Btw- in no way should my reply be interpretted as the US is operating like any kind of successful company...a debt of $16-17T and accelerating is enough proof... -Bill
Business don't lose money, now I agree with you 100%. I am just going off the premise we run like a for profit company.
I do have to agree with Hooker. I'd meet him, but skip the photo op hand shake pic. I think a lot of Politicians (and Execs) hear what their handlers and advisers tell them... I remember a sales call with a COO of a company that had us at odds with each other the first and second meetings...the third meeting we closed a deal... There is room for disagreement and positive outcomes... -Bill
Reagan was a dope....so over rated.......and big reason we find ourselves in the economic mess we are in today.
I meet and talk to many people through my job and life in general and enjoy visiting with most of them. But if I know going into the conversation, they are going to lie to me, then I'm not interested in spending my time there. Hussein has a track record of being a liar, so to naively think we are going to have a "candid" conversation would be foolish on my part. If the "wisdom" he has to share about his success in politics was discussed, and he was honest, which is unlikely; it would be full of lies, manipulation, self serving schemes and darkness. Because he slithered his way to the position of president means nothing to me. He is neither powerful, dignified or worthy of our praise. I don't worship rock stars or athletes either but I do respect them if they are honest. I guess I wouldn't go if I got an invite.
Talk about misguided. The man won the cold war with just his words. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
You sir are an idiot!! Sorry but if it wasn't for Reagan, Clinton wouldn't get all the credit for the prosperous years. The reason we are in the mess now is because of the both Bushes and Clinton's failure to regulate the banks. There was a free for all at the banks and no one put a stop to it. I don't know how a libtard can be a outdoors man that is an oxymoron.
IMHO, having worked in and around financial services for nearly 20 years...the problem really started with the repeal of Glass-Stegall banking/securities affiliations restrictions with the Graham-Leach-Bliley act in 1999. This paved the way for interest only and less than interest only loans, a mess in derivatives and rampant stupid lending of $ to people with no means/intent of paying their debts. The numerous regulatory bodies also ignored and failed to grasp what was even going on... no one person/figurehead was responsible or to blame... : sarcasm:Financial Services aside, of course, government growth (fed, state and local) continued (over) spending had nothing to do with the economy nor current state of said mess that we're in...nor did individuals living beyond their means... :/sarcasm: Ps...Reagan was a master poker player in the cold war game... -Bill
Wasn't Obama involved in forcing (lawsuits)the banks and government to give home loans to those that didn't qualify? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
Banks have always made some loans that may not be 'risk averse' and may even be undesirable...some of O's early Acorn and activist days may have involved litigation, however its the legislation where he is only a bit player, now, in signing the bills into law. -Bill
I understand that but I believe in his early days with acorn he was involved in lawsuits that forced laws to be signed that required home loans to high risk applicants. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
I believe this was McCains assertion during the debates...I don't have first hand knowledge and I'd be skeptical. Rules/laws like CRA, HMDA and programs like Farm loans, are intended at 'fairness', include lending parameters or extending loans to folks who may not fit the traditional suburban, dual income, home owner models...many of these (often) align to higher risk profiles. (Greatly simplified): The big problems came from lenders originating mortgages, bundling them and selling them. Companies like Countrywide, Fannie, Freddie, Wachovia held mountains of these loans. Others bundled into other securities held/offered by traditional brokerage/securities companies, rewrapped and resold as derivatives. These CDOs/CMOs were the hot thing...till they weren't. But the demand for more fed increasingly risk and more liberal lending. People started missing payments and the underlying assets and the house of cards started to fall. Even the 'safe' mortgage back securities which were used to back other investments like money market accounts were affected. Fast forward, fear builds, fed finally sees some banks in trouble with a potential 1929 run on banks repeating...TARP, etc ensues. Bush and Obama played key roles...but they reactionary-the tails not the dogs. -Bill
All of the 'financial crisis' aside, its evident to me the POTUS has a very different interpretation of the constitution and role of the fed gov't than I, of the founding fathers. I'd love to have this debate/discussion on the porch at Camp David/Marthas Vineyard/a golf course with one of the Whitehouse, tax-payer-subsidized beers. -Bill
I really didn't want to steer this thread off course that's why I just summed up that the blame was wide spread and nobody did anything to stop it.
Im currently sitting on the toilet. Using tapatalk. I feel like my time is being spent like a boss. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy s4
