Obama's socialist agenda

As compared to the complete destruction of our economy that the republicans wraught? The Republican economic policies were so disasterous that they wiped out the stock market, the savings of almost all americans, all home equity, most of the banks in our country, the bond market, the lending market and now spreading to all non financial industries.

So I ask you How could Obama do any worse than the disaster the Republicans wraught on all aspects of our country?

Rufus I am glad morons like oyu are pushing the crazy old man. Your post just turned more voters Obama's way just because you posted against him

people who think anyone in politics in this country is a socialist are just plain stupid

Yeah, we really had an awful economy with Bill Clinton in the White House.

And all those budget surpluses. Thank goodness we've fixed that problem!

petrfitz, the root of the subprime mortgage crisis was the result of the clinton administration pressuring lenders to give out mortgages to poor people with bad credit who could not pay off those loans. It was part of the democrats' affirmative action agenda to boost minority home ownership. Once again, we see the result of a failed liberal policy.

If you think things are bad right now, wait to see what happens if obama raises taxes. The markets will get CRUSHED, as investors fear the increase in taxes on income, capital gains, and dividends.

The markets are crushed already, ridden with republican de-regulation and greed promotion.

Rufus: We agree; Obama is a complete liberal weenie. Where is he from? Whatever city spawned him must truly be the bowels of the earth. Where is he from?

He's from Chicago, something I'm not proud of.

Admiral, at least we both agree that Obama is a radical socialist. And yet, all these wall street people are basically voting for the government taking more of their money.

lowery, with a liberal democratic congress, obama can pass any tax increase or government spending program he wants. you still sure we're not gonna get a socialist agenda?

yeah Rufus - the party of accountability always blames Clinton, the gays, the poor or the mexicans for the results of the disasterous policies that were implemented while they were in control.

Every day you prove yourself a bigger moron. Keep it up all you are doing is sending more votes to Obama.

Admiral - McCain is such an honorable man. Why wont he give us details on his long standing relationship with Domestic Terorist G Gordon Liddy?

petrfitz, if the liberals did not give out mortgages to poor people with bad credit, we would not be in this mess. i know you're a politically correct liberal who doesn't understand economics, but seriously dude, go and do some reading. it will open your mind a bit.

Liddy is a scumbag, but he did not bomb federal buildings, like bill ayers did. and liddy served his time in prison.

One more thing, Rufus, I don't mind your Chicago nonsense, because it is mildly entertaining and because your grouchiness is silly, muppet-like. Now, if you are going to start ranting fox news spin BS in this blog, it's another thing. This might work in Chicago, but not in NY. Go vote your old recipe decrepit, angry hero and his white-class warfare pitbull from Alaska but don't evangelize New Yorkers. They are immune to your fear-based racist and classist comments.

mimi, what does this have to do with NYC vs. Chicago. In case you haven't noticed, Obama is from Chicago, and I'm sure that a higher percentage of Chicago will vote for him than NYC.

Also, I posted a link to a wall street journal article which convincingly argues what an Obama presidency will be like when it comes to economic and fiscal policy. Rather than addressing the actual argument, you once again resort to ad hominem attacks accusing me of being a racist. Unfortunately, this behavior is typical of Obama supporters. But I guess that's what you guys have to do since you don't understand economics.

The financial situation will keep the Government in check over the next 4 years....it will take that long for the massive deleveraging that the Gov't will have to go through to compensate for the bailouts and stimulus packages...

Spending will be all but reduced and forget about taxes...everyone will be getting them raised...

Fortunately, the 10 year treasury bonds are getting out the door....the next few weeks will be telling as we begin to really pump them out the door...any sign of yields spiking and/or "buyers strike" by China and we are screwed...we'll spend the next 10 years taking our taxes and paying debt service...

petrfitz
23 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
yeah Rufus - the party of accountability always blames Clinton, the gays, the poor or the mexicans for the results of the disasterous policies that were implemented while they were in control.

