Author Topic: Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush  (Read 1552 times)

SAMSON123

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8670
Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush
« on: October 10, 2010, 11:24:41 AM »
Gee I wonder why no one wants him?...Could it be because he and his republican administration are responsible for the financial disaster effecting america and the world at the moment as well as the massive job loss, two illegal wars, outsourcing etc etc... If I were him I would hide too..




POLITICAL INSIDER: Not much demand for Bush

AP

   
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – Sat Oct 9, 5:11 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Former President Bill Clinton is busy on the campaign trail, helping candidates in races from Florida to Washington state. His successor, George W. Bush? Holed up in Texas.

Bush left office deeply unpopular and sour on domestic politics. After leaving Washington and returning to Texas, he has kept a low profile, working on his memoir and appearing only occasionally at paid speeches. Aides say he has no plans to be a figure in this year's elections, which could see major gains for the GOP.

Republicans, who paid electoral costs in 2006 and 2008 for Bush's unpopularity, are hardly clamoring for the 43rd president to join them on the campaign trail. After all, an Associated Press-GfK poll last month found 55 percent of all Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Bush and 51 percent blame him for the economic crisis that began on his watch.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — An insider's view of this year's elections based on reports from around the nation.

___

While he enjoys popularity with base conservatives, Bush is not necessarily an in-demand figure for candidates trying to fault President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats for the economic mess. Republicans across the nation are trying to lay the blame for 15 million out-of-work Americans at Democrats' feet.

Republican strategists are quick to say they respect the former president but add they are not begging him to join candidates at rallies. Bush's unpopularity was one of the chief reasons Sen. John McCain's presidential bid in 2008 failed, as then-candidate Obama's allies painted the Arizona Republican as a mere third term for Bush.

Since leaving office, Bush has written a memoir, set to be published after the Nov. 2 election. "Decision Points" will be released on Nov. 9 with an initial printing of 1.5 million copies — the same run Clinton enjoyed for his memoir.

For his part, Clinton has emerged a popular figure for Democrats. Since leaving office in 2001, the president has repaired his image and used his star power to raise millions of dollars for developing countries and for Democrats. Clinton's schedule has him visiting Kentucky, Nevada and his home state of Arkansas on behalf of Democrats in tough races.
___

The Federal Election Commission has flagged U.S. Senate candidates 24 times since major fundraising started last year for taking contributions that appear to exceed federal limits, but almost half of the notices have gone to just three candidates, an Associated Press review found.

GOP candidates Marco Rubio of Florida and Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho have received four notices each while Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York got three. Thirteen other candidates have received one notice each.

Individuals can donate up to $2,400 per candidate for the primary and another $2,400 for the general election.

Rubio's Democratic opponent, Kendrick Meek, got one notice.

___

The committee that oversees Republican efforts in this year's U.S. Senate races says it's putting another $1 million into the California race between Carly Fiorina and Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Amber Marchand, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, says that the organization's investment in Fiorina's campaign now totals almost $3 million.

Polls have shown Boxer with a lead in the race, but Marchand said Friday that the additional money shows that GOP officials are confident that Fiorina can win.

The committee that oversees Democratic efforts in this year's Senate races has not said whether it will make a similar investment in the California race.

Boxer and Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is not up for re-election this year, have held both Senate seats in California since 1992.

___

Annoyed by television ads from a third party group targeting him in his re-election campaign, Iowa Rep. Bruce Braley went to the group's headquarters for an explanation — and found a mailbox.

In a YouTube video his campaign distributed on Friday, Braley went to the address listed on the website of the American Future Fund. The group has paid for television ads targeting Braley, who is running against former Republican congressional staffer Ben Lange.

The Des Moines address listed for the American Future Fund is the location of a UPS Store, as Braley discovers. When Braley asks the store's clerk about a reference on the American Future Fund's website to a suite number, he's referred to the group's mailbox.

The American Future Fund is one of dozens of third-party groups running advertisements this election cycle and has pumped nearly $6 million into House races. Braley has criticized Lange for benefiting from the group's advertising.

___

Quick hits:

• Failed Republican gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel shelled out more than $100,000 to fly former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family to Atlanta for a last-minute push in her runoff with Nathan Deal. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports Handel detailed on campaign finance reports $92,000 to charter a plane and spent another $13,000 at a hotel for the event.

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is endorsing Meg Whitman for California governor, saying the financially troubled state needs the former eBay CEO's experience to create jobs. The group has been active in California politics this year, having spent more than $2 million in ads backing Senate candidate Fiorina in her effort against Boxer.

