FDR the hero?

[PaceAdvantage]

As Seth Meyers would say on SNL...REALLY?

You think George W. Bush was the first President to push the envelope when it came to wiretapping Americans? REALLY?On May 21, 1940 Roosevelt sent the following memo to the Attorney General Robert Jackson and Hoover, as quoted from Joseph E. Persico's excellent book Roosevelt's Secret War (http://odci.gov/csi/studies/vol46no2/article07.html):
I have agreed with the broad purpose of the Supreme Court decision relating to wiretapping in investigations, wiretapping should not be carried out for the excellent reason that it is almost always bound to lead to abuse of civil rights. However, I am convinced that the Supreme Court never intended any dictum in the particular case which it decided to apply to grave matters involving the defense of the nation. It is, of course, well known that certain other nations have been engaged in the organization of so-called "fifth columns" in other countries and in preparation for sabotage, as well as in actual sabotage.... You are, therefore authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after the investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigating agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices direct to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the government of the United States, including suspected spies.Lots of under-the-radar talk about how evil GWB and Cheney were...they were the ones really behind 9/11...they set up the shockingly original Gitmo...they were going to bring Marshall Law to America and round up folks into American Concentration camps...REALLY?http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/powers/Japanese%20internment%20order1.jpg". . . I remember my mother wrapping a blanket around me and my pretending to fall asleep so she would be happy, though I was so excited I couldn't sleep. I hear there were people herded into the Hastings Park like cattle. Families were made to move in two hours. Abandoned everything, leaving pets and possessions at gun point . . . ."— Joy Kogawa, from "What Do I Remember of the Evacuation" (1973), published in The Chicago Review, Vol. 42, Nos. 3 & 4



February 19 will be forever known as a “day of infamy” for Japanese Americans. On this date in 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 (http://www.english.upenn.edu/~kajohnso/9066.html), the innocuously titled “Executive Order Authorizing The Secretary of War To Prescribe Military Areas.” Yet, there was nothing harmless about this initiative. Although it did not specifically mention “Japanese” or “Japanese Americans,” the order’s intent was clear. Executive Order 9066 authorized the federal government to incarcerate nearly 120,000 Japanese Americans--without due process--in internment camps throughout World War II.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/powers/powers1.htmlWhy is this man such a hero to the left? He trampled on civil liberties left and right and some say allowed Pearl Harbor to "happen" so as to justify American involvement in World War II.


REALLY?

[NJ Stinks]

Yeah, you're right, PA. GWB would have fit in well in the 1940's.

[boxcar]

Hah...this should be a very interesting thread. Liberal Spinmeisters, where art thou? Come out of hiding wherever you are. There are no rocks big enough to hide you. Nor can you hide under the cover of your lies.

Nice bit of history you unearthed, PA. ;)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Yeah, you're right, PA. GWB would have fit in well in the 1940's.

About as well as FDR would have fit in with this generation, NJ? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

I suppose if FDR is now considered a hero, those who shout the loudest that GWB will be considered the worst prez of all time might be jumping the gun a bit.

After all, if FDR could pull all of that shit off and still be considered a hero to the left...

[NJ Stinks]

Do you really think FDR would have locked Muslims here in 2001, Boxcar?

[slewis]

I think it's safe to assume that the left is against broad, unaccounted for wiretaps and use of "The Patriot Act" without reasonable accountabilty.
(I think some on the far left are against ALL of these under any circumstances).

AND... Those on the right favor wiretaps and broad use of the Patriot Act for security of our nation, with the belief of "hey, if you haven't done anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about".

Well what happens when law enforcement people use these tools on American citizens that THEY KNOW are not involved in any form of terrorism, but, because of the broad nature and unaccountability of these laws, allow such law enforcement to spy and watch on those they believe are involved in illegal activity (but NOT terrorism) and NEVER TO HAVE TO REVEAL SUCH by simply hiding behind the domain of these broad and unaccountable powers.

For example: Let's say the FBI believes you may be a major bookmaker.
But experience tells them that they dont have enough evidence to get a judge to sign off on a wiretap. Now they just tap you phone and put it under the guise of "we think there's terrorism present".
If they find something they proceed, if not, that tap and the reason's for it are SEALED and from what I've been told not even a court order can force them to be opened for freedom of info.

To both Boxcar and PA... (and anyone else on here who is PRO wiretap/patriot act.)
DO NOT THINK FOR ONE SECOND THAT OUR GOVT'S LAW ENFORCMENT AGENCIES ARE CURRENTLY NOT DOING THIS, BECAUSE THEY ARE.