Now I'm not defending anyone from blame here, but Petr you are the only one who has ever brought gays or mexicans into this discussion, and this has to be at least the fourth of fifth time I've seen you do it. Kind of interesting that you constantly project that viewpoint on others yet you are the only one who has ever brought it up.

mimi - so you have to be a left wing liberal to be in NY? Don't forget that it was the Republican NY mayor and NY governor in the 90s who cleaned up the messes left by the prior liberal Democrat administrations.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html

personal.anderson.ucla.edu/pedro.santa-clara/Politics.pdf

rufus, that WSJ article is pure fearmongering. It's laughable actually. There is no way that an Obama presidency leads to even a quarter of these events. Single-payer healthcare? Utter malarkey. petrfitz, my apologies for suggesting that you might be rufus as well. I actually like McCain, but he ran himself out of this race.

ah - all the right wing nut jobs are out today. It is funny that any of you try to put down Obama after what the Republicans have done to our country.

None of you will accept that the Republicans who were in complete control were responsible for the results of their policies.

All you can do is blame others for the results of your policies and your votes. thanks for ruining America, no thanks to your efforts to keep the same failed policies and failed politicians in power.

Rufus that was an op ed piec--opinion not fact
Fact 1) When Clinton signed that law Newt Gingrich ran the House
2) Banks not the Democrats gave out loans. Banks were greedy
3) Subprime was one of many causes of this mess. You claim you can read. Read
LICC--I'm not defending Dinkins. I think he was ineffectual. The times when he was mayor were hard. It was a recession that hit NY particularly hard as did crack and drive by shootings. Koch did a great job his first two terms. There wouldn't have been the good infrastructure (subways ran on time etc) without him

bjw2103, how exactly is it fear mongering? i guess you're not aware that democrats will INCREASE their margins in congress, with ultra-liberal pelosi as the leader. They're already planning on convening a meeting after the election to increase government entitlement spending. Do you really think Obama is going to veto these tax increases? Give me a break. Even a moderate democrat like Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993.

Rufus - please answer this yes or no.

Do you think that the Republicans did a good job running the country over the last 8 years?

rufus, it's unabashedly one-sided. Obviously Obama's presidency would lead to changes, but do you honestly think any of those scenarios laid out in the editorial would come to fruition? Talk radio would be "shut down"? Give me a break.

Rufus - it was the incomepetent Bush administration that pissed away the budget surplus on a war that was completely unnecessary and then proceeded to run up record amounts of debt while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

Whoever is the next president is going to raise taxes....mark my words. You cannot have the deficit we have.

Also remember, it was the republicans who ran up this debt and it was Bill Clinton who insituted pay as you go. It was Bill Clinton who added 26 million jobs to the economy. It was Bill Clinton who helpded move record numbers of Americans above the poverty line and helped them get healthcare.

Spew your hate somewhere else. You have proven once again that everything that comes out of your mouth is wrong. No wonder you like W.

waverly, where did i ever say i like W? i'm not a big fan of his; i voted for Gore in 2000 and reluctantly for W in 2004 mainly because i could not stand Kerry.

Once again, you guys fail to adress a core issue. With a democratic congress, who's going to stop Obama from doing everything that the wall street journal predicts?

"who's going to stop Obama from doing everything that the wall street journal predicts?"

It's called lobbying.

Clinton actually wasn't that moderate when he came into office - he came out a lot more centrist than he started.

Being a centrist, I do have some fears that a democratic party in control of both congress and the presidency will lead to some problems. These are, in no real order 1) an explosion of government spending, 2) destruction of the healthcare industry (I work with these companies and pharmaceuticals/medical devices are one of the last important things the U.S. still exports so we don't want legislation that crushes these industries' ability to innovate) 3) and corporate tax laws that make more companies go overseas (the Democrat "myth" that we should tax corporations to save American money is short-sighted; companies will simply pack their bags) 4) higher capital gains tax rate for people who really risk their own capital ... we need to encourage true investment, but it's also fair note that Obama actually is not proposing a hike in this tax and that private equity promote/carry is NOT true capital gains (fund managers have no downside) and should be taxed like employee stock options.

I don't mind paying more taxes. I can afford it more than the average American. I don't like it but tough choices need to be made. If rich people are taxed more, prices for expensive things like fancy real estate and luxury goods will fall.

