Here's what's happened in the past 10 years. Republicans, in the 6 years they controlled congress (and, therefore, spending and debt), created $3 Trillion of new national debt. Democrats, not to be outdone, created nearly twice as much new debt in 2/3 as much time.
The Chinese own most of our $14 Trillion of debt. What can they do with the leverage that provides them? Whatever they want and we can't stop them.
Check out this sobering ad:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/the-phenomenal-chinese-professor-ad/64982/
It IS as potentially bad as it sounds. Scary enough for you? Scary enough to insist your representatives in the House and Senate at the national and state levels to DO something about it ... FAST?
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Truth, Once More, About What Decreasing Taxes Does For The Economy
Another voice telling the truth, backed up by honest, straight-forward evidence. Maybe a world-class economist will convince you?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250954/brass-oldies-thomas-sowell
Every time that tax reductions are done to get the economy going they work. R U listening? It works! I won't bore you with my usual long-winded opinion. Suffice it to say that actual history(!) and the truth(!) about it show that it works, as the economist's link above describes.
The progressive approach to taking money out of the economy ... from businesses and from individuals ... for government to spend the way IT sees fit doesn't work. Government has a TERRIBLE track record on regarding waste, inefficiency and unwise use of our money. So, why would we want to keep giving them more?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250954/brass-oldies-thomas-sowell
Every time that tax reductions are done to get the economy going they work. R U listening? It works! I won't bore you with my usual long-winded opinion. Suffice it to say that actual history(!) and the truth(!) about it show that it works, as the economist's link above describes.
The progressive approach to taking money out of the economy ... from businesses and from individuals ... for government to spend the way IT sees fit doesn't work. Government has a TERRIBLE track record on regarding waste, inefficiency and unwise use of our money. So, why would we want to keep giving them more?
Monday, October 25, 2010
The New Definition For Stimulate
Let's start with this doozy of a claim and proceed from there: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250673/stimulus-814-billion-flop-deroy-murdock
So, Ms. Pelosi recently said "It [unemployment payments] creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name." Only in DC could someone make such a lamebrain claim as more unemployment payments is good for job creation. Pardon me for a moment while I digest that. [Pause] Okay, now give me a minute to recover from a really, really painful brain freeze that just came over me. That's an interesting idea ... except for the inconvenient FACT that government welfare robs people of the will to 'do' for themselves and returns to the private sector (where it'll do some good) LESS than it extracts from taxpayers. Only in DC can someone think that a net taking of money from the private sector stimulates jobs there. How about some actual facts Ms. Pelosi? Oh, and some sanity too?
Many reputable investigations into unemployment compensation at the level and duration of payment we have today have concluded that it significantly reduces the incentive to work. There's a reason why some 80% of those on unemployment find jobs within two weeks after their unemployment compensation runs out. Think about that. After being on unemployment for nearly two(!) years (99 weeks to be exact), nearly all unemployed people find work within two weeks.
One can logically and rationally deduce ONLY one thing from that: the only thing unemployment compensation (ie. becoming financially dependent on the government) stimulates is laziness and remaining unemployed. That also speaks volumes about the real truth of government welfare in general. The REAL truth Ms. Pelosi is this: facts, if you're interested in them, say that termination(!) of unemployment payments is THE best stimulus to getting people off their duff and back to work!
Only a liberal like Ms. Pelosi could come to the conclusion that government welfare stimulates employment in the private sector. The government takes money FROM the private sector to pay people to stay out of work in the private sector and she thinks the 'net' of it is more people working in the private sector. Of course, unemployment has that social safety net thing going for it and that's a good thing up to a point which we're well past.
We DO need unemployment compensation. But there's plenty of evidence that too much money for too long a time robs people below the poverty level of the motivation to look for a job. Personally, I think that after about 4 months of receiving unemployment compensation people should be required to do something worthwhile for their community (for no 'extra' compensation) in order to continue receiving that unemployment check. THAT would stimulate two things: the people paying them their unemployment money (ie. you and me!) would get some value from it and there'd be some motivation to find a real job. But that's a subject for another time.
So, Ms. Pelosi recently said "It [unemployment payments] creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name." Only in DC could someone make such a lamebrain claim as more unemployment payments is good for job creation. Pardon me for a moment while I digest that. [Pause] Okay, now give me a minute to recover from a really, really painful brain freeze that just came over me. That's an interesting idea ... except for the inconvenient FACT that government welfare robs people of the will to 'do' for themselves and returns to the private sector (where it'll do some good) LESS than it extracts from taxpayers. Only in DC can someone think that a net taking of money from the private sector stimulates jobs there. How about some actual facts Ms. Pelosi? Oh, and some sanity too?
Many reputable investigations into unemployment compensation at the level and duration of payment we have today have concluded that it significantly reduces the incentive to work. There's a reason why some 80% of those on unemployment find jobs within two weeks after their unemployment compensation runs out. Think about that. After being on unemployment for nearly two(!) years (99 weeks to be exact), nearly all unemployed people find work within two weeks.
One can logically and rationally deduce ONLY one thing from that: the only thing unemployment compensation (ie. becoming financially dependent on the government) stimulates is laziness and remaining unemployed. That also speaks volumes about the real truth of government welfare in general. The REAL truth Ms. Pelosi is this: facts, if you're interested in them, say that termination(!) of unemployment payments is THE best stimulus to getting people off their duff and back to work!
Only a liberal like Ms. Pelosi could come to the conclusion that government welfare stimulates employment in the private sector. The government takes money FROM the private sector to pay people to stay out of work in the private sector and she thinks the 'net' of it is more people working in the private sector. Of course, unemployment has that social safety net thing going for it and that's a good thing up to a point which we're well past.
We DO need unemployment compensation. But there's plenty of evidence that too much money for too long a time robs people below the poverty level of the motivation to look for a job. Personally, I think that after about 4 months of receiving unemployment compensation people should be required to do something worthwhile for their community (for no 'extra' compensation) in order to continue receiving that unemployment check. THAT would stimulate two things: the people paying them their unemployment money (ie. you and me!) would get some value from it and there'd be some motivation to find a real job. But that's a subject for another time.
Ethanol Added To Gas = MORE Greenhouse Gases Not Less
This link says it all for me: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250677/more-ethanol-means-dirtier-air-robert-bryce?page=2
More ethanol in auto fuel equals FOUR things:
More ethanol in auto fuel equals FOUR things:
- More engine repairs,
- Fuel costs more to produce,
- Cost of corn from which it comes increases and so does everything that's made from corn, and, worst of all,
- More polution, not less.
There were plenty of reputable people saying, before this nonsense began, that all those things would happen. They were labelled nut-cases and irresponsible. Sorry, but those four effects don't seem like a good deal to me. And now the federal government wants to increase the percentage of ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 15% ... which, DUH, makes all the above worse! Only a government bureaucracy (and, especially, a liberal one) could think that's a good thing. The corn/farm lobbies love it and so do many environmentalists although the latter number is shrinking for some reason. Could it be that that inconvenient thing called reality is beginning to take root in their thinking?
Friday, October 22, 2010
But The POINT Of A Free And Independent Press Is To Protect Americans From Tyranny
The founders wrote frequently about the importance of a free and independent press (media) and it's role in helping to ensure we are never again subjected to government tyranny. A free and independent press was recognized and acknowledged as key to maintaining our freedom. So much for good intentions.
The 'press' referred to in the early years has morphed into a whole range of media that, in addition to 'press' in those days, includes radio, TV and internet news sources. So 'free and independent press' applies to them all in principle. Problem we have today is that, instead of protecting us against government tyranny (over-powerful government and/or political party) we find the press and other media will often champion, facilitate or turn a blind eye to the very encroachment on liberty they were 'socially contracted' to shine a light on and help resist.
Indeed, the right to free speech guaranteed in The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the constitution) was meant to include that freedom for the press. In fact, the media consistently claims that constitutional protection for itself and frequently wraps itself in it. That would be fine if they did that in order to protect The People's interests but, too often now, they use it to protect their own narrow and politically biased views, agendas, interests, and objectives.
Case in point. We, the residents of one of the four largest populated areas of Rep DeFazio's district were denied the opportunity to hear him and his opponent defend their positions and qualifications. The local newspaper not only didn't fight for a free and open local forum to happen as Mr. DeFazio agreed to with his opponent, they published criticism and ridicule of his opponent for insisting on it. We the citizens who elected and pay Mr. DeFazio were robbed of our right to hear him square off against his opponent. That's a loss to both Republicans and Democrats. A little more detail is appropriate to explain it.