[PaceAdvantage]

To both Boxcar and PA... (and anyone else on here who is PRO wiretap/patriot act.)
DO NOT THINK FOR ONE SECOND THAT OUR GOVT'S LAW ENFORCMENT AGENCIES ARE CURRENTLY NOT DOING THIS, BECAUSE THEY ARE.I wouldn't be so naive to think they weren't. But, that's not the point here.

Why would you jump to the conclusion that i am pro-wiretap and pro-Patriot Act?

I am pro-anything that has been shown to be reasonably effective in stopping the next 9/11 WITHOUT markedly infringing on our Constitutional rights. I think the wiretapping program and most of the Patriot Act has succeeded in those areas, so if that makes me pro-wiretap and pro-P.A. then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

But, back to FDR. Should he be considered a hero to most?

[slewis]

I wouldn't be so naive to think they weren't. But, that's not the point here.

Why would you jump to the conclusion that i am pro-wiretap and pro-Patriot Act?

I am pro-anything that has been shown to be reasonably effective in stopping the next 9/11 WITHOUT markedly infringing on our Constitutional rights. I think the wiretapping program and most of the Patriot Act has succeeded in those areas, so if that makes me pro-wiretap and pro-P.A. then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

But, back to FDR. Should he be considered a hero to most?

My personal view is if one closes one's eyes and can possibly put themselves in that place at that time, I think his decisions were heroic and absolutely necessary. I also think the gitmo mess is a mess, but this is one of the few things I think Bush handled correctly and I think OBUM is making a mistake.

If I were president I probably and covertly would have kept these people detained someplace in the world and not let the press know about it. If I felt I had no choice but to have the next administration in on the gig, I hate to admit this but I might order the CIA to do what had to be done.
I really believe one day... one of these people will take American lives, and if president I could NEVER let that happen.

If someone took 4 or 5 yrs from my life, think I'm gonna be happy about it?
I'm commin back lookin for revenge with a vengeance.
This decision to let them go could backfire BIG TIME.

Quickly getting back to wiretaps.. I watched the hearings regarding such on CSPAN and to this day I never heard an explanation from a gov't (Bush) attorney explaining why we need to have Gestapo power with these when the pfiser law, (hope I spelled it right) which judges were very very liberal on (and I'm not using the term liberal from a political standpoint)had everything the Gov't needed to implement a LEGAL wiretap.
I cannot see how the system set up in it's current state is constitutional.
I feel this way despite the fact that
I lost dozens of friends/co-workers who I once worked with on 9/11 on the 84th fl. of WTC 2.

[boxcar]

Do you really think FDR would have locked Muslims here in 2001, Boxcar?

Why wouldn't he? He signed the EO to incarcerate thousands of Japanese men, women and children who weren't even caught on the battlefield, didn't he?
Just because FDR had a D behind his name didn't make him an angel anymore than the R behind Bush's name made him the devil incarnate.

Boxcar

[BlueShoe]

FDR is a darling of the Left because he is the one that started America down the road of so called Democratic Socialism.In many polls he is rated as one of Americas greatest presidents.Just who is polled is open to debate.On the Right he is generally detested.Imo he was one of the worst in our history.His policies prolonged the depression,not ended it.In 1937-1939,years after his 1932 election America was still mired deep in misery.This was the man that once was overheard to remark that,"some of my best friends are Communists".Oh yes,just who was the man most responsible for lifting America out of the depression?Fellow that you may of heard of,a former army corporal in World War One.His name was Adolph Hitler.

[boxcar]

FDR is a darling of the Left because he is the one that started America down the road of so called Democratic Socialism.In many polls he is rated as one of Americas greatest presidents.Just who is polled is open to debate.On the Right he is generally detested.Imo he was one of the worst in our history.His policies prolonged the depression,not ended it.In 1937-1939,years after his 1932 election America was still mired deep in misery.This was the man that once was overheard to remark that,"some of my best friends are Communists".Oh yes,just who was the man most responsible for lifting America out of the depression?Fellow that you may of heard of,a former army corporal in World War One.His name was Adolph Hitler.

Very many wars, if not most, are the products of bad economic times. There's nothing like a war to rally a country's citizens around its corrupt leaders and to stir up highly emotionally-charged nationalistic sentiments. Hitler knew exactly what he was doing.