• Democrat Robin Carnahan's campaign for Senate in Missouri says GOP rival Roy Blunt is "often downright boring" but "far more dangerous than candidates like Christine O'Donnell," the tea party-backed candidate in Delaware. In a fundraising pitch that mocks O'Donnell's campaign commercial, Carnahan's campaign includes a picture of Blunt with a sign also declaring "I am not a witch."
C

MM2K

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1398
Re: Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2010, 12:48:38 PM »
Quote
Gee I wonder why no one wants him?...Could it be because he and his republican administration are responsible for the financial disaster effecting america and the world at the moment as well as the massive job loss, two illegal wars, outsourcing etc etc... If I were him I would hide too..

For the hundredth time, Bush is not responsible for the financial disaster. And the wars were not illegal. Outrsoucing is a natural occuring that you cannot stop. We insource more than we outsource.
Jan. Jobs: 36,000!!

Arnold jr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7247
  • fleshandiron.com
Re: Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2010, 12:59:21 PM »
For the hundredth time, Bush is not responsible for the financial disaster. And the wars were not illegal. Outrsoucing is a natural occuring that you cannot stop. We insource more than we outsource.

LOL! I laugh every time someone says "Illegal War" how does that even make sense? War is war, agreeing on being there or not is one thing, but calling it illegal is just retarded.

Bush, we've already seen his popularity go up quite a bit in recent months, and the longer Obama is in office the higher his rating will go.

I said in the beginning, Bush will be remembered as a good president in time...and that's already shaping up.

Also, even if overnight his approval rating was near 100% I don't think you'd find Bush out giving a lot of speeches, campaigning and doing the whole Clinton thing. A little, sure but not much. Clinton likes the lime light, not saying that's bad, it's just a fact, he likes it. Bush seems to be more of a private person. I'd imagine he'd rather hang out on his ranch and watch baseball than just about anything else. Clinton seems to have a need for approval, Bush doesn't.

SAMSON123

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8670
Re: Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2010, 03:53:19 PM »
For the hundredth time, Bush is not responsible for the financial disaster. And the wars were not illegal. Outrsoucing is a natural occuring that you cannot stop. We insource more than we outsource.

In case you somehow forgot the financial collapse in america started under Bush from his administrations bullshit policies. What you are seeing now is the FULLNESS of the effect of such policies. Right now TRILLIONS have been spent between Iraq and Afghanistans illegal occupations/invasions...remember there was no declaration of war and passing the responsibility of sending the military into another nation to the president is ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSTITUTION...yet your congress did this...therefore the war is ILLEGAL. Add to that the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and that makes it all the more illegal. And please do not talk about the fake Al Qaida (which is a CIA operation), because they do not exist and really do not exist in Iraq...even Stupid Bush told you all that.

Outsourcing is about as natural as dogs and cows mating and producing offspring. Outsourcing is all about GREED, NOT PAYING TAXES and CHEAP LABOR...some of the very things killing america. America does not "insource anything and if so please name these things?
C

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2010, 05:13:46 PM »
In case you somehow forgot the financial collapse in america started under Bush from his administrations bullshit policies. What you are seeing now is the FULLNESS of the effect of such policies. Right now TRILLIONS have been spent between Iraq and Afghanistans illegal occupations/invasions...remember there was no declaration of war and passing the responsibility of sending the military into another nation to the president is ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSTITUTION...yet your congress did this...therefore the war is ILLEGAL. Add to that the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and that makes it all the more illegal. And please do not talk about the fake Al Qaida (which is a CIA operation), because they do not exist and really do not exist in Iraq...even Stupid Bush told you all that.

Outsourcing is about as natural as dogs and cows mating and producing offspring. Outsourcing is all about GREED, NOT PAYING TAXES and CHEAP LABOR...some of the very things killing america. America does not "insource anything and if so please name these things?
LOL exactly what bush policies created the financial crisis?

SAMSON123

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8670
Re: Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2010, 09:33:21 PM »
LOL exactly what bush policies created the financial crisis?

Here is a well written article exposing the criminals adn tehir actions during and right before the Bush administration that was pivotal in the destruction and coming collapse of america


The Engineers of Financial Disaster: Who are the architects of this debacle?


In a bitter irony, the engineers of financial disaster are now being considered by President-Elect Barack Obama's Transition Team for the position Treasury Secretary:   

    Lawrence Summers played a key role in  lobbying Congress for the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. His timely appointment by President Clinton in 1999 as Treasury Secretary spearheaded the adoption of the Financial Services Modernization Act in November 1999. Upon completing his mandate at the helm of the US Treasury, he became president of Harvard University (2001- 2006).

    Paul Volker was chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in the l980s during the Reagan era. He played a central role in implementing the first stage of financial deregulation, which was conducive to mass bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions, leading up to the 1987 financial crisis.   

    Timothy Geithner is CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is the most powerful private financial institution in America. He was also a former Clinton administration Treasury official. He has worked for Kissinger Associates and has also held a senior position at the IMF. The FRBNY plays a behind the scenes role in shaping financial policy. Geithner acts on behalf of powerful financiers, who are behind the FRBNY. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

    Jon Corzine is currently governor of New Jersey, former CEO of Goldman Sachs.


Larry Summers (left) and Timothy Geithner

At the time of writing, Obama's favorite is Larry Summers, front-runner for the position of Treasury Secretary.

Harvard University Economics Professor Lawrence Summers served as Chief Economist for the World Bank (1991–1993). He contributed to shaping the macro-economic reforms imposed on numerous indebted developing countries. The social and economic impact of these reforms under the IMF-World Bank sponsored structural adjustment program (SAP) were devastating, resulting in mass poverty. 

Larry Summer's stint at the World Bank coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the imposition of the IMF-World Bank's deadly " economic medicine" on Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics and the Balkans.

In 1993, Summers moved to the US Treasury. He initially held the position of Undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs and later Deputy Secretary. In liaison with his former colleagues at the IMF and the World Bank, he played a key role in crafting the economic "shock treatment" reform packages imposed at the height of the 1997 Asian crisis on South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia.

The bailout agreements negotiated with these three countries were coordinated through Summers office at the Treasury in liaison with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Washington based Bretton Woods institutions. Summers worked closely with IMF Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer, who was later appointed Governor of the Central Bank of Israel.

Larry Summers became Treasury Secretary in July 1999. He is a protégé of David Rockefeller. He was among the main  architects of the infamous Financial Services Modernization Act, which provided legitimacy to inside trading and outright financial manipulation.


Larry Summers and David Rockefeller

"Putting the Fox in Charge of the Chicken Coop"

Summers is currently a Consultant to Goldman Sachs and managing director of a Hedge fund, the D.E. Shaw Group,  As a Hedge Fund manager, his contacts at the Treasury and on Wall Street provide him with valuable inside information on the movement of financial markets.

Putting a Hedge Fund manager (with links to the Wall Street financial establishment) in charge of the Treasury is tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

The Washington Consensus

Summers, Geithner, Corzine, Volker, Fischer, Phil Gramm, Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Rubin, not to mention Alan Greenspan, al al. are buddies; they play golf together; they have links to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg; they act concurrently in accordance with the interests of Wall Street; they meet behind closed doors; they are on the same wave length; they are Democrats and Republicans.

While they may disagree on some issues, they are firmly committed to the Washington-Wall Street Consensus. They are utterly ruthless in their management of  economic and financial processes. Their actions are profit driven. Outside of their narrow interest in the "efficiency" of "markets", they have little concern for "living human beings". How are people's lives affected by the deadly gamut of macro-economic and financial reforms, which is spearheading entire sectors of economic activity into bankruptcy. 

The economic reasoning underlying neoliberal economic discourse is often cynical and contemptuous. In this regard, Lawrence Summers' economic discourse stands out. He is known among environmentalists for having proposed the dumping of toxic waste in Third World countries, because people in poor countries have shorter lives and the costs of labor are abysmally low, which essentially means that the market value of people in the Third World is much lower.  According to Summers, this makes it far more "cost effective" to export toxic materials to impoverished countries. A controversial 1991 World Bank memo signed by of Chief Economist Larry Summers reads as follows (excerpts, emphasis added):

    DATE: December 12, 1991 TO: Distribution FR: Lawrence H. Summers Subject: GEP

    "'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the Less Developed Countries? I can think of three reasons:

    1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality.... From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

    2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

    3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. [the demand increases when income levels increase]. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand.... "

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/summers.htm

Summers stance on the export of pollution to developing countries had a marked impact on US environmental policy:

    In 1994, "virtually every country in the world broke with Mr. Summers' Harvard-trained "economic logic" ruminations about dumping rich countries' poisons on their poorer neighbors, and agreed to ban the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD [developing] countries under the Basel Convention. Five years later, the United States is one of the few countries that has yet to ratify the Basel Convention or the Basel Convention's Ban Amendment on the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD countries. (Jim Valette, Larry Summers' War Against the Earth, Counterpunch, undated)

The 1997 Asian Crisis: Dress Rehearsal for Things to Come

In the course of 1997, currency speculation instrumented by major financial institutions directed against Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea was conducive to the collapse of national currencies and the transfer of billions of dollars of central bank reserves into private financial hands. Several observers pointed to the deliberate manipulation of equity and currency markets by investment banks and brokerage firms.

While the Asian bailout agreements were formally negotiated with the IMF, the major Wall Street commercial banks (including Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and J. P. Morgan) as well as the "big five" merchant banks (Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Salomon Smith Barney) were "consulted" on the clauses to be included in the Asian bail-out agreements. [Note: These are 1997 denominations of major financial institutions]

The US Treasury in liaison with Wall Street and the Bretton Woods institutions played a central role in negotiating the bailout agreements. Both Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, were actively involved on behalf of the US Treasury in the 1997 bailout of South Korea:

    [In 1997] "Messrs. Summers and Geithner worked to persuade Mr. Rubin to support financial aid to South Korea. Mr. Rubin was wary of such a move, worrying that providing money to a country in dire straits might be a losing proposition..." (WSJ, November 8, 2008)

What happened in Korea under advice from Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers et al, had nothing to do with "financial aid".

The country was literally ransacked. Undersecretary of the Treasury David Lipton was sent to Seoul in early December 1997. Secret negotiations were initiated.  Washington had demanded the firing of the Korean Finance Minister and the unconditional acceptance of the IMF "bailout".

A new finance minister, who happened to be former IMF and World Bank official, was appointed  and immediately rushed off to Washington for "consultations" with his former IMF colleague Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer.

    "The Korean Legislature had met in emergency sessions on December 23. The final decision concerning the 57 billion dollar deal took place the following day, on Christmas Eve December 24th, after office hours in New York. Wall Street’s top financiers, from Chase Manhattan, Bank America, Citicorp and J. P. Morgan had been called in for a meeting at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Also at the Christmas Eve venue, were representatives of the "big five" New York merchant banks including Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Salomon Smith Barney. And at midnight on Christmas Eve, upon receiving the green light from the banks, the IMF was allowed "to rush 10 billion dollars to Seoul to meet the avalanche of maturing short-term debts".

    The coffers of Korea’s central Bank had been ransacked. Creditors and speculators were anxiously awaiting to collect the loot. The same institutions which had earlier speculated against the Korean won were cashing in on the IMF bailout money. It was a scam. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Recolonization of Korea, subsequently published as a chapter in The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, Montreal, 2003.)

"Strong economic medicine" is the prescription of the Washington Consensus.  "Short term pain for long term gain" was the motto at the World Bank during Lawrence Summers term of as World Bank Chief Economist. (See IMF, World Bank Reforms Leave Poor Behind, Bank Economist Finds, Bloomberg, November 7, 2000)

What we dealing with is an entire " old boys network" of officials and advisers at the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, World Bank, the Washington Think Tanks, who are  in permanent liaison with leading financiers on Wall Street.

Whoever is chosen by Obama's Transition team will belong to the Washington Consensus.   

The 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act

What happened in October 1999 is crucial.

In the wake of lengthy negotiations behind closed doors, in the Wall Street boardrooms, in which Larry Summers played a central role, the regulatory restraints on Wall Street’s powerful banking conglomerates were revoked "with a stroke of the pen". 

Larry Summers worked closely with Senator Phil Gramm (1985-2002),chairman of the Senate Banking committee, who was the legislative architect of the  the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, signed into law on November 12, 1999 (See Group Photo above). (For Complete text click US Congress: Pub.L. 106-102). As Texas Senator, Phil Gramm was closely associated with Enron.

In December 2000 at the very end of the Clinton mandate, Gramm introduced a second piece of legislation, the so-called Gramm-Lugar Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which paved the way for the speculative onslaught in primary commodities including oil and food staples.

    "The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century." (See David Corn, Foreclosure Phil, Mother Jones, July August 2008)

Phil Gramm was McCain's first choice for Secretary of the Treasury.

Under the FSMA new rules – ratified by the US Senate in October 1999 and approved by President Clinton – commercial banks, brokerage firms, hedge funds, institutional investors, pension funds and insurance companies could freely invest in each others businesses as well as fully integrate their financial operations.

A "global financial supermarket" had been created, setting the stage for a massive concentration of  financial power. One of the key figures behind this project was Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers, in liaison with David Rockefeller. Summers described the FSMA as "the legislative foundation of the financial system of the 21th century".  That legislative foundation is among the main causes of the 2008 financial meltdown.

Financial Disarmament

There can be no meaningful solution to the crisis, unless there is a major reform in the financial architecture, implying inter alia the freezing of speculative trade and the "disarming of financial markets".  The project of disarming financial markets was first proposed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1940s as a means to the establishment of a multipolar international monetary system. (See  J.M. Keynes, Activities 1940-1944, Shaping the Post-War World: The Clearing Union, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Royal Economic Society, Macmillan and Cambridge University Press, Vol. XXV, London 1980, p. 57).

Main Street versus Wall Street

Where are Obama's "Main Street appointees"? Namely individuals who respond to the interests of people across America.  There are no labor or community leaders on Obama's list for key positions.

The President-elect is appointing the architects of financial deregulation.

Meaningful financial reform cannot be adopted by officials appointed by Wall Street and who act on behalf of Wall Street. 

Those who set the financial system ablaze in 1999, have been called back to turn out the fire.

The proposed "solution" to the crisis under the "bailout" is the cause of further economic collapse.

There are no policy solutions on the horizon.

The banking conglomerates call the shots. They decide on the composition of the Obama Cabinet. They also decide on the agenda of the Washington Financial Summit (November 15, 2008) which is slated to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a new "global financial architecture".

The Wall Street blueprint has already been discussed behind closed doors: the hidden agenda is to establish a unipolar international monetary system, dominated by US financial power, which in turn would be protected and secured by US military superiority. 

Neoliberalism with a "Human Face"

There is no indication that Obama will break his ties to his Wall Street sponsors, who largely funded his election campaign.

Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bill Gates' Microsoft are among his main campaign contributors.

Warren Buffett, among the the world's richest individuals, not only supported Barak Obama's election campaign, he is a member of his transition team, which plays a key role deciding the composition of Obama's cabinet. 

Warren Buffett

Unless there is a major upheaval in the system of political appointments to key positions, an alternative Obama economic agenda geared towards poverty alleviation and employment creation is highly unlikely.

 

Barack Obama. November 7 Press Conference.
Joe Biden (far left), newly appointed chief of staff Rahm Emanuel (far right). Photo: Charles Dharapak

What we are witnessing is continuity.

Obama provides a " human face" to the status quo. This human face serves to mislead Americans on the nature of the economic and political process.

The neoliberal economic reforms remain intact.

The substance of these reforms including the "bailout" of America's  largest financial institutions ultimately destroys the real economy, while spearheading entire areas of manufacturing and the services economy into bankruptcy.
C

SAMSON123

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8670
Re: Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2010, 09:53:35 PM »
Greenspan, the DEVIL  that he is, trying to wiggle out of blame

Alan Greenspan on the Financial Collapse

By Morgan Housel | More Articles
March 23, 2010 | Comments (89)


Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan just published a 66-page letter on the causes of the financial meltdown and how to avoid a repeat. He presents some great points, and several ridiculous ones as well. Here are a few of each.

Great points
1. Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac's (NYSE: FRE) role in subprime:

"The firms accounted for an estimated 40% of all subprime mortgage securities … during 2003 and 2004. That was an estimated five times their share of newly purchased and retained in 2002, implying that a significant proportion of the increased demand for subprime mortgage-backed securities during the years 2003-2004 was effectively politically mandated ..."

Wall Street gets vilified for blowing up the financial system. As it should. But a big part of the mortgage mess had nothing to do with Wall Street. It started with commercial banks making shady loans and ended with Fannie and Freddie's political obligation to buy up these loans in bulk. What's scary is there isn't a plan on what to do with these two rascals. Functionally, nothing has changed since they collapsed.

2. On the role of the rating agencies:  

"[A]n inordinately large part of investment management subcontracted to the 'safe harbor' risk designations of the credit rating agencies. No further judgment was required of investment officers who believed they were effectively held harmless by the judgments of government-sanctioned rating organizations."

It's easy to have no sympathy for those who bought collateralized debt obligations only to learn they were filled with packing peanuts. And I don't. But stupidity wasn't these people's shortfall, to their credit. It was relying on the word of the ratings agencies -- Moody's (NYSE: MCO), Standard & Poor's, and Fitch -- that told them everything was fine and well. And as Greenspan points out, ratings agencies are government-sanctioned entities, so competition for good, high-quality analysis gets stifled.

