Economy economy economy economy
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 10-28-2008 - 10:54pm |
economy economy economy economy. That's what this election is about.
This election is a referendum on Bush and the economy. It's about Bush, with the full backing of McCain on his tax cut, big spending budgets, expensive war in Iraq and economic policy.
So if you think things are great and that after 8 years we've got a strong economy to show for Bush and McCain's economic policy, go ahead and vote for McCain and the Republicans.
If you are like the rest of us you know what happened. Bush, McCain and the Republicans deregulated us into the worst economic mess since the Great Depression. It was a giant, free-for-all spending spree for the super rich while everyone else, including the Republican "regulators", watched. Now everyone else is paying the price for the greed and incompetence that the Republicans fostered.
So go ahead and vote Republican and reward them if you are happy with their job. Or go ahead and make lots of excuses for them if you like. Complain about all the things that happened to them rather than holding them accountable for steering our ship. You know these Republicans are out there in the life boats watching everyone else in the boat go down.
Or vote for Obama and the Democrats if you want to bring back balance, competence and fairness to our government and our society.

Pages
From the NYT article:
<>
This is the definition of insanity.
Guild Member since 2009
Yes. Whatever the Republicans have done, it hasn't worked. The Republicans were supposed to be steering, or at least watching the ship, in holding the office of the Presidency. They are running us aground into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression 70 years ago.
And they have the gall to trash FDR, the Democratic President who got us out of the last rut during the Great Depression. In fact, the Republicans tried to privatize FDR's Social Security - can you imagine all those futures tied to this stock market crash? Thank goodness sense prevailed and we stopped the Republicans with that lunacy.
It's time for a change. The winds of change are coming. We can't afford four more years of these incompetent, big spending, corrupt Republicans.
It appears a
Guild Member since 2009
There is sound economic analysis showing under Republicans the rich get rich at everyone else's expense, while under Democrats everyone does well (it's just that the rich do slightly less well).
"The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.
The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.
The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.
Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.
The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1220925717-m0PHN3OD5ZOh/hLN4UUk1A&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
(((LOL! When did Barry magically acquire his "expertise" on the economy?))))
Between the time that the credit crunch came to our attention and the first debate. Obama understands the economy far better than McCain could ever hope to. Oh, and Obama has the ability to protect us during crisis, because he
>>> Between the time that the credit crunch came to our attention and the first debate. Obama understands the economy far better than McCain could ever hope to.
Aah...LOL!...so Obama has no ACTUAL education or experience on the economy, he's simply parroting what he's been fed...as opposed to McCain who's got actual experience and expertise on the economy. Well, that explains why he's gotten everything so wrong.
>>> Oh, and Obama has the ability to protect us during crisis, because he is a problem solver and not a warmonger.
Sure, Obama will "protect you" from our enemies by shoving his nose so far up their a$$es they won't be able to attack us. LOL! Vote for the Obamappeaser..."he'll keep you safe."
>Can I please ask you to go and look at CRA...<
I seem to recall pointing out to you many, MANY times that those loans that fall under CRA are not part of this mess.
"Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton, stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. He stated that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps" one in four sub-prime loans. Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, Michael Barr stated that in his judgment "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight". According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis. A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.
Assistant professor of law Alan M. White notes that some abuses blamed on the CRA actually occurred because the Housing and Urban Development and Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight under the Bush administration allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fulfill their affordable housing goals by buying subprime mortgage-backed securities. These affordable housing goals were motivated by similar aims, but not part of the CRA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis
Get your facts straight BEFORE you type, please.
>It's clear McCain's going to lose, but the margin is much narrower than I would've expected.<
And, alas, I think race has everything to do with it. *sigh*
"And, alas, I think race has everything to do with it. *sigh*"
What happened in WV and were embarrassing, but I'm not so sure about that.
Pages