Obama Had Horrible Financial Policies

wrong of course since many banks did fail and many that survived saw their equity 100% wiped out!!. What planet have you been on.

 

Many banks did fail, but not the "too big to fail ones". Those smaller banks failed because they were not bailed out, they were not considered too big to fail by the govt. The risk and penalty was shifted from the big banks to the smaller banks and the taxpayer. Get educated.

 

wrong of course many did fail and many more are still on the brink. We don't need you pretending to be the policeman when you don't understand the situation and when huge lessons were obviously learned by all.

Not since 1929 has the financial community witnessed 12 months like it. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. Merrill Lynch, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, HBOS, Royal Bank of Scotland, Bradford & Bingley, Fortis, Hypo and Alliance & Leicester all came within a whisker of doing so and had to be rescued.
Banking Collapse of 2008: Three weeks that changed the world ...
https://www.theguardian.com/.../2008/.../markets-credit-crunch-banking- 2008

 

Policeman of the world? Do you even read the posts?

Your link isn't working.

But it does not matter, those banks were in trouble because they made bad decisions knowing they would be saved - the govt told them for many years that they would not be allowed to fail. It all started in the 1980's with the savings and loan crisis, and was expanded constantly until the govt backed financial institutions making poor securities and mortgage decisions.

The crisis was created by the "too big to fail" policy. Most of your post confirms that fact (minus the exaggerated hysteria).

 

and 100 went bankrupt including some big one plus all the others lost around 80% of their value. Huge lessons were learned about how distorting govt regulation can be. Now banks are much wiser and far more on guard. Do you understand?

 

1) too big to fail came after the crisis and after some of the big ones did fail. Do you understand the timing now??

2)And why would an economic illiterate say too big to fail caused the crisis when all agree socialist regulation caused the crisis just as it has in all socialist countries??

 

1 had the great depression, 1 inherited the great recession. Do you understand?

 

It seems most who have responded to you understand and it is you that doesn't. Do you understand?

 

this is not a poll. We are trying to teach you that capitalism is separation of business and govt while liberalism fascism corporatism socialism communism are not. Makes sense now?

 

not at all can you explain what you are trying to say. Thanks

 

What makes sense is your need to add so many labels to something that isn't real, just to try to get your point across. You do this because you have no argument so you need to demean the other point to make yours seem better.

So it makes perfect sense. You have nothing.

 

Google what a depression and recession is in economics.
And how recoveries go after some of those deep pull backs.

 

You assume the banks are "much wiser and far more on guard" with respect to putting other peoples money at risk. Wrong. The huge banks are just as leveraged (actually more leveraged) than they were in 2008, they continue to take risks - because the govt will still bail them out, the "too big to fail policy" is still in place. Dodd Frank made it worse, not better.

And what was the result of the 2008 collapse? A lot of small banks went under (as has already been stated) because the risk was shifted to them - they were not "too big to fail".

 

Wrong. "Too big to fail" came into play during the savings & loan crisis in the 1980's. The phrase "too big to fail " came about later, but the policy went into effect in the 1980's. The govt bailed out S&L's in order to prevent what it claimed could be a total collapse. Sound familiar?

At the time, people claimed the bailouts would be incentive for other financial institutions to take excessive risks because the govt shifted moral hazard from the financial institutions to the taxpayer. Papers since the 2008 fiasco are concluding that the S&L bailouts did contribute to the 2008 collapse.

Just like excess regulation, "too big to fail" is govt interference in the financial system. You need to get educated. Spend some time reading.

 

Perhaps you took a Civics class, but more likely you haven't. The governance of our nation has three separate parts - the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. And they are all supposedly independent.

Factually, they all contribute in their own way to "running the country". But, we do LOVE to point the finger of blame when something goes wrong, don't we. And who's the best "sitting duck" for that when it comes to governance of the nation?

You betcha! The PotUS.