HOWEVER - the record shows that the Bush administration presided over an unprecedented growth in government spending. I'm also scared of a crazy rigth-wing Supreme Court that could overturn Roe vs. Wade and cause massive problems in cities we haven't seen since the 1970s (I do buy into the Freakonomics argument somewhat) and thousands of lower-income people to seek unsafe abortions. I worry a republican administration will continue to deny global warming is real when every reputable scientist in the field has signed off on that (in fairness, McCain has a decent environmental record). I am TERRIFIED of a Palin adminsitration if McCain should croak .. she doesn't even have a passport. I am terrified the world will continue to hate us if we toe the same line on foreign policy as the Bush Administration.

Point being - I don't love all of Obama's policies. But at least he is nuanced and sophisticated and acts like a President, and I think he is intelligent enough that he actually might move more to the center on some economic issues. And it's better than the alternative.

"lowery, with a liberal democratic congress, obama can pass any tax increase or government spending program he wants. you still sure we're not gonna get a socialist agenda?"

That's like calling an ant an elephant.

Rufus, what you cite is not a WSJ "article" but an editorial from what is recognized as a radically right-wing editorial page. WSJ journalism is fine (although we have to see what Rupert does to it) but what you cite is not news, nor is it presented by the WSJ as news.

I fear for our country, as it seems that more and more of its otherwise intelligent citizens are increasingly unable to distinguish between fact and opinion. At least the WSJ calls it what it is. you should do the same.

oh no. With a Democrat House Obama can fly into tall buildings. Does Rufus even understand how America works? Or that even the WSJ editors must have been laughing at that article

The healthcare industry is a mess. I'm self employed and didn't like the policies my industry association offered. I did get group insurance but at $200 more a month than if I lived in Queens. One day I realized I was paying for me and three (at least) uninsured people simply because I lived in Manhattan. Now I'm moving to a pre-existing condition state and had to get my pharmacy records because if i forget that I was on a medication for a week once in the past seven years it could come back to haunt me.

I am complaining. Decent health care shouldn't be a privilege. Because of Medicaid, it's the middle class that suffers.

I'm old enough to remember life before NY had abortions. In college if a girl could tell her parents and they had resources they went out of the country. If she couldn't tell, and it was the great generation divide then, they went to a nurse who wasn't very safe

Bush has run this country into the ground in every way possible. McCain is running against him but I haven't heard him give great or any policies. He's too busy putting Obama on the offensive and defending that pitiful pit bull with lipstick.

can someone start a blog entitled PetrfitzversusRufus.com? or maybe .org?

That could keep me entertained for quite a while.

rufie: "He's from Chicago, something I'm not proud of."

I thought your story is that you're a native New Yorker who's visited friends in Chicago a few times and love it there so much that you're going to buy a condo in a neighborhood that's close to Boystown.

What's up with the shifting bio?

alanhart, what does that even mean? i'm not proud of Obama being from Chicago because i love that city but despise him. i don't see how that's "shifting "bio." also, gold coast and streeterville are nowhere near boystown. Get your facts straight, dumbass.

it's hilarious that everyone bashes the wall street journal even though it's 100 times more informative and intelligent than that liberal obama propaganda, known as the New York Times.

Not a single person has refuted my assertion that Obama will approve of every tax increase and spending bill that the democratic congress will pass. It will be the biggest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

I'm from Chicago and despise every politician in that city. Nothing but a political machine churning democrats for the last 40 years.

A lot of fear mongering by the pro-"choice" side.

An overturn of Roe V Wade wouldn't mean a prohibition on killing the child in your womb.

it would merely mean that it would go to the states.

If you think NY or IL or CA would then prohibit irresponsible women, who did have a CHOICE to have sex or not but chose to and then did so without protection, from killing their closest and most vulnerable relative, you are crazy.

Maybe some of the "red" states would prohibit this.

Stop the misinformation and fear mongering.

Rufus, where did you grow up? [Everyone else, please hold off on the obvious reframing of the question.]

rufus grew up in Brooklyn

Rufus has to tell us that he grew up in Brooklyn.

