavier than the Republican hand.  I don't see things that way.  Both parties contributed, but in about equal measure, with if either hand being heavy it was the Republican hand.

Fair enough. For the record, I largely see the Democratic hand as being heavier because of Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). It's not fair to blame all current Democrats for the bad decisions of Democrats in the late 1970s. And, again, it seemed like a good idea at the time. The intent was good. I am confident that Carter would not have signed that legislation had he known what it would ultimately do, so I will give him that. I have more respect for Clinton than most Romney supporters (I am a disillusioned Democrat, after all), so the same applies to him with regards to repealing Glass-Steagall and undergoing measures that strengthened the CRA.

[AmericanNation]

That's rich coming from you.

I have admitted that both parties had a hand in creating this mess. Why can't you?

In your estimation the Democratic hand is much, much heavier than the Republican hand.  I don't see things that way.  Both parties contributed, but in about equal measure, with if either hand being heavy it was the Republican hand.

Fair enough. For the record, I largely see the Democratic hand as being heavier because of Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). It's not fair to blame all current Democrats for the bad decisions of Democrats in the late 1970s. And, again, it seemed like a good idea at the time. The intent was good. I am confident that Carter would not have signed that legislation had he known what it would ultimately do, so I will give him that. I have more respect for Clinton than most Romney supporters (I am a disillusioned Democrat, after all), so the same applies to him with regards to repealing Glass-Steagall and undergoing measures that strengthened the CRA.

The CRA alone would make democrats blame heavier as it is a 'root CAUSE' not a 'unrelated contributor'.  The creation of the fannie - freddie institutions and the democrats running a protection racket to prevent any real oversight of them up until their collapse tips the scale HEAVILY towards the dems continuously throughout the entire timeline.  Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, Frank Raines, etc, etc, anyone every heard of those guys?   

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Both parties played a role in creating this mess, but arguably the two most pivotal events that got us here were Clinton's signature that repealed Glass-Steagall (hindsight is 20/20)

You realize the Senate supported the final bill 90-8, that the effort to get repeal through the Senate committee in the original bill passed on a party line vote, and the Clinton was opposed to Glass-Steagall repeal until it was linked in with the rest of the package in the conference committee package, at which point it was impossible not to veto it, right?

Glass Steagall repeal was basically passed under duress by Clinton.  I don't get how the GOP gets off blaming him for it when it wouldn't have even been there had it not been for unanimous support by Republicans.

What, specifically, was included in the Glass-Steagall repeal bill that led Clinton to sign it?

[Beet]

"The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 evolved from the bitter experience of the Depression, when American banking was in shambles. Left free to speculate in the 1920’s, banks naturally looked where profits seemed highest, and were inevitably drawn into risky propositions...Today’s bankers promise they will be more careful. But to accept their assurances runs counter to the simple principles of fairness and common sense...banks simply should not be allowed to gamble with taxpayer insured dollars." -- Charles Schumer, 1987

"Mr. President, this is a historic moment...The future of America’s dominance as the financial center of the world is at stake… If we didn’t pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or… Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world. That has grave implications for all of America...this bill, in my opinion, Mr. President, is an American success story for our economy… And I was proud to have played a role with so many others in ensuring its passage." -- Charles Schumer, 1999

Essentially, the repeal of Glass Steagall was another example of the so-called "regulatory race to the bottom," set off in proximate by Margaret Thatcher's "Big Bang" which suddenly deregulated the London banking industry on October 27 1986. With London's merchant and 'High Street' banks suddenly merging, American elites feared loss of financial competitiveness to London.

The main wing of the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton (as opposed to a left-wing minority that warned against the repeal of Glass-Steagall and in fact predicted that it would be regretted in 10 years) supported repeal because both parties had bought into the deregulatory, supply-side rhetoric & policy that has been a staple of American politics for decades.

[Politico]

Schumer is just a puppet who says whatever the lawyers and public unions tell him to say. I will give him this: Nobody in the game is better at sticking to his talking points.

Washington needs to put partisanship aside and find a way to separate investment banking from commercial banking, preferably on a global scale somehow. In the long-run, it is even better for bankers because the next financial crisis could be the big one that ends it all if we continue exposing the money supply like this. Perhaps Republicans would agree to this if Democrats would agree to killing Dodd-Frank and every part of Obamacare except the prohibition against discriminating based upon pre-existing conditions and the requirement for college coverage. That seems like a fair compromise that will do more good than harm for the nation. This is the type of wheeling and dealing we will see with the Romney Administration, unlike a continuation of the past four years.

[Sbane]

Schumer is just a puppet who says whatever the lawyers and public unions tell him to say. I will give him this: Nobody in the game is better at sticking to his talking points.

Washington needs to put partisanship aside and find a way to separate investment banking from commercial banking, preferably on a global scale somehow. In the long-run, it is even better for bankers because the next financial crisis could be the big one that ends it all if we continue exposing the money supply like this. Perhaps Republicans would agree to this if Democrats would agree to killing Dodd-Frank and every part of Obamacare except the prohibition against discriminating based upon pre-existing conditions and the requirement for college coverage. That seems like a fair compromise that will do more good than harm for the nation. This is the type of wheeling and dealing we will see with the Romney Administration, unlike a continuation of the past four years.

So Romney would also keep the mandate to purchase insurance?

[AmericanNation]

So Romney would also keep the mandate to purchase insurance?

that's unconstitutional, unless it's a tax...       

Probably get's gutted by the 50 waivers issued to the states on inauguration day.(temporary fix)

Than, Roberts will have political cover to actually do his job on a new challenge. (permanent fix)   

[Politico]

Schumer is just a puppet who says whatever the lawyers and public unions tell him to say. I will give him this: Nobody in the game is better at sticking to his talking points.

Washington needs to put partisanship aside and find a way to separate investment banking from commercial banking, preferably on a global scale somehow. In the long-run, it is even better for bankers because the next financial crisis could be the big one that ends it all if we continue exposing the money supply like this. Perhaps Republicans would agree to this if Democrats would agree to killing Dodd-Frank and every part of Obamacare except the prohibition against discriminating based upon pre-existing conditions and the requirement for college coverage. That seems like a fair compromise that will do more good than harm for the nation. This is the type of wheeling and dealing we will see with the Romney Administration, unlike a continuation of the past four years.

So Romney would also keep the mandate to purchase insurance?

That's gone from day one via executive order granting waivers to each state. If a state still wants it, they are free to do as Massachusetts has done. Bye-bye uncertainty caused by Obamacare...

[Ichabod]

So, no mandate but insurance companies still cannot reject people with pre-existing conditions, you know that is an awful combination, don't you?

[Politico]

So, no mandate but insurance companies still cannot reject people with pre-existing conditions, you know that is an awful combination, don't you?

That's what's happening right now, and there's really not much we can do about it. Obama opened that pandora's box and it cannot be closed. It would be politically disastrous.

[Lief 🗽]

So, no mandate but insurance companies still cannot reject people with pre-existing conditions, you know that is an awful combination, don't you?

That's what's happening right now, and there's really not much we can do about it. Obama opened that pandora's box and it cannot be closed. It would be politically disastrous.

No.

[Politico]

So, no mandate but insurance companies still cannot reject people with pre-existing conditions, you know that is an awful combination, don't you?

That's what's happening right now, and there's really not much we can do about it. Obama opened that pandora's box and it cannot be closed. It would be politically disastrous.

No.

There is no mandate in place right now yet there is a prohibition against discriminating based upon pre-existing conditions.