How Obama Got Elected Interviews

nofx4110 said:
you could always do a regression analysis of the data if you have 512. However, I am not completley sure n=1000 is a representative sample for all of america.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about all of America. We are talking about the less than half of Americans whom voted; specifically, the slightly over half of those voters whom voted Obama. Or, approximately 66 million. In this case, n=1000 could serve as a valid representative sample, depending on the sample method.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Objective? No. Issue-related, yes. Perception of social phenomena is always skewed; in part by media, but in the majority by the intuitive mechanisms of the agent themselves - receiving sense datum and de-compartmentalizing that at will to form a semi-cogent line of reasoning. Is the voter-as-a-whole uninformed? Of course. Data from both sides would show that. Was that misinformation on one side in particular enough to sway this election? No, not in my opinion.

Part of the media's job is to sensationalize events at every opportunity - there is no argument from myself there. However, some of these events transcend the ability of the media to vilify them further, as they have a certain basis in reality. Every President and/or Party receives the blame for economic and military crises in terms of 'who was in charge when it occurred' not, 'who caused it'. In this case, the W. administration did directly and deliberately cause some of the foremost campaign issues; others, they merely inherited; some further still, they inherited and failed to act. At any rate, it was these issues that spelled out L-O-S-S for McCain, not the media.
Click to expand...

Word.

You need an avatar. You too cool for one? :)
 
Mulletsoldier said:
We are not talking about all of America. We are talking about the less than half of Americans whom voted; specifically, the slightly over half of those voters whom voted Obama. Or, approximately 66 million. In this case, n=1000 could serve as a valid representative sample, depending on the sample method.
Click to expand...

Most of the polls before the election were 300-1000 people.
 
RobInKuwait said:
Most of the polls before the election were 300-1000 people.
Click to expand...

Most are as, unless one plans on doing much more rigorous testing, n=1000 is regarded as representative. Obviously, more in-depth quantitative analyses require a greater degree of precision.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
We are not talking about all of America. We are talking about the less than half of Americans whom voted; specifically, the slightly over half of those voters whom voted Obama. Or, approximately 66 million. In this case, n=1000 could serve as a valid representative sample, depending on the sample method.
Click to expand...

Well seeing how you want everything so specific all the time I figured you would want the smallest margin of error. If you used n=1600 you would have a much smaller margin of error. I really don't think it matters if you did all 66 million of the obama voters or 12, I would bet the numbers would be close enough together.

Mulletsoldier said:
And?
Click to expand...

Just pointing it out. I am just glad Bush gave them the FREEDOM to make the choice to give those loans out, and let them hold themselves personally responsible. Thats what I belive in, and thats what our forefathers believed in. I don't give a **** if Bush's approval ratings are 1%, I will be part of it because he stands by what he believes in. I have already proved that this mess could have been avoided if Bill Clinton hadn't reversed the glass-stegnal act, just because Bush didn't want to re-regulate, and let the businesses have ther FREEDOM and personal responsiblity to stop themselves when things got bad doesn't make him a bad president. It could have gone either way. You want someone to blame, blame the dumbasses who signed the loan they couldn't afford.
 
nofx4110 said:
Just pointing it out. I am just glad Bush gave them the FREEDOM to make the choice to give those loans out, and let them hold themselves personally responsible. Thats what I belive in, and thats what our forefathers believed in. I don't give a **** if Bush's approval ratings are 1%, I will be part of it because he stands by what he believes in. I have already proved that this mess could have been avoided if Bill Clinton hadn't reversed the glass-stegnal act, just because Bush didn't want to re-regulate, and let the businesses have ther FREEDOM and personal responsiblity to stop themselves when things got bad doesn't make him a bad president. It could have gone either way. You want someone to blame, blame the dumbasses who signed the loan they couldn't afford.
Click to expand...

Bush did not give them the freedom to loan at wish - the Clinton Administration did. It was a idyllic Liberal program meant to satisfy lingering Post-War ideals of each American using a home. In respects to his Free-Market tendencies, you are aware that the Bailout occurred, correct? You are aware that Pahlson is G.W's choice, correct? If G.W., is a Free-Marketeer, than the BailOut is the complete opposite of what he believes in.

