Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 87

Thread: Survey shows Americans blame Bush for crisis

  1. #1

    Default Survey shows Americans blame Bush for crisis

    Source

    Translation

    Survey shows Americans blame Bush for crisis

    According to a survey from last saturday, Americans blame George W. Bush for this economic crisis, who left the White House more than one year ago.

    The survey conducted by New York Times and CBS, reports that 31% of Americans blame Bushand only 7% blame Barack Obama.

    It also shows the fall of popularity of Obama, since only 46% supported his actions, the worst level since he took power.

    According to the survey Bush and Obama are not the only to be blamed, 23% blame Wall Street and 13% blames the US Congress. The survey included 1.084 citizens across the country.

    According to news agency EFE, in november another survey by CNN/Opinion Reserch, revealed that 47% held Bush and republican congressmen responsible, and 45% blamed Obama and democrats.
    Who do you think should be blamed for crisis?

  2. #2
    Family Feud. AND THE SURVEY SAYS.....


    ps translation included less than two people or ~ 1,100 citizens, across the country, my ass.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by ar81 View Post


    Who do you think should be blamed for crisis?
    Apathetic and lazy constituents.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  4. #4
    Unethical, myopic behaviors. Mostly shallow greed.

    So it's not a whom but a what.

  5. #5
    To be honest... no one.

    Oh sure there were mistakes by Republicans, Democrats, banks, insurance companies and people. But that happens.

    Recession happen. Booms happen. Get used to it.

    MOST stuff that happens in the economy is not due to POTUS. Just like the boom in the 90's wasn't due to Clinton the house bubble crashing was not do to Bush. Government of course exacerbates problems, but the boom and bust cycle has been with us for a long time. I'm still puzzled why people think we won't have another boom and then another recession, only to be repeated again.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    To be honest... no one.

    Oh sure there were mistakes by Republicans, Democrats, banks, insurance companies and people. But that happens.

    Recession happen. Booms happen. Get used to it.

    MOST stuff that happens in the economy is not due to POTUS. Just like the boom in the 90's wasn't due to Clinton the house bubble crashing was not do to Bush. Government of course exacerbates problems, but the boom and bust cycle has been with us for a long time. I'm still puzzled why people think we won't have another boom and then another recession, only to be repeated again.
    Like I said, ^^^apathetic and lazy constituents.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    To be honest... no one.

    Oh sure there were mistakes by Republicans, Democrats, banks, insurance companies and people. But that happens.

    Recession happen. Booms happen. Get used to it.

    MOST stuff that happens in the economy is not due to POTUS. Just like the boom in the 90's wasn't due to Clinton the house bubble crashing was not do to Bush. Government of course exacerbates problems, but the boom and bust cycle has been with us for a long time. I'm still puzzled why people think we won't have another boom and then another recession, only to be repeated again.
    Do you really think this is just another typical business cycle?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ar81 View Post
    Translation


    Who do you think should be blamed for crisis?
    There's a lot of blame to go around. From what I've read/heard it appears the whole deregulation kick, like so many ugly conservative gigantic fuck ups, started with Reagan. The deregulation that led to the crisis appears to have originated in the Clinton Administration. The complete incompetance and bad policy underlying the immediate crisis is Bush's fault. I understand Greenspan has held himself somewhat responsible recently, but that's second hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    To be honest... no one.
    Ideologies and polices are at fault. Some people think them up, others sell them to the public, and still others put them into practice. They are the ones at fault.

    To stand back and say no one / nothing caused this / "shit happens" is a sure fire way to ensure it happens again. While I agree with your sentiment there's no one person to hold accountable, at a minimum there's policy and ideology that can be shunned because of what it caused. For example: "markets fix everything" or "deregulation is always better" -- those kind of nonsense ideas.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    There's a lot of blame to go around. From what I've read/heard it appears the whole deregulation kick, like so many ugly conservative gigantic fuck ups, started with Reagan. The deregulation that led to the crisis appears to have originated in the Clinton Administration. The complete incompetance and bad policy underlying the immediate crisis is Bush's fault. I understand Greenspan has held himself somewhat responsible recently, but that's second hand.
    So you're going to totally ignore the part where politicians were coercing banks into increasing lending in their neighborhoods and the role of the low interest rates? And then you blame ideology in the next sentence?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    So you're going to totally ignore the part where politicians were coercing banks into increasing lending in their neighborhoods and the role of the low interest rates? And then you blame ideology in the next sentence?
    Low interest rates was Greenspan policy, right? He kept them too low too long after the Tech bubble popped... As far as the coersion's concerned, I have so far dismissed that as conservative blame shifting. Do you have anything credible behind that you can link to?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  11. #11

  12. #12
    To stand back and say no one / nothing caused this / "shit happens" is a sure fire way to ensure it happens again.
    I guarantee you regardless of what comes out of this as "lessons learned" we will have another asset bubble and we will have another recession.

    Do you really think this is just another typical business cycle?
    Pretty much, yes.

    It was made worse by government actions (and some private) but in either case we were going to have recession.

  13. #13
    Have you read this??? At best the charge is unsupported by the evidence. At worst its demonstrably false. I'm more convinced now that its conservative blame shifting.

    From the article:

    Relation to 2008 financial crisis
    See also: Subprime mortgage crisis and Global financial crisis of 2008–2009
    Some economists, politicians and other commentators have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging banks to make unsafe loans. Economists from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, dispute this contention. The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis[98]. At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA, calling it a "scapegoat" and declaring it "NOT guilty."[99]

    Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[93] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[100] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.[101]

    However, many others dispute that the CRA was a significant cause of the subprime crisis. 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics winner Paul Krugman states that the notion "has been refuted up, down, and sideways."[102] He also noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[103] According to San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.[98] In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust," relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[104] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[99] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[105] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[106] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[107] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[108] Daniel Gross of Slate,[109] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[110]

    Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[65][111] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[112] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[113] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[114] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[115]

    During a 2008 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the financial crisis, including in relation to the Community Reinvestment Act, asked if the CRA provided the “fuel” for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior, but it was difficult to know. Raines also cited information that only a small percentage of risky loans originated as a result of the CRA. Bob McTeer, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank from 1991 to 2004, said “There was a lot of pressure from Congress and generally everywhere to make homeownership affordable for poor and low-income people. Some mortgages were made that would not have ordinarily been made.” He also said “When a bank made a decision to purchase mortgaged-backed securities, they would somehow determine if some of them were in zip codes covered by the CRA, and therefore they could get CRA credit.”[116][117]
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  14. #14
    Lewk is actualy right here. The "depression" was mainly another market cycle, but it was made an order of magnitude worse by wairing timebombs it set off and continual screwups in trying to mitigate it.

    A lot of the problem was the shole "debts that could never be payed back" thing, but there were many many other factors contributing to it.

    Basicly everything that could go wrong, did.

  15. #15
    US have had unbalaced finances.
    Macroeconomical financial programming called for devaluation of dollar very long ago, to reduce trade deficit.
    This deficit exported inflation but it also exported US jobs as companies discovered that going to a cheaper country was better than hiring cheap immigrants.
    Jobs were been already being sent overseas for some years, and the financial crisis only made things worse.

    Americans semed very happy with the role of China.
    China had a overpriced dollar and that helped them to export to US, making US companies less competitive because of money exchange rates.
    This overpriced dollar was good to issue government bonds that encouraged bond issuance.
    With all the exports, China had a surplus which was used by China to buy US bonds, so now China was gaining jobs, making US companies less competitive unless they moved to China and hired chinese, and on top of that China owned a big percentage of US debt.

    Borrowing is a bad habit. You may not find the point when enough is enough. This is what happened to US.
    US government is now used to borrow money, companies are used to outsource.
    And on top of that deposit banks entered investment banking, with very bad practices that caused the housing crisis, transferring losses across markets worldwide.
    But there is no free lunch. Borrowing means some day there will be a moment to repay the money.

    Business cycles are caused by banks. People borrow money and you have a raise because people can buy lots of stuff. But later it is time to repay, buy less, pay loan and intersts, and the recession comes. Since repay involves principal + interests, and borrowing involves only principal, money is being leeched from economy, making recession longer and raise shorter, and gradually causing a liquidity crisis.

    People got used to the idea of "business cycles" as if they were natural things, caused by God or something, while indeed it is the outpuut of a poorly designed system.
    Reforming the system to cut the mechanisms that cause crisis not only involves upsetting those who are making money, but also it involves to go against the beliefs of brainwashed people who see crisis as something that happens because of God, just like thunderstorms or rainy days.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by ar81 View Post
    ...And on top of that deposit banks entered investment banking, with very bad practices that caused the housing crisis, transferring losses across markets worldwide.
    You left out the bit about the transfer of wealth from the many to the few. The money supply didn't shrink, it got shifted.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    You left out the bit about the transfer of wealth from the many to the few. The money supply didn't shrink, it got shifted.
    ?

  18. #18
    You mentioned deposit banks getting into investment but you failed to mention the transfer of wealth that caused. You make it sound like the money just evaporated.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  19. #19
    Actually, the rich lost a far greater portion of their net work than the poor in this recession, but thanks for trying.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Actually, the rich lost a far greater portion of their net work than the poor in this recession, but thanks for trying.
    Idiot. The point is the money is now in far fewer hands.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  21. #21
    When you manage to come up with a single valuable contribution, get back to me.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    When you manage to come up with a single valuable contribution, get back to me.
    What happens when wealth gets concentrated in the hands of a few?
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    ps translation included less than two people or ~ 1,100 citizens, across the country, my ass.
    1,100 is enough, just, for a survey. Usually it's not the number of people participating but the survey method that is the problem.

    The survey conducted by New York Times and CBS, reports that 31% of Americans blame Bush and only 7% blame Barack Obama.

    [...]

    According to news agency EFE, in november another survey by CNN/Opinion Reserch, revealed that 47% held Bush and republican congressmen responsible, and 45% blamed Obama and democrats.

    Little big difference.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    When you manage to come up with a single valuable contribution, get back to me.
    Anyone with any significant money tied up in property got smoked.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    You mentioned deposit banks getting into investment but you failed to mention the transfer of wealth that caused. You make it sound like the money just evaporated.
    Indeed, toxic assets are "phantom wealth", money not backed by real wealth. You may like to read this book.

    AGENDA FOR A NEW ECONOMY: FROM PHANTOM WEALTH TO REAL WEALTH

    Korten identifies the deeper sources of the failure: Wall Street institutions that have perfected the art of creating phantom “wealth” without producing anything of real value. Its major players engage in speculative trading, buy into asset bubbles, create debt pyramids, and engage in predatory lending practices. Their seeming success created an economic mirage that led us to believe the economy was expanding exponentially, even as our economic, social, and natural capital eroded and most people struggled ever harder to make ends meet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Actually, the rich lost a far greater portion of their net work than the poor in this recession, but thanks for trying.
    "The rich" sounds like a generalization.
    Obviously you do not understand how a bank works.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Anyone with any significant money tied up in property got smoked.
    Ditto. Some of the richest people in this country ended up losing 40-50% of their assets.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Anyone with any significant money tied up in property got smoked.
    Did you get smoked?

    I won't know if I got smoked until I go to sell my house. Haven't decided if that's a one year or five year plan.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Ditto. Some of the richest people in this country ended up losing 40-50% of their assets.
    50% of 5 billion is still a whole lot more than 50% of ..... what's the average US asset holding?

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    50% of 5 billion is still a whole lot more than 50% of ..... what's the average US asset holding?
    Poor people had a statistically insignificant portion of the national assets. Rich people lost a third to a half of their wealth. I'm pretty sure the net result is a smaller disparity between the rich and the poor.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Did you get smoked?
    Yes. Absosmurfly. I just signed a purchase agreement for the second house I've been carrying for two and a half years for a disgusting amount of money and I'm not even sure the damn thing will appraise out to even that pittance. Damn.

    won't know if I got smoked until I go to sell my house. Haven't decided if that's a one year or five year plan.
    Local realators keep sending around advertisements showing what they sold local houses for. I sure am glad i don't plan on moving for another 10+ years.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •