http://news.yahoo.com/u-commerce-secreta...08143.html

The U.S Commerce Secretary, who is responsible for $36 BILLION is lost tax dollars given to failing solar & green energy initiatives, wasn't satisfied was a drive-by on the economy... so he rammed his car into multiple others before passing out drunk at the wheel and getting charged with a Felony hit-and-run.

Ohhhhhh, the irony.

(06-11-2012 09:00 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  http://news.yahoo.com/u-commerce-secreta...08143.html

The U.S Commerce Secretary, who is responsible for $36 BILLION is lost tax dollars given to failing solar & green energy initiatives, wasn't satisfied was a drive-by on the economy... so he rammed his car into multiple others before passing out drunk at the wheel and getting charged with a Felony hit-and-run.

Ohhhhhh, the irony.

The guy had a stroke... poor taste man, poor taste..

(06-11-2012 09:02 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  The guy had a stroke... poor taste man, poor taste..

People who have strokes don't get out of the car to talk to the people they hit before walking back to their car and driving off.

Some people will believe anything that the Obama gang feeds them.

(06-11-2012 10:31 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 09:02 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  The guy had a stroke... poor taste man, poor taste..

People who have strokes don't get out of the car to talk to the people they hit before walking back to their car and driving off.

Some people will believe anything that the Obama gang feeds them.

Do you have an Md or do you play one on TV?

The symptoms associated with minor strokes can include

They include any one or combination of the following:

* Sudden numbness or weakness in the face, arms, or legs, especially on one side of the body
* Sudden trouble speaking or understanding
* Confusion
* Sudden vision problems in one or both eyes
* Dizziness, loss of balance, or sudden trouble walking
* Severe headache with no obvious cause

Mini Strokes will affect you differently depending on where in the brain it is centered.

"For instance a person who suffers a mini stroke in the hand area of the brain may develop difficulty writing for a few minutes or hours. A different person who experiences a mini stroke of a similar size in the brainstem, an area of the brain which harbors the centers for gait balance, voice control, and eye movements, might feel temporarily unable to carry on with his or her day because of vertigo, difficulty speaking, or double vision." -- http://stroke.about.com/od/whatisatia/a/TIAs.htm

(06-11-2012 10:31 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  Some people will believe anything that the Obama gang feeds them.

And you've not been here long enough to know what I think of Obama...

The guy I saw have a stroke while driving slammed his foot on the gas and plowed into a tree at 100mph. Dead when I pulled him out.

The gentleman my wife did chest compressions on Friday for 30 minutes who had just had a stroke wasn't able to walk around and talk. Neither could any of the others.

My uncle wasn't very mobile when he fell out in the floor during church from a stroke.


I may not have a MD, but I wasn't born yesterday. I KNEW this would get spun into some BS.

Riddle me this - if he was having a stroke, would the police had charged him with felony hit-and-run? Nope. A-swing-and-a-miss from the Dims.

(06-11-2012 11:04 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 10:31 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  Some people will believe anything that the Obama gang feeds them.

And you've not been here long enough to know what I think of Obama...

OD, you couldn't be more off in your assessment of Bull.

(06-11-2012 11:09 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  The guy I saw have a stroke while driving slammed his foot on the gas and plowed into a tree at 100mph. Dead when I pulled him out.

Well if you once saw one guy have one stroke... who am I to disagree..

Quote:The gentleman my wife did chest compressions on Friday for 30 minutes who had just had a stroke wasn't able to walk around and talk. Neither could any of the others.

You clearly don't know what a mini stroke is..

Quote:I may not have a MD, but I wasn't born yesterday. I KNEW this would get spun into some BS.

And I will say, its not outside the realm of possibility that this is spin... But the police said, at the scene, it did not seem like drugs or alcohol. He was charged *because he drove away from the first scene* not because he was under the influence.

Quote:Riddle me this - if he was having a stroke, would the police had charged him with felony hit-and-run? Nope. A-swing-and-a-miss from the Dims.

If the police, like you, decided to play drive by doctor maybe... And again, at the scene there was no indication of Alcohol or Drugs... The cops charged him for leaving the scene..

Who wrecked the economy again?