There are four general areas of population in Rep DeFazio's US House of Representatives district, Eugene, Roseburg, Medford (including Grants Pass), and the coastal area near Coos Bay. There were candidate forums between Mr. DeFazio and his opponent, Art Robinson, planned and scheduled in all four locales. Mr. Robinson preferred a debate format (in which the candidates debate one another in classic debate format) over a 'forum' format (which only collects questions from the audience that both candidates answer however they wish). The incumbent, Mr. DeFazio insisted on a 'forum' format and Mr. Robinson agreed to it on condition that it would be open and free to the public in all four locales. Mr. DeFazio said he agreed that the people deserve to have an open and free event so he agreed to Mr. Robinson's one condition.
Turned out that three of the areas had completely open and free forums but the one in the Roseburg area was limited to those with connections to the Chamber of Commerce and there was a $20 fee to pay for the included lunch. It was, in fact, closed to the general public. When Mr. Robinson rented the room next door and requested that at least the speakers be turned on in that room so the public could hear what was said, his request was flatly refused. It's no accident that this happened in the area of the four where Mr. Robinson enjoys his greatest support and Mr. DeFazio receives his greatest opposition. That was bad enough in principle, especially since Mr. DeFazio agreed up front that all four forums would be open and free.
Worse, the local newspaper, the News Review reported only on the complaints from the Chamber meeting attendees about Mr. Robinson insisting that "Mr. DeFazio tear down this wall" between the two rooms. So far, the newspaper has said nothing in support of having it be a completely free forum open to the public. No criticism of Mr. DeFazio for not living up either to his agreement to a free and open forum or to his obligation to do so as the person having been elected and paid by the people who wanted to hear the candidates square off. As our elected representative he is obliged to provide us the opportunity to hear him defend his record and ideas for the future. The Roseburg area has had NO forum between these two candidates for the US House of Representatives and the local newspaper seems to care less. Many have argued that this paper tends to be biased toward Democrats and strongly against Republicans. This situation would seem to confirm that. So much for a free and independent press!
The 'press' referred to in the early years has morphed into a whole range of media that, in addition to 'press' in those days, includes radio, TV and internet news sources. So 'free and independent press' applies to them all in principle. Problem we have today is that, instead of protecting us against government tyranny (over-powerful government and/or political party) we find the press and other media will often champion, facilitate or turn a blind eye to the very encroachment on liberty they were 'socially contracted' to shine a light on and help resist.
Indeed, the right to free speech guaranteed in The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the constitution) was meant to include that freedom for the press. In fact, the media consistently claims that constitutional protection for itself and frequently wraps itself in it. That would be fine if they did that in order to protect The People's interests but, too often now, they use it to protect their own narrow and politically biased views, agendas, interests, and objectives.
Case in point. We, the residents of one of the four largest populated areas of Rep DeFazio's district were denied the opportunity to hear him and his opponent defend their positions and qualifications. The local newspaper not only didn't fight for a free and open local forum to happen as Mr. DeFazio agreed to with his opponent, they published criticism and ridicule of his opponent for insisting on it. We the citizens who elected and pay Mr. DeFazio were robbed of our right to hear him square off against his opponent. That's a loss to both Republicans and Democrats. A little more detail is appropriate to explain it.
There are four general areas of population in Rep DeFazio's US House of Representatives district, Eugene, Roseburg, Medford (including Grants Pass), and the coastal area near Coos Bay. There were candidate forums between Mr. DeFazio and his opponent, Art Robinson, planned and scheduled in all four locales. Mr. Robinson preferred a debate format (in which the candidates debate one another in classic debate format) over a 'forum' format (which only collects questions from the audience that both candidates answer however they wish). The incumbent, Mr. DeFazio insisted on a 'forum' format and Mr. Robinson agreed to it on condition that it would be open and free to the public in all four locales. Mr. DeFazio said he agreed that the people deserve to have an open and free event so he agreed to Mr. Robinson's one condition.
Turned out that three of the areas had completely open and free forums but the one in the Roseburg area was limited to those with connections to the Chamber of Commerce and there was a $20 fee to pay for the included lunch. It was, in fact, closed to the general public. When Mr. Robinson rented the room next door and requested that at least the speakers be turned on in that room so the public could hear what was said, his request was flatly refused. It's no accident that this happened in the area of the four where Mr. Robinson enjoys his greatest support and Mr. DeFazio receives his greatest opposition. That was bad enough in principle, especially since Mr. DeFazio agreed up front that all four forums would be open and free.
Worse, the local newspaper, the News Review reported only on the complaints from the Chamber meeting attendees about Mr. Robinson insisting that "Mr. DeFazio tear down this wall" between the two rooms. So far, the newspaper has said nothing in support of having it be a completely free forum open to the public. No criticism of Mr. DeFazio for not living up either to his agreement to a free and open forum or to his obligation to do so as the person having been elected and paid by the people who wanted to hear the candidates square off. As our elected representative he is obliged to provide us the opportunity to hear him defend his record and ideas for the future. The Roseburg area has had NO forum between these two candidates for the US House of Representatives and the local newspaper seems to care less. Many have argued that this paper tends to be biased toward Democrats and strongly against Republicans. This situation would seem to confirm that. So much for a free and independent press!
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Who's Worse On Creating Debt - The Truth For A Change!
Here are the facts about debt creation the past 10 years according to the federal Treasury department:
Just before Bush was elected, the Treasury department reported that the national debt was already large: $5.67 Trillion.
Congress, NOT the president, is responsible for spending, taxing and, therefore, debt. Six years of a Republican congress (2001 - 2006) produced an increase in the debt of approximately $3 Trillion.
Four years of Democratic control of the debt (because congress controls the debt) has produced an increase of approximately $5 Trillion.
Bottom line: in four years, the Democratic congress has created nearly twice as much debt ... ie, in two less(!) years versus the previous Republican congress.
Yes, Republicans also created too much debt but do not believe the bald-faced lie that they were worse than Democrats in that department. The truth(!) shows that Democrats have a lot of nerve complaining about Republican-created debt and are hypocrits of the first order for doing so.
Just before Bush was elected, the Treasury department reported that the national debt was already large: $5.67 Trillion.
Congress, NOT the president, is responsible for spending, taxing and, therefore, debt. Six years of a Republican congress (2001 - 2006) produced an increase in the debt of approximately $3 Trillion.
Four years of Democratic control of the debt (because congress controls the debt) has produced an increase of approximately $5 Trillion.
Bottom line: in four years, the Democratic congress has created nearly twice as much debt ... ie, in two less(!) years versus the previous Republican congress.
Yes, Republicans also created too much debt but do not believe the bald-faced lie that they were worse than Democrats in that department. The truth(!) shows that Democrats have a lot of nerve complaining about Republican-created debt and are hypocrits of the first order for doing so.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Might The Economy Be In Better Shape Now If Dems Had Done Nothing?
There's a truth in science that we don't talk about much in politics: one cannot prove a negative. In other words, you cannot prove that what you didn't do would have been worse ... or better.
Considering the sorry state of our economy after we let the current regime do whatever they wanted, it's NOT unreasonable to wonder, what if they had done nothing? Democrats have been very busy, especially the president, taking credit for it not becoming worse. They state as fact what is really ONLY conjecture: "Things would have been worse if we had done nothing!"
The ONLY fact about that statement is that they cannot possibly know whether that's true since they didn't do nothing. Considering the historical strength and resilience of our economy, it's not an outlandish argument to say that the economy might be in better shape now if Dems hadn't stolen several trillion dollars out of the economy. Did all that money do more good in the government's hands? We can't know for sure but, based on lack of results, one has to say maybe not.
Granted, something had to be done to stop the bleeding but most of what basically had to be done was done under Bush ... TARP. What might have happened after that if government had just stayed the heck out of the economy from that point on and let market forces do what they've always done better than government? It is NOT a wild and nonsense notion to consider that, just maybe, the people and companies could have done a better job of recovering the economy.
In fact, many, many economists have been strongly opposing what they've done and have been pushing for MUCH more help for small businesses. The current administration has steadfastly ignored that call for real, honest help to that critical sector of our economy. That many smart economists cannot all be crazy. What if they're correct? In that case, it DOES mean that Democrats HAVE BEEN going at this ALL WRONG. It's not 'evidence' they did the wrong thing but it's not an irrational notion is it?
The key thing I wanted to point out is this TRUTH (for those of you interested in actual truth for a change). Democrats DO NOT(!) know whether what they did kept the economy from getting worse. In fact, it's arguably possible that their meddling actually made things worse! But we won't know that will we? If we can't know that, then the Democrats have NO basis whatsoever on which to claim their intervention did more good than harm. It is nothing more nor less than conjecture. Therefore, We The People, have NO basis on which to believe it's true!
Considering the sorry state of our economy after we let the current regime do whatever they wanted, it's NOT unreasonable to wonder, what if they had done nothing? Democrats have been very busy, especially the president, taking credit for it not becoming worse. They state as fact what is really ONLY conjecture: "Things would have been worse if we had done nothing!"
The ONLY fact about that statement is that they cannot possibly know whether that's true since they didn't do nothing. Considering the historical strength and resilience of our economy, it's not an outlandish argument to say that the economy might be in better shape now if Dems hadn't stolen several trillion dollars out of the economy. Did all that money do more good in the government's hands? We can't know for sure but, based on lack of results, one has to say maybe not.
Granted, something had to be done to stop the bleeding but most of what basically had to be done was done under Bush ... TARP. What might have happened after that if government had just stayed the heck out of the economy from that point on and let market forces do what they've always done better than government? It is NOT a wild and nonsense notion to consider that, just maybe, the people and companies could have done a better job of recovering the economy.
In fact, many, many economists have been strongly opposing what they've done and have been pushing for MUCH more help for small businesses. The current administration has steadfastly ignored that call for real, honest help to that critical sector of our economy. That many smart economists cannot all be crazy. What if they're correct? In that case, it DOES mean that Democrats HAVE BEEN going at this ALL WRONG. It's not 'evidence' they did the wrong thing but it's not an irrational notion is it?
The key thing I wanted to point out is this TRUTH (for those of you interested in actual truth for a change). Democrats DO NOT(!) know whether what they did kept the economy from getting worse. In fact, it's arguably possible that their meddling actually made things worse! But we won't know that will we? If we can't know that, then the Democrats have NO basis whatsoever on which to claim their intervention did more good than harm. It is nothing more nor less than conjecture. Therefore, We The People, have NO basis on which to believe it's true!
Friday, October 15, 2010
Want More Proof It Was Dems Who Pushed Sub-Prime Mortgages Then Blamed It On Bush?
Regarding the title of this blog entry, this link speaks for itself for the most part but I have to say something to Barney Frank that's well deserved: You, sir, are a flat-out liar, especially about your role in causing the economic melt-down!
http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-caught-lying-about-his-record-on-home-ownership/
http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-caught-lying-about-his-record-on-home-ownership/
Don't Believe What I Said Below That What Caused The Meltdown Is Still Out There?
In case you still don't understand what really caused the meltdown and want to continue: 1) blaming it on Bush and 2) believing that Dems fixed what caused it, please check out this link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249763/another-mortgage-mess-editors
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249763/another-mortgage-mess-editors
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Time For Some Common Sense Re Economy
With Democrats STILL running against Bush and his policies, it's time for a sanity check. Got some questions for you.
Q1: Setting aside whatever you feel about Bush's policies (many Republicans and most conservatives never liked a lot of them either), what actual circumstance caused this economic collapse and is STILL a drag on the economy? Ans: all economists with half a brain have said it was/is, the glut of underqualified sub-prime mortgages.
Q2: But what about derivatives? After all, there was lots of talk about them as causing it and congress even passed legislation to fix this problem. Ans: Derivatives are NOT an investment; it is a means by which to package actual investments which was done with sub-prime mortgages. Derivatives are a way to sorta hide bad investments ... the underlying high-risk investments aren't as obvious and people who trade in derivatives have the warped view that packaging a whole lot of sub-prime mortgages together in a derivative somehow reduces the risk of all of them. These idiots think of it as some kind of insurance which IS a legitimate way to spread risk by packaging some risky things with a whole bunch of non-risky things. It's like health insurance which covers a large group of people. Sure, there are bad ones in the mix but the prevalence of healthy individuals helps spread the cost so unhealthy ones can afford to be sick. The sub-prime mortgages packaged as derivatives was a bad idea because ALL sub-prime mortgages are risky and there's very little about any part of them that's healthy. My point is this. If derivatives had not existed, the sub-prime mortgages would have still been there, just 'packaged' and invested some other way. If 'derivatives' had not existed at all, those sub-prime mortgages would STILL have collapsed the economy. It was the sub-prime mortgages, folks!