If you had bothered to consider carefully Obama's administration, this is what (looking closely) you would have found:
*Obama, elected in 2008, was gifted directly the Great Recession, the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, by a Replicant Administration.
*Reacting to the recession, a Dem Congress passes in 2009 a Stimulus Spending bill (ARRA) worth $831B that capped an exploding unemployment rate at 10%. Let's remember this: Depression-era unemployment reached 20/25%. Were the American people grateful? Nope.
*In 2010, with consummate indifference, 52% of the electorate spectates the mid-terms like couch-potatoes in front of the BoobTube. Only 38% vote the T-Party (T-for-Troglodyte) Replicants into control of the HofR.
*The HofR under Replicant control employs an asinine tactic called “Austerity Budgeting”; by which the Replicants stonewall all Stimulus Spending that would put Americans back to work. Unemployment starts its grueling descent from 10%. The outrage from American economists is stupendous.
*The purpose of the tactic is expressly to prepare the 2012 elections within an atmosphere of high-unemployment to defeat Obama. The tactic fails miserably. However, only 52% of the American registered electorate bothered to vote. (Too tired obviously from high unemployment and “pissed off with the system”.)
*American voters re-elect Obama with both fiscal hands tied behind his back because the Dems no longer control the HofR, from which all spending bills typically issue.
*Since the T-Party retains control of the HofR, it dogmatically continues to stonewall any Stimulus Spending - the recommended remedy for high unemployment. Instead we are fed "Austerity Budgeting", a classical cop-out from the responsibility of stopping high unemployment.
*What happens, from 2012 to 2014 is that no jobs are created by the economy - Americans suffer from prolonged unemployment. (See that sad fact corroborated here by the stagnant Employment-to-population Ratio that has fallen from 63% to 58.5%.)
*Finally in 2014, the economy starts to create jobs, but given the level to which the E-to-r Ratio has fallen, it will take at least three, four or even five more years to recover to the 63% of 2008! Why? Because the fundamentals have changed. Hiring in American is more orientated to those with higher postsecondary degrees!
*And where are we today? So fed up with an economy that is slowly repairing itself from damages caused by Wilful Replicant Policy to restrain the budget, that almost half the American electorate thinks a Replicant PotUS is going solve all the country's problems.

But no you didn't consider carefully the history.

The intent of the above is to understand that Obama was not King of America - just the PotUS; and he had a perverse lot in the HofR to deal with because they wanted his ouster. Which they had to wait for patiently.

Another point is that when a Great Recession happens, once every so often we are all obliged to take note. Nobody in LaLaLand on the Potomac walks on water and their decisionmaking (or lack of it) determines very largely how we live our lives ....

 

We don't even need to limit our examination to recessions. The Wisconsin economy was chugging along ok and Walker came in and cut, cut, cut and the economy tanked. I Loosiana Jindal took the reins of a booming economy and also cut, cut, cut and his economy tanked. He successfully turned a booming economy into a crash.

 

You seem to want to blame one person. In a general recession, tax revenues diminish. So, budgets are "cut".

It's nobody's particular fault. No revenues, no money to spend, so a government (city, state or national) cuts back on expenditures until an economy improves and tax revenues increase ...

 

actually an economy booms when Republican businessmen are free to grow their businesses, not when government taxes and regulates them so they cant grow their businesses. Make sense now??

 

Yes, due to policies. I oppose destructive policies.

 

No. It makes no sense because it has no such history.

 

Complete nonsense, even if you count the 2009 recession Obama inherited against him.

In Jan 2009,
115818 full time employed
26377 part time employed

In Jan 2017:
124705 full time employed
27405 part time employed.

https://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab9.htm

And the increase in part time employed is because more people choose to work part time, not because they had too.

 

We all do - but you have given no argument whatsoever of "destructive policies" in what was the world's second Great Recession that occurred in 2008/10 directly blamable to the Obama Administration.

As I have pointed out many-a-time on this forum, the root cause of the Great Recession was the Sub-prime Mess that occurred under a Replicant Administration ...

 

Sez you.

There is no formal "economic basis" for this notion ...

 

Lame partisan debate on both sides. That's why nothing changes.

 

Lame partisan post adding nothing to the discussion but a false equivalency. That's why we get someone like donald selected as president.