Who wrecked the economy? We know it had nothing to do with the $4T in unnecessary wars, the $2T in tax cuts, the exceedingly low Greenspan interest rates driving home speculation and the housing bubble, the Bush/Reagan deregulation of the banking sector...

NO, it's the Community Reinvestment Act (read: "I knew it was dem poor minorities!") and business' fear of that birth certificate-less socialist in the White House!

(06-11-2012 12:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Who wrecked the economy? We know it had nothing to do with the $4T in unnecessary wars

Continued by Obama

Quote:the $2T in tax cuts

Continued by Obama

Quote:the exceedingly low Greenspan interest rates

Continued by Obama

Quote:driving home speculation and the housing bubble

Started under Clinton, Continued under Bush, and pushed by Congressional Democrats who swore there was no issue in 2005-2006...

Quote:the Bush/Reagan deregulation of the banking sector...

Continued by Clinton who effectively oversaw the death Glass–Steagall

Quote:NO, it's the Community Reinvestment Act

That was a big part of it, but you're right that it alone is way too simplistic.

(06-11-2012 01:20 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 12:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Who wrecked the economy? We know it had nothing to do with the $4T in unnecessary wars

Continued by Obama

One of the wars is ended and the other now has an end date.

Quote:

Quote:the $2T in tax cuts

Continued by Obama

As a bipartisan gesture to the GOP that has been completely ignored when they want to accuse him of being an extreme radical who abandoned his post partisan promises and shares equal responsibility for the partisan divide in this country.

Though extending the Bush tax cuts was arguably good economics too, because raising taxes in a recession stifles much needed growth. It was thoroughly BAD economics to enact the tax cuts in a boom time like Bush was experiencing, when we should have been carrying surpluses.

Quote:

Quote:the exceedingly low Greenspan interest rates

Continued by Obama

Again, different times call for different measures. One is in a boom and one is in a recession. Having low interest rates in a boom like Bush did just fueled rampant speculation in the housing market. The rates should have been raised then. But now, when the economy is starving for investment, we can't raise interest rates and stifle it.

Quote:

Quote:driving home speculation and the housing bubble

Started under Clinton, Continued under Bush, and pushed by Congressional Democrats who swore there was no issue in 2005-2006...

It largely took off under Bush in 2001 when interest rates were lowered in response to the recession. But when the economy recovered shortly thereafter instead of raising them back up Greenspan kept lowering and lowering them.

Quote:

Quote:the Bush/Reagan deregulation of the banking sector...

Continued by Clinton who effectively oversaw the death Glass–Steagall

True, Clinton and other Wall ST backed Dems share some blame. There's more dissention on the left than right though-- deregulation is part of the GOP platform.

Quote:

Quote:NO, it's the Community Reinvestment Act

That was a big part of it, but you're right that it alone is way too simplistic.

It was a part but not a "big" part of it. As I posted earlier studies show only 6% of subprime loans were connected to the CRA and they performed better than their non-CRA counterparts.

(06-11-2012 12:48 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Who wrecked the economy again?

Agreed!

I believe the point FB was making is that the Secretary of Commerce, on the job for barely 9 months, cannot be held totally accountable in any way shape or form no matter what planet you live on.

On a side note, I don't believe I have put anyone on here on ignore as fast as I did ODB...lol

(06-11-2012 12:56 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Who wrecked the economy? We know it had nothing to do with the $4T in unnecessary wars,

Since we haven't spent $4T on unnecessary wars, obviously not.

Quote:the $2T in tax cuts,

Since both sides seem to agree that the majority of the tax cuts should be kept, and Bill Clinton himself said so, and since the tax cuts that some (and only some) believe need to be repealed amount to far less than $2T, obviously not.

Quote:the exceedingly low Greenspan interest rates driving home speculation and the housing bubble,

Don't disagree here. I tend to agree.

Quote:the Bush/Reagan deregulation of the banking sector...

Number one, the "deregulation" was passed under Bill Clinton. Number two, after that "deregulation" the banking sector remained one of the, if not the, most heavily regulated sectors of the economy, so calling it "deregulation" is a major falsehood. Number three, nobody has actually provided any legitimate causal connection between "deregulation" and the financial crunch. I'll give you a chance if you want to try. But stick to facts.

