Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Now You Own It, Mr. President
Obama's policies have made the recession worse
There are few things more satisfying than unloading your righteous rage on one of those insatiably greedy Wall Street bankers.
We have Gordon Gekko to blame. Barack Obama has George W. Bush. So while the president is busy radically centralizing the nation's economy, he, in a superbly eloquent and inspirational pitch, always reminds us that nothing is his fault.
If Washington had a buck to spare, it still wouldn't stop at the top. But let's, for the sake of argument, concede that presidents trigger recessions. Well, then, we also must concede that nearly every initiative enacted in the first 50 days by the Obama administration has exacerbated what Bush started.
Isn't it too early to judge? It would be if Obama had not accelerated the timeline with his "ambitious" agenda, including the partisan trillion-dollar project masquerading as a stimulus bill and the deficit-busting budget. It would be if Obama had not worked early to support agenda-driven omnibus pork bills, job-killing cap and trade schemes, and union assaults on workers' rights, to name just a few of his priorities.
Obama can do anything, apparently, except properly staff the Treasury Department. Aren't those guys supposed to be "fixing" the economy or something?
Then again, it also should be noted that if Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, whose gibberish-infused explanation of the administration's bank bailout non-plan knocked the Dow Jones down 4 percent in one day, is indicative of "staff," maybe Obama is doing us all a favor.
The Dow Jones industrial average, actually, has reacted to Obama by plunging nearly 20 percent since he became president. That's an obliteration of wealth that no stimulus bill will recoup. Since Election Day, the market has lost nearly 30 percent of its value—trillions of dollars, not from CEO bonuses, as you may have hoped, but from your 401(k) and the private sector.
"The stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. It bobs up and down day to day, and if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong," Obama recently explained.
You know, Mr. President, not everything is like politics.
The market is a forward-looking entity, indeed, but it is driven by the decentralized actions of millions of investors every second. It's the opposite of politics. And this setup surely offends the sensibilities of the statist planners occupying Washington. Unlike politicians, markets don't lie. And this market has been in freefall for a year.
So, what to do? Obama, who promised not to raise taxes during a recession, now plans to raise nearly $1 trillion in new taxes directly from the investor class. He plans to raise capital gains taxes (a disincentive to investment), corporate taxes (for you, the consumer, ultimately to pay) and on the "rich" (which the nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates will affect 1.3 million small-business owners).
This recession already has passed the 15-month threshold, the historical average for downturns. Most presidents helped ease us out of those tough spots by easing the burden on Americans. Obama has engaged in the opposite. That's his gamble.
And most polls show the president's approval rating at about 60 percent, which is similar to other modern presidents' ratings at this point in their presidencies. But now that Obama has used his political capital to further ideology rather than economic growth, one thing is clear: He owns this mess.
David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State.
COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
|3.11.09 @ 12:16PM|#
The Dow Jones industrial average, actually, has reacted to
Obama by plunging nearly 20 percent since he became
president.
I propose a different metric. The DJIA closed at 12,580 on February
9, 2007. This was the day before Obama announced his candidacy.
flugger|3.11.09 @ 12:20PM|#
Anyone claiming to know how the last 50 days has "exacerbated
the recession" is a fraud. Anyone claiming to know how it has
stimulated the economy is similarly misguided. We won't know for
years, even decades. To answer the question posed in David's piece,
"Isn't it too early to judge?" -- YES.
If the stock market's value were a measure of economic health, then
the economy has been relatively healthy these last couple years.
But we know that can't have been true, because we're in a giant
fucking recession. Similarly, just because the DJIA was gangbusters
in 1999 doesn't mean that the economy was in good shape.
Market prices may be determined by millions of individual decisions
and people, but people do not always act rationally, and are
sometimes guilty of groupthink and panic.
So while the author may believe that Obama has murdered the
economy, Obama is right that market levels aren't a complete
indicator of economic health. Obama would be equally wrong to claim
that his policies have already saved the economy, but from what
I've heard, he isn't claiming this. He's just saying that what he's
done has been necessary.
jj|3.11.09 @ 12:36PM|#
We know what alcohol will do to a person's mental faculties. Can
we say what it is doing to Joe, without extensive blood tests, even
autopsies? --- Hell yeah. Within reason.
Similarly, with a great degree of certainty, we know the basic
effects of the economic policies being enacted by Obama. So, yes,
they are breaking the economy, and WILL have the expected
effects.
|3.11.09 @ 12:41PM|#
The guy has been in office for less than two months and has
inherited a real mess. The first real action of his team, i.e. the
stimulus, has just now gone through Congress.
As for the Dow as indicator of an administration's performance ...
that's just plainly baloney.
To answer the question posed in David's piece, "Isn't it too early
to judge?" -- YES.
Scott|3.11.09 @ 12:42PM|#
Stock market prices are a forward-looking indicator of what
investors (read: most Americans through their 401(k) and defined
benefit plans) anticipate will happen. The market seems to think
that the economy is tanking -- the stock market takes another
little dive every time Obama or Geitner opens their mouths.
It's almost a foregone conclusion at this point that Obama will be
a one-term president. The question is, how much damage can he and
the Democrats cause until 2013?
Scott\'s Crystal Ball, 2007|3.11.09 @ 12:48PM|#
It is inevitable that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party, and Rudy Giuliani will be the Republican nominee.
|3.11.09 @ 12:51PM|#
So while the author may believe that Obama has murdered the
economy
I just murdered a brown snake. I feel much lighter.
HammeredHead|3.11.09 @ 12:51PM|#
He was elected as our first special needs President. What did you expect from him?
Margo Channing|3.11.09 @ 12:53PM|#
"He was elected as our first special needs President."
I hear Betty Crocker will be nominated as Cake Czar.
Citizen Nothing|3.11.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Sorry. Margo was me. (Sometimes I like to dress up as Bette Davis.)
|3.11.09 @ 12:55PM|#
It's almost a foregone conclusion at this point that
Obama FDR will be a one-term
president. The question is, how much damage can he and the
Democrats cause until 2013
1937?
Politicians can screw up royally and still get reelected if they
convince voters that failure is success.