Okay Rufus, I refute your assertion that Obama will approve of every tax increase and spending bill that the democratic congress will pass. Now that that is done, I assert that you are an idiot. Since no one here will refute my statement about you, we have now all agreed on two things:

1. Obama will not make America a socialist country.

and

2. Rufus is an idiot

Now we can all move on with our Friday.

waverly, I need to offer a dissenting agreement. It's of universal importance that you reverse the order of the two things.

rufus, where in Brooklyn did you grow up? And which way does 7th Avenue run? North? East? South? West? Up? Down? In? Out? Round and round?

alanhart, how about this:

1. Rufus is an idiot

and

2. Obama will not make America a socialist country.

A beacon of guidance in a troubled world.

rufus, where in Brooklyn did you grow up? And which way does 7th Avenue run? And what are some food stores near where you live?

Dear All,

Each year, medical costs go up. In 2008, national medical plan costs are increasing by nearly 10% with plans in the northeast region increasing by nearly 13%. To ensure you receive the best medical plan options at a competitive cost, BAC renegotiates each year with your provider and presently, has achieved renewal rates significantly lower than the national and regional averages.

October is open enrollment and new provider medical plans go in effect November 1st. You will all receive new ID cards. If you have not enrolled, you may enroll now. You may also add dependants. Please see me before November if you want to make a change.

Unless you make a change to your plan (i.e., add, remove, change plans), there is nothing for you to do. Those in the High PPO plan will automatically be transferred to the new Premier plan and those in the HDHP plan will transfer to the new HDHP Plus plan.

Attached is a memo from BAC with more information on the plan transfer process and details on the new “Premier” and “HDHP Plus” plans.

BAC will continue to cover 80% of the monthly premiums for your medical benefit. Those in the HDHP Plus plan will continue to receive $50 a month in your HSA accounts.

Current deductible amounts that you have paid remain effective through Dec 31. Any deductibles paid from Oct 1 through Dec 31, 2008 remain in your credit through 2009.

I will be walking around the office to distribute the printouts and to answer any questions you may have. Please also feel free to email or call me. I will be happy to go over any materials and make this transition as painless as possible.

Best to your health,
BAC

Republicans want to take advantage of every opportunity that the country offers but they dont want to pay for those opporunities.

Um, who exactly doesn't want something for free or for cheap?

Rufus: At least we agree on two things: 1) Obama is a liberal weenie and 2) all people from Chicago are weenies.

Admiral - i agree that you are a partisan Republican moron who votes only for his party and not for the good of the country or even in your own best interests.

VoteforNader - actually, overturning Roe vs. Wade might not mean it goes back to the states. This is what McCain says he thinks should happen. This doesn't mean whoever is nominated will do that.

As a someone who invests in American companies, I have to say that in an Obama administration with Pelosi, Reid, Todd & Franks calling the shots, I find investment opportunities to be slim.

Defense, Nope
Healthcare, Nope
Oil & related ifrastructure, Nope
Financials, Nope
Emerging companies which require capital, Nope
Dividend payers, Nope

That leaves solar panels and wind mills which I'm not too fond of given the collapse of energy prices. Perhaps food and diapers will be okay. I guess I'll just hide in tax exempt munis until the air clears.

serge - how have your stocks been doing recently under the Bush administration? How did they do under the Clinton administration?

"prohibit irresponsible women, who did have a CHOICE to have sex or not but chose to and then did so without protection, from killing their closest and most vulnerable relative, you are crazy."

I take exception to this. Let's also not assumre these women weren't using birth control. Sometimes it fails. In fact, most birth control is about 95% effective if used properly. Meaning if somebody is sexually active for 10 years prior to marriage, the changes of an unplanned pregnancy are 40%.

However - I am deeply sympathetic to the other side of this issue: if somebody truly believe it is murder to have an abortion, I can see why the "women's right to chose" doesn't make sense. I guess I will be the first to say - I don't see it as murder. I just don't. It's a slippery slope the farther along in the prengancy you get, which is why I have reservations on second-term abortions. And before you say "you have to define life as beginning at conception", remember that IUD devices stop the fertilized egg from being implanted.