Quote:NO, it's the Community Reinvestment Act (read: "I knew it was dem poor minorities!")

The financial crisis was caused by the excessive default rate on mortgages. All of the fancy financial instruments would have worked just fine if the mortgage borrowers had made payments in accordance with expectations. And once the mortgage borrowers ceased to make payments in line with historical norms, we were going to have a meltdown no matter what. What the Wall Street stuff did was not to cause the crisis, but to shift where some of the burden fell--onto Wall Street investors who did quite frankly let their greed get the best of them, and who should have been punished rather than bailed out. We could have handled the meltdown by building a firewall between Wall Street and Main Street. Allow Wall Street to fail but protect Main Street. We did the opposite. We screwed George Bailey so we could bail out Mr. Potter.

Quote:and business' fear of that birth certificate-less socialist in the White House!

I love the way the left has to get the birth-certificate issue in as often as possible when Obama is questioned on any other issue. This is one of the reasons why I was so opposed to the whole birther deal, and took lots of flack from my friends on the right. The problem is that it becomes too easy to deflect legitimate issues by saying, "Oh, you're questioning Obama's political philosophy, that's just like those nutcases who are questioning his birth certificate." No, they are not just alike.

Wait.

Why the hell does the US Commerce Secretary drive a Japanese car?

Here's what I would have done.

1. Make CRA a federally guaranteed program. If the government wants to compel banks to make certain types of loans, let the government take the risk, not the banks.

2. If you originate a mortgage and sell it, you have to retain at least 25%. If you're going to have some skin in the game, you'll do real due diligence.

For the record, I came up with these two when I was helping manage the 1990 bank bailout, and I've been pushing them ever since.

(06-11-2012 11:12 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 11:04 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 10:31 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  Some people will believe anything that the Obama gang feeds them.

And you've not been here long enough to know what I think of Obama...

OD, you couldn't be more off in your assessment of Bull.

WHAT?!?! We all know Bull is an Obama sycophant...

(06-11-2012 12:48 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Who wrecked the economy again?

Government meddling over the past 80 years...are you retarded?

(06-11-2012 03:25 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 12:48 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Who wrecked the economy again?

Government meddling over the past 80 years...are you retarded?

If I had to name anyone, it would be LBJ and Richard Nixon.

LBJ made the decision to run structural budget deficits on an ongoing basis in order to avoid the classic guns v. butter question, since he wanted both the Vietnam War and the Great Society. It's interesting that "guns v. butter" was a staple in economics textbooks during the 1960s, but today appears nowhere. That is a huge shift in thinking, and removing the discipline of a balanced budget has enabled all manner and sorts of mistakes since then.

Starting with Richard Nixon, who realized that a succession of unbalanced budgets was placing stress on our then asset-based money supply, so he decided not to return discipline to the government but rather to float the dollar.

Once those two things were done, there was nothing to restrain congress from buying votes with our grandchildren's money. Both parties have been at fault, for different things and in different ways. Which is fitting, since the two main perps include one from each.

(06-11-2012 03:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 03:25 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 12:48 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Who wrecked the economy again?

Government meddling over the past 80 years...are you retarded?

If I had to name anyone, it would be LBJ and Richard Nixon.

LBJ made the decision to run structural budget deficits on an ongoing basis in order to avoid the classic guns v. butter question, since he wanted both the Vietnam War and the Great Society. It's interesting that "guns v. butter" was a staple in economics textbooks during the 1960s, but today appears nowhere. That is a huge shift in thinking, and removing the discipline of a balanced budget has enabled all manner and sorts of mistakes since then.

Starting with Richard Nixon, who realized that a succession of unbalanced budgets was placing stress on our then asset-based money supply, so he decided not to return discipline to the government but rather to float the dollar.

Once those two things were done, there was nothing to restrain congress from buying votes with our grandchildren's money. Both parties have been at fault, for different things and in different ways. Which is fitting, since the two main perps include one from each.

All good points but I would have started with the Fed as being where the collapse began.

EDIT: So I should amend my original time frame to 100 years ago.