Perry in 2012?

[bush_cheney2004]

My my. Such a meek condemnation of Canada's actions.

I guess the elephant forced all the mice to jump on military airlift and kill the locals across the sea. The "mice" have ordered thousands more munitions from the elephant to continue their "peaceful" mission. LOL!

[Shady]

Yet more insults. Keep them coming! I find it amusing that so many from a nation that prides itself on PC and tolerance have no qualms about insulting the United States/Americans.

I came to this board to learn more about Canada - and I have.

It's part of the knee-jerk anti-Americanism that passes for intelligent thought in my country. It's also a part of the pseudo-superiority that many Canadians feel. Which is a result of a massive inferiority complex many left of centre Canadians feel for some reason. Yep, they're pretty messed up. Luckily, they've been made pretty irrelevant thanks to the last couple of elections here. They're basically a fringe element now.

[GostHacked]

My my. Such a meek condemnation of Canada's actions.

Awwwww, I guess I did not protest enough about Canada's involvement in Libya. I guess I failed to focus on entities like CIA and MI5 that were in Libya way before the uprisings started. We were brought along for the ride.

Lybia is not about humanitarian aid.

[waldo]

I came to this board to learn more about Canada - and I have.

your presence has helped to shape another interpretive dimension for those who self-proclaim as progressives in the U.S..

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Luckily, they've been made pretty irrelevant thanks to the last couple of elections here. They're basically a fringe element now.

This is key...what some Canadians say pales in comparison to Canada's actions....economically and politically. They share the same marginalized fate as extremists in America...on the left or right.

[Argus]

Complete nonsense. I thought you said you watched Too Big To Fail? If you had, you'd know that many past administrations are responsible for the financial collapse.

I don't excuse Clinton, but Bush was the guy in charge for a full eight years prior to the mess reaching its peak, and he appointed people to oversight agencies who shared the Republican belief in leaving business alone and in deregulation. They stood idly by and watched with big smiles while the financial industry ran itself into the ground.

But the driver of the financial problems was the mortgage industry. The one where certain Democrats decided to push for a lowering of lending standards as to facilitate mortages to minorities and the poor.

Uhm, no. The driver was deregulation and lack of oversight. The mortgage industry might have been lending on pretty crappy credit, but it was the financial instruments which those mortgages were packaged into and sold throughout the banking industry that nearly brought it to collapse. And no one paid a lot of attention because they were all making big fat bonuses. And yes, democrats in congress were all for loaning to the poor, but Republicans were all for business reaping those big fat bonuses, too. Ultimately, it wasn't so much about democrats wanting to help poor people and minorities, as it was about the rich making oodles of cash, and the Republican sycophants in the White House and congress doing everything they could to grease the ways.

And I've yet to hear so much as a peep of an apology from any of them. Instead the Republicans are thumping their chests indignantly over the economic mess without the slightest indication they even realize they were in large measure responsible. And the likes of Perry demanding the same deregulation which was responsible in the first place! They're economic illiterates and imbeciles, as is anyone who votes for them.

[bush_cheney2004]

... and the Republican sycophants in the White House and congress doing everything they could to grease the ways.

Rep. Barney Frank is not a Republican. Buy a vowel...get a clue.

[Argus]

Rep. Barney Frank is not a Republican. Buy a vowel...get a clue.

Was Barney Frank president of the United States? Did he control appointment to government oversight boards, and the policies they operated under? Is he running for president right now decrying government regulations that interfere with business?

Edited September 4, 2011 by Argus

[Shady]

but Bush was the guy in charge for a full eight years prior to the mess reaching its peak

Yes, and the Bush administration tried twice to reform mortgage standards. They were blocked by Democrats in congress.

Uhm, no. The driver was deregulation and lack of oversight. The mortgage industry might have been lending on pretty crappy credit, but it was the financial instruments which those mortgages were packaged into and sold throughout the banking industry that nearly brought it to collapse

No, not really. The financial instruments wouldn't have been a problem if the mortgates attached to them were legitimate. You can thank government policy for undermining those mortgage standards.

And I've yet to hear so much as a peep of an apology from any of them.

I've yet to hear an apology from anyone. Especially the catalysts of the lowering of mortgage standards that was the precurser to the financial mess in the first place. Their experiment to lend money to people that couldn't pay it back, and wouldn't otherwise have qualified for loans exploaded in their faces, and almost brought the entire country to its knees. The unintended consquences of good intentions.

Anyways, this all has little to do with the fact that Reagans re-election and Obama's re-election are apples and oranges. Two very different scenarios regardless of who's fault it was or wasn't.

Facts can be a bitch can't they.

First Bush administration warning about the housing situation, 2001.

Second Bush administration warning about the housing situation, 2003. This time, the warning was upgraded to a possible systemic risk.

And what did Democrats say about this?

Come'on Argus, stop trying to re-write history. You're better than that.

[Shady]

Was Barney Frank president of the United States?

Nope, but he was one of the catalysts of the underming of mortage policy by the government. And he was the primary obstacle in congress when reform was attempted several times. Come'on man.

[Argus]

Nope, but he was one of the catalysts of the underming of mortage policy by the government. And he was the primary obstacle in congress when reform was attempted several times. Come'on man.

Ah, I see, so George Bush wasn't at fault at all. The man who championed deregulation and appointed people to head regulatory bodies who didn't believe in regulation was really a regulator frustrated by those evil Democrats. It's all so clear now...

[dre]

Nope, but he was one of the catalysts of the underming of mortage policy by the government. And he was the primary obstacle in congress when reform was attempted several times. Come'on man.