Regarding FDR's remarks about some of his "best friends" -- The same certainly could be said of the Clintons who were always pandering to the ChiComs.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

The numbers speak for themselves

[NJ Stinks]

FDR was such a bum he:

1. Introduced Unemployent Insurance, Social Security, encouraged unionism, ended child labor, and signed maximum hours and minimum wage laws on a national basis.

2. Created the Tennessee Valley Authority that provided the public with cheap electricity along with thousands of good jobs.

3. Led the country throughout World War II and the effort probably cost him his life.

That's the short version. This man was a hero to most of the free world. But he can't cut it with conservatives. Boo-hoo. :eek:

[JustRalph]

FDR was such a bum he:

1. Introduced Unemployent Insurance, Social Security, encouraged unionism, ended child labor, and signed maximum hours and minimum wage laws on a national basis.

2. Created the Tennessee Valley Authority that provided the public with cheap electricity along with thousands of good jobs.

3. Led the country throughout World War II and the effort probably cost him his life.

That's the short version. This man was a hero to most of the free world. But he can't cut it with conservatives. Boo-hoo. :eek:

Just going to ignore that little graphic huh? He was president from 33 to 45
I wonder what happen in 41 that changed things?????

[NJ Stinks]

Just going to ignore that little graphic huh? He was president from 33 to 45
I wonder what happen in 41 that changed things?????

Just saw this. The Depression was caused by the same set of problems we have today. Stock market prices and real estate values were unrealistic and unsustainable. Expansion of credit to people who could not afford what they were buying was another big problem. At first everybody thought it wouldn't last long because prior recessions didn't. But another big problem was new technology had eliminated more jobs than it created in factories just like computers have done today. And Europe was suffering just like we were.

While these similarities do not bode well for us when we consider how long today's recession will last, the simple answer to your chart is that Americans elected FDR four times. Obviously, they approved of his efforts to lift the country out of the Depression. Just as obviously, conservatives were not crazy about FDR's efforts then anymore than they are looking back today. But the fact is if Republicans had better ideas back then, Americans would have voted FDR out. They had 4 chances.

[PaceAdvantage]

OK, to get back on track, allow me to ask a hypothetical.

What do you think the long-term reaction would have been had Bush rounded up everyone of Muslim origin and locked them away in detention camps following 9/11?

I'll answer. If it were possible, Bush would have been even more widely despised than he is in reality.

Now, given that, I'll ask again. Why is FDR a hero?

[cj's dad]

Part of the reason could be that the information highway as we know it today did not exist in his time frame.



OK, to get back on track, allow me to ask a hypothetical.

What do you think the long-term reaction would have been had Bush rounded up everyone of Muslim origin and locked them away in detention camps following 9/11?

I'll answer. If it were possible, Bush would have been even more widely despised than he is in reality.

Now, given that, I'll ask again. Why is FDR a hero?

[slewis]

OK, to get back on track, allow me to ask a hypothetical.

What do you think the long-term reaction would have been had Bush rounded up everyone of Muslim origin and locked them away in detention camps following 9/11?

I'll answer. If it were possible, Bush would have been even more widely despised than he is in reality.

Now, given that, I'll ask again. Why is FDR a hero?

Well wait one second PA......

The way 9/11 unfolded, you cant "round up" all muslims and jail them.

But that's very different then Pearl Harbor and a Japanese declaration of war.

So let's say we had (god forbid) a series of disasterous attacks in 2 dozen major US cities 10 times the magnitude of 9/11 including dirty bombs and biological weapons and the FBI and CIA inform the president that they have no survelliance or intel on these people doing it (muslim extremist) and the next attacks could come from any muslim group anywhere in the country at any time.

What do YOU think would happen... I dont think you would see mass incarceration, what you WOULD see is some sort of concerted police and military effort to INDENTIFY EVERY MUSLIM in the US and where they live and what they do etc.

The big problem comparing the FDR situation is we live in the yr 2009 and think along those lines (modern technologies such as databases, etc).
But you cant apply 2009 thinking to the FDR era...... If something happens in San Fran, and we live in NY, you turn on CNN or FOX (in your case FOX) and you watch it live. Everyone (incl Govt) knows instantly what's taking place and the severity.
These didn't exist then... so the Govt acted in a way it knew best to identify everyone Japanese and control them to prevent what was percieved to possibly be, a takeover of the USA.

