Somebody is going to have to explain to me in great detail how he is a leader.
Somebody is going to have to explain to me in great detail how he is a leader.
If I had a hammer
I'd hammer in the morning
I'd hammer in the evening
All over this land
I'd hammer out danger
I'd hammer out a warning
I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
If I had a bell
I'd ring it in the morning
I'd ring it in the evening
All over this land
I'd ring out danger
I'd ring out a warning
I'd ring out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
If I had a song
I'd sing it in the morning
I'd sing it in the evening
All over this land
I'd sing out danger
I'd sing out a warning
I'd sing out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
Well I've got a hammer
And I've got a bell
And I've got a song to sing
All over this land
It's the hammer of justice
It's the bell of freedom
It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
©1958, 1962 (renewed), 1986 (renewed)
TRO-Ludlow Music, Inc. (BMI)
I'd hammer in the morning
I'd hammer in the evening
All over this land
I'd hammer out danger
I'd hammer out a warning
I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
If I had a bell
I'd ring it in the morning
I'd ring it in the evening
All over this land
I'd ring out danger
I'd ring out a warning
I'd ring out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
If I had a song
I'd sing it in the morning
I'd sing it in the evening
All over this land
I'd sing out danger
I'd sing out a warning
I'd sing out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
Well I've got a hammer
And I've got a bell
And I've got a song to sing
All over this land
It's the hammer of justice
It's the bell of freedom
It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
©1958, 1962 (renewed), 1986 (renewed)
TRO-Ludlow Music, Inc. (BMI)
To some extent I am and make no bones about it. I just believe in putting the blame where it belongs. Congress controls the budget which has most to do with the economy, and it usually takes almost 2 years for whatever they do to effect the economy.
As an example, and I know many are going to get their panties in a knot over this, but most economist warned congress not to raise the minimum wage last time because the economy was still very shaky. They did not listen and Bush had no choice politically but to sign it. The economy has gone down ever since. Did minimum wage need to be raised? Yes!!! Just not while the economy is not good. I always go back to minimum wage needs to be pegged to the real inflation index that includes food and gas prices. Unfortunately neither side will agree to that when the other has the power.
Oh, MY!!! Now I have to add to this because a lot of the issues we have been dealing with goes w-a-a-a-y back. Rick is onto something here in stating that an economy seldom reacts quickly to anything other than a tax rate cut.
But, first of all, MOST politicians are bad, and that is with regards to EVERY party, including those that are supposed libertarians like Ron Paul. (Ask some of his constituents how devious he is.)
Much of the issues we have with the economy goes back to Jimmy Carter's term and whatever party was in control of Congress at the time. That is when the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA for future comments) was passed with the intent of having banks loan money to people who really couldn't afford them. When Clinton got into office, he basically "doubled-down" on the CRA and I think it was around that time that organizations like ACORN got into the act and started pressuring the banks.
It was only a matter of time before that house of cards was to fall. For the most part of Bush 43's term, the tax cuts helped to keep the economy running along pretty good. (Not great...but pretty good.) As mentioned before, Congress needs to have a lot of the blame placed on them. The collapse of the house of cards came toward the end of Bush's second term. Does anyone other than me remember the House hearings based on Bush's desire to fix CRA? That idea for a fix ended because of the Democrats insistence that Fannie and Freddie were "doing just fine."
A lot of folks have wanted to blame the banks for so much, and I'll agree that the big ones aren't great institutions, but I think a lot of the problems were brought about by CRA.
As for tax cuts, in my lifetime I remember three instances when tax cuts led to economic growth. Those were Kennedy's cuts, Reagan's cuts, and Bush 43's cuts. I've been told, but not done the research yet, that the Roaring 20's with its good economy came about because of tax cuts and that during the late '40's there was economic growth as well because of cuts.
As for Clinton's supposed great years, I remember that he never wanted to sign welfare reform and vetoed it a number of times. It wasn't until he wanted to be re-elected that he finally signed it. How good it was at the end of Clinton's terms with regards to balanced budgets and surpluses should be considered because the last 6 years of Clinton's terms was conducted with the Republicans in control of Congress. It wasn't Clinton that created all of that. All he did is ride along and benefit from the work of others.