The fundamental problem is this: people will never agree on this issue. Both sides have equally compelling arguments for being "pro-life" or "pro-choice." But I think Obama has been very elloquent on this issue when he says the only way we can move forward is if we work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. People are NEVER going to agree on this issue - but 2/3 of Americans do not believe it should be illegal (popular opinion matters: it's why even "left-wing" Obama doesn't support gay marriage but only civil unions). And when it's been illegal it hasn't stopped it, just made it more dangerous. Hintfor reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies: whatever Sarah Palin was doing backfired on her daughter.

petrfitz, your correlation of stock perf with president in office is probably one of the most idiotic statements you've made. i almost had respect for you.

petrfitz, not bad as the porfolios have been hedged with covered calls and double short ETS. From 2003-2007 it was very easy to do well. Under President Clinton, the investment climate was also good to excellent as he was a fiscal conservative in many ways, a free trader and lowered regulatory barriers. Note that President Clinton also left us with massive technology bubble which resulted in a subsequent bust of the stock market.

Surviving any market is not difficult as long as one knows what the fiscal/tax rules are and one has a sense of the direction. I'm trying to figure out how to successfully invest under an Obama administration as his proposed tax rules are not exactly pro business/investment. At this time, the clear winner are tax exempt bonds which is not a good thing, IMO.

Oh, dear Rufus. You MUST distinquish between editorial pages and news. Yes, the NYT's editorial page is liberal. Yes, the WSJ's is arch-conservative. BOTH have decent reporting. Open your eyes and just TRY to be rational.

One more thing, I would be willing to wager a bit of change that if somehow Senator McCain can pull off the election, the equity markets would experience one massive rally. Of this, I am fairly certain.

For the past 80+ years the stock market has perfromed significantly better with a Democrat in the white house than with a Republican in the white house.

serge07, i agree. if McCain miraculously wins on November 4th, the stock market will experience one of the biggest rallies in history on the 5th. Traders and investors FEAR a liberal congress giving a President Obama unlimited power. If Obama wins, there will be a massive flow of capital out of the United States.

Rufus - the unlimited power the conservative Republican-led Congress gave W worked out real well for the country, didn't it?

Let's see....2 wars, almost 5,000 US soldiers dead for no reason, a record budget deficit, 2 recessions, huge job losses, record numbers of people living below the poverty line, record numbers of people living without healthcare, an absolutely criminal environmental record and the dumbing-down of America by putting no weight into science education or even believing that science exists...of course that did lead to the creationist museum with the exhibit of cavemen riding dinosaurs so at least we got a good laugh out of it.

Yeah, the conservatives did a bang-up job. They may have set the GOP back 75 years....which is a positive actually...always find the silver-lining!

waverly, you are a moron. the economy was already weakening when Bush came into office, and of course, there was a "minor" event called 9/11, which led to a full-blown recession. But the economy recovered nicely in 2004.

if you want to get a sneak peek into the consequences of a democratic congress and democratic president, look back to the late 1970's. How were things then in this country?

"if you want to get a sneak peek into the consequences of a democratic congress and democratic president, look back to the late 1970's. How were things then in this country?"

It was a complete disaster. I was there. Haistyles were ridiculous, fashion styles were abominable (hello - leisure suits!) and women didn't groom themselves where they should. It was like the dark ages - completely uncivilzed, i tell you.

>For the past 80+ years the stock market has perfromed significantly better with a Democrat in the white house than with a Republican in the white house.<

Best of luck with your investments. I'm certainly not betting on history to repeat itself unless the better than even odds Obama administration takes a few things off the table.

During the Clinton administration, economic & tax policies shifted far more to the center which led to the start of a bull market towards the end of 1994. His initial 2 years in office were not a pleasant experience for investors. Also of note, when Bill shifted to a fiscal conservative & free trade policies, it also happened to mark the bottom of the NYC RE market.

80+ years of history is a good bet to repeat itself.

Rufus - typical Fauxnews talking points. Yes, W isn't responsible for anything bad that happens during his 8 YEARS in office and Bill Clinton is responsible for everything bad in the world and I seem to remember the Republicans being in the white house from 1968 to 1976 and then again from 1980 to 1992 and then from 2000-2008....they like to say they are stronger on the economy, but the facts show otherwise...just like you like to say Chicago is better than NYC, yet the facts show otherwise.

Good weekend to all!

waverly, once again, you show your ignorance of U.S. history. The recession of the 1970's was the result of Lyndon Johnson's massive spending for the Great Society programs, combined with spending for the Vietnam War.

The economy did great during the 1980's, with the exception of the 1982 recession, which resulted from Volcker raising interest rates to tame inflation. Reagan lowered taxes and deregulated business, which played a major role in the economic boom of that decade and formed the basis for the prosperity of the 1990's.

Let me make it clear. I really like Bill Clinton and would vote for him in a heartbeat if he could run again. But Obama is way to the left of Clinton; if elected, he would be the most liberal president in history.

"But Obama is way to the left of Clinton; if elected, he would be the most liberal president in history."

I haven't heard Obama say anything that would place him anywhere but firmly within a quarter-centimenter to the left or right of Bill Clinton.

please correct me, but isn't this a real estate web site???

julia, would you please stop making sense?

Yes, Julia, but NYC is in NY State, which is in America, a country that just lost his hegemony in a planet earth and it's standing on it's head.

lowery, obama wants to raise taxes way more than clinton did in 1993, and he wants to redistribute wealth through more government programs. Clinton raised taxes once, but quickly moved to the center and proceeded to reform welfare, cut government spending, cut capital gains rate, and vigorously promoted free trade.

Why not give Obama a chance...It hasn't worked with Bush maybe with a democratic president, and congress let's see what they can do. Obama brings hope to the US and the world. Just maybe it will work.

Maybe Obama will work. But we know that an old man with an anger management problem and an extremely unqualified religious fundamentalist bimbo possible taking over the presidency will not.

"and proceeded to reform welfare". LOL. That was complete sham, and Clinton and the Republican Congress should have been embarrassed by it. Welfare was NOT reformed: They simply renamed welfare "child support", and changed the payer from the gov't to the guy the woman claims fathered her baby (DNA test or no, creating an incentive to finger the wealthiest guy you slept with). The whole thing was a joke.

In David Leonhardt's profile of Obama's economic plan, here it is in the man's own words:

“The market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production,” Obama told me. “And I also think that there is a connection between the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally.” But, he continued, “there are certain things the market doesn’t automatically do.” In other words, free-market policy isn’t likely to dominate his agenda; his project would be fixing the market.

That was August. Obviously, things are different now. But to assume Obama will be anti-market, especially in comparison to the nationalizing and socializing forces at work in the current Republican administration, shows a failure to examine both Obama's influences (University of Chicago free-market economists) and the policies he's promoting. Sure he advocates the redistribution of wealth. But when there's no wealth to redistribute (like, for example, right now), he will remain a pro-market deficit cutter with the best economic minds of a generation behind him.

Versus what? Is anyone on this board feeling better off than they were eight years ago?

(Also, I'd gladly redistribute some of Rufus's bounteous Chicago condo profits to "lazy poor people and thugs")

tina24hour, just to point something out but the Democrats have controlled the Senate, Congress, Banking & Finance Committees & the power of the purse in the past 2 years. I don't recall any of us facing this totally avoidable situation in 2006 or prior.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Both sides brown nose the >30,000 Washington lobbyists basically dictating the legislation while us hard working bees get the shaft. Sad but true.

Avoidance of any regulation of the markets is a republican staple.

serge07 - I'm not trying to let anyone off the hook. This crisis was foreseeable, and foreseen, and our government did nothing about it.

I work in real estate, and have been harping on the coming mortgage crisis since 2005 - much to the chagrin of my friends and family. I even sent a proposal to the city council for establishing a fund to buy up troubled mortgages (backed by dollars raised by selling tax credits to developers, long story, although I'd be happy to go into it in detail, if anyone wants to hear about it. Anyone? No?), in part because I did not believe the federal government would EVER intervene and regulate banking.

All I'm suggesting is that Barack Obama does not necessarily represent a hard left turn in economic policy. And while he seems have a liberal social agenda (as do most New Yorkers), he may well have the fiscal discipline to go with that. Which will mean cutting programs and reducing the debt, while selectively investing in initiatives (energy, infrastructure, education, health care reform) which will solidify our long-term economic outlook.

Can he do it? I don't know, but I've never been taxed more with less to show for it than I have in the past eight years, so I think it's worth a shot.

>Avoidance of any regulation of the markets is a republican staple.<

As I stedd, there is plenty of blame to go around and action by either party could have prevented this fiasco. Having said this, your statement is not entirely correct.

Glass-Steagall Act- Repealed by Bill Clinton, 1999.

FNMA & Freddie Mac Reform Attempts- Blocked by Barney Franks & Chris Dodd, both large recipients of cash from the GSEs. Sen. Todd holds the world's record in this department followed by Sen. Obama @ #2.

Sarbanes Oxley- A product of the dot com, Enron & Worldcom bustsb. Horrible legislation & nightmare specially for small/medium companies. It did absolutely nothing to prevent this fiasco much of it born from BS accounting & off balance sheet assets which were supposedly addressed by this legislation.

Correction: "stedd " in the first sentence should be "stated".

"Versus what? Is anyone on this board feeling better off than they were eight years ago?"

Oh, I think the past decade has seen a massive redistribution in wealth. I wouldn't mind a reversal of that, but doubt any reversal will represent only a fraction of the massive redistribution of wealth which it attempts to mitigate. So the idea that some type of softening of the effects of that previous massive redistribution of wealth represents "socialism" is, as I've said, just plain stupid.

right - the previous redistribution in wealth benefitted (to paraphrase rufus) lazy rich people. And not a few thugs.

tina24hour, very nice call! :) It amazes me that the so called experts, regulators & fearless leaders did not see this coming. Like you, I've been warning friends, family & coleages that there were serious financial problems developing in the RE markets that could severely damage the banking sector. I've been ridiculed more that once for stating that certain northeast RE markets were time bombs with a fast timer.

It became obvious as a heart attack that something was problematic in the west coast states & Florida during 2005 & specially 2006 but no one gave a darn until it finally hit Wall Street. Hell, the Federal Reserve was still jacking up interest rates well into 2006! By 4Q 2007, it much too late and the only option left on the table was to deal with it with obvious little planning done beforehand.

I place equal ignorance on our UK & European friends that displayed an equivalent lack of foresight on the issue. The games that were played that resulted in the current financial problems were by no means limited to America.

tina24hour, i'm not trying to exonerate the guilty people on wall street, but nonetheless, a lot of those people worked hard to get to their positions. Does anyone seriously believe that the CEO's of goldman, morgan, lehman, etc., did not work hard and do well to reach that post? Hence, I think there is a substantive difference between redistributing wealth upwards versus giving away money to people at the bottom, simply because the government feels sorry for them. If you look at Obama's program, he wants to EXPAND government programs like welfare and food stamps, among others. When he constantly states that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans, what he really means is that he will give more money to people who don't pay federal income tax, which is 40% of the population.

He does have good advisors, but there is no evidence that he will listen to their proposals and implement them. If he wins, he will owe a lot to the democratic base, and a liberal congress will do everything they can to enact the biggest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. In order for me to believe your argument, I have to be convinced that Obama will stand up to the far left in his party, and based on his record, I don't see that happening because Obama is fundamentally a big-government leftist.

{ . . . rufus projectile-vomits GOP talking points . . . }

alanhart, thanks again for proving that obama supporting liberals don't understand economics.

"tina24hour, just to point something out but the Democrats have controlled the Senate, Congress, Banking & Finance Committees & the power of the purse in the past 2 years. I don't recall any of us facing this totally avoidable situation in 2006 or prior."

A bubble nearly a decade in the making (depending on how it's analyzed), and Dems barely in control of Congress for two years with a hostile president? Please. There is evidence for both party's hands in this disaster, but it goes back much further, and we can do better than this sort of Republican propaganda.

rufus,

bwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>A bubble nearly a decade in the making (depending on how it's analyzed), and Dems barely in control of Congress for two years with a hostile president? Please. There is evidence for both party's hands in this disaster, but it goes back much further, and we can do better than this sort of Republican propaganda.<

First of all, I am not a republican. Last time I checked my voter's registration it stated "Independent". I supported Bill Clinton twice. BTW, Bill is not exactly an enthusiastic Senator Obama supporter but is a friend of Senator McCain.

Secondly, the Dems (mainly Christopher Dodd & Barney Franks) have repeatedly blocked efforts (1st around 2000 & the second in 2004) to reform Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, the centers of this fiasco. Franklin Raines (head of the OMB under the Clinton administration) & CEO of Fannie Mae, turned the GSE into a giant hedge fund and pocketed $90 million in the process. Republican propaganda, perhaps in your dreams; these are facts. The fact of the matter, as I've stated repeatedly , both parties are way too influenced by special interests groups & their cash. Senator Obama with his message of "change" is by no means an exception.

Two years in control with significant majorities in both houses and you called that barely in power? Their approval ratings speak for themselves & are on par with those of the president, as they should be. The financial system & the world economy were in darn good shape in 2006, period.

serge07, you are making really good points. but unfortunately, the people on this board are liberals who drank the obama kool-aid and don't know economics or recent financial history for that matter. your words will just ring hollow.

i think McCain made a big mistake by not pointing out from the beginning that this whole mortgage crisis is the result of regulations imposed by democrats. Dodd and Frank have repeatedly said that there is nothing wrong with fannie or freddie. And Dodd and Obama have gotten more money from themt than any other senators.

moreover, i'm really amused by obama supporters who insist that he is no different than clinton with regards to economic policy. Clinton never talked about taxes in terms of "fairness" or "spreading the wealth." For him, the goals were deficit reduction and economic growth. From reading his memoirs, listening to his interviews, and looking at his policy proposals, i see no evidence that Obama will adopt the moderate course of Bill Clinton. In sharp contrast, he will just expand the role of government in people's lives and give us the Great Society version 2.0.

Hey, rufus:

I think folks forget that President Clinton was an economic conservative as was his secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin (another Ex-Goldman CEO). He balanced budgets, passed NAFTA (after initially campaigning against it), passed favored nation status to China and last but not least, reduced the capital gains tax rate in 1997. It's no small wonder that the US economy prospered during his tenure. However, the Clinton economic policies are a far cry from the Democratic proposals we see today.

As I've stated previously, the obvious winner from the "new" proposed economic policies are high grade tax exempt municipal bonds.

I agree entirely. Clinton did campaign as a populist in 1992 to win, but once he won, he quickly moved to the center. Aside from his 1993 tax hike, which raised the top marginal rate from 31 to 39.6%, his policies were center-right. Clinton believed that the best way to promote prosperity was through economic growth, not "spreading the wealth around," which is exactly what Obama intends to do. This is one of the reasons why Clinton is the only democrat since FDR to win 2 terms. Americans trusted him to manage the economy and keep the country strong and healthy. As I said before, if he could run again, I will vote for Clinton over any republican out there. But if you look at congress today, the reasonable democrats like lloyd bentsen, george mitchell, sam nunn, david boren, etc., have been replaced by people like pelosi, reid, schumer, dodd, obama. I simply DO NOT trust a liberal congress giving Obama unprecedented power over our nation's financial resources.

The problem of de-regulation wasn't so much the RE bubble and Freddie and Fannie, but the chopping of the debt and the swaps. Wall St. lacked regulations.

rufus, you support McCain, that is all fine and good
but you are also a racist

gleeclub, let's assume that i am indeed a racist, as you so claim. how does that refute the arguments i put out regarding Obama's socialist economic policies? Look, if you don't understand economics, then just say so. Nothing wrong with that; i don't expect obama liberals to know this kind of stuff.

I understand economics quite well, and first a dozen+ years ago I could put up actual parchment to prove it. With a dozen years of real world experience since, I also understand how economics applies to the real world.

Interesting that you started your argument accepting the notion that you are racist, and then didn't finish up your argument on economics by then going back and refuting the racism charge.

As a non-Obama-supporting Democrat who bemoans the continuous slide to the political right of the Democratic Party, I find labeling of not only Democrats, but especially Obama, as a "socialist" absolutely laughable and demonstrative of a third-grade level education. Even the conservative tabloid "Daily News" has endorsed Obama for President, for God's sake.

By November they will be calling Obama a Commie. And by the 3rd they will probably label him a pedophile.
The shameless desperation of the republican regime at work,

Known fact: democrats can't keep their pants on

and yes, obama is a commie.

gleeclub, you're an idiot for having to resort to ad hominem attacks. my point was that even if I were a racist, which I am not, it does not take away from the validity of my arguments concerning Obama's economic policies.

lowery, how exactly is Obama not a socialist when he intends to massively redistribute wealth and undertake the biggest expansion of the welfare state since the 1960's?

rufus, you don't like mulattos.

How do you feel about quadroons and octoroons?