HammeredHead|3.11.09 @ 12:57PM|#
In all seriousness, the policies that he has submitted are
basically just more of the same. Government debt levels increases
have accelerated as it actively destroys the healthcare, energy,
and banking sectors.
Obama and his administration are failures. It only took him 50 days
to become our worst president.
Scott|3.11.09 @ 1:02PM|#
Well, granted, he might be a two-or-more-termer if he and the
Democrats pull a Hugo Chavez on us.
(Interesting
paper on the stock market as a leading indicator. Prerequisite: not
having your head up your butt.)
torpid|3.11.09 @ 1:09PM|#
You know, George Washington was our worst president 50 days into his presidency too. So I'd say Obama is in good company.
|3.11.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Waaah more taxes on the wealthiest 1%. In 2 years, only if the recession has ended. You're lucky it's not a firing squad given the mood of the country right now.
squarooticus|3.11.09 @ 1:19PM|#
Waaah more taxes on the wealthiest 1%. In 2 years, only if the recession has ended. You're lucky it's not a firing squad given the mood of the country right now.
It's too bad they have the wrong bogeyman.
The rich aren't the problem; the politically
well-connected are. The fact that there is a lot of overlap
between the two is interesting but immaterial to identifying the
real crooks in this situation.
HammeredHead|3.11.09 @ 1:29PM|#
The rich aren't the problem; the politically well-connected
are.
Correct. And the reason that they are the problem is the size of
the governement. Obusha's solution; increase the size of the
government.
Big O|3.11.09 @ 1:58PM|#
The big O is not at fault! Bush did it!!
At least until it turns around then the Big O did "it."
The fact Big O doesn't know what a P/E ratio or value investing
are, and then having the balls to offer investment advice to a
nation is a pretty telling incident. Then again as mentioned before
comparing the market to political polls is absurd on enough levels
to write a book.
Fucking lawyers think they know everything.
|3.11.09 @ 2:03PM|#
"Anyone claiming to know how it has stimulated the economy is
similarly misguided. We won't know for years, even decades. "
Golly, isn't that convenient? Right in line with Obama's "8 to 10
years" in the WH, eh?
|3.11.09 @ 2:05PM|#
"You know, George Washington was our worst president 50 days
into his presidency too."
Old George understood the need for apathy and inattention required
for the job of POTUS. All he did in the first 50 days was ride his
horse, pork Martha and tease Jefferson for being a girly man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA
|3.11.09 @ 2:08PM|#
Waaah more taxes on the wealthiest 1%. In 2 years, only if
the recession has ended. You're lucky it's not a firing squad given
the mood of the country right now.
Yeah Tony, Leftists like you always like to fantasize about the
people they are going to put "up against the wall", and murder
"when the revolution comes".
Why anyone is ever surprised when they actually do it once in power
is a mystery to me.
|3.11.09 @ 2:28PM|#
Anyone claiming to know how it has stimulated the economy is
similarly misguided. We won't know for years, even
decades
Funny, we seemed to know that everything was Bush's fault right off
the bat......
|3.11.09 @ 2:31PM|#
Obama does own it, Floooger is wrong.
The stock market is made up of investors like me. I have pulled my
money out of the market (back when it was still >10K, thank God)
because I listened to what Obama said he was going to do.
I thought his tax increases would hurt the profitable businesses.
(The kind I like to invest in), so I sold my stocks. He is also
raising taxes on bonds, so that's out.
Do you think I am the only person who did this? Of course not,
that's why the market is down. Because people like me are selling.
Because of Obama.
Now here is some advice for the future (free!): The only way the
government is going to pay for all this is to inflate it's way out.
So I am looking to get rid of my cash. In fact, I am looking for
investments which won't pay off until long after 2016, in the hopes
that grownups will be back in charge by then.
Probably I'll buy real esatate. See what I am doing? I am altering
my behavior in a way that will reduce my tax burden (and
consequently the national tax revenues) for the foreseeable
future.
Do you think I am the only one doing this, as well? No. The country
is full of people smarter than I.
So tax receipts will be lower than Obama is projecting, which will
make every part of the cycle worse.
Two years from now, when tax revenue is way below Obama's
projections, you can think back to what I wrote and wonder if maybe
I was right after all.
In the meantime, I will do what I can to protect my assets. I was
broke coming out of college, I earned every penny. I damn well am
going to do whatever I can to keep it safe.
I
I know why Obama caused this to worsen.
I have
economist|3.11.09 @ 2:34PM|#
It's too early to say his policies failed. Not too early for me to forecast probable failure, but far too early for anyone to actually declare failure or success definitively.
economist|3.11.09 @ 2:35PM|#
It's a little difficult to tell how much of this is regime uncertainty and how much is caused by other factors.
|3.11.09 @ 2:41PM|#
FDR wasn't a complete buffoon, Obama is. I plan to risk the thousand dollars I won when Hillary couldn't get the nomination, and rewager it on a Hillary nomination in 2012.
alan|3.11.09 @ 2:43PM|#
Yeah Tony, Leftists like you always like to fantasize about
the people they are going to put "up against the wall", and murder
"when the revolution comes".
Why anyone is ever surprised when they actually do it once in power
is a mystery to me.
When Tony&HisIlk start humming something that goes sort of like
this:
Clear the streets for the brown battalions.
Clear the streets for the AmeriCorp men!
Millions already look hopefully up to the Chosen One.
The day is breaking for freedom and bread!
Then you'll know you have seen 'the white of their eyes' ala Bunker
Hill.
jester|3.11.09 @ 2:44PM|#
It is kind of fun to see it piled on the POTUS like it was the
former POTUS. As if weasel's like Joe Biden or Kay Bailout
Hutchison did vote along on War on Iraq, War on Drugs. We just
started a new war,
call it War on the Economy.
|3.11.09 @ 2:47PM|#
Let me put it this way:
If a president was elected, and he got up in front of the country
and said: "I am going to destroy the economy! I will confiscate
money from profitable, well run companies, and give it to failing
companies. I am gonna raise the cost of energy. I am gonna destroy
the drug companies. I am going to tax charities into olbivion, and
I am going to inflate the dollar till you beg for mercy!"
