In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


You're too smart to *really* believe what you just wrote. "Reckless
spending?" The economy, as handed over by Bush, was in free fall and near
collapse. Stimulus spending, while it might seem reckless to you, cushioned
the blows delivered by Wall Street's ruthless repackaging of America's real
estate wealth into mortgage securities and selling it abroad. Without that
"reckless spending" to help free up frozen credit we would probably be in a
deeper abyss than the first Great Depression.
You are too smart to **really** believe what you just wrote. Heck
there was a CBO report within the last couple of months that showed a
hefty part of the stimulus money (especially on "shovel-ready" projects)
hasn't been spent yet.


A point that non-libs seem to forget it that Obama had *nothing to do* with
the collapse. He simply got stuck with the thankless job of fixing the
incredible mess that under-regulated financial markets and reckless spending
wreaked on America. Blaming him for trying to right a sinking ship is more
than a little disingenuous. It's partisan BS taken into the stratosphere.

I'd agree with last part. The mess was very much 20 years in the
making and much of the deregulation was enabled by LEGISLATION passed by
Congress, some as far back as the Clinton Administration. Heck the
repeal of Glass-Stegal, for instance, was approved by a voice vote in
the Senate. Same with most of the other laws that were changed. The ONLY
person I can find without blood on his hands in this mess is Barney
Frank who consistently voted against these measures every chance he got.
(It boils me something fierce to have respect him--grin)
This was inevitable given the psychology of humans. We had a very
long run of good times with even the recessions being short and shallow
by historical standards. We had good times to the point that we forgot
about bad times, and figured it would go on forever.
For instance, the personal savings rate has been negative (my
definition is not necessarily that of the economists. I say if the
savings rate goes down from one year to the next, that is a negative
savings rate) since the late 80s. Even see a downward trend in how much
it increases during recessions, a time when traditionally savings rates
skyrocket.
The average American was spending much more than making. And, this
was not only in housing, but across the board. The same was being seen
in Corporate America which had their equivalent in overleveraging.
Largely because the psychology of the situation that thinks a tree grows
to the sky. It is fascinating that this pattern is much more similar to
when you are expecting inflation (and thus buy things on credit to pay
it back in cheaper dollars). I still haven't figured that one out.
Whether they were mimicing Washington or Washington was taking its
cue from the Public, is an interesting discussion I don't want to get
into (g).
Thus, when the bubble of bubbles broke, NOBODY, consumers, governments
or corporate had any money to pull us out. However, as I noted, this is
hardly solely Bush's problem any more than it is Obama's. This is a
financial cluster f*** with many fathers over literally generations.


At least you sort of acknowledge that Bush spent too much on needless wars,
the "junk touching" TSA agency and about a trillion in new and improved
security measures. We've spent at least 100 times and perhaps 1000 times
the total of the actual monetary damage done on 9/11. Would you pay $1
million in insurance premiums to protect against a $40,000 loss? No, of
course not, but that's exactly what the US did because it was so "terrified"
by terrorists. Bush's spending will probably go down in history as the most
wasteful expenditures ever made by the Feds. Yet you're eager to blame
Obama for trying to clean up the mess of Bush spending trillions he/we
couldn't afford.
That is what the government, at all levels did, because they wanted
to avoid getting grilled by constituents, press, and talking heads that
should have known better and so they could say they did all they could
to avoid the next one. This is quintessential politician and bureaucrat
ass-covering behavior. You SURE you spent a lot of time in DC????
(grin).


We've heard your endless criticism of Obama, Chet. Now I'd be interested in
hearing what *you* would have done, President Hayes, had you been Obama in
2008, entering office with the stock market dropping like a paralyzed
falcon, a $700 billion bill for Bush's bailout payments to Wall Street on
your desk, credit markets frozen like Antarctica in winter and major
investment banks and manufacturers staring down the barrel of bankruptcy.
It's easy to find fault - a lot easier than finding solutions.

The bill was one that Obama, for better or worse, had a hand in.
One of the classier (maybe the only one) thing that Bush did was consult
with Obama coming in.
The stimulus bill was the same as 9 months of tax revenues. I would
have returned the money to the American public and trusted them spend it
much more efficiently than I could have. I would have been right.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz