GolfHos

I read something earlier today about the troubles Obama was going to have as president.  It struck me as BS.  The way I see it he has it rather easy.  The economy is *feces* right now - and people erroneously believe the Executive Branch controls this.  So... all he has to do it let the economy recover... don't mess with it.  That and get out of Iraq in three years or less.

Then come 2011, he gets all the credit in the world for an economic recovery that was going to happen anyway, and for getting us out of Iraq (which will take actual effort, and will deserve due credit).  That gets him 4 more years - easy.  I see nothing too difficult about this - a molehill for a mountain climber so to speak.

I heard something very similar to that today as well.

Question:  If the newly elected president has little to no control or direction of the economy and the nation, How did the last one *fudge* it up so bad?

Because the last one didn't *fudge* it up.  Too many are mistaking their political views as economic understanding - just taint true.  Free market economies have cycles, *feces* happens.  The only way to prevent or limit downturns is to prevent or limit upturns.

No ideology can escape a role in the current problems.  Sub-prime loans were made possible (regulated) by liberal attempts to make housing more affordable.  Conservative attempts to free the markets (de-regulation) in the underwriting* of the loans allowed the creation of a greed mentality.  If anyone believes one 'side' are more responsible for the problem than the other - you're blind to the reality of the situation.  Blinded by politics when economics is the issue.  It takes two to make the perfect storm.  Bad loans were made possible by liberal ideology, the extra (overextended) money tossed into them by conservative ideology.  The bubble popped and presto - an ugly little crisis.



* - underwriting may not be the right term, I just cannot think of the one used - but its essentially underwriting, or guaranteeing the loans.

 [sm_thumbsup2]  Thanks.  Good explanation.  *


*My quip was mostly tongue-n-cheek but I appreciate the response.

While for once I actually agree with most* of what hobbit says, the current Pres had a major impact on the economy by putting us in a $1T+ of additional debt, which has vastly influenced the actions of the Fed, which have a major roll in the economic downturn.

To a substantial degree, I agree with Hobbit about the relative impermanence of the economy to executive branch operations.

But this election wasn't just about the economy.  The worsening economy was a gift to Obama.  It made the job easier. But so was that Alaskan grifter woman, and the Bush record, and the fact that people have had enough of governance by Rovian procedure, etc and so on and so forth &C.

I think Obama's re-election strategy should prove pretty simple: 

Enema!  Because it'll take 4 more years to flush the poison from the system! Sorry!

Unless I'm reading the papers wrong, we're leaving Iraq at the request of the democratically gubment of Iraq by the end of 2011, and that was true no matter who was elected.

Not much effort required there....

Interesting discussion since he's not had a chance to redecorate the White House, nor had an opportunity to sit in the Oval Office long enough to form an ass mould in his office chair

Then let us get back to defining our disagreements  :)

I disagree with the Lou Dobb's of the world that make people believe that federal debt of our size and serviceability has a negative impact on the economy.  It simply does not hold historical water.  Great economic expansions can, and have, happened under sizable debt loads.

That being said, I do agree that the Iraq endeavor and resulting additions to deficit spending were completely asinine.  But that does not make for economic disaster.  Its a bit of a red herring argument by some talking heads that do actually believe it.

Even better - he'll get yet more credit for something that was going to happen anyway.  Hell, another 4 years is already in the bag  [sm_smoking]

Then you must also believe that Reagan gets a lot more credit than he deserves. The neocons fall over themselves to suck the cock of old Ronald's legacy, but it seems to me, if the Soviet economic system was so flawed, the USSR would have fallen with or without Reagan as POTUS.

It is a somewhat similar situation.  A good, motivational speaker.  Causes that people believe in.  Most of it would have happened anyway, but Ronnie made you feel good about it - he was bold about it, and we loved him for it.

So yeah - perhaps the same thing in the making here.

I'd take minor exception to this part.  Democratic legislation (CRA) did encourage banks to lend to less safe borrowers.  But I've read from two different cources (and of course, can't find either right now) that the percentage of their total lending that any particular entity had to hit to get a good CRA rating was only 5%.  Yet lending institutions were pumping out subprimes as far more than merely 5% of their total lending.  I believe banks went wild on subprime lending because it was a huge profit center.


As for getting free credit for things that are going to happen anyway: there are still lots of ways to get in the way of things, and there will certainly be obstructive efforts by disgruntled Republicans and/or far-far-left Democrats unhappy that the trifecta of power isn't being used to force-feed a far-far-left agenda.

Minor exception?  You're freaking agreeing with me to the letter.  Am I just that much fun to argue with that people manufacture ways to do it?  Or were you just in this for the makeup ****?

On another note a saw a snippet of Oprah getting over excited about Obama's win. 

I'm sorry but it made almost vomit

Well, maybe hanging around Obama all this time has made me too much the fan of nuance.  I guess I was trying to clarify the unspoken notion I read everywhere that Democrats, though the CRA, forced lenders to make all these subprime and Alt-A loans.  (I.e., the lenders never would have done such a thing had not those bleeding hearts demanded it.)  That's a crock -- lenders embraced dodgy loans because they made more money on them and they were able to sell them off (much like regular loans) and not be left holding the bag if the things did implode.

I didn't see much blame being thrown at the lenders in your post, which caused my "minor disagreement" lever to trip.  If you were talking strictly in the context of political contributions and thus ignoring the market's role, then I do freakin' agree with you to the letter.

Purty much!


Purty mouth, too!