Suppose a (fictional) president got up and said that, and people
believed him. Then the stock market would tank, and the economy
would follow. It would happen before the first bill was
passed.
Do we all agree people would panic, and that it would be the
presidents fault?
Good. Now the only question is how many of us heard Obama say those
things? I know that most of you didn't hear that. but some of us
did.
And the thing about markets is that only a few percent of people
need to alter their behavior to cause a big swing.
LarryA|3.11.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Anyone claiming to know how it has stimulated the economy is
similarly misguided. We won't know for years, even
decades.
If the reaction time of the stimulus is that slow, then why was
Obama in such a hurry to pass it?
I do agree that it will take years, perhaps a decade to undo the
damage. Unless there's a revolution and we claim a do-over, which
could potentially set us back even further.
In a so-far unrelated note, the BATFE has run
out of the Form 4473 which you fill out to purchase a firearm.
Until they restock, dealers may use photocopies. This despite the
new on-line 4473s.
Can't blame that one on Bush.
|3.11.09 @ 2:55PM|#
Markets are forward looking.
The stock market, and the financial markets underlying derivative
securities like credit swaps, were healthy prior to the sudden and
dramatic shift in the likelihood that Obama would become
President.
Once it became very likely that Obama would be President, it was
his program and policies, and their expected impact on the economy,
that drove investors behavior.
Obama is not just at fault for the decline of the stock market.
Expectations of his likely program of multi-trillion dollar
deficits on a one-year time horizon, massive new regulation, a
dearth of new energy production, taxes on the productive, and on
energy producers, and the blind adoption of a radical union agenda,
has killed underpinning assumptions that kept the financial
derivative markets healthy and growing for a decade.
The dramatic continuing decline is a direct indicator of how much
worse even than expectations has been the actual conduct of the
Obama Administration.
|3.11.09 @ 2:56PM|#
As for the Dow as indicator of an administration's performance ... that's just plainly baloney.
From what I've noticed, prior to an election the stock market gets
a little flaky with stock prices generally dropping somewhat.
After an election, they tend to stabilize and go up. Never have I
seen the stock market continue to act as if there is more
fear and uncertainty after an election than before.
Peta|3.11.09 @ 2:57PM|#
Peta has been informed about your snakicide. Expect hot,
militant, naked or partial naked women to be showing up at your
door with paint and protest signs.
Wait a minute!
|3.11.09 @ 2:58PM|#
Waaah more taxes on the wealthiest 1%.
Proposed tax increases that are not limited to the wealthiest
1%:
(1) Capital gains.
(2) SCHIP cigarette and cigar taxes.
(3) Cap-and-trade carbon tax (I know, not technically a tax, but a
virtual equivalent).
That's off the top of my head. C'mon, Tony, "reality-based",
remember?
Big O rules!!1|3.11.09 @ 3:02PM|#
You can say his actions are failing the market. The market is skiddish and his making comments along with his staff has a clear and measurable negative effect on the market. The administration adding uncertainty to the market with omissions, retarded statements, and outright dipshitery increases the perception of risk, which has an effect on the market. Whether that effect is lasting or not or whether the effect is "negligible" is another argument.
BDB|3.11.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Anyone who thinks it was the impending election of Barack Obama
and not the total collapse of the international financial system
that caused this recession is a first class dipshit.
Lehman Brothers? Remember? September 15th, 2008?
BDB|3.11.09 @ 3:07PM|#
Besides didn't this recession technically start back in December, 2007, when Obama was trailing Clinton in Iowa?
doh|3.11.09 @ 3:08PM|#
Anyone who thinks a single event had an absolute and all encompassing effect on the market is a dipshit. The market by definition takes an innumerable amount of variables into account.
Doh v2|3.11.09 @ 3:10PM|#
caveat:
That is aside from catastrophic events. i.e. 9/11 events and the
preceding week.
The discussion wasn't about such events so I ignored them. Not to
mention you can argue the lasting impact of such things.
|3.11.09 @ 3:11PM|#
Good. Now the only question is how many of us heard Obama
say those things? I know that most of you didn't hear that. but
some of us did.
And the thing about markets is that only a few percent of people
need to alter their behavior to cause a big swing.
Duh. The people doing the trading are Jim Cramer types who wet
their pants at the thought of an economy that actually functions
and doesn't allow them to get away with their infinite variations
on the Ponzi scheme.
BDB|3.11.09 @ 3:12PM|#
"That is aside from catastrophic events. i.e. 9/11 events and
the preceding week."
How about the near total collapse of the banking system?
economist|3.11.09 @ 3:12PM|#
James Ard,
I'll take that bet. Obama definitely gets renominated in 2012.
Failure=success in the political world.
Dirt Clod Farmer|3.11.09 @ 3:18PM|#
"It's too early to say his policies failed. Not too early for me
to forecast probable failure, but far too early for anyone to
actually declare failure or success definitively."
Gee, I don't know. If I see another farmer fertilizing his cotton
crop with live aphids and bole weevils, I think it's okay for me to
say his crop is gonna fail.
doh|3.11.09 @ 3:24PM|#
The banking system is an emerging event. You didn't wake up one
day and discover the banks all failed. The failure is occurring, or
should be occurring, over a length of time. The potential failure
of banks was just like any other variable the market considers. It
was not a single catastrophic event that had an effect on the
market.
The delineation was to account for catastropic events being
generally unforeseen, emerging events can be "planned" for. Being
able to plan for something, even if in part a fallacy, reduces the
perception of risk or the risk in general. Humans like to plan for
what is going to happen, when they can't or there appears to be no
viable plan of action available to them they panic. (see: market
after presidential speeches and Geitner's speeches)
BDB|3.11.09 @ 3:27PM|#
The Dow Jones lost 300 points on that day and began a downward spiral that continues.