Further, exactly why you said this:

You want someone to blame, blame the dumbasses who signed the loan they couldn't afford.
Click to expand...

is beyond me, as I already addressed that earlier:

The state of a fledgling economy, whose existence was unfairly imparted onto the leaving administration, was most likely the primary reason he was elected.
Click to expand...

It would seem you are reaching for something to be impassioned against, despite the fact I already addressed all that you said! I presented these things as premises for Obama's election (low approval ratings, Sub-Prime mortgage crisis and so on) as reality, not as justified moral positions. Rightfully or wrongfully, they were the precipitous conditions of Obama's victory.

Now, in respects to what you have proved and/or not proved, I will suspend my judgment on your historical prowess. Considering this issue reaches as far back to the immediate Post-War period in respects to the most pertinent Sociological aspects, forgive my doubts that you have put forward a universally accepted historical analysis.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Bush did not give them the freedom to loan at wish - the Clinton Administration did. It was a idyllic Liberal program meant to satisfy lingering Post-War ideals of each American using a home. In respects to his Free-Market tendencies, you are aware that the Bailout occurred, correct? You are aware that Pahlson is G.W's choice, correct? If G.W., is a Free-Marketeer, than the BailOut is the complete opposite of what he believes in.

Further, exactly why you said this:



is beyond me, as I already addressed that earlier:



It would seem you are reaching for something to be impassioned against, despite the fact I already addressed all that you said! I presented these things as premises for Obama's election (low approval ratings, Sub-Prime mortgage crisis and so on) as reality, not as justified moral positions. Rightfully or wrongfully, they were the precipitous conditions of Obama's victory.

Now, in respects to what you have proved and/or not proved, I will suspend my judgment on your historical prowess. Considering this issue reaches as far back to the immediate Post-War period in respects to the most pertinent Sociological aspects, forgive my doubts that you have put forward a universally accepted historical analysis.
Click to expand...

Your Goddamn right its clintons fault. I should have wrote bush CONTINUED to allow them the freedom, not gave it to them. I know he supported the bailout and why he did is beyond me. If it had been me I would have let them go under. It would have created opportunities for new banks to finance loans.

Pahlson??

Sorry I didn't read everything you wrote, I do agree with you. All this Obama **** pisses me off: his citizenship and philip berg, infanticide, calling his grandmother a "typical white person", rev. wright and david cone's black liberation theology, and that african communist he supported in 2006.

But at the same time, I think its great that we have elected a black president. I can finally tell the black people who victimized themselves and complained about being held down by whitey this: if you had spent that time wiser (not goofing off in class all the time, if you even came to class) you could be president or working towards bettering yourself too.

I understand its hard to be black in america, but at least Obama does something progressive about it.
 
nofx4110 said:
Your Goddamn right its clintons fault. I should have wrote bush CONTINUED to allow them the freedom, not gave it to them. I know he supported the bailout and why he did is beyond me. If it had been me I would have let them go under. It would have created opportunities for new banks to finance loans.
Click to expand...

Again, 'fault' here is a bit premature. As a function of human nature we seek to centralize blame on a single entity, most often an entity which shares an opposing view to ours; in your case, that is the Clinton Administration as you are quite obviously a partisan Conservative, with Clinton being the negation of that. From my perspective, Clinton's induction of Freddie and Fannie was one of many precipitous events that led to our current situation. However, to unequivocally lay the blame for an entire financial crisis - perpetuated by both 'Main Street' and 'Wall Street' - on one individual is short-sighted, IMO. Saying 'god damn right' will not make it so.

Pahlson??
Click to expand...

Paulson. Though it is quite clear, at least from my perspective, whom I meant. A small typing error does not a negated sentence make.

Sorry I didn't read everything you wrote, I do agree with you. All this Obama **** pisses me off: his citizenship and philip berg, infanticide, calling his grandmother a "typical white person", rev. wright and david cone's black liberation theology, and that african communist he supported in 2006.
Click to expand...

Okay.

But at the same time, I think its great that we have elected a black president. I can finally tell the black people who victimized themselves and complained about being held down by whitey this: if you had spent that time wiser (not goofing off in class all the time, if you even came to class) you could be president or working towards bettering yourself too.
Click to expand...

Okay.