The problem is that if you follow the money, collateralized debt obligations were a far bigger driver of toxic paper than anything else, and these were entirely private label... they did not include mortgages in the fanny and freddy pool. Furthermore, Fanny and Freddy actually started buying LESS of these mortgages ones things got really crazy after about 2003. By 2005/2006 the vast majority of mortgages were being securitized by the private sector, and fanny and freddy had cut their share of sub-prime mortgages in half.

Their experiment to lend money to people that couldn't pay it back, and wouldn't otherwise have qualified for loans exploaded in their faces

The vast majority of these toxic assets were securitized by private investment banks. Whos experiment? All of these these loans were made by the private sector... of the top 25 sub prime lender only ONE was even subject to federal regulations such as the CRA.

Edited September 5, 2011 by dre

[dre]

Ah, I see, so George Bush wasn't at fault at all. The man who championed deregulation and appointed people to head regulatory bodies who didn't believe in regulation was really a regulator frustrated by those evil Democrats. It's all so clear now...

As far as the governments role in the crisis it was definately a bipartisan effort, and all the governments for the last 30 years had a hand in it. Free trade, bad monetary policy, failure to regulate and so on.

[jbg]

True. Clinton left Bush a far, far better economy than Bush left Obama - one in virtual ruins.

Clinton and Bush both bear a lot of responsibility for pumping up the dot-com and then housing bubbles. During the Clinton Era the excuses for easing were:

1. 1997 - Russia/Thailand;
   
2. 1998 - Long Term Capital;
   
3. 1999 & 2000 - Y2K
   

During Bush the excuses were;

1. 2001 - September 11
   
2. 2002 on - I forget but it had to be good bogus
   

The point in all this is that since 1994-5 we've had almost perpetual ease. There's lots of blame to go around.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The point in all this is that since 1994-5 we've had almost perpetual ease. There's lots of blame to go around.

There's no point to it anyway...especially from Canada of all places!

[Argus]

As far as the governments role in the crisis it was definately a bipartisan effort, and all the governments for the last 30 years had a hand in it. Free trade, bad monetary policy, failure to regulate and so on.

Certainly true. However, the Republicans were in the White House for 8 years prior to this mess coming to fruition, and it was their oversight which ignored the problems even as they became more and more obvious. Further, it is Republicans now who are basically suggesting the whole problem is Obama's fault, that they bear NO responsibility, and that the cure to all that ails America is to go back and do things the way they were being done under Bush - ie, slash oversight and regulation.

Now maybe you can suggest past governments should have foreseen what was to come, but what the hell can you say about people running for President three years after the system almost collapsed who are trumpeting going back to the very things which almost caused that collapse? How stupid and economically illiterate do you have to be before even the Republicans rule you out as a potential president?

[Bonam]

How stupid and economically illiterate do you have to be before even the Republicans rule you out as a potential president?

I don't think there's a threshold. A large portion of the Republican party are religious zealots who only care to what extent their candidate will prosecute gays, deter abortion, and defund stem cell research. The republican party also has a lot of intelligent people who advocate fiscal conservatism, but these have been largely eclipsed by the prayerfest zealots.

Fortunately, the person that actually gets elected president generally has to appeal to a wider section of the population than just any one party's hardcore base.

Personally, I just really wish that the American right wasn't so hopelessly mired in religiosity.

[jbg]

.Personally, I just really wish that the American right wasn't so hopelessly mired in religiosity.

Many may not realize it but despite official secularity the U.S. is a very religious country.

[bush_cheney2004]

Many may not realize it but despite official secularity the U.S. is a very religious country.

That's very much the case...religious freedom was a prime motivator for initial settlement in the colonies, complete with official religions. Canada formalized such preferences in their Constitution Act(s). I don't know why anyone is surprised when this reality is manifested in political candidates. Democrats have strong religious members as well (e.g. Southern Baptists).

[Bonam]

I don't know why anyone is surprised when this reality is manifested in political candidates.

Not surprised, just vexed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not surprised, just vexed.

Why vexed? Voters get to pick any yahoo they want, and that includes religious zealots.

[Shady]

As far as the governments role in the crisis it was definately a bipartisan effort, and all the governments for the last 30 years had a hand in it.

Aboslutely. And for some reason, the current government is continuing the same sub-prime mortgages that led to much of the crisis in the first place. I mean, how big of an idiot does one have to be, to start down the same road again, that led to a financial crisis just a few years ago. Is Obama that dumb?

Geithner Sees U.S. Role in Mortgage Market

WASHINGTON—Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner sketched out the administration's case Tuesday for some type of continued, if limited, government guarantee of home mortgages.

Link

And which mortgages does this government wish to guarantee? Yep, you guessed it, low-income borrowers again.

The sooner the economic illiterate currently occupying the White House is out of office, the better.

[dre]

Aboslutely. And for some reason, the current government is continuing the same sub-prime mortgages that led to much of the crisis in the first place. I mean, how big of an idiot does one have to be, to start down the same road again, that led to a financial crisis just a few years ago. Is Obama that dumb?

And which mortgages does this government wish to guarantee? Yep, you guessed it, low-income borrowers again.

The sooner the economic illiterate currently occupying the White House is out of office, the better.

Why would either party want to "fix" this? Its working perfectly.

[jbg]

Why would either party want to "fix" this? Its working perfectly.

Guaranteeing a bunch of mortgages with little hope of being repaid by their borrowers is a program that's "working"? Please explain.

[bloodyminded]

Well, I've heard only a few quotes from him, and they sure sounded pretty damn religious. Something along the lines of "America's economy is in the hands of God" or whatever. A statement I strongly disagree with, of course. Then again, the only coverage of Perry I've seen has been on the Colbert Report and the Daily Show so I could be wrong

Those two might just not be the biggest Perry boosters, all things considered equal, no.

As for the God remark...maybe you're right, or maybe it's merely the usual offhand "in God we trust" stuff, not related to policy.