Justen|3.11.09 @ 3:27PM|#
Nonsense. Obama doesn't own this recession. Bush only does in
the sense that he put into action long-term policies that
encouraged the mortgage bubble and removed some checks and balances
in the financial sector without leaving another sensible path for
self-correction. He didn't do that in two months, he did it over
the course of eight years. Economists were screaming about it the
whole time, warning that it would lead to this - I remember reading
articles in around 2005 that sounded alarmist at the time but that
turned out to be somewhat optimistic. That any one person, no
matter how important, can over the course of two months affect a
natural market correction is pure vanity. It took a decade of bad
ideas to get here; Obama's two months of bad ideas are a drop in
the bucket.
In any case, what we recognize as a "problem" here is actually the
cure. This recession is not terribly desirable, but it's better to
get it over with now than to delay it till we're out of duct tape
and bubblegum and we have a *real* crisis.
BDB|3.11.09 @ 3:28PM|#
My mistake. It lost 300 points on September 9th, over concerns
about Lehman Bros.
It lost 500 points on September 15th.
McCain was leading in the polls.
Barny Frank|3.11.09 @ 3:33PM|#
"Nonsense. Obama doesn't own this recession. Bush only does in
the sense that he put into action long-term policies that
encouraged the mortgage bubble and removed some checks and balances
in the financial sector without leaving another sensible path for
self-correction."
I'm so glad to hear you say that.
|3.11.09 @ 3:36PM|#
"Bush only does in the sense that he put into action long-term
policies that encouraged the mortgage bubble and removed some
checks and balances in the financial sector without leaving another
sensible path for self-correction."
Huh.
"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending"
NYT article Published: September 30, 1999
|3.11.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Thanks for this article. It is good to know that Reason
is just one more hilariously mislabeled wingnut propaganda
slinger.
Obama's policies might prove to be the wrong ones, but to say that
they have made the recession worse is, by any standard of reason,
plainly foolish. It's too early.
The right wing has really lost it. First you had them trying to
connect Obama and Blagojevich. Swing and a miss, strike one. Then
you had Limbaugh saying he hoped Obama would fail, and the
Republicans falling all over themselves in fealty. Swing and a
miss, strike two.
Now you've declared Obama's policies to be failures, and arguing
that he's being too aggressive in trying to address the country's
issues. Swing and a miss, strike three. You're out!
Barney Frank|3.11.09 @ 3:54PM|#
""Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending"
NYT article Published: September 30, 1999"
That Mark Buehner guy? Pay no attention to him.
Paul|3.11.09 @ 3:56PM|#
Well, granted, he might be a two-or-more-termer if he and
the Democrats pull a Hugo Chavez on us.
done and done.
voxpo|3.11.09 @ 4:01PM|#
...hilariously mislabeled...
Drink! And thereby spend! For spending is the giver of all
prosperity. So says the pink elephant in my den.
PopCornTime|3.11.09 @ 4:08PM|#
Watching the usual suspects, Tony, BDB, and Joe (smirk, The
Realist, whatthefuckever, dude) defend what has already proven to
be the abysmal failure named Barack Obama is fucking hilarious.
Dance, little bitches, dance!
Did you really expect confidence from this guy? You fuckheads kept
making the excuse, He ran a campaign, that's executive
experience
BDB|3.11.09 @ 4:13PM|#
Yeah, making a statement like "the collapse of Lehman Bros. was responsible for the market slide, not Obama's poll numbers" is the same as "defending" him. Whatever, d00d.
Civil Discourse|3.11.09 @ 4:14PM|#
"Did you really expect confidence from this guy? You fuckheads
kept making the excuse, He ran a campaign, that's executive
experience"
It's called affirmative action. Just pad the grades and resume' a
bit and you too can have a "qualified" superhero president.
PopCornTime|3.11.09 @ 4:19PM|#
BDB,
That statue in homage to joe you were sculpting from his dick
cheese, did you ever complete it?
Game, Set and Match!|3.11.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Breaking (Bad) News for Ed Profs Ayers and Dohrn [Candace de
Russy]
The following just in from nancy@familysecuritymatters.org (read to
the end for word of a new report concerning a "new SDS" on
campuses):
In a sensational letter to be released at a March 12 National Press
Club news conference, the San Francisco Police Officers Association
(SFPOA) tells Cliff Kincaid of America's Survival, Inc., and
FamilySecurityMatters.org contributing editor, that evidence in the
1970 bombing murder of a San Francisco police officer points to
Weather Underground members Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, two
associates of President Barack Obama. The letter will be made
public at a news event that will feature a former FBI informant in
the Weather Underground saying that Ayers told him that Dohrn
planted the bomb that killed Sergeant Brian V. McDonnell. The
informant, Larry Grathwohl, has testified under oath before the
U.S. Senate about the bombing plot.
"There are irrefutable and compelling reasons to believe that Bill
Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, members of the terrorist group
'Weather Underground' are largely responsible for the bombing of
Park Police Station and other police stations throughout the United
States during their 'tour of terror' in the late 1960s and early
1970s," the SFPOA letter states. The SFPOA letter is signed by all
five officers of the SFPOA.
The SFPOA letter says that while "Sgt. McDonnell was the sole
fatality of this heinous and cowardly act," which occurred on
February 16, 1970, eight other policemen were seriously injured.
"Those responsible for the cold blooded murder...and the injuries
to the other officers have never been brought to justice and the
case remains open," the letter notes.
"The San Francisco Police Officers' Association joins Mr. Cliff
Kincaid of America's Survival, Inc. in his valiant and noble effort
to urge a renewed effort by the appropriate Law Enforcement
Agencies (Local, State, and Federal) to bring this case to a close
and bring those responsible for the murder of Sgt. Brian McDonnell
and the injuries to the other officers to the justice they have so
long eluded."
In addition to releasing the letter, Jim Pera, a retired San
Francisco Police Officer who was one of the first on the scene
after the 1970 bombing, will describe the devastating impact of the
blast. In addition, two reports on the Weather Underground will be
released. They are "What was the Weather Underground?" by former
Congressional investigator Herbert Romerstein, and "From Arms to
Education to Political Power - the Return of the SDS and the
Weather Underground," by Cliff Kincaid and internationally-renown
blogger and researcher Trevor Loudon. The latter examines how
members of the Weather Underground have regrouped to form a "new
SDS" on college campuses.