I understand its hard to be black in america, but at least Obama does something progressive about it.
Click to expand...

Okay.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Again, 'fault' here is a bit premature. As a function of human nature we seek to centralize blame on a single entity, most often an entity which shares an opposing view to ours; in your case, that is the Clinton Administration as you are quite obviously a partisan Conservative, with Clinton being the negation of that. From my perspective, Clinton's induction of Freddie and Fannie was one of many precipitous events that led to our current situation. However, to unequivocally lay the blame for an entire financial crisis - perpetuated by both 'Main Street' and 'Wall Street' - on one individual is short-sighted, IMO. Saying 'god damn right' will not make it so.



Paulson. Though it is quite clear, at least from my perspective, whom I meant. A small typing error does not a negated sentence make.
Click to expand...

hahaha. true true. The Fed or paulson could not stop lehmen brothers so your absolutly right about about wall street. Its such a mess.

My bad I just realized what you meant. I don't really like Paulson. I don't like alot of the people Bush assigned to the EPA either.

I was thinking about what I said about the bailout too. I think that Bush figured we couldn't afford to lose AIG and others during wartime. At the same time I don't really think we could afford 700 billion dollars added to the deficit either. Its just a mess...
 
nofx4110 said:
hahaha. true true. The Fed or paulson could not stop lehmen brothers so your absolutly right about about wall street. Its such a mess.

My bad I just realized what you meant. I don't really like Paulson. I don't like alot of the people Bush assigned to the EPA either.

I was thinking about what I said about the bailout too. I think that Bush figured we couldn't afford to lose AIG and others during wartime. At the same time I don't really think we could afford 700 billion dollars added to the deficit either. Its just a mess...
Click to expand...

I think it sets a ridiculous precedent - now you have the Big Three Autmakers begging for a BailOut under some facade that they are 'America's Companies'. They did not take that same Pro-American stance when they outsourced thousands upon thousands of middle-class jobs to Mexican factories; it is a strange thing that these companies, so willing and ready to move jobs elsewhere, now come beckoning for the very same Americans they turned their backs on for assistance! I am Canadian and that ****ing pisses me off.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
I think it sets a ridiculous precedent - now you have the Big Three Autmakers begging for a BailOut under some facade that they are 'America's Companies'. They did not take that same Pro-American stance when they outsourced thousands upon thousands of middle-class jobs to Mexican factories; it is a strange thing that these companies, so willing and ready to move jobs elsewhere, now come beckoning for the very same Americans they turned their backs on for assistance! I am Canadian and that ****ing pisses me off.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I love american cars but if they cant sustain themselves let them go under. Ill get a loan and buy it and set it right! America never should have let go of the auto, textile, and furniture manufacturing jobs.
 
Exactly. I do support a Keynesian Interventionist stance, but strictly in terms of infrastructure investment - that is, no private sector bail-outs, but merely investing in roads, urban decay and so forth that has dual value!
 
Mulletsoldier said:
I think it sets a ridiculous precedent - now you have the Big Three Autmakers begging for a BailOut under some facade that they are 'America's Companies'. They did not take that same Pro-American stance when they outsourced thousands upon thousands of middle-class jobs to Mexican factories; it is a strange thing that these companies, so willing and ready to move jobs elsewhere, now come beckoning for the very same Americans they turned their backs on for assistance! I am Canadian and that ****ing pisses me off.
Click to expand...

still somewhere between 250,000 and 3 million US jobs depend on them... And most of why they outsourced "offshore" is because democrat supported labor unions had them over the coals, and it was easiest to build new production facilities elsewhere to get labor at reasonable rates. at non-union plants in the USA run by non-american automakers they factory workers are paid a reasonable wage (~$17/hr vs ~$28/hr for UAW). The clowns in the UAW make an average of more than policemen, schoolteachers, as well as most jobs requiring a degree, and pay the least for benefits.
 
to be clear on what I said, I think the bailout that was already passed was the worst thing Bush and the current congress has done, and worse than most past ridiculousness.

