Democrats - Now It's a Depression? Walmart Responsible for the Bad Economy!

[soonercruiser]

Democrat party efforts to expalin away any Obama responsibility for the continued bad economy are getting schizophrenic!
Now its a "depression", and the LWers are blaming Walmart!

...paraphrased...
Henry Waxman was on C-SPAN Newsmakers on Sunday morning. They're talking about the economy. One of the panelists was a woman named Kate Hunter from Bloomberg, and she said to Waxman, "Most people seem to think that, you know, passage of the health care law in 2010 contributed to Democrats losing control of the House that year in midterm elections. I'm wondering, do you think that tradeoff was worth it, getting the health care law passed and losing the House?"


WAXMAN: If that were the tradeoff. But, look, the president inherited a terrible economy. We were hemorrhaging jobs in 2008 when he got elected, so by the time he took office in 2009, we had over 10% unemployment. We had the banks frozen. They couldn't deal with their assets. The economy has not recovered. Some people call it a recession. I think it's a depression.

Twitter tweets on............."10 Reasons that Walmart is Responsible for the Bad Eonomy".
OK! After several days of tweets on the subject, the Twitter page came up, and then disappeared!
I guess that since the "word is out", they are covering their tracks for the Dictator.
This as close as I can get for now...

10 reasons Walmart is responsible for the decline of American ‪#manufacturing‬ http://twitter.com/Demos_Org/statuses/219870333065379840

Others related...

Wal-Mart is Bad For The Economy
http://www.123helpme.com/wal-mart-is-bad-for-the-economy-view.asp?id=165703

Is Walmart Responsible for Our Economy?
http://www.sodahead.com/living/is-walmart-responsible-for-our-economy/question-1671895/

Destructive Practices of Walmart
http://www.walmarts-egonomics.com/destructive-practices-of-walmart/

[cleller]

I don't really like Walmart, mostly because of crowds and the mega=box atmosphere, but laying all the ills of society on them is pretty short sighted. Or far fetched. One or the other.

The academic-type stuff I've read on the topic says Walmart has changed the look of the economy and Main Street, but that's life....

[soonercruiser]

They have got to keep finding new economic "enemies" for Obama....it's the Alinskyian Way!

[Curly Bill]

Can they blame the Jews next? Worked for the Nazis.

[diverdog]

Democrat party efforts to expalin away any Obama responsibility for the continued bad economy are getting schizophrenic!
Now its a "depression", and the LWers are blaming Walmart!

...paraphrased...
Henry Waxman was on C-SPAN Newsmakers on Sunday morning. They're talking about the economy. One of the panelists was a woman named Kate Hunter from Bloomberg, and she said to Waxman, "Most people seem to think that, you know, passage of the health care law in 2010 contributed to Democrats losing control of the House that year in midterm elections. I'm wondering, do you think that tradeoff was worth it, getting the health care law passed and losing the House?"



Twitter tweets on............."10 Reasons that Walmart is Responsible for the Bad Eonomy".
OK! After several days of tweets on the subject, the Twitter page came up, and then disappeared!
I guess that since the "word is out", they are covering their tracks for the Dictator.
This as close as I can get for now...

10 reasons Walmart is responsible for the decline of American ‪#manufacturing‬ http://twitter.com/Demos_Org/statuses/219870333065379840

Others related...

Wal-Mart is Bad For The Economy
http://www.123helpme.com/wal-mart-is-bad-for-the-economy-view.asp?id=165703

Is Walmart Responsible for Our Economy?
http://www.sodahead.com/living/is-walmart-responsible-for-our-economy/question-1671895/

Destructive Practices of Walmart
http://www.walmarts-egonomics.com/destructive-practices-of-walmart/

What part of Waxman's statement was not true?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

All of them...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

What part of Waxman's statement was not true?

Well I don't remember us having 10% unemployment. At least not the official BS number DOL puts out every month.

In fact didn't Obama say we needed to pass the shovel ready jobs bill to keep unemployment under 8%? That sure worked.

[Curly Bill]

Well I don't remember us having 10% unemployment. At least not the official BS number DOL puts out every month.

In fact didn't Obama say we needed to pass the shovel ready jobs bill to keep unemployment under 8%? That sure worked.

Well, Obammy can't be right about everything...oh wait...

[KantoSooner]

Yes, the economy was in the ****ter before he took office, but jeez, the guy had a hammerlock majority for two effing years and now, three and a half years into his term, unemployment is still very high and the economy is anemic at best. At some point it stops being completely W's fault.

As to Waxman, the man is a drooling moron. He has merely mouthed centrally planned economic orthodoxy and that seems to keep his constiuents happy.

Has Walmart killed off a number of mom n pop stores? Yes. They've also cut probably 1~1.5% off annual inflation for the last 30 years or so. I really don't want to go back to paying $40 or so for bath towels.

[Midtowner]

Wal-Mart certainly comes with good and bad. It's probably good for domestic manufacturing in terms of forcing up productivity. It's probably bad in that it has probably put a decent dent in the middle class.

It certainly does provide jobs and for those of us not in the manufacturing or competing retail business, we sure do enjoy our cheap products.

[badger]

Yes, the economy was in the ****ter before he took office, but jeez, the guy had a hammerlock majority for two effing years
Once again, congrats to President Obama and that Democratic majority on the Supreme Court upholding key parts of Obamacare, arguably the ONLY major legislation they were able to accomplish during that super majority time period.


and now, three and a half years into his term, unemployment is still very high and the economy is anemic at best. At some point it stops being completely W's fault.
Democrats can look back at their 2010 super majority (read: Control of the House, Senate AND Oval Office) and be depressed about how little they accomplished during that time. Obamacare. That's it. If only they had focused such energy on getting Americans employed again, they could have likely extended that super majority through to 2012 at least. Most Americans can live with partisan politics if they're employed with a decent wage and can take care of themselves and their family. Take that away, and they are angry with the government.


Has Walmart killed off a number of mom n pop stores? Yes. They've also cut probably 1~1.5% off annual inflation for the last 30 years or so. I really don't want to go back to paying $40 or so for bath towels.
They have redefined retail. And another business will likely redefine it again via new technology (read: Amazon.com with the Internet). If consumers are choosing Walmart, shouldn't you blame consumers at least partially?

I personally avoid Walmart. Dirty stores, long cashier lines, cheap crap of low quality that breaks easily. However, I like their "neighborhood market" grocery stores.

[KantoSooner]

Watch Walmart change the grocery business. They've long been the largest grocer in the country, now they are engaged in breaking the brand names in the industry. How? They are pumping up the quality of their Great Value house brand. When you can get a product that is as good or better than a national brand at 25% off, it will place an increasing burden on the national brand's advertising to create perceived value.
What happens when the national brands disappear, however? Since you can't ship finished goods overseas as easily as you can sneakers or t-shirts, you'll still need domestic food processors. My guess is that more of them will become like US based Foxconns: large manufacturers with no brands of their own who contract out their services to smaller companies who spin up new products in order to sell them off to Walmart in a couple or three years. And a handful of commodity producers who will be content to coordinate production for Walmart on razor thin margins so long as they don't have to invest in 'bricks and mortar'.

[badger]

Back when badger was a little Girl Scout, before we went to the water park, we had a tour of a local Joly Green Giant plant for green beans. Hairnet on, we watched as bored-outta-their-minds workers were looking through the latest arrivals for bugs or outta place stuff... actually, they stopped and watched us when we arrived because they looked so bored.

It was then that little Girl Scout badger realized that there was absolutely no difference between Flavorite (the Wisconsin area generic brand) and name brand canned goods.

But, they could differentiate themselves in many ways to be able to continue charging a name-brand price:

1- Better food quality.
Advertise how often you do food inspections, what goes into ensuring the safest and best products for your customers.
2- Emphasize Americanism.
Talk about your factories in Plover, Wisconsin and elsewhere in America and the American farms that you buy from and how you are providing American jobs by selling an American product.
3- Unique blends.
Why do people buy pre-cut carrots? Why do people buy expensive food trays with the ranch dip ready in the middle? Convenience. Offer convenience by having a ready-to-eat and ready-to-serve product available for purchase with little or no prep required. People might think it's stupid to combine carrots and peas in a can because it's so easy to buy a can of carrots and a can of peas and combine them. What consumers don't know won't hurt them :)

So, Walmart brand might have a competitive advantage in some regards since a bored food inspectors are behind name-brand and generic canned green beans. That's when name brands have to prove they are more than just a fancier label and a higher price point.

[KantoSooner]

Right, but what's happening now is that Walmart is seizing the high ground with their store brand products and the name brands are running out of gambits to differentiate themselves.

[pphilfran]

Wal-Mart certainly comes with good and bad. It's probably good for domestic manufacturing in terms of forcing up productivity. It's probably bad in that it has probably put a decent dent in the middle class.

It certainly does provide jobs and for those of us not in the manufacturing or competing retail business, we sure do enjoy our cheap products.

They are pricks...

Once you get your foot in the Wal Mart door everything is fine and dandy....they buy in such massive quantity that you add facilities and manning to meed the demand...

The money floods in...

Contract is due and Wal Mart demands a 10% reduction in cost...you balk...they say "Fine, we have others that are more than willing to take over the contract."

Now you are chit out of luck....you give in to their price cuts or you refuse, lose the contract, and have to lay off the many you hired and shut down your production facilities...

They use sledgehammers when dealing with suppliers...

[badger]

They use sledgehammers when dealing with suppliers...

I have heard about this with companies like Rubbermaid. They've had to sacrifice quality and American manufacturing jobs in the name of making Walmart happy.

I wouldn't be surprised if you found better quality stuff from certain brands and places other than Walmart for this reason. Gotta make the cheap crap for Walmart, and hope that you can keep your reputation up with products sold elsewhere :(

[pphilfran]

I have heard about this with companies like Rubbermaid. They've had to sacrifice quality and American manufacturing jobs in the name of making Walmart happy.

I wouldn't be surprised if you found better quality stuff from certain brands and places other than Walmart for this reason. Gotta make the cheap crap for Walmart, and hope that you can keep your reputation up with products sold elsewhere :(

I am sure there is some of that going on...

I was in tire manufacturing and the same tires went to Wal Mart that went to GM or direct to the consumer....

We basically gave away the tires to OE or Wal Mart...kept a steady ticket base and made scheduling easier....most all profit was made from tires sold at retail outlets...

[badger]

If Democrats are serious about hating on Walmat and their dozens of billionaire Sam Walton heirs (actually I have no idea how many heirs are in the billionaire club, but it's more than you can count on one hand I think), they should fine the hell outta them for the Mexico scam. That is something they can legitimately nail the company on.

Of course, it would not surprise me in the least if Walmart contributes to enough elected officials (Rs and Ds) to not have to worry about a hefty fine...

[Midtowner]

Frankly, I wish U.S. companies had some avenues open to be able to pay bribes in foreign countries. That's just a fact of life in so many places.

[cleller]

I try to go anyplace I can to avoid Walmart, but I don't know if it does much good. If I go to Atwoods, Dollar General or Tractor Supply, are their methods really much different than Walmart? Beats me.

I will pay more to go to the closer, hometown IGA, a small, easy to park and navigate store. It also always has 2-3 cashiers running, and NO long lines, ever. Plus, a real on site butcher.

I also buy everything possible from the best family owned lumber yard I've ever seen in Prague Oklahoma. The prices there are sometimes lower than Lowes or Home Depot for hardware, supplies, hand tools, etc. The lumber and service blow those big chain stores out of the water.

[badger]

I also buy everything possible from the best family owned lumber yard I've ever seen in Prague Oklahoma. The prices there are sometimes lower than Lowes or Home Depot for hardware, supplies, hand tools, etc. The lumber and service blow those big chain stores out of the water.

When you know of places like this, tell everyone you know! Buying direct is better for the local chains AND for local consumers! :)

Whenever you need new garden plants in the Spring, go to Southwoods in Tulsa on Riverside just south of 81st. They have the strangest breed of tomatoes and they're all cheaper veggie plants than the ones sold at big boxes like Lowe's.

[KantoSooner]

!. Rubbermaid makes great products both at its US and at its Chinese facilities. They're doing just fine, thank you. Look, they make an endless variety of 'me too' products that attempt to slap a design gloss on stuff invented in the 1950's. If that's your game, great, but you aren't going to make fat margins.

2. Walmart's biggest advantage over everyone else is information. They know how much things cost. A company I worked for had a drink can crusher. Nice design, very compact and clean. Walmart wanted it. They came in and started telling our owner, "Okay, you pay this for your electricity, your molding press overhead is $X, you're paying $Y per pound for your plasti resin, here's your base cost and we'll give you 5% over that for eleventy billion units. You make no money on us, you make it on other people." Thankfully, our owner told them, 'Thank you', asked them if they wanted to pack up the sandwiches that had been catered in for lunch, and then told them to **** off. He had that luxury because he owned the company outright and we had other profitable lines.
That's one way they do business.

3. People are free to shop where they will, but don't deny the logic behind Walmart. They have taken the supply chain and wrung cost out of it remoreslessly for two generations. it's time for people to stop crying about it and get on with competing.

It's kind of like people weeping over OU's offenses in the 1970's.

[badger]

!. Rubbermaid makes great products both at its US and at its Chinese facilities. They're doing just fine, thank you. Look, they make an endless variety of 'me too' products that attempt to slap a design gloss on stuff invented in the 1950's. If that's your game, great, but you aren't going to make fat margins.
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to insult your precious Rubbermaid :P I just remembered them as an example of a company that Walmart strong-armed.


2. Walmart's biggest advantage over everyone else is information.
I remember hearing about a local grocer suing Walmart because they had someone sneak through his store with one of those scanners that not only took notes of pricing, but also restocking info. Walmart was about to move into his community. A judge ordered Walmart to turn over the scanner. I think they had to pay the guy's court costs also. Not sure if the grocer survived the Walmart competition or not.


People are free to shop where they will, but don't deny the logic behind Walmart. They have taken the supply chain and wrung cost out of it remoreslessly for two generations. it's time for people to stop crying about it and get on with competing.

It's kind of like people weeping over OU's offenses in the 1970's.
Fortunately I was not alive in the 70s to weep about them, but I can weep that we didn't get back-to-back titles like we did in 74-75 since then, heh :(

I am really eager in a curious-type-way, not an in-your-face-billionaires type way, to see what defeats Walmart. I still think it'll be something involving the Internet. We've all seen what happens to previously successful industry leaders that don't embrace new technology... your Kodaks and your Blockbusters.

[cleller]

When you know of places like this, tell everyone you know! Buying direct is better for the local chains AND for local consumers! :)

Whenever you need new garden plants in the Spring, go to Southwoods in Tulsa on Riverside just south of 81st. They have the strangest breed of tomatoes and they're all cheaper veggie plants than the ones sold at big boxes like Lowe's.

Oh yeah, just don't go on a Sat/Sun afternoon when the weather is beautiful. When you have to have people directing traffic to get in, its just too much.

[badger]

Oh yeah, just don't go on a Sat/Sun afternoon when the weather is beautiful. When you have to have people directing traffic to get in, its just too much.
Word. The best time to go is early in the morning on weekends. Not hot and the traffic hasn't woken up yet :D

[KantoSooner]

I thought about your comment regarding who might beat Walmart. I dunno. Hard to do unless you really break the mold. But their advantage in using cheap labor/overhead manufacturing is ebbing a bit (Chinese wages, for instance were $350/year in 1990, they are now above $5000/year. That's a lot to absorb in just 20 years or so, so how much longer their suppliers can keep that edge is anyone's bet.

Here's one idea that I had:

If your customers were willing to buy sight unseen, on line, you might be able to make a Schwan's concept work on a mammoth scale. Erase the 'big boxes', get rid of the floor staff and checkers. You'd have to create a fleet of delivery trucks, but, hell, with the cashflow, you could buy UPS or Fedex just for that know-how and hardly miss the cash. You would even be in a position to go fully compressed natural gas or electric running what would be the world's largest motor fleet.

But, to get people to buy in, you'd need to be cheeeeeeeeeeeeap. And easy. And reliable. You'd need to be very well funded up front.

But you could see it working.

[diverdog]

All of them...

No they are not.

The credit markets were frozen.

We were hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of 750,000 per month at the end of 08

Unemployment hit 10% in October of 2010

And many economist called the great recession the lesser depression. Technically you could argue it was not a depression but it was about as close as you could get to one. Since Waxman is from California I bet it felt like a depression.

The other juvenile crap that cruiser posted on Walmart were obscure websites that he must not have cared to check out. Everyone has a bitch about Walmart. Nothing new.

[soonercruiser]

Word. The best time to go is early in the morning on weekends. Not hot and the traffic hasn't woken up yet :D

OK, so now I see a new forum in the making....."Home and Garden Shooping by SoonerBadger"!

[soonercruiser]

OK....and I agree with the general drift of the Walmart and Rubbermaid bashing.

BUT!!!
WE Americans have made the economic bed that we are lying in.
How can the Left blame the present bad economy on businesses doing what they do well?
The larger point is that the Left is aiding Obama from taking any blame for anything that happens under his "watch".

[diverdog]

OK....and I agree with the general drift of the Walmart and Rubbermaid bashing.

BUT!!!
WE Americans have made the economic bed that we are lying in.
How can the Left blame the present bad economy on businesses doing what they do well?
The larger point is that the Left is aiding Obama from taking any blame for anything that happens under his "watch".

Cruiser the banks are still working through a lot of issues from 2008. We have got a lot of problems in the housing market and construction industry which are two big...nay....huge drivers of the economy. It will be years before we get a turn around.

[okie52]

No they are not.

The credit markets were frozen.

We were hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of 750,000 per month at the end of 08

Unemployment hit 10% in October of 2010

And many economist called the great recession the lesser depression. Technically you could argue it was not a depression but it was about as close as you could get to one. Since Waxman is from California I bet it felt like a depression.

The other juvenile crap that cruiser posted on Walmart were obscure websites that he must not have cared to check out. Everyone has a bitch about Walmart. Nothing new.

Unemployment wasn't over 10% when Obama took office in January 2009 and it wasn't a depression no matter what it felt like to Waxman.

Along with his co-author Ed Markey, Waxman was too busy creating all of those green jobs with his unilateral cap and trade bill...you know, the bill that punished NG.

3 years later Markey was trying to block the exportation of LPG declaring it gives the US a competitive advantage over other international businesses.

Geniuses.

[East Coast Bias]

I thought about your comment regarding who might beat Walmart. I dunno. Hard to do unless you really break the mold. But their advantage in using cheap labor/overhead manufacturing is ebbing a bit (Chinese wages, for instance were $350/year in 1990, they are now above $5000/year. That's a lot to absorb in just 20 years or so, so how much longer their suppliers can keep that edge is anyone's bet.
This is what will happen. The only missing piece right now is same day or next day delivery that is competitive and we all know this is coming. When you can look at something on Monday morning and it is on your step that afternoon, stores are obsolete. I think big-box stores will be display centers with a n order Kiosk that takes credit cards. At that point all they need is a big building(not in a mall) and someone to lock and unlock the doors and to change the paper in the kiosk. The retailers swap freight charges for what they pay in labor now. If you want to take something home with you, there will be business's pop up willing to charge you double. My 2 cents, but I have been in retail for 35 years, see many signs of this now....

Here's one idea that I had:

If your customers were willing to buy sight unseen, on line, you might be able to make a Schwan's concept work on a mammoth scale. Erase the 'big boxes', get rid of the floor staff and checkers. You'd have to create a fleet of delivery trucks, but, hell, with the cashflow, you could buy UPS or Fedex just for that know-how and hardly miss the cash. You would even be in a position to go fully compressed natural gas or electric running what would be the world's largest motor fleet.

But, to get people to buy in, you'd need to be cheeeeeeeeeeeeap. And easy. And reliable. You'd need to be very well funded up front.

But you could see it working.
This is what will happen. The only missing piece right now is same day delivery and we all know this is coming. At some point you will be able to see something on Monday morning and have it on your step in the afternoon.The big boxes will turn into display centers with a kiosk for credit cards. You can look at the displays under glass and order through the kiosk. All that is needed is a big building(not in a mall) and an $8 an hour person to lock/unlock the doors and change the paper in the kiosk.The retailers swap their highest cost item, labor for freight costs. Many are willing to do this now, just don't have the shipping model ready...

[badger]

This is what will happen. The only missing piece right now is same day delivery and we all know this is coming. At some point you will be able to see something on Monday morning and have it on your step in the afternoon.The big boxes will turn into display centers with a kiosk for credit cards. You can look at the displays under glass and order through the kiosk. All that is needed is a big building(not in a mall) and an $8 an hour person to lock/unlock the doors and change the paper in the kiosk.The retailers swap their highest cost item, labor for freight costs. Many are willing to do this now, just don't have the shipping model ready...

Sucks that transportation costs are pretty high right now, though. This might be a driving factor behind getting mass transit lines up in areas that they aren't currently. Driving big trucks on diesel everywhere isn't as cost effective as a choo-choo train might be :)

[KantoSooner]

Two parts to that delivery system: one is the long haul transport of mass qtys. The second is the local delivery from distribution center to homes. The latter could be all electric, theoretically.
You'd need to be damn good at your logistics to make this work, but, if you were, you'd make cash that would make Bill Gates go down on his knees and pound the floor with both fists in blind raging frustration.

[Midtowner]

Cruiser the banks are still working through a lot of issues from 2008. We have got a lot of problems in the housing market and construction industry which are two big...nay....huge drivers of the economy. It will be years before we get a turn around.

If by working through, you mean "repeating," I agree.

[soonercruiser]

Word. The best time to go is early in the morning on weekends. Not hot and the traffic hasn't woken up yet :D

Ah ha! So you admit that you go!
Spandex or tight jeans?
:orange:

[soonercruiser]

Cruiser the banks are still working through a lot of issues from 2008. We have got a lot of problems in the housing market and construction industry which are two big...nay....huge drivers of the economy. It will be years before we get a turn around.

Diver, nice!
What Obama web site did that quote come from?

**I predict a rapid turnaround if Romney is elected and he and Congress have the nuggies to deal with federal spending.
Book mak this, or cpoy and paste if you wish!
The only thing holding the economy back after a Romney win would be if Obama gets his economic collapse, but after the election.

[diverdog]

Diver, nice!
What Obama web site did that quote come from?

**I predict a rapid turnaround if Romney is elected and he and Congress have the nuggies to deal with federal spending.
Book mak this, or cpoy and paste if you wish!
The only thing holding the economy back after a Romney win would be if Obama gets his economic collapse, but after the election.

It comes from the fact that I have 27 years in the financial industry.

Romney will not turn the economy around quickly. No one will.

[Curly Bill]

I don't think it gets turned around quickly by Romney or anyone else either. My hope though is Romney would at least make some effort not to drive it off a cliff.

[LiveLaughLove]

I'm sure glad Reagan didn't pout and whine about the lousy economy he was given. Yeah yeah it's not the same, Bush left us a far worse mess, yadda yadda. BS.

Obama didn't have to campaign for the job, but he chose to do so. He could have waited for better times to become President Johnny GoodTimes. He himself said if he doesn't have it turned around in 3 years he wouldn't deserve another term.

For once, I agree with him. And if the excuse is he didn't know, then he should have. He was a Senator for crying out loud, and I am positive he was briefed on all of this as the Dem nominee.

So he either willfully ignored it, or incompetently thought it didn't matter, or he actually thought his ideas would work. Otherwise, saying 3 years was just flat out stupid. I don't want a second term for an idiot like that.

[diverdog]

I'm sure glad Reagan didn't pout and whine about the lousy economy he was given. Yeah yeah it's not the same, Bush left us a far worse mess, yadda yadda. BS.

Obama didn't have to campaign for the job, but he chose to do so. He could have waited for better times to become President Johnny GoodTimes. He himself said if he doesn't have it turned around in 3 years he wouldn't deserve another term.

For once, I agree with him. And if the excuse is he didn't know, then he should have. He was a Senator for crying out loud, and I am positive he was briefed on all of this as the Dem nominee.

So he either willfully ignored it, or incompetently thought it didn't matter, or he actually thought his ideas would work. Otherwise, saying 3 years was just flat out stupid. I don't want a second term for an idiot like that.

Reagan did not face the obstacles that Obama or the next President is facing at this time. He also had a lot more tools to use to fight a bad economy.

[cleller]

Reagan did not face the obstacles that Obama or the next President is facing at this time. He also had a lot more tools to use to fight a bad economy.

Its debatable. When Reagan took office he had the additional problems of high inflation, high interest rates, poorly trained and funded armed forces, lousy manufacturing output, poor productivity, an auto industry unable to compete worldwide, a Soviet Union still trying to spread communism worldwide.

The economic crisis Obama faced was severe and persistent, no argument there. I think people tend to minimize how bad things were in 1980 in the big picture. The country had been thru a long slow slide downward for about 15 years.

[LiveLaughLove]

Reagan did not face the obstacles that Obama or the next President is facing at this time. He also had a lot more tools to use to fight a bad economy.

Well of course not. He only had to contend with a Cold War super power on top of everything Carter left him. Not the same at all.

What tools did he have? A congress that supported him? Right. If I recall Obama had both houses for two years. He said he only needed 3. So for 2/3rds of the time he said he needed he had a completely in the bag ram it down our throats Dem Congress to do his bidding. And this is what we have gotten.

You know, if this were a Republican President you and your ilk would be screaming to the heavens for a change and blaming him solely.

Time for a change at the top. The Amateur is an appropriate title for him.

I do like the weeping and gnashing of teeth, carry on. Rend a robe while you're at it.

[pphilfran]

Reagan did not face the obstacles that Obama or the next President is facing at this time. He also had a lot more tools to use to fight a bad economy.

Chrysler had just gone off the deep end and needed several billion to keep from going under...

And then we have the S&L fiasco...damn near half had failed by 1989....just a paltry 150 billion was needed to keep the rest afloat....

The 79's - 80's was just as messed up as we are now....we just don't want to admit it because 'this' is the worst recession since the depression...

[cleller]

Chrysler had just gone off the deep end and needed several billion to keep from going under...

And then we have the S&L fiasco...damn near half had failed by 1989....just a paltry 150 billion was needed to keep the rest afloat....

The 79's - 80's was just as messed up as we are now....we just don't want to admit it because 'this' is the worst recession since the depression...

Looks like a few of us agree on this stuff.

Now, the 2008 crisis had the potential to be much worse, but so far, a lot of the doomsday scenarios have been averted. Since that time, I've heard some "experts" talking about terrible economic times since the Great Depression. Most of them say the 1973-75 recession and energy crisis was more difficult, and that it lingered until about 1982.

Having lived thru both, that time around 1973 seemed more dismal as it stretched on and on.

Still waiting to see if 2008 will boomerang back at us. When everyone is still buying smartphones, tattoos, new TVs, its hard to feel like we are suffering mightily.

[champions77]

My Daddy always said "Excuses are for losers" If that is true, then what does that say about this Administration?

Will this bunch EVER accept responsibility for anything that happens on their watch, ever?

The worst post recession economy in this country maybe ever. Why? Because this Administration has done more to create "uncertainty" in this economy than any President at least in my lifetime. Uncertainty caused by;

--Promising tax increases during his campaign.
--Promising more regulations
-- Advocated Cap and Trade during his 2008 campaign. If passed, would amount to an enormous tax increase for most businesses.
---Promised Government Healthcare during his campaign and delivered, despite the majority of Americans objecting, at least to his Healthcare Plan, and especially the manner that it was executed with bribes, waivers, lies and kickbacks. Quite possibly the most ill conceived government program ever intiated. And with this, maybe the most stupid statement any elected offical has ever made, compliments of Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House. "We have to pass this Healthcare bill, so we can find out what's in it"

So this President finds it hard to understand how and why this economy has not performed better, in spite of the trillions of dollars spent to "jump start" it?

[diverdog]

Well of course not. He only had to contend with a Cold War super power on top of everything Carter left him. Not the same at all.

What tools did he have? A congress that supported him? Right. If I recall Obama had both houses for two years. He said he only needed 3. So for 2/3rds of the time he said he needed he had a completely in the bag ram it down our throats Dem Congress to do his bidding. And this is what we have gotten.

You know, if this were a Republican President you and your ilk would be screaming to the heavens for a change and blaming him solely.

Time for a change at the top. The Amateur is an appropriate title for him.

I do like the weeping and gnashing of teeth, carry on. Rend a robe while you're at it.

Are you seriously going argue that the Cold War under Reagan was worse than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Tell me how many US servicemen died in the Cold War under Reagan? Maybe 5?

After almost 4 years in office Reagan's unemployment stood at 7.8% vs Obama at 8.2%. The stock market has performed better under Obama in his first three years.... The average annual compound returns for the Dow, S&P 500, and NASDAQ have been 17.2%, 25.3% and 31.7% respectively in Obama’s first 3.3 years. This compares to Reagan’s first term results (for the same indices and time period) of 6.86%, 6.16%, and 7.02% respectively. Before Obama took office the markets had fallen at one point by 58%.

Reagan also had the largest tax increase in US history and he raised a whole bunch of other taxes...TEFRA, Highway Revenue Act of 1982, Security Amendment Act of 1983, Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983, COBRA, Tax Reform Act of 1986, Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983, Deficit Reduction Act of 1984...I could go on. Do you think for one moment that those idiots in the Tea Party would have let Reagan increase taxes or triple the national debt? Reagan did not hate the institution of government he just did not like the wastefulness of it. Finally, what no one talks about is that Volker pretty much set up the Reagan economy. He was a great Fed Reserve Chairman.

Where I credit Reagan is that he was able to bring the country together and there was a sense that we were all in this together. Right now I think this is the most divisive political atmosphere I have ever seen. Reagan was able to reach across the isle and get compromise. That is not happening in DC. Obama's biggest problem is that he is a political *****. He has never stood up to the Republicans and faced them down. Reagan took his opposition to the woodshed and kick the ever living **** out of them. By the numbers in the first 4 years Obama has not done much worse than Reagan. As a leader he cannot even sniff Reagan's jock strap.

[diverdog]

My Daddy always said "Excuses are for losers" If that is true, then what does that say about this Administration?

Will this bunch EVER accept responsibility for anything that happens on their watch, ever?

The worst post recession economy in this country maybe ever. Why? Because this Administration has done more to create "uncertainty" in this economy than any President at least in my lifetime. Uncertainty caused by;

--Promising tax increases during his campaign.
--Promising more regulations
-- Advocated Cap and Trade during his 2008 campaign. If passed, would amount to an enormous tax increase for most businesses.
---Promised Government Healthcare during his campaign and delivered, despite the majority of Americans objecting, at least to his Healthcare Plan, and especially the manner that it was executed with bribes, waivers, lies and kickbacks. Quite possibly the most ill conceived government program ever intiated. And with this, maybe the most stupid statement any elected offical has ever made, compliments of Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House. "We have to pass this Healthcare bill, so we can find out what's in it"

So this President finds it hard to understand how and why this economy has not performed better, in spite of the trillions of dollars spent to "jump start" it?

And most of what you state is flat out untrue. He has not put in more regulations than Bush. What tax increases are you talking about? The ACA just passed so until now I am unaware of any major tax increases. Cap and Trade has been around since 1988 and was supported by Bush I. You do have me on the ACA....which I do not support.


Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg. [...]
In the last 12 months through the end of September, the cost range of new regulations is estimated to be $8 billion to $9 billion, a decrease from 2010, according to non-partisan Government Accountability Office reports analyzed by Bloomberg…The record [cost of regulations] came in 1992 under George H.W. Bush when that total hit $20.9 billion in current dollars. In the last year of Ronald Reagan’s term it was $16 billion in today’s dollars.


Getting all this to work in the real world required a leap of faith. The opportunity came with the 1988 election of George H.W. Bush. EDF president Fred Krupp phoned Bush's new White House counsel—Boyden Gray—and suggested that the best way for Bush to make good on his pledge to become the "environmental president" was to fix the acid rain problem, and the best way to do that was by using the new tool of emissions trading. Gray liked the marketplace approach, and even before the Reagan administration expired, he put EDF staffers to work drafting legislation to make it happen. The immediate aim was to break the impasse over acid rain. But global warming had also registered as front-page news for the first time that sweltering summer of 1988; according to Krupp, EDF and the Bush White House both felt from the start that emissions trading would ultimately be the best way to address this much larger challenge.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html#ixzz1zxqMnZFx

I find it ironic that the righties on this board blast the liberals for not accepting responsibility for this economy. Show me anywhere the Republican Party excepted responsibility for the debacle in 2007-2008. The will try to lay it on the Democrats or the poor.

I accept that Obama has been a poor leader, I do not agree with his stances on ACA and increased drilling activity. However, he has done a decent job fighting our wars, shoring up our banks and helping the unemployed. He has also seen a decent stretch of job growth albeit weak job growth.

[LiveLaughLove]

Are you seriously going argue that the Cold War under Reagan was worse than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Tell me how many US servicemen died in the Cold War under Reagan? Maybe 5?

After almost 4 years in office Reagan's unemployment stood at 7.8% vs Obama at 8.2%. The stock market has performed better under Obama in his first three years.... The average annual compound returns for the Dow, S&P 500, and NASDAQ have been 17.2%, 25.3% and 31.7% respectively in Obama’s first 3.3 years. This compares to Reagan’s first term results (for the same indices and time period) of 6.86%, 6.16%, and 7.02% respectively. Before Obama took office the markets had fallen at one point by 58%.

Reagan also had the largest tax increase in US history and he raised a whole bunch of other taxes...TEFRA, Highway Revenue Act of 1982, Security Amendment Act of 1983, Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983, COBRA, Tax Reform Act of 1986, Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983, Deficit Reduction Act of 1984...I could go on. Do you think for one moment that those idiots in the Tea Party would have let Reagan increase taxes or triple the national debt? Reagan did not hate the institution of government he just did not like the wastefulness of it. Finally, what no one talks about is that Volker pretty much set up the Reagan economy. He was a great Fed Reserve Chairman.

Where I credit Reagan is that he was able to bring the country together and there was a sense that we were all in this together. Right now I think this is the most divisive political atmosphere I have ever seen. Reagan was able to reach across the isle and get compromise. That is not happening in DC. Obama's biggest problem is that he is a political *****. He has never stood up to the Republicans and faced them down. Reagan took his opposition to the woodshed and kick the ever living **** out of them. By the numbers in the first 4 years Obama has not done much worse than Reagan. As a leader he cannot even sniff Reagan's jock strap.

Gee, it's funny how you guys change the subject to suit your needs. We are talking economics I thought. Or did I miss something? The Cold War economically was a huge drain on our monetary resources. That was what I was talking about and you know it. I had two sons in Iraq, so spare me the faux indignation, and stop changing the subject. This topic is about the economics.

I know that economics are a much larger thing than any individual, President or no, can fix or break by themselves. The odd thing is we never heard these things until it's a liberal Dem in office suffering through it. Now, all of a sudden, the papers are shouting how it's not his fault. G HW Bush didn't get that kind of treatment. Yet, we hear that it is W Bush' fault. So which is it? Is it something one President can break or fix, or is it not?

If it's Bush' fault, then Obama is to blame for the last three years. If it's not Bush' fault, then Obama needs to shut up about it and quit his whining.

Your last paragraph is correct. Reagan was a uniter and leader. Obama isn't even close. He doesn't instill confidence in those that could be aiding him in helping the economy. He is too busy dividing for votes.

[diverdog]

Chrysler had just gone off the deep end and needed several billion to keep from going under...

And then we have the S&L fiasco...damn near half had failed by 1989....just a paltry 150 billion was needed to keep the rest afloat....

The 79's - 80's was just as messed up as we are now....we just don't want to admit it because 'this' is the worst recession since the depression...

Bear Sterns
AIG
Lehman Bros
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanley
BOA
Countrywide
Citi
JP Morgan Chase
445 bank failures thru 2011
Collapse of GM and Chrystler
Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae
Washington Mutual

All of these entities either collapse or were under massive stress.

Phil had Bush's folks not stepped in and shored up some of these banks or made mergers possible our economy would have been destroyed. Credit would have dried up and companies would not have been able to operate. Reagan had a bad economy but I do not remember anyone talking about us failing off a cliff. That was a reality from 07-09.

[diverdog]

Gee, it's funny how you guys change the subject to suit your needs. We are talking economics I thought. Or did I miss something? The Cold War economically was a huge drain on our monetary resources. That was what I was talking about and you know it. I had two sons in Iraq, so spare me the faux indignation, and stop changing the subject. This topic is about the economics.

I know that economics are a much larger thing than any individual, President or no, can fix or break by themselves. The odd thing is we never heard these things until it's a liberal Dem in office suffering through it. Now, all of a sudden, the papers are shouting how it's not his fault. G HW Bush didn't get that kind of treatment. Yet, we hear that it is W Bush' fault. So which is it? Is it something one President can break or fix, or is it not?

If it's Bush' fault, then Obama is to blame for the last three years. If it's not Bush' fault, then Obama needs to shut up about it and quit his whining.

Your last paragraph is correct. Reagan was a uniter and leader. Obama isn't even close. He doesn't instill confidence in those that could be aiding him in helping the economy. He is too busy dividing for votes.

Explain to me how the last 3 years are all Obama's fault. I am all ears.

The Cold War was a drain on our resources through Carter. By the time Reagan got into office he was not facing the same threat. The USSR was already collapsing and much of the money Reagan spent on defense was a waste.....battleships for instance. He did much better by engaging pro-democracy groups in the eastern blocs and facing them down with pro-democracy rhetoric. (In case you have not figured it out I liked Reagan for the most part). His speech at the Berlin Wall was right up there with the Gettysburg Address or any other great speech made by an American President.


You guys have been blaming Carter and Clinton for years. So don't tell me the conservatives did not blame the democrats after they were in office. Hell they blamed Clinton for the economic collapse under Bush II.

I have zero confidence that we have anyone in politics today who can solve our problems.

[pphilfran]

Bear Sterns
AIG
Lehman Bros
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanley
BOA
Countrywide
Citi
JP Morgan Chase
445 bank failures thru 2011
Collapse of GM and Chrystler
Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae
Washington Mutual

All of these entities either collapse or were under massive stress.

Phil had Bush's folks not stepped in and shored up some of these banks or made mergers possible our economy would have been destroyed. Credit would have dried up and companies would not have been able to operate. Reagan had a bad economy but I do not remember anyone talking about us failing off a cliff. That was a reality from 07-09.

I don't have a problem with the bailouts...without bailouts the entire S&L would have collapsed and it would have taken other financial organization would have collapsed in short order...

Not denying that it has been damn bad...we took a terrible short term free fall...

The 70's/80's was more a Chinese water torture...the economy collapsed over a longer period of time...and hit higher unemployment levels than the current recession....inflation was rampant...mortgage rates were at 15%....the S&P had no positive return from mid 1969 to mid 1979....and then the S&L crisis hit...on top of half the S&L's failing between 1980 and 1994 over 1600 BANKS failed or were given loans......

On top of that the damn farmers went bonkers....in 1978 they drove their tractors to DC to protest prices...in West Texas they stopped grocery shipments and tried to empty grocery store shelves....some plowed up the word STRIKE in their planted fields...

This one is probably worse but mostly because there has been little success in getting the economy up and running...I can't believe you don't or won't remember how bad it was back then...

[pphilfran]

Off the top of my head...

We started wrapping up Nam...it didn't suck too much money from the economy...

Oil embargo in the early 70's...gas lines in parts of the country...no gas in parts of the country....this gave the imports a big toehold in the US auto market....the imports expertise was 4 cyl vehicles...and the public, for a period of time, wanted high mileage...the Big 3's expertise was land cruisers with V8's...this was the start of the decline of Detroit...

Inflation starts to climb....interest rates start to climb..I remember buying a 1 year CD from a S&L with 12% interest...mortgage rates topped 15%...unemployment climbs above 10%...between 1975 and 1987 unemployment damn near averaged 8%...and was only as low as 6% for two years within that time frame...

S&L crisis in the 80's..

[diverdog]

I don't have a problem with the bailouts...without bailouts the entire S&L would have collapsed and it would have taken other financial organization would have collapsed in short order...

Not denying that it has been damn bad...we took a terrible short term free fall...

The 70's/80's was more a Chinese water torture...the economy collapsed over a longer period of time...and hit higher unemployment levels than the current recession....inflation was rampant...mortgage rates were at 15%....the S&P had no positive return from mid 1969 to mid 1979....and then the S&L crisis hit...on top of half the S&L's failing between 1980 and 1994 over 1600 BANKS failed or were given loans......

On top of that the damn farmers went bonkers....in 1978 they drove their tractors to DC to protest prices...in West Texas they stopped grocery shipments and tried to empty grocery store shelves....some plowed up the word STRIKE in their planted fields...

This one is probably worse but mostly because there has been little success in getting the economy up and running...I can't believe you don't or won't remember how bad it was back then...

Oh I remember. Oklahoma got killed. I could not find a job and ended up in enlisting in the AF with a college degree. Half my family lost their farms.

What makes this one worse is there is not much the fed can do with interest rates, we have a crushing debt, the housing market is bad, the banks are not lending and the american consumer is leveraged to the hilt. Throw in the crisis in Europe and two wars and you have a bad environment for economic growth. A more robust energy policy may help but we saw what happened when Reagan was in office. I am also worried this CDO stuff has not worked its way through the banks. I just do not see any kind of economic miracle on the horizon. Obama thought green energy and that turned out to be a bad bet.

[pphilfran]

Both were nasty times...

The fed in the 80's couldn't do any interest rate stimulus because inflation was running rampant...

I can't remember Europe being so messed up as we are today...

Also, banks/financials were not nearly as big as they are today...crappy regs allowed the too big to fail to help create our current mess...

[soonercruiser]

Reagan did not face the obstacles that Obama or the next President is facing at this time. He also had a lot more tools to use to fight a bad economy.

This posts sounds like something off of the WhiteHouse.gov re-election web site Diver!
Come on! Every President has had their share of crisis and challenges.
What do you think that 9-11 did to the economy?

The difference here is...Obama has done nothing of substance to fuel the economy, compared to Reagan and Boooosh!
The Skimulus was a political payback joke. And, all the extensions to unemployment has trained Pavlov's dog to wait for another bowl of government dog food.

*Obama's #1 priority was ramming through government healthcare....and the national debt be damned!
He has had over 3 1/2 years to do something; he had both houses of Congress for two years!
He doesn't care about the people or the so-called middle class....he only cares about his idiology.
Get over it! He's a Keynesian economic idiot! CLUELESS!

[landrun]

The truth ... for those who are interested ---> http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR

When Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%.
He then argued that if we didn't pass his stimulus that the employment rate would get over 8%.

It didn't get to double digits until after he passed his stimulus and had been in office for almost a full year.

The dems can't be honest with the facts or they lose the debate ... every time.

[diverdog]

The truth ... for those who are interested ---> http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR

When Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%.
He then argued that if we didn't pass his stimulus that the employment rate would get over 8%.

It didn't get to double digits until after he passed his stimulus and had been in office for almost a full year.

The dems can't be honest with the facts or they lose the debate ... every time.

So we were shedding 750,000 jobs a month when he took office and that was somehow suppose to end the minute he became President. GMAB.

[diverdog]

This posts sounds like something off of the WhiteHouse.gov re-election web site Diver!
Come on! Every President has had their share of crisis and challenges.
What do you think that 9-11 did to the economy?

The difference here is...Obama has done nothing of substance to fuel the economy, compared to Reagan and Boooosh!
The Skimulus was a political payback joke. And, all the extensions to unemployment has trained Pavlov's dog to wait for another bowl of government dog food.

*Obama's #1 priority was ramming through government healthcare....and the national debt be damned!
He has had over 3 1/2 years to do something; he had both houses of Congress for two years!
He doesn't care about the people or the so-called middle class....he only cares about his idiology.
Get over it! He's a Keynesian economic idiot! CLUELESS!

Reagan raised taxes and increased spending at a rate far exceeding Obama on a percentage basis. Your beloved Tea Party would have sent Reagan packing.

[diverdog]

Both were nasty times...

The fed in the 80's couldn't do any interest rate stimulus because inflation was running rampant...

I can't remember Europe being so messed up as we are today...

Also, banks/financials were not nearly as big as they are today...crappy regs allowed the too big to fail to help create our current mess...

All the savings and loan failures did not even come close to the damage caused by the failure of Lehman. Letting them go under was a HUGE mistake. The de-leveraging of Lehman debt cause a market collapse of over $800 billion dollars.

The other thing that happened in 08 was the run on money market accounts and the potential for them to go below $1 NAV. We came within days of a total run on banks and a loss of all our commercial credit. The larges money market account the Reserve Primary Fund went to 97 cents NAV. The exposure in the money market mutual funds was about $2.7 trillion dollars.

I had commercial clients that we collateralized their deposits using Lehman bonds and they lost money. We were completely blindsided by how fast they failed.

Phil I think this is going to sound bad but I do not think by and large that the Okies on this board know how bad the economy was because Oklahoma was spared this time around. You guys did not have the large housing boom and speculative borrowing. On top of that oil prices rose and Oklahoma was able to sustain a good economy.

To give you an idea how bad it was in these parts land was going for as much as a $500,000 per acre. We were paying farmers millions in taxpayer dollars to keep them from developing all the open space. The bank I worked for collapsed under $2 billion dollars in loan defaults which was growing at a rapid rate. We had a great home mortgage portfolio but our commercial mortgage portfolio was a wreck. The collapse of the commercial real estate market took down everyone. We had 100 acre developments financed for $20,000,000. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the collapse of large real estate projects can and will take a bank down fast. We had $69 billion in assets under management.

[pphilfran]

DD...I think you are just ignoring how serious things were in the 70's and 80's...

It is probably worse today but not to the extreme that our leadership wants us to believe...

Unemployment averaged 8% for 13 years...
The prime rate peaked in late 1980 at 21.5%...it stayed above 10% from Oct 1978 until June 1985
Fuel prices nearly doubled (chained 2006 dollars) from 1978 to 1981
Half the savings and Loans went under...1500 banks failed or needed bailouts
Chrysler was going under and needed financial support...the pos K Car saved their azz....along with Lee I...

In the UK they had the highest unemployment in 50 years...20%

The only reason the current recession is in a class by itself is because the administration wants it so...if it ain't the worst since the depression then their policy makes them look like fools....

One other tidbit...

Unemployment in the current recession stabilized PRIOR (May 2009 the rate of increase slowed, In Oct it peaked) to the stimulus having much effect....stabilizing the banking system meant much more to the economy then the "stimulus" that was loaded with money to the unemployed and little actual long term stimulus...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/unemploy.jpg

[soonercruiser]

DD...I think you are just ignoring how serious things were in the 70's and 80's...

It is probably worse today but not to the extreme that our leadership wants us to believe...

Unemployment averaged 8% for 13 years...
The prime rate peaked in late 1980 at 21.5%...it stayed above 10% from Oct 1978 until June 1985
Fuel prices nearly doubled (chained 2006 dollars) from 1978 to 1981
Half the savings and Loans went under...1500 banks failed or needed bailouts
Chrysler was going under and needed financial support...the pos K Car saved their azz....along with Lee I...

In the UK they had the highest unemployment in 50 years...20%

The only reason the current recession is in a class by itself is because the administration wants it so...if it ain't the worst since the depression then their policy makes them look like fools....
One other tidbit...

Unemployment in the current recession stabilized PRIOR (May 2009 the rate of increase slowed, In Oct it peaked) to the stimulus having much effect....stabilizing the banking system meant much more to the economy then the "stimulus" that was loaded with money to the unemployed and little actual long term stimulus...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/unemploy.jpg

THIS!

Obama promised unemployment would be 5.8 % by now if Congress passed his Skimulus Plan!
What is it....???

And, don't gives us the LW crap line that "things were soooooo much worst than they thought"!
It's just the type of lie that politicians like Obama overuses to excuise his ineptness.
And, it's part of the plan to destroy the economy and declare himself the dictator.

[diverdog]

THIS!

Obama promised unemployment would be 5.8 % by now if Congress passed his Skimulus Plan!
What is it....???

And, don't gives us the LW crap line that "things were soooooo much worst than they thought"!
It's just the type of lie that politicians like Obama overuses to excuise his ineptness.
And, it's part of the plan to destroy the economy and declare himself the dictator.

I will admit Obama was an idiot for promising a 5.8% unemployment rate.

Here is a quick quiz for you Cruiser.

What was the average unemployment rate under Reagan?

a.) 6.35%
b.) 7.51%
c.) 5.95%
d.) 9.42%
e.) 5.54%

[diverdog]

DD...I think you are just ignoring how serious things were in the 70's and 80's...

It is probably worse today but not to the extreme that our leadership wants us to believe...

Unemployment averaged 8% for 13 years...
The prime rate peaked in late 1980 at 21.5%...it stayed above 10% from Oct 1978 until June 1985
Fuel prices nearly doubled (chained 2006 dollars) from 1978 to 1981
Half the savings and Loans went under...1500 banks failed or needed bailouts
Chrysler was going under and needed financial support...the pos K Car saved their azz....along with Lee I...

In the UK they had the highest unemployment in 50 years...20%

The only reason the current recession is in a class by itself is because the administration wants it so...if it ain't the worst since the depression then their policy makes them look like fools....

One other tidbit...

Unemployment in the current recession stabilized PRIOR (May 2009 the rate of increase slowed, In Oct it peaked) to the stimulus having much effect....stabilizing the banking system meant much more to the economy then the "stimulus" that was loaded with money to the unemployed and little actual long term stimulus...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/unemploy.jpg

Phil:

None of this threatened to take down the US economy. Sure it made it miserable but we were not going to collapse. Most of it was caused by poor policy decisions by the government....Nixon/Carter and a war in the ME.

In August 1982, the median length of unemployment was 8.7 weeks. In August 2010, it was 19.9 weeks -- more than twice as long. And that's not a blip. For nearly a year, the median duration of unemployment has ranged between 19 and 25.5 weeks. So workers have been without jobs much longer under Obama than Reagan. People can say it is his policies but I do not think there is anyone who is going to drive down the UE numbers as fast as we need them because of the issues in Europe and the restructuring of the labor market.

Phil you need to sit where I sit and see what is going on out there. People are struggling and it isn't all due to Obama. Seniors who are trying to live on the interest from their savings are lucky to get 1%. Dividends have not been paying what they use to pay and SS is not keeping up with inflation. We have households that have two family incomes and they can barely make ends meet because they are having to foot a much larger share of their retirement than our parents, college cost are through the roof and most of their pay raises get eaten up in additional health care premiums. The US economy thrives on consumer spending and that is shut down. Oil and consumer spending saved Reagan. There is no one out there that will turn this economy around any time soon because there are so many issues like the leverage of the big investment banks, the collapsing Euro and the crushing US debt. Obama cannot lower taxes much more and he cannot spend. The Fed is in a corner because the cost of borrowing is almost zero. So what policies does a new president put in place to turn the economy around? I do not even see deregulation helping all that much and tax cuts at this point will do almost nothing. Cutting government spending is not going to help either because we will continue to throw thousands more onto the unemployment line.

[okie52]

We've had 3 year unemployment benefits yet a median UE of 19-25 weeks?

Ng should be saving obama's hide since it has been sub $3 for quite some time now (not that he hasn't done his best to harm that industry).

Yet we have a president that kills thousands of jobs for his own misguided agenda. Anybody seen all of those millions of green jobs yet?

[pphilfran]

Phil:

None of this threatened to take down the US economy. Sure it made it miserable but we were not going to collapse. Most of it was caused by poor policy decisions by the government....Nixon/Carter and a war in the ME.

In August 1982, the median length of unemployment was 8.7 weeks. In August 2010, it was 19.9 weeks -- more than twice as long. And that's not a blip. For nearly a year, the median duration of unemployment has ranged between 19 and 25.5 weeks. So workers have been without jobs much longer under Obama than Reagan. People can say it is his policies but I do not think there is anyone who is going to drive down the UE numbers as fast as we need them because of the issues in Europe and the restructuring of the labor market.

Phil you need to sit where I sit and see what is going on out there. People are struggling and it isn't all due to Obama. Seniors who are trying to live on the interest from their savings are lucky to get 1%. Dividends have not been paying what they use to pay and SS is not keeping up with inflation. We have households that have two family incomes and they can barely make ends meet because they are having to foot a much larger share of their retirement than our parents, college cost are through the roof and most of their pay raises get eaten up in additional health care premiums. The US economy thrives on consumer spending and that is shut down. Oil and consumer spending saved Reagan. There is no one out there that will turn this economy around any time soon because there are so many issues like the leverage of the big investment banks, the collapsing Euro and the crushing US debt. Obama cannot lower taxes much more and he cannot spend. The Fed is in a corner because the cost of borrowing is almost zero. So what policies does a new president put in place to turn the economy around? I do not even see deregulation helping all that much and tax cuts at this point will do almost nothing. Cutting government spending is not going to help either because we will continue to throw thousands more onto the unemployment line.

You don't think there would have been dire consequences if we had bailed out Chrysler or any of the banks?

Unemployment was already at 10.5%...where would it have ended up without the bailouts....

[LiveLaughLove]

Phil:

None of this threatened to take down the US economy. Sure it made it miserable but we were not going to collapse. Most of it was caused by poor policy decisions by the government....Nixon/Carter and a war in the ME.

In August 1982, the median length of unemployment was 8.7 weeks. In August 2010, it was 19.9 weeks -- more than twice as long. And that's not a blip. For nearly a year, the median duration of unemployment has ranged between 19 and 25.5 weeks. So workers have been without jobs much longer under Obama than Reagan. People can say it is his policies but I do not think there is anyone who is going to drive down the UE numbers as fast as we need them because of the issues in Europe and the restructuring of the labor market.

Phil you need to sit where I sit and see what is going on out there. People are struggling and it isn't all due to Obama. Seniors who are trying to live on the interest from their savings are lucky to get 1%. Dividends have not been paying what they use to pay and SS is not keeping up with inflation. We have households that have two family incomes and they can barely make ends meet because they are having to foot a much larger share of their retirement than our parents, college cost are through the roof and most of their pay raises get eaten up in additional health care premiums. The US economy thrives on consumer spending and that is shut down. Oil and consumer spending saved Reagan. There is no one out there that will turn this economy around any time soon because there are so many issues like the leverage of the big investment banks, the collapsing Euro and the crushing US debt. Obama cannot lower taxes much more and he cannot spend. The Fed is in a corner because the cost of borrowing is almost zero. So what policies does a new president put in place to turn the economy around? I do not even see deregulation helping all that much and tax cuts at this point will do almost nothing. Cutting government spending is not going to help either because we will continue to throw thousands more onto the unemployment line.

Maybe if he had been a uniter instead of divider (The election's over. I won, you lost), and maybe if he had spoken of America as the greatest country ever and tried lifting moral, instead of going on apology tours, things would be going better.

Sometimes it's not the policy that is wrong (although his clearly is), it's the person. Reagan made us feel good about ourselves again. People took it upon themselves to hire more, take more risks to help get us out of the malaise. We knew he had a direction to go in. You may not have agreed, but you knew where he stood and what was going on. So you could make better financial risk assessments.

Obama is none of those things. He is doom and gloom. His campaign slogan was upbeat, but he almost immediately devolved into a partisan hack (typical Chicago politician). The health care thing being a prime example. It was crammed down our throats without bipartisan support. That is not a mandate.

He gives no one with the finances to help the economy any reason to want to do so. We have no clue where he truly stands. He instills no enthusiasm to anyone outside of himself (whom he loves above all) and his sycophants. He had his chance, he blew it. If he gets another term, it will be to the detriment of our country and drag out true recovery just that much longer.

[okie52]

You don't think there would have been dire consequences if we had bailed out Chrysler or any of the banks?

Unemployment was already at 10.5%...where would it have ended up without the bailouts....

I bought a home in 1981 with a 16.5% mortgage. Prime was at 20.5%. Ahh for the good ole days.

[pphilfran]

One other item DD...look at business bankruptcy filings from the early 80's vs today...

http://www.abiworld.org/AM/AMTemplate.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=65139

In 1980 there were 43000 bk filed...that number climbed to 82000 by 1987

In 2008 there were 28000...than number climbed to 61000 by 2009...

A lot smaller economy in 1987...far fewer businesses...yet actual number of business failures was higher than the latest and greatest recession...

Neither of the recessions we have discussed are even in the same ball park as the Great Depression...either of the recessions we have discussed would have been in the depression area range if the fed had done nothing....

The 80's mess lasted for nearly two decades....a slower decay...kinda like lopping your arm off an inch at a time...

The current mess has been shorter duration to date...though that could change...it had a much faster decline which was very painful...like cutting your arm off at the shoulder with a single cut...

Like I said....our current problems are probably more sever due to the short time frame it took to fall and a more severe banking sector problem....

I wouldn't wish either on anybody...

I also think our DC leadership (any and all parties) will milk any disaster for any possible increase in party strength...

[diverdog]

One other item DD...look at business bankruptcy filings from the early 80's vs today...

http://www.abiworld.org/AM/AMTemplate.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=65139

In 1980 there were 43000 bk filed...that number climbed to 82000 by 1987

In 2008 there were 28000...than number climbed to 61000 by 2009...

A lot smaller economy in 1987...far fewer businesses...yet actual number of business failures was higher than the latest and greatest recession...

Neither of the recessions we have discussed are even in the same ball park as the Great Depression...either of the recessions we have discussed would have been in the depression area range if the fed had done nothing....

The 80's mess lasted for nearly two decades....a slower decay...kinda like lopping your arm off an inch at a time...

The current mess has been shorter duration to date...though that could change...it had a much faster decline which was very painful...like cutting your arm off at the shoulder with a single cut...

Like I said....our current problems are probably more sever due to the short time frame it took to fall and a more severe banking sector problem....

I wouldn't wish either on anybody...

I also think our DC leadership (any and all parties) will milk any disaster for any possible increase in party strength...

Phil, good points.

So it took 2 decades to get through the bad economy in the 70-80's and the Republicans want Obama to do it in less than 4 years. Isn't that what it boils down to?

[diverdog]

You don't think there would have been dire consequences if we had bailed out Chrysler or any of the banks?

Unemployment was already at 10.5%...where would it have ended up without the bailouts....

The banks at the time did not engage in the sort of business we see today. There was a clear division between investment banking and banking during that time. Today those lines are gone and it has enable the banks to engage in derivative trading that was far beyond anything that was known back then. That market is $50 trillion dollars.

As you pointed out the economic crash this time around took place over a course of a few months. And I will tell you were are not out of the woods by a long shot.

[soonercruiser]

Phil, good points.

So it took 2 decades to get through the bad economy in the 70-80's and the Republicans want Obama to do it in less than 4 years. Isn't that what it boils down to?

Only because we take Obama at his word.
He promised the deficit would be cut in half during his first term!
He promised unemployment at 5.8% by now if we passed his Skimulus!
How's those numbers playing???
Keep playing the music and dancing...it's real entertaining.

LIAR!
He lied to get elected. And he will LIE to save his skin this November!

[okie52]

Phil, good points.

So it took 2 decades to get through the bad economy in the 70-80's and the Republicans want Obama to do it in less than 4 years. Isn't that what it boils down to?

2 decades? I thought the 90s were the golden years.

[diverdog]

2 decades? I thought the 90s were the golden years.

I was using Phils numbers. It was more like 13 years.

[champions77]

And most of what you state is flat out untrue. He has not put in more regulations than Bush. What tax increases are you talking about? The ACA just passed so until now I am unaware of any major tax increases. Cap and Trade has been around since 1988 and was supported by Bush I. You do have me on the ACA....which I do not support.





I find it ironic that the righties on this board blast the liberals for not accepting responsibility for this economy. Show me anywhere the Republican Party excepted responsibility for the debacle in 2007-2008. The will try to lay it on the Democrats or the poor.

I accept that Obama has been a poor leader, I do not agree with his stances on ACA and increased drilling activity. However, he has done a decent job fighting our wars, shoring up our banks and helping the unemployed. He has also seen a decent stretch of job growth albeit weak job growth.


Untrue, really? And you are in the banking business? Dodd/Frank is about to kill small independent banks, have you talked to a banker lately? The EPA? Since obama's "Cap and Trade" bill never passed, the EPA is taking it upon themselves to aggressively seek out and penalize or destroy any business that does not conform to their gestapo style of enforcement.

Still blaming 2008 on Bush? The seeds of the 2008 collapse were sowed by the 1977 Community re-investment Act, and the ramped up in the 90's by Bill Clinton. This Act basically allowed people that could not afford to buy a home, to buy a home. Now what a brilliant idea right? Throw in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as accomplices and you have the prescription for disaster. Who was in charge of Congress when this thing blew up?

Helping the Unemployed? Come on Diverdog, you know that the more folks Obama gets dependent upon the government, the more votes he can count on. And what if Romney tried to "scale back" these numbers? Oh you know the drill, he will be accused of hurting poor people. That's why these programs never get reduced or eliminated. The dems always come back at you with "you're hurting the poor people" And they are usually successful. Now can you agree, that this is a really pathetic way to run the federal government?

[diverdog]

Untrue, really? And you are in the banking business? Dodd/Frank is about to kill small independent banks, have you talked to a banker lately? The EPA? Since obama's "Cap and Trade" bill never passed, the EPA is taking it upon themselves to aggressively seek out and penalize or destroy any business that does not conform to their gestapo style of enforcement.

Still blaming 2008 on Bush? The seeds of the 2008 collapse were sowed by the 1977 Community re-investment Act, and the ramped up in the 90's by Bill Clinton. This Act basOically allowed people that could not afford to buy a home, to buy a home. Now what a brilliant idea right? Throw in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as accomplices and you have the prescription for disaster. Who was in charge of Congress when this thing blew up?

Helping the Unemployed? Come on Diverdog, you know that the more folks Obama gets dependent upon the government, the more votes he can count on. And what if Romney tried to "scale back" these numbers? Oh you know the drill, he will be accused of hurting poor people. That's why these programs never get reduced or eliminated. The dems always come back at you with "you're hurting the poor people" And they are usually successful. Now can you agree, that this is a really pathetic way to run the federal government?

Champs:

You got me with Dodd Franks. LOL. It is a huge pain in the *** for us.

CRA did not cause the collapse. There are simply not enough CRA loans to take the economy down. Over leveraging killed us.

I do need to read more about Romneys economic plans.

[champions77]

Champs:

You got me with Dodd Franks. LOL. It is a huge pain in the *** for us.

CRA did not cause the collapse. There are simply not enough CRA loans to take the economy down. Over leveraging killed us.

I do need to read more about Romneys economic plans.


CRA did not cause the collapse? Really?

In 1995, the Clinton Administration revised the CRA and made Sub Prime Mortgages able to be collaterilized, which then allowed firms outside of Fannie Mae and Freddit Mac to issue subprime crappy paper and then sell it off their books. Ability to "pass it" resulted in a lot more Sub Prime paper. Without the demand for the Sub Prime paper that was created by the CRA revision in 1995, lenders would have issued very little of it as they would have had to keep it on their own books.

Subprime Mortgages went form 1% of all mortgages issued to 12% within three years of the 1995 revision of CRA.

DEMAND FOR SUB-PRIME WAS CREATED BY THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT.

I hope and pray that Mitt Romney has a good response to Obama when this is brought up again in the debates this fall. One of Obama's favorite things to say is "Romney wants to return us to the same failed policies that got us into this mess in the first place". What a lie. Government meddling caused the collapse in 2008. And with the irresponible spending this Administration is doing, left unchecked, the next collapse will be even worse.

[soonercruiser]

Champs:

You got me with Dodd Franks. LOL. It is a huge pain in the *** for us.

CRA did not cause the collapse. There are simply not enough CRA loans to take the economy down. Over leveraging killed us.

I do need to read more about Romneys economic plans.

You're gonna have to do some searching Diver.
I sent several "pissed" e-mails to the staff and webmasters yesterday.
You'd think that there would be easy to find links to the so-called "59 point economic plan"!
Nadda!
There are idiots working his web sites and campaign!
I'll bet they don't even check and try to navigate their own web pages.
:disturbed:

[Position Limit]

why is it so hard to understand that america's (and the world's) economy doesnt ramp unless we dwell in bubbles?

[badger]

DD...I think you are just ignoring how serious things were in the 70's and 80's...

It is probably worse today but not to the extreme that our leadership wants us to believe...

Unemployment averaged 8% for 13 years...
The prime rate peaked in late 1980 at 21.5%...it stayed above 10% from Oct 1978 until June 1985
Fuel prices nearly doubled (chained 2006 dollars) from 1978 to 1981
Half the savings and Loans went under...1500 banks failed or needed bailouts
Chrysler was going under and needed financial support...the pos K Car saved their azz....along with Lee I...

In the UK they had the highest unemployment in 50 years...20%

The only reason the current recession is in a class by itself is because the administration wants it so...if it ain't the worst since the depression then their policy makes them look like fools....

One other tidbit...

Unemployment in the current recession stabilized PRIOR (May 2009 the rate of increase slowed, In Oct it peaked) to the stimulus having much effect....stabilizing the banking system meant much more to the economy then the "stimulus" that was loaded with money to the unemployed and little actual long term stimulus...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/unemploy.jpg

My mom described Jimmy Carter as a weakling that was pretty much telling the country that things were never going to be like they were before, that we just had to settle for less from now on, while Ronald Reagan was telling people that America was going to be great again as it once was before.

I wonder if such a campaign would put Romney over Obama. Of course, that's assuming that Barack Obama is foolish and doesn't sing "It's a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" better than Mister Rogers every time he speaks to voters.

PS: I said "My mom described..." because I wasn't born during Carter's administration and came along during the Reagan years, which I was still too young to remember.

[pphilfran]

Carter "Wear a sweater."

[pphilfran]

Phil, good points.

So it took 2 decades to get through the bad economy in the 70-80's and the Republicans want Obama to do it in less than 4 years. Isn't that what it boils down to?

When this mess first started you quoted some financial that said housing prices would be dead for a decade...we might make it...

Let's see what Obama said about getting the economy up and running....

CCN5-ovvFL0

[TitoMorelli]

Phil, you might know, but I vaguely recall reading that the quicker/steeper the recession, the quicker/steeper the recovery. Yet this recovery has been flatter.

[pphilfran]

Phil, you might know, but I vaguely recall reading that the quicker/steeper the recession, the quicker/steeper the recovery. Yet this recovery has been flatter.

I don't think there is anything to that...it damn sure ain't happening with this one....

The economy is massive when compared to 1980...

1980 2.8 trillion
2010 14.5 trillion

It will take a hell of a lot longer to get the ship turned around...

Personally, I think we should be further along than we are....they spent far too little on actual stimulus...unemployment ain't frigging stimulus...

[sooner n houston]

If Democrats are serious about hating on Walmat and their dozens of billionaire Sam Walton heirs (actually I have no idea how many heirs are in the billionaire club, but it's more than you can count on one hand I think), they should fine the hell outta them for the Mexico scam. That is something they can legitimately nail the company on.

Of course, it would not surprise me in the least if Walmart contributes to enough elected officials (Rs and Ds) to not have to worry about a hefty fine...

The company I work for here in Houston has recently started shipping product to Mexico for Wal-Mart. We have been shipping stuff to Mexico for years and know all the right palms to grease. Poor Wal-Mart was getting raped before they hooked up with my company.

[cleller]

CRA did not cause the collapse? Really?

In 1995, the Clinton Administration revised the CRA and made Sub Prime Mortgages able to be collaterilized, which then allowed firms outside of Fannie Mae and Freddit Mac to issue subprime crappy paper and then sell it off their books. Ability to "pass it" resulted in a lot more Sub Prime paper. Without the demand for the Sub Prime paper that was created by the CRA revision in 1995, lenders would have issued very little of it as they would have had to keep it on their own books.

Subprime Mortgages went form 1% of all mortgages issued to 12% within three years of the 1995 revision of CRA.

DEMAND FOR SUB-PRIME WAS CREATED BY THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT.


Its a dangerous thing when the government tries to help people too irresponsible or insolvent to get a traditional mortgage. There is a sound reason some people are refused loans.

[soonercruiser]

When this mess first started you quoted some financial that said housing prices would be dead for a decade...we might make it...

Let's see what Obama said about getting the economy up and running....

CCN5-ovvFL0

Thanks Phil.
I had been looking for that exact video.

[diverdog]

CRA did not cause the collapse? Really?

In 1995, the Clinton Administration revised the CRA and made Sub Prime Mortgages able to be collaterilized, which then allowed firms outside of Fannie Mae and Freddit Mac to issue subprime crappy paper and then sell it off their books. Ability to "pass it" resulted in a lot more Sub Prime paper. Without the demand for the Sub Prime paper that was created by the CRA revision in 1995, lenders would have issued very little of it as they would have had to keep it on their own books.

Subprime Mortgages went form 1% of all mortgages issued to 12% within three years of the 1995 revision of CRA.

DEMAND FOR SUB-PRIME WAS CREATED BY THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT.

I hope and pray that Mitt Romney has a good response to Obama when this is brought up again in the debates this fall. One of Obama's favorite things to say is "Romney wants to return us to the same failed policies that got us into this mess in the first place". What a lie. Government meddling caused the collapse in 2008. And with the irresponible spending this Administration is doing, left unchecked, the next collapse will be even worse.

Champs this is not accurate:

Read this from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136

More than 80% of subprime loans were made by institutions not subject to CRA. 50% of all subprime loans were refi's not first time home buyers.

Private securitized loans (MBS/ABS/CMO's)failed at a much higher rate:

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/15052/website_elul.pdf

[diverdog]

When this mess first started you quoted some financial that said housing prices would be dead for a decade...we might make it...

Let's see what Obama said about getting the economy up and running....

CCN5-ovvFL0

What's your point? Is that Presidents make stupid statements? When he made those statements Europe was not in the tank.

[okie52]

What's your point? Is that Presidents make stupid statements? When he made those statements Europe was not in the tank.

Excuses, excuses.

[soonercruiser]

What's your point? Is that Presidents make stupid statements? When he made those statements Europe was not in the tank.

So, you sayin' the new motto should be....
NO WE CAN'T!

[diverdog]

Excuses, excuses.

From Zero Hedge:


In particularly, Roubini sees nothing but problems ahead for Europe, where peripheral nations are struggling with inability to pay their debts.
Fears are growing that the fiscal problems in Greece, Portugal, Spain and elsewhere will spread to the global economy.
"Greece is going to be the first country that's going to restructure and exit," he said. "Others will leave also."
"By the end of the year Spain is going to lose market access," Roubini said in a subsequent CNBC interview. "They're going to require a bailout. That will keep them out of the markets for a year or two. That's not going to work out - then maybe two years down the line then you have a restructuring of the debt...And eventually even Spain could exit the euro zone-but it's not something that's going to happen in 12 months."
Closer to home, Roubini sees the U.S. stock market going into a further tailspin through the year, with the Standard & Poor's 500 (^GSPC - News) declining to 1,300 by the end of 2012. The economy will struggle and likely grow less than 2 percent next year, he added.
"Economic growth is going to (be below) 2 percent, the unemployment rate is high, job creation is going to be anemic," he said. "That's a problem that's going to get worse.".

Tell me how Romney will fix the economy with all this going on?

[diverdog]

So, you sayin' the new motto should be....
NO WE CAN'T!

Given the global problems that might be a good slogan until everything runs its course.

[cleller]

From Zero Hedge:



Tell me how Romney will fix the economy with all this going on?

Kinda the way I feel. I think there's a good likelihood we're going to have another bout of economic pain, regardless of who is elected. The public will blame whoever is "lucky" enough to win. That's what's so vexing. If its Obama, no big deal, he's gone in 4 years. In the meantime he'll send us further up the road toward the Europe model, which is failing in front of the our eyes. (most have their eyes shut, though)

If its Romney, he can try to mitigate the damage, but get blamed for the crap that is developing now. You can be sure the media will reverse its stance, and pummel Romney if he tries to blame Obama.

[pphilfran]

What's your point? Is that Presidents make stupid statements? When he made those statements Europe was not in the tank.

Damn diver....if we held Presidents to their stupid statements they would get replaced...just like you at the bank...you make a stupid promise on a massive deal and it falls through are they going to let YOU off the hook?

They stated it was the worst recession since the depression...so it was going to be damn bad...real damn bad if their statement was correct...

Then they had basically unlimited funding..they used every means possible to spend...trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars...just to keep us on life support...

He failed to meet his objectives...badly...

[jkjsooner]

And then we have the S&L fiasco...damn near half had failed by 1989....just a paltry 150 billion was needed to keep the rest afloat....
.

Aren't we talking about conditions that existed when Reagan took office? I'm not sure how something that happened after Reagan left is relevant.

It is yet another example at how dangerous financial deregulation is...

[pphilfran]

Aren't we talking about conditions that existed when Reagan took office? I'm not sure how something that happened after Reagan left is relevant.

It is yet another example at how dangerous financial deregulation is...

I was showing how difficult the 70's/80's were...disaster after disaster...it was a slow death spiral...the times that dealt the death blow to the US auto industry...