*The News Conference will be held at 12:30 p.m. at the National
Press Club, 529 14th St., N.W., 13th floor, Washington, D.C.
Reservations can be made by contacting griffin@griffnews.com or by
calling 703-255-2211.
DannyK|3.11.09 @ 4:50PM|#
Wow, this guy is trying to be the new Amity Schlaes already!
Whatta hack!
Conveniently, he cannot be proven wrong, since we can't compare our
crappy economy to the economy on Earth-R. Earth-R, of course, is
where John McCain won a landslide victory.
My suspicion is that the president's policies probably don't change
things that much in only 50 days. Especially since the policies
that make David Harsanyi hyperventilate haven't been implemented
and may never be.
豚の精子|3.11.09 @ 4:53PM|#
"My suspicion is that the president's policies probably don't
change things that much in only 50 days. Especially since the
policies that make David Harsanyi hyperventilate haven't been
implemented and may never be."
See erik | March 11, 2009, 2:31pm |
|3.11.09 @ 5:04PM|#
"The stock market, and the financial markets underlying
derivative securities like credit swaps, were healthy prior to the
sudden and dramatic shift in the likelihood that Obama would become
President."
This is idiotic beyond measure....Bear Stearns collapsed in March
2008, and was propped up because of fear that the claims of
counterparties would not be satisfied and that this would cause a
domino effect in the financial markets. The problems with swaps,
CDOs and CMOs resulted from weakness in the underlying assets, and
the failure of credit rating agencies to rate them
accurately...
Anyone claiming that these markets were hale before it became clear
that Obama would be the Democratic nominee is leaking flatus...
|3.11.09 @ 5:04PM|#
This place is a bunch of crybaby blame government for
everything. Even if you don't believe in a big governement the
hysteria in this article is only matches by the fucking
cheerleaders of the DJIA for the last year.
Too think that the current panic in the DJIA that started months
ago is owned 100% by Obama is laughable. What are you a fucking
socialist--the government messed up the market--wahh wahh!
If the market is forward looking as claimed then it is finding the
true price based on fundamentals/profits, etc
this arguemetn all goes into if you believe in markets being
rational at all times--to make statements like "forward-looking"
and "markets don't lie". INDIVIDUALS in the market can be
opportunistic and forward looking but the composite is much more
volatile and current trends can be due to as much as institutional
traders and people holding his attitude. now if they are right it
will stay depressed. If they are wrong the people going long in
carefully picked stocks can argue Obama's policies helped. This is
no less an asinine argument but in reality the management of the
companies would have been more critical to their success or failure
in either case.
Honestly I think that the sheer size of the free market in the
global scene makes ALL of these government plans have a very small
impact.
And please stop crying about the Fed ruining everything. There were
plenty of panics before there was a fed and this fact helped build
feds (not that this is right either).
It's creative destruction bitches and in the end the churn gonna
pull up like a mofo. Capitalism has always increased wealth over
time. It's a fucking ADJUSTMENT--maybe not to your liking but it's
like a fucking hurricane.
Now if you Obama haters want to start a meme start talking about
how things will get better over time becaues cappin capitalism has
never been KO'd--he always gets up and kicks ass.
Otherwise when shit turns around and it's election time Obama will
claim/get all the credit--so start crying now.
|3.11.09 @ 5:34PM|#
DannyK | March 11, 2009, 4:50pm | #
"Wow, this guy is trying to be the new Amity Schlaes
already!"
Damn, bro......that is COLD!
PopCornTime|3.11.09 @ 5:38PM|#
Look at all the little Obamaites squealing. It is like being at
a Saturday matinee and the feature flick is Deliverance.
News for you fellas, the aggregate economy is going one way, gun
sales are going the other, but the reason for both actions are the
same.
What is with all the 'whaaa', did you pick that up after the last
hundred million times you saw it used on a message board, or did
you come up with it on your own, you big geniuses.
Personally, I'm having the time of my life watching you fall on
your faces. The worse thing that could have ever happened to your
pet theories, libuhrals, happened. You got a true believer in
office to test them. Welcome back Carter.
|3.11.09 @ 5:44PM|#
PopCornTime | March 11, 2009, 5:38pm
"Welcome back Carter."
Brilliant!
So let's compare Carter's numbers to Scrubby's
Carter
11 million net new jobs in 4 years
3.4% avg. annual Real GDP growth
Scrubby
2.7 million net new jobs in 8 years
2% avg. annual Real GDP growth
Yeah...I'd say you've got a real winner there, Pops.....I'd run
with that....
jester|3.11.09 @ 6:46PM|#
I really do think Obama should have picked his Treasury
Secretary using an MTV 'Reality' Show format, not unlike "Paris
Hilton: My New BFF".
The benefits: 1) Americans get to see the process of picking an
important cabinet post 2) Americans get to see the competing
world-views of the future printer-in-chief 3) Total Ratings
Bonanza!
Sean W. Malone|3.11.09 @ 6:57PM|#
Andrew... I answered your question... but apparently you weren't interested.
PopCornTime|3.11.09 @ 7:05PM|#
Someone is actually arguing for the economic
policies of Jimmy Carter? Holy shit!
Those wonderful halcyon 70's were so good we rewarded Carter with
early retirement for the success of his economic policies.
For the record, people, Blackvegatable is not a sock puppet I
created for an easy straw man to knock down. He is real.
Oh, for the record, the Carter Administration was a miserable time
for the American economy as everyone else who spends time outside
of your student union already knew.
oh
look at that
you're
wrong, or a liar
PopCornTime|3.11.09 @ 7:08PM|#
Someone is actually arguing for the economic policies of
Jimmy Carter? Holy shit!
Wait. That shouldn't surprise me since that is exactly what Obama
is doing. LOL!
Question|3.11.09 @ 8:55PM|#
At what point did this blog turn into a carbon copy of Politico's blogs?
|3.11.09 @ 9:01PM|#
PopCornTime | March 11, 2009, 7:05pm |
Hey, look!
Not a single fact offered in rebuttal.....
Don't you know how to access the data?
I bet you voted for Scrubby - twice....