Q3: If the collapse was Bush's fault and, obviously, sub-prime mortgages caused it, what exactly were his policies that caused all those sub-prime mortgages? Ans: Actually you cannot name any because he had nothing to do with pushing these toxic investments and making the situation worse. None of his policies either created OR pushed sub-prime mortgages. It was mainly Democrats who pushed it, especially Frank and Dodd.
Q4: What things facilitated the proliferation of sub-prime mortgages? Ans: THE main thing by far was Fannie and Freddie policies which were pushed hard by Democrats, especially Frank and Dodd.
Q5: Why didn't congress see this train wreck coming and do something to stop it? Ans: Democrats were in charge of regulating this 'industry' for 1 1/2 years prior to the collapse. If ANY ONE GROUP can be held accountable, it HAS to be them. They had constitutional responsibility and authority to regulate Fannie and Freddie ... as well as the financial industry! IT WASN'T EVEN BUSH'S RESPONSIBILITY to regulate it! (News Flash: the constitution holds congress, NOT the president, responsible for regulating these things!) In fact, many economists and congressmen saw this coming. In fact, Bush tried to stop it and the Democratic congress stopped him. Considering the roots of all this goes back to Clinton's administration and Democrats pushed it and Democrats had the best view of this train coming for 1 1/2 years before it hit us, how is it that it's Bush's fault? It completely defies logic ... how people can believe the nonsense blame-placing by Democrats is mind-boggling. Just because Democrats say it all the time doesn't make it true! Gads people! We've turned off our brains and let them tell us what to believe whether it's true or not!
Q6: Why is it important to understand what ACTUALLY caused the collapse? Ans: because you can't fix what's broken unless you understand and address the ROOT cause. 'Fixing' derivatives, for example, did nothing. Even if they had 'fixed' derivatives well before the collapse, the collapse would have happened anyway! That's because the toxic investment that caused it would still have been there ... just 'packaged' and traded some other way!
Q7: Didn't Bush do anything to cause it or make it worse? Ans: Not to cause it but he had a hand it making it more difficult to recover from the collapse after Democrats caused it by authorizing excessive spending and increasing our debt. Bush did cause us a debt problem but that didn't 'cause' the collapse, just made it harder to recover. That's bad in itself, but, again, that did not cause the collapse. It's important to keep that in mind because we need to fix whatever caused this so it doesn't happen again.
Q8: But there are so many people saying it's Bush's fault. Ans: Consider this. If a Democrat had become president instead of Bush (ie, if Bush had NOT been president), the collapse would have happened anyway. Why? Because that's the party that caused this by pushing sub-prime mortgages to wayyyyyyy too many people who couldn't afford them. In fact, it's not unreasonable to say it could have been much worse under a Democratic president who most likely would have pushed them hard (while Bush did not).
Q9: Okay, sounds logical all things considered but why bother with that now? Ans: Because we still haven't fixed the root cause. The toxic sub-prime mortgages are STILL out there, dragging down our economy and risking a double-dip recession. Also, the Democratic congress has seen fit NOT to fix the problem with Fannie and Freddie policies ... in spite of Republican pressure to address those policies (even though reasonable economists all agreee that was indeed at the root of the collapse), Democrats have steadfastly avoided doing so. The reason we need to keep talking about this until we understand it well enough is, congress has NOT fixed the root problem even yet! Gads!
Q1: Setting aside whatever you feel about Bush's policies (many Republicans and most conservatives never liked a lot of them either), what actual circumstance caused this economic collapse and is STILL a drag on the economy? Ans: all economists with half a brain have said it was/is, the glut of underqualified sub-prime mortgages.
Q2: But what about derivatives? After all, there was lots of talk about them as causing it and congress even passed legislation to fix this problem. Ans: Derivatives are NOT an investment; it is a means by which to package actual investments which was done with sub-prime mortgages. Derivatives are a way to sorta hide bad investments ... the underlying high-risk investments aren't as obvious and people who trade in derivatives have the warped view that packaging a whole lot of sub-prime mortgages together in a derivative somehow reduces the risk of all of them. These idiots think of it as some kind of insurance which IS a legitimate way to spread risk by packaging some risky things with a whole bunch of non-risky things. It's like health insurance which covers a large group of people. Sure, there are bad ones in the mix but the prevalence of healthy individuals helps spread the cost so unhealthy ones can afford to be sick. The sub-prime mortgages packaged as derivatives was a bad idea because ALL sub-prime mortgages are risky and there's very little about any part of them that's healthy. My point is this. If derivatives had not existed, the sub-prime mortgages would have still been there, just 'packaged' and invested some other way. If 'derivatives' had not existed at all, those sub-prime mortgages would STILL have collapsed the economy. It was the sub-prime mortgages, folks!
Q3: If the collapse was Bush's fault and, obviously, sub-prime mortgages caused it, what exactly were his policies that caused all those sub-prime mortgages? Ans: Actually you cannot name any because he had nothing to do with pushing these toxic investments and making the situation worse. None of his policies either created OR pushed sub-prime mortgages. It was mainly Democrats who pushed it, especially Frank and Dodd.
Q4: What things facilitated the proliferation of sub-prime mortgages? Ans: THE main thing by far was Fannie and Freddie policies which were pushed hard by Democrats, especially Frank and Dodd.
Q5: Why didn't congress see this train wreck coming and do something to stop it? Ans: Democrats were in charge of regulating this 'industry' for 1 1/2 years prior to the collapse. If ANY ONE GROUP can be held accountable, it HAS to be them. They had constitutional responsibility and authority to regulate Fannie and Freddie ... as well as the financial industry! IT WASN'T EVEN BUSH'S RESPONSIBILITY to regulate it! (News Flash: the constitution holds congress, NOT the president, responsible for regulating these things!) In fact, many economists and congressmen saw this coming. In fact, Bush tried to stop it and the Democratic congress stopped him. Considering the roots of all this goes back to Clinton's administration and Democrats pushed it and Democrats had the best view of this train coming for 1 1/2 years before it hit us, how is it that it's Bush's fault? It completely defies logic ... how people can believe the nonsense blame-placing by Democrats is mind-boggling. Just because Democrats say it all the time doesn't make it true! Gads people! We've turned off our brains and let them tell us what to believe whether it's true or not!
Q6: Why is it important to understand what ACTUALLY caused the collapse? Ans: because you can't fix what's broken unless you understand and address the ROOT cause. 'Fixing' derivatives, for example, did nothing. Even if they had 'fixed' derivatives well before the collapse, the collapse would have happened anyway! That's because the toxic investment that caused it would still have been there ... just 'packaged' and traded some other way!
Q7: Didn't Bush do anything to cause it or make it worse? Ans: Not to cause it but he had a hand it making it more difficult to recover from the collapse after Democrats caused it by authorizing excessive spending and increasing our debt. Bush did cause us a debt problem but that didn't 'cause' the collapse, just made it harder to recover. That's bad in itself, but, again, that did not cause the collapse. It's important to keep that in mind because we need to fix whatever caused this so it doesn't happen again.
Q8: But there are so many people saying it's Bush's fault. Ans: Consider this. If a Democrat had become president instead of Bush (ie, if Bush had NOT been president), the collapse would have happened anyway. Why? Because that's the party that caused this by pushing sub-prime mortgages to wayyyyyyy too many people who couldn't afford them. In fact, it's not unreasonable to say it could have been much worse under a Democratic president who most likely would have pushed them hard (while Bush did not).
Q9: Okay, sounds logical all things considered but why bother with that now? Ans: Because we still haven't fixed the root cause. The toxic sub-prime mortgages are STILL out there, dragging down our economy and risking a double-dip recession. Also, the Democratic congress has seen fit NOT to fix the problem with Fannie and Freddie policies ... in spite of Republican pressure to address those policies (even though reasonable economists all agreee that was indeed at the root of the collapse), Democrats have steadfastly avoided doing so. The reason we need to keep talking about this until we understand it well enough is, congress has NOT fixed the root problem even yet! Gads!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)