3. On regulating financial markets:

"In dealing with nonbanks that come in all varieties under the label of 'shadow banking,' it is probably best to regulate financial products rather than institutions."

Bingo. Don't simply regulate Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS). Its bankers will throw up smokescreens all day around regulators trying to decode its balance sheet. Start at the bottom and regulate (or ban) things like credit default swaps. The only way you'll outsmart these guys is to regulate from the bottom up, not the top down.

4. On "too big to fail":

"Federal Reserve research had been unable to find economies of scale in banking beyond a modest-sized institution."

Hear that, JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon? Now quit acting like civilization will be forced back into hunting and gathering if four banks don't control the economy.

5. On crisis forecasting:

"Forecasters as a group will almost certainly miss the onset of the next financial crisis, as they have so often in the past and I presume any newly designated 'systemic regulator' will also."

I'm like my colleague Matt Koppenheffer on this one: The thought of risk-regulation committees and advisory boards makes me nauseated. Most regulators didn't even acknowledge anything was wrong until chaos was everywhere. And once you realize a bank such as Citigroup (NYSE: C) or Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) is in deep water, it's too late. You've got to install firm rules that prevent insanity in the first place, rather than rely on crisis committees or reactionary policies the way we did in 2008.

Ridiculous points
1. On the Fed's role in the housing boom:

"The global house price bubble was a consequence of lower interest rates, but it was long-term interest rates that galvanized home asset prices, not the overnight rates of central banks, as has become the seeming conventional wisdom. … No one, to my knowledge, employs overnight interest rates -- such as the fed-funds rate -- to determine the capitalization rate of real estate ..."

If you assume everyone uses a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, he's right. But how about the roughly one-third of borrowers in 2005 who used adjustable-rate mortgages linked to short-term interest rates set by the Fed? These borrowers represent some of the most egregious excesses of the housing boom, and they couldn't have done it without you, Al.

2. On the impracticality of controlling bubbles:

"At some rate, monetary policy can crush any bubble. If not 6 1/2%, try 20%, or 50% for that matter. Any bubble can be crushed, but the state of prosperity will be an inevitable victim."

Let's look at how this has played out in the past. Facing an inflation bubble in the early 1980s, Greenspan's predecessor, Paul Volcker, raised interest rates to 20%. That hurt for a while, but he's now considered an economic hero for doing it. Inflation collapsed, and real growth boomed. He looked past the short run to save the long run. Greenspan, on the other hand, let this bubble burn itself out. The result, in his own words, was "the most virulent global financial crisis ever." But we preserved prosperity in 2006, people, so apparently it was all worth it.

3. On choices:

"Unless there is a societal choice to abandon dynamic markets and leverage for some form of central planning, I fear that preventing bubbles will in the end turn out to be infeasible. Assuaging their aftermath seems the best we can hope for."

It's a bit dramatic to assume we can pick either crippling bubbles or central planning, but nothing else. You can simultaneously have dynamic free markets and common-sense rules that prevent pizza delivery guys from living like they're on MTV Cribs. We had something close to this from the end of World War II up until the late '90s. And it was awesome. Bubbles are a natural part of human behavior. That's a given. But it's pretty weak to just roll over and accept their wrath as inevitable.
C

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2010, 10:39:54 PM »
lol didnt see one thing in either of those 2 articles about bush

so again ill ask what exactly did bush do to cause the crisis?

MM2K

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1398
Re: Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2010, 01:35:46 AM »
Samson, I am almost speechless. You listed mostly Democrats in that whole dam article!!! I found only two Republicans - Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan. Some of it is spot on, and some of it I dont agree with.
Jan. Jobs: 36,000!!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2010, 04:53:30 AM »
Samson owned himself by posting that. 

The Showstoppa

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26879
  • Call the vet, cause these pythons are sick!
Re: Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2010, 05:20:22 AM »
Good to see Samson defend her title as dumbest poster on the political board......again......an d again.......and again....

SAMSON123

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8670
Re: Political Insider: Not Much Demand For Bush
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2010, 06:56:22 AM »
lol didnt see one thing in either of those 2 articles about bush

so again ill ask what exactly did bush do to cause the crisis?

Knuckledragger I guess you are one of the Bush KNEEPADDERS. Sadly willful blindness will not stop the collapse of america, but I am sure your plan to duck and hide under your bed when trouble comes will help you survive.... lol
C