DISEMVOWEL\'D!|3.11.09 @ 9:34PM|#
Lk t ll th lttl bmts sqlng. t s lk bng t Strd mtn nd th ftr flck
s Dlvrnc.
Nws fr flls, th ggrgt cnm s gng n w, gn sls r gng th thr, bt th rsn
fr bth ctns r th sm.
Wht s wth ll th 'wh', dd pck tht p ftr th lst hndrd mlln tms sw t
sd n mssg brd, r dd cm p wth t n r wn, bg gnss.
Prsnll, 'm hvng th tm f m lf wtchng fll n r fcs. Th wrs thng tht
cld hv vr hppnd t r pt thrs, lbhrls, hppnd. gt tr blvr n ffc t tst
thm. Wlcm bck Crtr.
PopCornTime|3.11.09 @ 9:41PM|#
blackvegetable | March 11, 2009, 9:01pm | #
PopCornTime | March 11, 2009, 7:05pm |
Hey, look!
Not a single fact offered in rebuttal.....
Don't you know how to access the data?
I bet you voted for Scrubby - twice...
Thank you, Jesus, for this moron!
Eventually, I'll get tired of your simpleton backwards manner (the
kind that would lead someone to make a case for Carter), but for
now, you are a Goddamn pleasure to fuck with.
You see the area in my last post that is red, try to keep up, click
on those and you will find two charts, one is based on data from
the Bureau of Economic Analysis (you may want to Google those words
as you seem to be having a hard time here) and the other is a chart
from census data.
I doubled checked the numbers concerning the average annual
incoming dropping like a nightmare roller coaster ride, but ask
anyone alive at the time, and they will tell you that by defending
Carter you will only make an ass out of yourself, Mr Democratic
Hack.
|3.11.09 @ 9:45PM|#
Knowing Hillary is happy with surragates fronting her game, I can't wager on her. But I'm willing to put a grand down on Obama blowing the nomination in 2012.
DISEMVOWEL\'D!|3.11.09 @ 9:47PM|#
Thnk , Jss, fr ths mrn!
vntll, 'll gt trd f r smpltn bckwrds mnnr (th knd tht wld ld smn t
mk cs fr Crtr), bt fr nw, r Gddmn plsr t fck wth.
s th r n m lst pst tht s rd, tr t kp p, clck n ths nd wll fnd tw
chrts, n s bsd n dt frm th Br f cnmc nlss ( m wnt t Ggl ths wrds s
sm t b hvng hrd tm hr) nd th thr s chrt frm cnss dt.
dbld chckd th nmbrs cncrnng th vrg nnl ncmng drppng lk nghtmr rllr
cstr rd, bt sk nn lv t th tm, nd th wll tll tht b dfndng Crtr wll
nl mk n ss t f rslf, Mr Dmcrtc Hck.
PopCornTime|3.11.09 @ 9:52PM|#
Oh, please stop that Mr Vowel taker man that hurts my feelings ever so much that you can spin me away with such a display of how clever you are. I just don't know what to do. Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Leave PopCornTime alone!
DISEMVOWEL\'D!|3.11.09 @ 9:54PM|#
h, pls stp tht Mr Vwl tkr mn tht hrts m flngs vr s mch tht cn
spn m w wth sch dspl f hw clvr r. jst dn't knw wht t d. Stp t! Stp
t! Stp t! Lv PpCrnTm ln!
(PS M TH SM P DDRSS S MNG, GV T W HN SAD "DMCRTC, NT "DMCRT")
PopCornTime|3.11.09 @ 9:55PM|#
Question | March 11, 2009, 8:55pm | #
At what point did this blog turn into a carbon copy of Politico's
blogs?
Some angry member of the Cult of the Chosen One on Politico or a
similar blog for statist simpletons must have linked to the article
thus the deluge of hacks. If they keep it up, I'm gonna go find
Neil.
|3.11.09 @ 10:16PM|#
PopCornTime | March 11, 2009, 9:41pm
Total Nonfarm ALL Employees (in thousands), SEASONALLY
ADJUSTED
1/2001 132,469
12/2008 135,178
1/1977 80,692
1/1981 91,031
(source BLS)
Real GDP (billions)
q1 2001 9875
Q4 2008 11,525
avg. annual rate of growth 2.01%
Q1 1977 4640
Q1 1981 5307
avg annual rate of growth 3.4%
source:
economagic
Any questions?
Good....This is a man's game, Pops...
Go tell Joe the Plumber.....
|3.11.09 @ 11:30PM|#
Unlike politics, the markets don't lie?
Well, they may not lie like a politician, but the truth they tell
is heavily seasoned with fear, greed and other irrational motives
that are not so easily explained.
PopCornTime|3.11.09 @ 11:50PM|#
For men? Silly fella . . .
Look at the break down
US Department of Commerce
It confirms the obvious, from mid term to the end of the Great
Presidency of Jimmy Carter, the economy went into a tailspin even
by the limited metric of GDP. Maybe you should get acquainted with
employment figures, interest rates, the rate of inflation, or what
really kept the 70's from being a growth decade, tax policy, but I
guess 'men' (overcompensate much, tough guy?) are not concerned
with those metrics are they?
Please, send more Politico hacks this way, really, we have a guy
defending Jimmy Carter. Pass the Twizzlers! We should get a
Republican defending Hoover while we are at it.
|3.12.09 @ 8:45AM|#
PopCornTime | March 11, 2009, 11:50pm
Pops,
Politico?
Negro, please......I have come down from The Show to fill out my
stable of bitches....
Before you dig yourself a much deeper hole, go check real gdp for
q4 80 and q1 81........
be sure to get back to us with the numbers....
then we can compare them to q4 08 and q1 09 - 'k?
If you have the chops to get that done, I promise I will put you
out of your misery with the coup de grace........but first I have
to be sure that you are qualified to understand the
metrics....
oh....and take time to draft that note to your loved ones......they
will want to remember you as you were - loud and clueless....
PopCornTime|3.12.09 @ 12:05PM|#
You keep doing that simple minded 'my president is better than
your president' routine on this Libertarian oriented site,
you are going to have everybody laughing at your silly ass.