As far as the auto companies, basically the choices are to define a new term that gives the flexibility of bankruptcy in terms of cancelling existing contracts, but isn't called bankruptcy... that and a bridge loan to make cashflow. In bankruptcy because the media will report the situation as more dire than it is, sales will collapse even further as noone who can afford new cars and has decent enough credit to get a loan with current credit restrictions wants to be stuck with a parts-less/service-less vehicle. however if the companies can break UAW contracts permanently and dispense with unions altogether, they can trim their costs in line with the rest of the world and be far more competitive
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Again, 'fault' here is a bit premature. As a function of human nature we seek to centralize blame on a single entity, most often an entity which shares an opposing view to ours; in your case, that is the Clinton Administration as you are quite obviously a partisan Conservative, with Clinton being the negation of that. From my perspective, Clinton's induction of Freddie and Fannie was one of many precipitous events that led to our current situation. However, to unequivocally lay the blame for an entire financial crisis - perpetuated by both 'Main Street' and 'Wall Street' - on one individual is short-sighted, IMO. Saying 'god damn right' will not make it so.
Click to expand...

I'd consider Clinton's intervention with Fannie and Freddie to be the snowball that caused the avalanche.

You can't change fundamental principles in the free market and expect positive results.

They convinced a market that giving loans to people who can't afford them is a good thing AND made it appear like the loans were covered by the government due to fannie and freddie, which essentially removed the appearance of risk.

This was not the private sectors fault for any other reason than they trusted in the competence of government intervention over free market principles :hammer:
 
EasyEJL said:
still somewhere between 250,000 and 3 million US jobs depend on them... And most of why they outsourced "offshore" is because democrat supported labor unions had them over the coals, and it was easiest to build new production facilities elsewhere to get labor at reasonable rates. at non-union plants in the USA run by non-american automakers they factory workers are paid a reasonable wage (~$17/hr vs ~$28/hr for UAW). The clowns in the UAW make an average of more than policemen, schoolteachers, as well as most jobs requiring a degree, and pay the least for benefits.
Click to expand...

Ah yes! The lauded Conservative, "Unions are the Cause of All Free Market Failures" argument! Most of why they outsourced offshore was due in part to rising production costs in conjunction with fledgling profits due to an inability of the 'Big Three' to predict consumer demand. The UAW is not the precipitative cause of their demise - in true Free Market fashion, they are fledgling due to a vastly inferior product.
 
RobInKuwait said:
I'd consider Clinton's intervention with Fannie and Freddie to be the snowball that caused the avalanche.

You can't change fundamental principles in the free market and expect positive results.

They convinced a market that giving loans to people who can't afford them is a good thing AND made it appear like the loans were covered by the government due to fannie and freddie, which essentially removed the appearance of risk.

This was not the private sectors fault for any other reason than they trusted in the competence of government intervention over free market principles :hammer:
Click to expand...

Reach farther back.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Ah yes! The lauded Conservative, "Unions are the Cause of All Free Market Failures" argument! Most of why they outsourced offshore was due in part to rising production costs in conjunction with fledgling profits due to an inability of the 'Big Three' to predict consumer demand. The UAW is not the precipitative cause of their demise - in true Free Market fashion, they are fledgling due to a vastly inferior product.
Click to expand...

Your assumption is that the excessive money spent on union workers is independent of their creating an inferior product. The fact is, UAW factories spend an additional $2000 dollars per car in worker's benefits than their non-unionized counterparts. Cutting $2000 dollars from the product and still keeping it competitive with other manufactures can kill product quality.

Unions suck.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
And?
Click to expand...

Obama was the second largest receipent from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the senators. He lobbied against the bills that would have PREVENTED the mortgage meltdown. And by doing so he recieved cash "gifts." This is public information from the feds. Independent news sources reported this, Republican news sources reported this, however Liberal Media (which runs the news in the US) hid it quite well. It was even brought up (and ignored by Obama) in one of the debates.

It's kind of ironic.. the meltdown that he benefited (2nd) most from is what won him the election.
 
RobInKuwait said:
Your assumption is that the excessive money spent on union workers is independent of their creating an inferior product. The fact is, UAW factories spend an additional $2000 dollars per car in worker's benefits than their non-unionized counterparts. Cutting $2000 dollars from the product and still keeping it competitive with other manufactures can kill product quality.

Unions suck.
Click to expand...

or that $2000 per vehicle could have been poured into engineering, R&D, fuel efficiency, more advanced electronic features, etc.