Financial deregulation? Banks should be banks. Investment firms should be investment firms....never the twain should meet...

[jkjsooner]

I bought a home in 1981 with a 16.5% mortgage. Prime was at 20.5%. Ahh for the good ole days.

I bet you got it for pretty darn cheap. I bet when interest rates dropped and you refinanced you were sitting pretty and your house skyrocketed in price.

This is totally off-topic but don't ever believe the Realtors when they say that low interest rates are the best time to buy a house. Interest rates have almost nowhere to go but up. Sure you'll be locked into a nice rate but don't expect your property values to remain high.

And this is from a guy who bought a house in the last year. I simply could not continue to rent but I have no illusions that there is not a risk of more significant declines in house values especially when interest rates inevitably rise. I just have to wait and let wage inflation catch up.

[jkjsooner]

I was showing how difficult the 70's/80's were...

I understood that point but I just thought it was worth pointing out that you were somewhat changing the topic.

[jkjsooner]

Watch Walmart change the grocery business. They've long been the largest grocer in the country, now they are engaged in breaking the brand names in the industry.

Walmart may be the largest grocer but I'm guessing that's more due to the fact that most grocery stores are regional rather than national.

Walmart can put pressure on others but most of us don't want to drive all the way across town to buy groceries as at a Super Walmart or Target. When we're planning on going to one of these places we'll get groceries but for our weekly shopping we're not going there unless it happens to be close.

Unless Walmart is expanding into grocery only stores, there will always be room for the others.

[pphilfran]

Walmart may be the largest grocer but I'm guessing that's more due to the fact that most grocery stores are regional rather than national.

Walmart can put pressure on others but most of us don't want to drive all the way across town to buy groceries as at a Super Walmart or Target. When we're planning on going to one of these places we'll get groceries but for our weekly shopping we're not going there unless it happens to be close.

Unless Walmart is expanding into grocery only stores, there will always be room for the others.

Wal Mart is into grocery only stores...Wal Mart Neighborhood Markets and Wal Mart Express...there are about a dozen Neighborhood Markets in the OKC area....

[pphilfran]

I bet you got it for pretty darn cheap. I bet when interest rates dropped and you refinanced you were sitting pretty and your house skyrocketed in price.

This is totally off-topic but don't ever believe the Realtors when they say that low interest rates are the best time to buy a house. Interest rates have almost nowhere to go but up. Sure you'll be locked into a nice rate but don't expect your property values to remain high.

And this is from a guy who bought a house in the last year. I simply could not continue to rent but I have no illusions that there is not a risk of more significant declines in house values especially when interest rates inevitably rise. I just have to wait and let wage inflation catch up.

You get on me about changing the topic....and then you change the topic.... just messin with ya...

Yes my home appreciated....but I paid dearly for the appreciation with massive interest payments....

[okie52]

I bet you got it for pretty darn cheap. I bet when interest rates dropped and you refinanced you were sitting pretty and your house skyrocketed in price.

This is totally off-topic but don't ever believe the Realtors when they say that low interest rates are the best time to buy a house. Interest rates have almost nowhere to go but up. Sure you'll be locked into a nice rate but don't expect your property values to remain high.

And this is from a guy who bought a house in the last year. I simply could not continue to rent but I have no illusions that there is not a risk of more significant declines in house values especially when interest rates inevitably rise. I just have to wait and let wage inflation catch up.

I don't think it was cheap in Edmond at the time. I caught a home that was halfway built and finished it out. It was about 2,500 square feet and seems like it was about $150,000-180,000 back then (I really don't remember). Oil and gas boom time so market was up but July of 1982 Penn Square failed and it was the start of a market downturn. When the 3rd oil and gas bust happened in 1986 they were giving houses away.

[champions77]

Champs this is not accurate:

Read this from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136

More than 80% of subprime loans were made by institutions not subject to CRA. 50% of all subprime loans were refi's not first time home buyers.

Private securitized loans (MBS/ABS/CMO's)failed at a much higher rate:

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/15052/website_elul.pdf

diverdog, it depends on who YOU want to BELIEVE. There are many articles written by some very smart, astute people that refute what was stated in that article. Again, the concept was a "failed" one from the get go. Changing underwriting requirements to allow more people to qualify is a prescription for disaster, and predictably, that is exactly what happended.

[diverdog]

diverdog, it depends on who YOU want to BELIEVE. There are many articles written by some very smart, astute people that refute what was stated in that article. Again, the concept was a "failed" one from the get go. Changing underwriting requirements to allow more people to qualify is a prescription for disaster, and predictably, that is exactly what happended.

Champs:

Most of the subprime loans we done by non- banks who are not subject to CRA requirements. As the fed noted failures of loans happened at a far larger number in middle and upper class neighborhoods. Again areas not targeted by CRA. I have done millions in CRA lending and far as I know the portfolio has done fine.

If you want to place the blame on someone place it on Wall Street, lack of enforcement and deregulation.

[pphilfran]

One problem area didn't cause the problem...

Loose regulation
Poor risk/reward analysis
Too low interest rates for decades
Complexity that few understood
Poor due diligence
And on and on...

[KantoSooner]

Aren't we really talking about a separation of risk and risk analysis? If the people assuming the risk don't care enough to do their research and find out what they're buying, then they deserve to lose their money.
And that's what has really pissed me off. Sunsuvbitches on Wall Street who were making big bucks being the smartest boys and girls in the room and then it turns out they were just making like lemmings. Fine. But they shouldn't work in that industry again and their dumb**** employers (including the investment bankers who owned stock in their firms) should be out their money, too.
Until some real risk, with real consequence, for real people, is entrenched in the system, we'll see this sort of BS over and over again.

[Midtowner]

If you want to place the blame on someone place it on Wall Street, lack of enforcement and deregulation.

Blame Clinton for deregulation, blame Bush for not enforcing what laws were on the books and finally, blame Obama for not prosecuting a single person involved in the criminal conspiracy despite campaign promises to do so.

Then consider how much Romney, who is basically in the same club as the perpetrators of this mess, would ever do about it.

In short, no matter how the Presidency goes, we're f'd.

[champions77]

Blame Clinton for deregulation, blame Bush for not enforcing what laws were on the books and finally, blame Obama for not prosecuting a single person involved in the criminal conspiracy despite campaign promises to do so.

Then consider how much Romney, who is basically in the same club as the perpetrators of this mess, would ever do about it.

In short, no matter how the Presidency goes, we're f'd.

+1 Both parties culpable for the mess we have. The dems will get us there(collapse) faster than the GOP, but both have us headed to disaster. We are so far into the entitlement mess that probably very little chance we reverse it. Anytime a "responsible" politician advocates the overhaul or modification of a federal program rife with inefficiencies, waste and abuse, along comes the dem telling the "affected" that "he's going to take away your welfare, food stamps, medicare, social security" and that politician is immediately demonized by the media as a heartless sob and beaten down.

As to President Obama I would say "before you ask for one red cent in additonal taxes, you get your house in order, you remove the inefficiences in ALL government programs, you do everything possible to make things run as efficient, lean and cost conscious as possible. Until that time, don't you dare ask for any additional taxes.

[diverdog]

+1 Both parties culpable for the mess we have. The dems will get us there(collapse) faster than the GOP, but both have us headed to disaster. We are so far into the entitlement mess that probably very little chance we reverse it. Anytime a "responsible" politician advocates the overhaul or modification of a federal program rife with inefficiencies, waste and abuse, along comes the dem telling the "affected" that "he's going to take away your welfare, food stamps, medicare, social security" and that politician is immediately demonized by the media as a heartless sob and beaten down.

As to President Obama I would say "before you ask for one red cent in additonal taxes, you get your house in order, you remove the inefficiences in ALL government programs, you do everything possible to make things run as efficient, lean and cost conscious as possible. Until that time, don't you dare ask for any additional taxes.

Shi*, sh*t, sh** I agree with most of what you have to say. The world definitely turned on its axis today. :)

[champions77]

Shi*, sh*t, sh** I agree with most of what you have to say. The world definitely turned on its axis today. :)

Isn't it amazing how much agreement there is when someone states something that is the truth and/or makes "common sense"? Too bad the nitwits in Washington can't reduce their roles down to the same. They would have to leave their egos behind and that's something most cannot or will not do.

During Obama's first two years when the dems had control of Congress, did he ever solicit any input from the GOP on anything? Maybe that's why the GOP House is so hesitant to go along with him on anything, that or all of his ideas really suck to them.

[Position Limit]

Maybe that's why the GOP House is so hesitant to go along with him on anything, that or all of his ideas really suck to them.

you serious champ? new to this game?

[champions77]

you serious champ? new to this game?

So are you saying that there has never been compromise by the Congress and President...ever?

Compromise, now that would take some leadership on the part of the President, something outside of the ill conceived Obamacare and taking out Bin Laden,he has shown very little of. And I guess that was Pelosi's baby. Now blaming others? He's the best I have ever seen.

[soonercruiser]

Originally Posted by champions77
Maybe that's why the GOP House is so hesitant to go along with him on anything, that or all of his ideas really suck to them.


you serious champ? new to this game?

1. I believe that all legislative bills originate in the House of Reps.
Dems lost control on the House in 2010! YOU LWers LOOSE! Get over it!

2. Bills then go to the Senate for considertaion; formulation of alternative bills; and/or compromise in "conference".
What bills have come out of the Senate in the last 2 years??
What bill from the House have been considered or voted on since Nov 2010? Thanks Harry!
THAT'S THE PROBLEM!
FAIL! DEMONCRATIC FAILURE!

3. Obama was the Dictator for his first 2 years in office. He had a chance to do good things for the nation.
Did he balance the budget as a top priority?
Did he reduce the deficit in half in his first year?
Has he even gotten the economy going again???????
FAIL! ALL LIES!

There is a balance of power between the Legislative and Executive Branches ....THANK GOD!
Obama is the boy who would be King....but, no more!

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/ObabaCries.jpg

[TitoMorelli]

Phil, you might know, but I vaguely recall reading that the quicker/steeper the recession, the quicker/steeper the recovery. Yet this recovery has been flatter.

Just found this - thought I'd seen it somewhere--

The recovery from the recent recession has now been proceeding for twelve
quarters. Many argue that this recovery is unusually sluggish and that this reflects
the severity of the financial crisis of 2007-2008 (Roubini, 2009). Yet if this is
the case it seems to fly in the face of the record of U.S. business cycles in the
past century and a half. Indeed, Milton Friedman noted as far back as 1964
that in the American historical record “A large contraction in output tends to
be followed on the average by a large business expansion; a mild contraction,
by a mild expansion.” (Friedman 1969, p. 273).

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2012/wp1214.pdf