Economic grumblings. Understandable, but...

Originally posted by bill718
There have been several posts recently regarding the American economy, focusing on the national debt and unemployment, these posts bring up legitimate points that must be addressed, let us not forget however:

1. The American economy is very large, it took several years to fall into this economic hole. It will take at least that long to recover.

2. Pres lear that our lawmakers (while far from perfect), are generally on the correct economic path.😏

The economy is cyclical. There are ups and there are downs. Now, we're in a bit of a down. The economy will recover and all will be right with the World.

The best a government can do is make the ups a little higher and the downs not so low.

To blame the current recession on Bush alone is silly. To blame the current recession on Bush Sr. or Reagan is borderline childish.

For some reason, the narrative of some liberals on this has been that this recession is the "end" result of Reaganomics. That all the economic growth was one big mirage and it's all come crashing down like a house of cards now once and for all.

Seriously, put partisanship aside for a second. Does not one minute's reflection show how absurd this idea is? This is a blip on the radar. Since 1980 (and, in general, before 1980 as well) we have had long periods of economic growth punctuated by short recessions. That's life. That's the way the economy works. We had a recession after a decade of GOP Presidencies and a recession after 8 Clinton years and now one after 8 Bush years. In 2 or 3 (or 4 or 5 at worst) years, this will all be a thing of the past, unemployment will be below 6% and we'll be seeing 4 or 5% economic growth. And, I'm being conservative on all 3 predictions.

Do you -does anyone- think that the current recession will erase the economic growth of the past 30 years??? If that happens, the World as we know it will cease to exist. Don't worry though, it won't happen.

Yes, some bad decisions were made. Yes, perhaps the recession is a bit worse than it had to be. But, come on, to call Reaganomics an over-all failure is cherry picking at its absolute worst. I notice how you conveniently skip Clinton in your like of scapegoats. Clinton's over-all economic policies are not all that distinguishable from Reagan, other than in the details.

Bill, the way you're looking at this- that evil Republican policies led us to the abyss and now the great Obama is doing his darndest to pull us away from the edge, is so overly simplistic and naive. Don't you realize that?

I agree -- Reagan has become some sort of bogeyman for many people.


Recessions may actually help to make the long-term economy grow faster - the less efficient businesses are especially likely to fail during these times, while the more efficient ones survive. Downturns also force all businesses to focus especially intensely on cutting waste, and downturns provide "cover" for cost-cutting actions that would otherwise be met with vehement opposition by the unions, the community, or consumers. And as the recovery gets under way, there will a huge pool of labor available to entrepreneurs with new ideas and big dreams.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I agree -- Reagan has become some sort of bogeyman for many people.


Recessions may actually help to make the long-term economy grow faster - the less efficient businesses are especially likely to fail during these times, while the more efficient ones survive. Downturns also force all businesses to focus especially intensely on cutting waste, and down ...[text shortened]... way, there will a huge pool of labor available to entrepreneurs with new ideas and big dreams.

Reagan scares the pee out of progressives simply because he was one of the most conservative Presidents who was adored in large numbers and successful in much of what he did. So expect the attacks to continue. To be successful in selling Big Brother to the American people, success stories like that of Reagan must first be debunked.

Originally posted by whodey
Am I not bashing Bush? Am I protecting the hollowed Ronald Reagan of the Republican party? what I am doing, which is incomprehensible to most, is not be a partisan shill. How bout you? Its time to wake up and see that both parties got us into this mess, so to point to what one party has done and demonize them and thendefend the other is simply madness.

Be nice now, or I'll make you join the Communist Party! 😀

Originally posted by whodey
Reagan scares the pee out of progressives simply because he was one of the most conservative Presidents who was adored in large numbers and successful in much of what he did. So expect the attacks to continue. To be successful in selling Big Brother to the American people, success stories like that of Reagan must first be debunked.

Then we can have a communist world with only one person in it Obama!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines#Role_in_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis

Role in the subprime mortgage crisis
See also: Subprime mortgage crisis
In accordance with the mission of Fannie Mae to enable home ownership by a greater proportion of the population, Franklin Raines, while Chairman and CEO, began a pilot program in 1999 to issue bank loans to individuals with low to moderate income, and to ease credit requirements on loans that Fannie Mae purchased from banks. Raines promoted the program saying that it would allow consumers who were "a notch below what our current underwriting has required" to get home loans. The move was intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners.[15] Some observers have noted that the expansion of easy credit to home buyers with a lesser ability to pay them back was one of the major contributing factors to the subprime mortgage crisis.[16] Although under Raines, Fannie Mae invested in some securities backed by subprime loans, it didn't start buying subprime and Alt-A loans directly (and bundling them into securities) until late 2004 after the accounting scandal. Purchasing of subprime and alt-A mortgages expanded exponentially under the guidance of Raines's successor Daniel H. Mudd.[17][18] (See also Subprime lending.)

In the New York Times John Steele Gordon wrote an opinion criticizing Raines' contribution to the 2008 financial crisis caused by the failure of Fannie Mae. "He cooked the books at Fannie to increase his compensation (more than $90 million)." [19]

On December 9, 2008, he testified before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Capitol Hill regarding Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and financial market instability.[20][21][22]

Originally posted by bill718
There have been several posts recently regarding the American economy, focusing on the national debt and unemployment, these posts bring up legitimate points that must be addressed, let us not forget however:

1. The American economy is very large, it took several years to fall into this economic hole. It will take at least that long to recover.

2. Pres lear that our lawmakers (while far from perfect), are generally on the correct economic path.😏

None of this addresses the issues that made the last recession possible.

Low fed interest rates: Banks with access to the fed window could essentially borrow money interest free or in some cases basically get paid for it because fed rates were lower than inflation.

Basil II: Reducing reserve requirements increases leverage. Basil II was obviously a step too far in reserve reductions.