The US built vehicles were not vastly inferior as Mullet stated either except prior to the late 90s in small cars. In the full size vehicles segment (including trucks and SUVs) no other company could or can touch american vehicles for the price.
 
RobInKuwait said:
Your assumption is that the excessive money spent on union workers is independent of their creating an inferior product.
Click to expand...

Is it now? I would be quite interested in seeing your rationale here. Where do I make that assumption, or insinuate they are totally unrelated? I merely posited that Unions are not the precipitative factor of the Big Three's demise, because they are not.

While import automakers were focusing on reducing car size, utilizing more cost-efficient materials and methods, and predicting consumer demand, the Big Three was left behind. I quite enjoy how, for a supposed Free Marketeer, you are clearly ignoring a very acute failure of a Private Company! I am truly starting to doubt what you claim are your allegiances!
 
RobInKuwait said:
Carter? LBJ? FDR?

How far back do you want to go?
Click to expand...

I do not believe that was my position. You circumvented decades of events leading up to the Clinton administration which ultimately led to this phenomena. I have merely asked for a more deliberate and accurate account. So, again, reach farther back (with accuracy, without 'begging the question').
 
EasyEJL said:
or that $2000 per vehicle could have been poured into engineering, R&D, fuel efficiency, more advanced electronic features, etc.

The US built vehicles were not vastly inferior as Mullet stated either except prior to the late 90s in small cars. In the full size vehicles segment (including trucks and SUVs) no other company could or can touch american vehicles for the price.
Click to expand...

They are Easy. Independent review boards show this; consumer demand most definitely shows this; Industry trends beyond show this. I realize you are partisan in this respect, and I in turn respect your attachment to Domestic vehicles.

However, I am very confused by Rob and yourself, two self-professed Laissez Faire supporters: Here, we have a very clear example of a private entity failing miserably due to an inferior product! Are Unions a contributing cause? Yes, I would say that is a fair position. Are they the primary cause? Of course not! If you straddled other, successful companies with the same Union-issues, it would not be enough to place them in the same circumstances as the Big Three. Why? Simply because the Big Three has made a product which, at the very least in the domestic, is inferior!
 
Rx Lift said:
Obama was the second largest receipent from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the senators. He lobbied against the bills that would have PREVENTED the mortgage meltdown. And by doing so he recieved cash "gifts." This is public information from the feds. Independent news sources reported this, Republican news sources reported this, however Liberal Media (which runs the news in the US) hid it quite well. It was even brought up (and ignored by Obama) in one of the debates.

It's kind of ironic.. the meltdown that he benefited (2nd) most from is what won him the election.
Click to expand...

And? Once again, what is your point? In what way does this concern anything I have said?
 
Mulletsoldier said:
They are Easy. Independent review boards show this; consumer demand most definitely shows this; Industry trends beyond show this. I realize you are partisan in this respect, and I in turn respect your attachment to Domestic vehicles.

However, I am very confused by Rob and yourself, two self-professed Laissez Faire supporters: Here, we have a very clear example of a private entity failing miserably due to an inferior product! Are Unions a contributing cause? Yes, I would say that is a fair position. Are they the primary cause? Of course not! If you straddled other, successful companies with the same Union-issues, it would not be enough to place them in the same circumstances as the Big Three. Why? Simply because the Big Three has made a product which, at the very least in the domestic, is inferior!
Click to expand...

Really because the education system in the US is tainted by as overwhelming of a union presence, and it is as much of a failure in the same way - a higher cost gets a lesser net output. I definitely agree that the US industry was slow to make a change to smaller vehicles however up until the last 16-18 months that was a benefit to them as they continued to sell more vehicles. GM still sells more vehicles than Toyota does worldwise.... So the "failure" is the fact that their costs are higher than what the product is sellable for, and that is a failure of the union system.

I believe that unions made sense in the USA in the past, and today make total sense in certain countries like china or india, however they are now only an additional expense with nill value in the USA. There is enough of rulings to create transparency, whistle blower laws, etc that all the unions are now is a drain.

I think that unlike the 700 billion bailout that was passed and is now not being used for any of the purpose it was originally touted (or even named) for, there is value to some form of support to the auto industry. What form that should take is hard to say. The auto bailout that is being talked about is just a bridge loan @ 5% interest, not a grant. The cost of unemployment benefits for 250k-3 million employees laid off(depending on your source of estimates is quite a bit higher at $250 per week per individual, for the maths sake somwhere between 250 million - $3 billion per month in unemployment benefits, forgetting about other social costs such as unemployed people going on medicare, etc.

My preference is to tell the auto makers "good luck" fiscally or at best allow them some tax benefits to allow them to keep some of their current cash, but give them sort sort of mechanism that allows them to break contracts like a bankruptcy without it being a bankrupcty. that will effect their sales minimally, but give them the ability to do a major restructuring.
 
EasyEJL said:
Really because the education system in the US is tainted by as overwhelming of a union presence, and it is as much of a failure in the same way - a higher cost gets a lesser net output. I definitely agree that the US industry was slow to make a change to smaller vehicles however up until the last 16-18 months that was a benefit to them as they continued to sell more vehicles. GM still sells more vehicles than Toyota does worldwise.... So the "failure" is the fact that their costs are higher than what the product is sellable for, and that is a failure of the union system.

I believe that unions made sense in the USA in the past, and today make total sense in certain countries like china or india, however they are now only an additional expense with nill value in the USA. There is enough of rulings to create transparency, whistle blower laws, etc that all the unions are now is a drain.

I think that unlike the 700 billion bailout that was passed and is now not being used for any of the purpose it was originally touted (or even named) for, there is value to some form of support to the auto industry. What form that should take is hard to say. The auto bailout that is being talked about is just a bridge loan @ 5% interest, not a grant. The cost of unemployment benefits for 250k-3 million employees laid off(depending on your source of estimates is quite a bit higher at $250 per week per individual, for the maths sake somwhere between 250 million - $3 billion per month in unemployment benefits, forgetting about other social costs such as unemployed people going on medicare, etc.

My preference is to tell the auto makers "good luck" fiscally or at best allow them some tax benefits to allow them to keep some of their current cash, but give them sort sort of mechanism that allows them to break contracts like a bankruptcy without it being a bankrupcty. that will effect their sales minimally, but give them the ability to do a major restructuring.
Click to expand...

This post, while well-constructed, does nothing to address the issue in earnest! It is, in all respects, a Red Herring! (a presentation of premises and a conclusion not necessarily related to the original position - a diversion)

As we are beginning to see now, the original financial package set a dangerous precedent, that I feel should be ceased immediately. I also find it odd how NeoCons who, usually separate themselves from the humanity of certain situations, and claim analyzing macroscopic financial issues by elucidating individuals within them is 'tugging on heart strings', are now focusing on the human aspect! This is not levied against you, though; I often find you do focus on a problematic likened to: How will this effect each individual involved?

With that being said, I feel the Auto Makers should be allowed to fail. Will this cause temporary job loss? Yes, of course! However, such is the nature of a dynamic economy: The ability, desire, and most importantly, necessity to create new niches. Further, the largest contingency of jobs related to this issue are peripheral distributors and so forth; jobs which could very readily be reinvigorated by another company, and would not necessarily suffer irreparable harm from the Auto Makers failing.
 
Yeah, the original package should never have passed. And it is true that basically for the wages the average middle class american expects it is difficult for manufacturing to be successful here and employ the number of people it did in te past. I just would hate to see the overall economic effect of that much change uncontrolled. It can roll over into so many other areas, a controlled failure would seem better.

Do keep in mind however there has been government intervention in the auto industry for a long time, in the sense of safety related - airbags, bumper speed limits, breakaway motor mounts, etc. So again as with the subprime situation the governement has some responsiblity as well having been a part of enforcing certain design details not demanded by consumers on the free market :) But yeah, i'd be ok with seeing them fail if we could some guarantee that it would be controlled and spread over the next 8-16 months so that other industries or even manufacturers could absorb some of the people. I think the cost to michigan will be enormous though, but fackem, its a poophole anyhow.
 
Let em go down in flames!

I'm curious what happens to them if there isn't market intervention? There's a lot of good products in the Big 3 that an outside investor can buy and restructure to be profitable.
 
RobInKuwait said:
Let em go down in flames!

I'm curious what happens to them if there isn't market intervention? There's a lot of good products in the Big 3 that an outside investor can buy and restructure to be profitable.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I say let that process play out and allow the synthesis to provide even better products. This proposed package is like feeding a Gazelle with a broken leg: No matter how much assistance you give it, it will not be able to fend for itself - you are just delaying the inevitable, to use a cliche. I firmly believe this is not a Government's role in an economy; such Interventionism should be left to very acute instances of adjusting Interest rates and so forth to avoid market failure, and then the obvious realms of protecting against monopolies, ensuring labor laws are enforced, and ensuring the safety of its people.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
I do not believe that was my position. You circumvented decades of events leading up to the Clinton administration which ultimately led to this phenomena. I have merely asked for a more deliberate and accurate account. So, again, reach farther back (with accuracy, without 'begging the question').
Click to expand...

You lost me. Everything I've read about the Community Reinvestment Act has the legislation being passed during the Carter years and being revamped during the Clinton years.

If your talking about the "widening gap of rich and poor and home ownership being the ticket to class mobility" then all I'm saying is :rolleyes:
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Exactly, I say let that process play out and allow the synthesis to provide even better products. This proposed package is like feeding a Gazelle with a broken leg: No matter how much assistance you give it, it will not be able to fend for itself - you are just delaying the inevitable, to use a cliche. I firmly believe this is not a Government's role in an economy; such Interventionism should be left to very acute instances of adjusting Interest rates and so forth to avoid market failure, and then the obvious realms of protecting against monopolies, ensuring labor laws are enforced, and ensuring the safety of its people.
Click to expand...

Agreed. :cheers:

Edit: Not the part about interventionism though!
 
RobInKuwait said:
You lost me. Everything I've read about the Community Reinvestment Act has the legislation being passed during the Carter years and being revamped during the Clinton years.

If your talking about the "widening gap of rich and poor and home ownership being the ticket to class mobility" then all I'm saying is :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, I just wanted you to be more specific. Clinton's policies and this crisis are not necessarily tangentially related, but he is neither the specific cause. There are certain 'ideals' at play which encompass certain traits of 'Americanhood' which perpetuated this particular issue. To say Bill Clinton caused this failure is to say George Bush created al-Qaeda; neither are true, as they both merely exacerbated the situations they found themselves in.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
No, I just wanted you to be more specific. Clinton's policies and this crisis are not necessarily tangentially related, but he is neither the specific cause. There are certain 'ideals' at play which encompass certain traits of 'Americanhood' which perpetuated this particular issue. To say Bill Clinton caused this failure is to say George Bush created al-Qaeda; neither are true, as they both merely exacerbated the situations they found themselves in.
Click to expand...

My initial statement was that the pressure to bring in more subprime loans combined with Fannie and Freddie mitigating the risk by purchasing extremely large quantities subprime and Alt A loans created market conditions that made this crisis possible.

Do you think there would have been a crisis without the CRA and Freddie and Fannie increasing the amount of loans they bought?
 
RobInKuwait said:
My initial statement was that the pressure to bring in more subprime loans combined with Fannie and Freddie mitigating the risk by purchasing extremely large quantities subprime and Alt A loans created market conditions that made this crisis possible.
Click to expand...

I'd consider Clinton's intervention with Fannie and Freddie to be the snowball that caused the avalanche.
Click to expand...

That is a more agreeable position, but initially you said this.
 
EasyEJL said:
really those sound the same to me :)
Click to expand...

I feel the first one is saying: These were the precipitous conditions that contributed to the the most immediate aspect of the failure.

The second one is saying: Clinton caused this, cut n' dry.

They do not really equate, to me.
 
hmm i'd still consider the second to mean "although this may have happened without clinton's intervention it also may not have, and you can see the path forwards from when he did what he did to where we are now"
 
Mulletsoldier said:
That is a more agreeable position, but initially you said this.
Click to expand...

They do mean the same thing. Without the snowball there is no avalanche. Government, aka Clinton and/or whoever else is to blame for the updated CRA, dropped the snowball (rewarding crappy loan practices while giving the appearance of mitigating the risk) and it got way out of their control, aka the avalanche.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top