What, did you just find out about the Volker-Reagan recession and
for some stupid reason you assumed you had a quiver in your arrow,
to prove, what, pray tell? Please continue.
P. S. You are a Democrat, given the failed system of education it
should be obvious to you by now that you can't school anybody.
PopCornTime|3.12.09 @ 12:10PM|#
Oh, you mean that up tick that occurred when it became known that Carter was going to be sent into early retirement? I already knew about that, you big silly.
PopCornTime|3.12.09 @ 12:34PM|#
Though, I should not assume you know the schedule for a fiscal year, likely not, given the time frame you have chosen to make your point.
|3.12.09 @ 1:01PM|#
PopCornTime | March 12, 2009, 12:05pm
"You keep doing that simple minded 'my president is better than
your president' routine"
Actually, Urkel....I didn't vote for Carter..I merely took the
opportunity to slam you for the misguided "Welcome Back Carter"
inanity you offered...As you can see, from the data, a return to
Carternomics would be an upgrade from what Junior has bequeathed
the nation.
What is clear is that you don't understand either the economy, or
the data by which it is measured.....
"P. S. You are a Democrat"
Wrong again, Pops.....I'm a Republican - who went into exile when
the party went stupid...
"you mean that up tick that occurred when it became known that
Carter was going to be sent into early retirement?"
I would love to hear you elaborate on how that would affect
GDP.....but before you go to far with that witless trope, you might
want to take a look at the performance of the S&P for 1980 and
1981....
Since I know you won't be back to tell us what you've learned, take
some ice for that now...
"Though, I should not assume you know the schedule for a fiscal
year, likely not, given the time frame you have chosen to make your
point."
You will lose again.....but by all means, let's go there...
I think it is time you "go find Neil"......It's your only
hope....
PopCornTime|3.12.09 @ 1:38PM|#
I point the way, and he follows, I ridicule his over baked
rhetoric (macho, macho man) and he further elaborates it into bent
absurdity.
blackvegetable is my monkey.
Welcome back, to double digit interest rates,
Welcome back to doubling the current CPI,
Welcome back to the good old misery index of yore,
Welcome back Carter.
Yeah, I'm the one missing something . . .
PopCornTime|3.12.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Barack Obama, making the Bush Administration look better one day
at a time.
Compared
to Obama articulation, Bush is David Niven
|3.12.09 @ 2:41PM|#
The notion that, 50 days in, Obama is 100% responsible for the
financial crisis, is nothing more than a Republican party tactic to
shift blame. They're pretty good at this.
And you people lap it up dutifully.
I'll let E.J. Dionne make my point for me:
"Deregulating the financial markets, we were told, would do wonders
for growth, as would slashing the income taxes of the wealthy and
levies on capital gains and dividends. We were urged to trust the
Wall Street wizards creating those innovative financial instruments
and to believe that jacking up CEO pay relative to everyone else's
would be splendid for corporate performance. Don't worry, we were
assured, about rising inequalities.
Then it all came crashing down."
So all you are doing is taking Republican talking points and
soaking them up and repeating them like robots, reason and facts be
damned. Aren't you the least bit ashamed to be such a tool?
|3.12.09 @ 3:03PM|#
PopCornTime | March 12, 2009, 1:38pm |
You are the Bayonne Bleeder of Rhetoric, Pops, staggering along
Queer Street....
It's time to send you through the ropes...
http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html
You'll notice that they link you to their methodology......go
ahead.....run your Beloved Scrub's numbers...the last time I did,
he scored an 8.85, which means he would displace his Imbecile Sire
at the bottom of the list of post WW2 administrations......from his
rung, he can't even spot Carter's shoe soles....
Vaya con huevos
"WASHINGTON (AP) - The net worth of American households fell by the
largest amount in more than a half-century of record keeping during
the fourth quarter of last year."
[holding a gun to his head]
Franz Liebkind: Soon, I shall be with mein Führer... and Himmler.
I'm coming to join you boys!
PopCornTime|3.12.09 @ 3:44PM|#
Must be a delayed birthday gift for me, you guys got some one
willing to play an easy to knock down straw man, a Houdini
trickster even, trying to accomplish the impossible, arguing for
the presidency of James Earl Carter. You have given me a relaxing
day of sitting back and watching the libuhrals tear themselves
apart. Funny, they thought they were getting someone competent.
Someone like them, 'pragmatic', not 'ideological' like those market
fundamentalist with their mark to market rules, Sarbanes-Oxely and
all that other deregulation crap. The new liberal era was going to
be something a technocrat's paradise, a Camelot if you will, of
wise, efficient, rule.
A regulator in every pot, a house for every subprime
borrower.
Instead they got this guy. ROFLOL!
Thanks guys!
Oh, alright, it would be bad form for me not to play along:
Oh, look what we have here. He finally provided a link. Let me show
you Mr Strawman, you see in this paragraph of the link you
provided:
The Ford and Carter years (1974-1981) are widely recalled as a
time of economic disaster. But by the numbers they were middling,
not awful. Most surprising is that Carter ranks first in job
creation as 10 million jobs were added during his four years in
office, more on an annualized basis than Clinton or Reagan.
But because the labor force was expanding at the same time,
led by an increasing number of women working outside the home, the
rate of unemployment barely budged. Gerald R. Ford ranks
first for controlling inflation, cutting 3.4% off the rate during
his brief two-and-a-half-year term.
It will tell you everything you need to know why the majority of
people living at the time considered Carter a horrible president.
Women's Lib did not give birth to the two income house hold
standard, it came about as a necessity caused by the policies of
the 1970's which the Carter Administration exacerbated.
|3.12.09 @ 4:07PM|#
PopCornTime | March 12, 2009, 3:44pm
Having failed with the "Democrat" jibe, I guess it is now time to
pick up the reliable "Liberal" cudgel......
and you lose again......unless it is "Liberal" to adhere to
objective fact....
re: links
here is the link to the GDP numbers
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/nipa/T1t1t6l1q
I assume that you still remember how to access the BLS....
"it came about as a necessity caused by the policies of the 1970's
which the Carter Administration exacerbated."
Suggesting that once the economy improved, women returned to
housekeeping?
Just how old are you, Pops?
But as the part of the link you chose to cite, you can see that, on
the basis of the 6 ECONOMIC MEASURES employed, Carter is in the
middle of the pack...
Do you have the integrity to tell us who is at the bottom?
Do you possess the skills to run the Scrubby numbers through the
methodology provided and tell us the results?
I'm guessing the answers are "No", and "No"....
would I be right - again?
Here is a part you apparently missed...
"Of the ten postwar presidents,the first President Bush brings up
the rear. He ranks dead last for both GDP growth and income growth
and also ballooned the deficit at a rate faster than every
president but Ford."
With Scrubby knocking him off the perch as the worst POTUS in the
post WW2 period, do you think it is safe to conclude that idiocy is
congenital, Liebkind?
TheUsher|3.12.09 @ 4:40PM|#
Sir, I'm afraid PopCornTime has fallen asleep in his seat. Your movie delighted him at first, but I believe the last few acts must have bored him, and became a bit repetitive. Only so much can be done with, 'but Bush . . ., but Bush . . .' There is a new fool on the Presidential cross, so we are now going to start screening, 'The Passion of The Obama.'
|3.12.09 @ 5:59PM|#
TheUsher | March 12, 2009, 4:40pm
'but Bush . . ., but Bush . . .'
a construction conspicuously absent from my posts....
are all you "Libertarians" averse to facts?
"There is a new fool on the Presidential cross"
Shouldn't his performance determine that?
I think they could use a bold Dead Ender like you over at The
American Thunker......
PopCornTime|3.12.09 @ 6:34PM|#
Thanks guys!
You almost had me.
I admit I had a few doubts when he started to get more strident
there, but, come on, no one can possible be that self unaware. I
mean:
a construction conspicuously absent from my
posts....
Denying Bush Derangement Syndrome when it is in every post! Come
on! I'm not buying he is really that stupid.
Thanks, again.
|3.12.09 @ 6:45PM|#
PopCornTime | March 12, 2009, 6:34pm
"no one can possible be that self unaware"
Oh, baby......here comes the Steamroller of Irony......
"Denying Bush Derangement Syndrome"
You reach back 30 years to take an uninformed swipe at the Yahoo
Bete Noire.....besides, what's not to hate about the guy who is
demonstrably the worst POTUS ever?
PopCornTime|3.12.09 @ 8:39PM|#
You can stop pretending. You were pretty good, but I was never really fooled. I mean, come on, no one is going to go out of their way to look like a shit for brains to defend Carter. Nobody does that. So, who are you really?
|3.12.09 @ 9:02PM|#
"I mean, come on, no one is going to go out of their way to look
like a shit for brains to defend Carter."
Keep the faith, Unrepentant Two Time Scrub Voter....
|3.13.09 @ 3:12PM|#
"Bush only does in the sense that he put into action long-term
policies that encouraged the mortgage bubble and removed some
checks and balances in the financial sector without leaving another
sensible path for self-correction."
Huh? Bush tried (although not hard enough) to try to warn congress
but to no avail....I didn't agree with Bush on a number of issues,
however, the MSM will never tell the truth...
For many years the President and his Administration have not only
warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a
housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward
thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or
Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush
publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before
Congress acted.
Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's
repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were
thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically
denied there were problems.
The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to
reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in
2001.
Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president's
warnings:
** 2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because
"financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions
in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and
economic activity."
** 2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate
governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate
responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt
Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
** 2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results
for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
(OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors
perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the
government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a
consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread
into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk:
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report,
2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges
OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House
Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact
"legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and
supervise the financial activities of our housing-related
government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate
minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg
Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation
should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and
credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for
systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to
set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and
"receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a
troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of
State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership,
11/6/03)
** 2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk
posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of
required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class
regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and
soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and
stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be
replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic
Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the
financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the
Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the
housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory
Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order,"
Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the
risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not
have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government
sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the
housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in
supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.
Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class,
regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel
Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
** 2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE
reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified
before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic
risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE
reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong
and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership
opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the
risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony
Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
** 2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities
collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a
reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things
first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to
get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then
I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press
Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in
August - up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent
from the previous month - the lowest level in nine years. Median
sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year
before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass
legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide
liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of
homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate
soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that
strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs - and ensures they
focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill
passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the
Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass
this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses
Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
** 2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion
in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of
reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is
essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public
mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE
Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs,
2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan
Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move
forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to
continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing
agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their
mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club
Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed
legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are]
constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing
market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."
(President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House,
4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass
legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the
situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and
keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I
have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing
Administration that will help more families stay in their homes,
reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their
housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free
bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush,
Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in
their homes. And one way we can do that - and Congress is making
progress on this - is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."
(President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The
Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal
Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure
they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing
agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."
(President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter,
the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary
measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass
legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President
George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of
Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes
reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the
institutions are failing.
In 2005-- Senator John McCain partnered with three other Senate
Republicans to reform the government's involvement in
lending.
Democrats blocked this reform, too.
|3.13.09 @ 10:21PM|#
Mom | March 13, 2009, 3:12pm |
"Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president's
warnings:"
Unfortunately, Mom, you're Scrub Junta spin is at odds with the
record...
"The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two
government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that
eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have
none of it.
Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial
services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections
last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as
well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal
Reserve.
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill
in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr
Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
Leave a Comment
More Articles by David Harsanyi
- The Palin Experience, David Harsanyi, November 18, 2009
- The Case Against Twitter, David Harsanyi, November 14, 2009
- Freedom to Confuse, David Harsanyi, November 11, 2009
Related Articles (Economics, Barack Obama, Stimulus)
- Mandating Disaster, Shikha Dalmia, November 20, 2009
- Treating Wall Street Like the Mafia, Anthony Randazzo, November 20, 2009
- Worse Than Taxes, John Stossel, November 19, 2009
- Globalization With a Human Face, Shikha Dalmia, November 18, 2009
- Where’s That Inflation?, Veronique de Rugy, November 17, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245