President Biden thread

38 minutes ago, Beerman said:

So, what IS the responsibility of "The buck stops with me Biden"?  What should we expect from him going forward?  It doesn't seem he is ever responsible for anything, and that expectations are low for him to offer solutions.

He's responsible for his policy.  Your expectations for him are low. He is held responsible...you mention poll numbers fairly regularly, that's aform of being held responsible. Do you have some other accountability in mind?

30 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I've already conceded that oil prices and inflation were both going to increase to some extent.

However, Biden's anti-oil agenda and his spending bill have exasperated our problems.

That's the general feeling and belief among many republican leaning voters and oil industry spokespeople but it's difficult to directly attach that sentiment to any specific presidential action.  

2 hours ago, Beerman said:

I just gave you,  and you quoted me, on two specific actions.

I quoted your beliefs.  You cannot point to a specific presidential action or policy that is responsible for the price of oil today. 

4 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Lenders of course get a big of the blame.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the root that.  The Bush Administration warned of that several times.  And, tried to implement more oversight.  So did a Republican sponsored bill.

Democrats, Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer come to mind, shot all that down.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac

My wife and I were approved for a mortgage in 2004, with little down payment.  We bought a far less expensive house than what we were approved for because the payments were way more than what we had been paying for rent.  We knew we couldn't afford it.

So, yes.  Consumers absolutely were to blame too.  And, many of them were bailed out for their bad decision.

2004 was the first time I voted Republican.  The part Democrats played in the housing bubble crisis drove me further away from them.

When you say that many consumers were bailed out after the economy tanked during the Bush administration, are you talking about TARP or ARRA? 

Which part did Democrats play in the housing bubble that caused you to vote republican?

7 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

When you say that many consumers were bailed out after the economy tanked during the Bush administration, are you talking about TARP or ARRA? 

Which part did Democrats play in the housing bubble that caused you to vote republican?

Beerman is partially correct in that the liberal policy of home ownership for all was a disaster in the making.  However,  this Obama moment was preceded by the fall of the Glass Steagall act in 1999 which only created the mechanisms for investment banks to rape the economic safeguards which had been in place.  Would the recession of 2008 have happened if Glass Steagall were still in effect?  My sister-in-law who shredded for Michael Milken (and an ardent Trump supporter now), warned us in 1999 what would be coming when the Chinese wall fell and she was right.  This was under the Clinton administration.

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

I voted for Bush in 04 because I thought he did a great job leading us through the aftermath of 9/11, and because Kerry was (still is) a idiot.

I wasn't blaming Democrats for the bailout.  Both sides had a hand in that, and I can't wholeheartedly argue it wasn't the right thing to do.  

My point was, that consumers were also to blame for the housing bubble.  People shouldn't have taken out loans they couldnt afford to pay.  

So, that's not what led me to vote Republican.  After that election is when I started paying more attention to politics.  The way the Democrats ignored the signs of trouble, and then blamed Bush for the recession further turned me off.  Also in that time period, my wife and I each lost jobs and started nursing school.  We did a lot to keep paying our mortgage, including taking out from 401K at a great penalty.  So, some bitterness about those who made bad decisions getting bailed out played a part, too.  Like I said, the bailout probably was necessary for the greater good, but the liberal attitude to me was that those folks were blameless.  You even just implied that above.

And, it so it goes from there.

 

 

But you didn't answer my question...what bailout of the consumers were you referencing; TARP or ARRA? My point is that neither of those bits of bailout focused upon "we the people", they focused upon the too big to fail (the direct result of deregulation)

Most of the risky mortgages were given to people who were not considered low income and many of those mortgages were refinancing of current homes or investment in additional property. That's what the Wharton analysis reported.

It certainly is the Republican narrative that Democrats ignored signs of trouble and blamed Bush...but isn't the president supposed to be accountable for the consequences of their economic policy and what is the evidence that the trouble was ignored by democrats while republicans were rallying to undo their previous deregulation?

I totally agree with that people shouldn't bite off more than  they can chew and should bear some responsibility.  I also think a bank making loans to people they know can't afford it is messed up.   Lots of mud to sling.

As I've said with Biden getting blamed for inflation is his cross to carry, as was recession during the Bush years.   It's how we are.  

57 minutes ago, Beerman said:

That's because I would need to refresh my memory on which did what.  In the context of this discussion,  it doesn't seem important. 

I guess you could say the focus was on the banks.  In turn, that assisted homeowners in many instances.  

I'll take your word for it.  That makes me wonder then, what made them "risky"?  It doesn't really matter, we know what happened. 

You seem to be ignoring the articles and video I posted.  Here is another one.  The most negative the NYT could be toward Bush was that even though he sounded alarms and proposed more regulation, he didn't do enough to make it happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/business/worldbusiness/20iht-prexy.4.16321064.html

Certainly a lot of blame to go around.  At least Bush and Republicans acknowledged the problem and made some attempt to fix it.  Democrats denied there were any problems until it all blew up right before a presidential election, and then they directed that blame elsewhere to help win that election.

What's important is not whether we can refresh or memories  but whether or not we make claims and state them as fact when we haven't refreshed our recollection enough to actually know the facts. Yes, the bailout focused upon the financial institutions that were too big to fail...that included funding the huge bonuses that those troubled institutions had promised their executives.  You remember that part, right? Sure, some of those lenders helped their consumers but that was not the focus of the funds.  

You don't need to to take my word for it, you've been provided credible and expert analysis of the Bush financial crisis.  

I let my subscription to the NYT go so you'll have to quote the portion of that article that describes how democrats ignored the consequences of the policy that led to the financial collapse.