But, first of all, MOST politicians are bad, and that is with regards to EVERY party, including those that are supposed libertarians like Ron Paul. (Ask some of his constituents how devious he is.)
Much of the issues we have with the economy goes back to Jimmy Carter's term and whatever party was in control of Congress at the time. That is when the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA for future comments) was passed with the intent of having banks loan money to people who really couldn't afford them. When Clinton got into office, he basically "doubled-down" on the CRA and I think it was around that time that organizations like ACORN got into the act and started pressuring the banks.
It was only a matter of time before that house of cards was to fall. For the most part of Bush 43's term, the tax cuts helped to keep the economy running along pretty good. (Not great...but pretty good.) As mentioned before, Congress needs to have a lot of the blame placed on them. The collapse of the house of cards came toward the end of Bush's second term. Does anyone other than me remember the House hearings based on Bush's desire to fix CRA? That idea for a fix ended because of the Democrats insistence that Fannie and Freddie were "doing just fine."
A lot of folks have wanted to blame the banks for so much, and I'll agree that the big ones aren't great institutions, but I think a lot of the problems were brought about by CRA.
As for tax cuts, in my lifetime I remember three instances when tax cuts led to economic growth. Those were Kennedy's cuts, Reagan's cuts, and Bush 43's cuts. I've been told, but not done the research yet, that the Roaring 20's with its good economy came about because of tax cuts and that during the late '40's there was economic growth as well because of cuts.
As for Clinton's supposed great years, I remember that he never wanted to sign welfare reform and vetoed it a number of times. It wasn't until he wanted to be re-elected that he finally signed it. How good it was at the end of Clinton's terms with regards to balanced budgets and surpluses should be considered because the last 6 years of Clinton's terms was conducted with the Republicans in control of Congress. It wasn't Clinton that created all of that. All he did is ride along and benefit from the work of others.
Dang Terry thats quite a reach blaming Carter for todays economy. I geuss if we're gonna hold Presidents and congress's accountable for bad legislation, we could go all the way back to Washington and the 1st congress.
The "New Deal" was the begining of the end...
How about we throw them each up against Amadinnerjacket, Assad, Kim and Putin. If either one comes out alive, they get the job. If both survive, pit them against each other. It'll be about as honest and effective a measure as any election would be these days. At least it'd be fun to watch ...
Woody
Woody
That is not a reach at all because I remember history too well. As you know from previous private messages, I don't have a college education, thus none of my "knowledge" comes from textbooks and professors who might have a bias. But, check it yourself to see when the Community Reinvestment Act was passed. I have decades of reading and personal study of both politics and economics from which I have come to the same conclusion as some other economists that I have read with regards to the effects of the CRA.
CRA was a ticking time bomb for the entire part of its existence and evolved into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were the catalyst for the economic downturn. I might add that when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, their actions and Bush's lack of using a veto, sped up the process at the end. Who knows? Since the Democrats in Congress wouldn't believe Bush and his administration about the problems with Fannie and Freddie, maybe he decided to "give them what they wanted" and thus didn't veto anything. (That is pure conjecture on my part. I really don't think Bush was that "evil," but he certainly was NOT a conservative.)
One other thing I've learned over the years. ACCURATE history is NOT written by the media and the professors of the period in which events occur, because their account of the events may reflect a bias because of being of another philosophy. ACCURATE historical accounts may come about 30 years later when people who did not live in the era study back to see when and how things happened and draw a logical conclusion as to the truth of history. From what I have read, it has been recent college economists that have gone back and studied Roosevelt and the New Deal and have determined that Roosevelt actually extended the Great Depression by about 7 years.
Yes, intellectual knowledge is worthless. Academics and professors know nothing compared to the average Joe. That's why when we need surgery we just call in someone with good old fashioned horse since. Don't need that dad blamed book learning.
So the GSEs were responsible for that extra $500B in the derivatives market, it had nothing to do with GLB and CFMA2K?
Similar threads