[slewis]

Very many wars, if not most, are the products of bad economic times. There's nothing like a war to rally a country's citizens around its corrupt leaders and to stir up highly emotionally-charged nationalistic sentiments. Hitler knew exactly what he was doing.

Regarding FDR's remarks about some of his "best friends" -- The same certainly could be said of the Clintons who were always pandering to the ChiComs.

Boxcar


The correct phrase is PANDA-ING.

[slewis]

Part of the reason could be that the information highway as we know it today did not exist in his time frame.


EXACTLY.....:ThmbUp:

[Marshall Bennett]

FDR was such a bum he:

1. Introduced Unemployent Insurance, Social Security, encouraged unionism, ended child labor, and signed maximum hours and minimum wage laws on a national basis.

2. Created the Tennessee Valley Authority that provided the public with cheap electricity along with thousands of good jobs.

3. Led the country throughout World War II and the effort probably cost him his life.

That's the short version. This man was a hero to most of the free world. But he can't cut it with conservatives. Boo-hoo. :eek:
IMO much of FDR's heroic war efforts were erased when he sold out to Stalin at Yalta . His domestic efforts were average at best , WWII being the ultimate factor in ending the depression . In his defense however , and often overlooked , was his desire to get the United States involved in the war long before Pearl Harbor . A stuborn congress and overall public opinion prevented this , although many historians feel not only would this have ended the depression sooner , Hitler's reign would have been cut shorter , thus saving millions of lives . FDR's desire to boost our military budget , build our defense and prepare early into his presidency have been well documented . His Lend /Lease was allowed as a token effort to assist Britain , but his ultimate goal early on was full fledged involvement . Towards the end of the war , FDR was a very sick man , perhaps a factor in dealing with the Soviets . I consider myself a conservative yet view FDR as somewhat of a hero , mainly in that the country rebounded economically and won the war under his watch .

[jballscalls]

Very many wars, if not most, are the products of bad economic times.

I always thought goofy religious wackjobs were the causes.

But as PA would say.....back to the original point LOL

FDR did many things to violate rights of innocent people, which basically all wiretapping and stuff like that does. The blame game on these pages is so pathetic, its like a game of tag amongst fifth graders. "the depression wasn't FDR's fault" "Yes it was" "uh uggh" It's never anyone from any of your parties fault whatever side people are on, always the other guys LOL now we're digging up presidents from 70 years ago trying to blame them LOL I guess history does help us learn what not to do, so maybe you have a point, but seems your just trying to again prove your stance of the duplicity and hypocrisy of the left that everyone already knows exists, beating a dead horse. The more the government is involved in our lives, the worse off we all are. You think they just try and wire tap people who are terrorist subjects??? they probably go after people who can get them something or line their pockets. they are the worst

[Tom]

This thread is a perfect example of why those who say history has already judges Bush are flat out wrong. We cannot judge FDR by today's standards. He had X to work with back then, and things were pretty damn bad world-wide. I consider him a hero in that in spite of his handicap and poor health, he kept up the public image which was so vitally important to the war effort back then. I disagree with a lot of his domestic stuff, but he had a very difficult situation to deal with all under the darkening war clouds of Europe and Asia. The economy was so far worse than anything any of us have ever known....in spite of what President Porkenstein keeps telling us. His actions, not his motives, seem to me to be heroic.

[boxcar]

IMO much of FDR's heroic war efforts were erased when he sold out to Stalin at Yalta . His domestic efforts were average at best , WWII being the ultimate factor in ending the depression . In his defense however , and often overlooked , was his desire to get the United States involved in the war long before Pearl Harbor . A stuborn congress and overall public opinion prevented this , although many historians feel not only would this have ended the depression sooner , Hitler's reign would have been cut shorter , thus saving millions of lives . FDR's desire to boost our military budget , build our defense and prepare early into his presidency have been well documented . His Lend /Lease was allowed as a token effort to assist Britain , but his ultimate goal early on was full fledged involvement . Towards the end of the war , FDR was a very sick man , perhaps a factor in dealing with the Soviets . I consider myself a conservative yet view FDR as somewhat of a hero , mainly in that the country rebounded economically and won the war under his watch .

Good post! And you're right on about the war effort playing a huge role in ending the depression. You nailed it squarely. There's nothing like ending bad economic times quickly than putting people back to work manufacturing war products.

Boxcar

[BlueShoe]

We have touched on the domestic policy of FDR;what about his policy late in the war toward the Soviet Union?He gave Uncle Joe almost everything he asked for and condemmed all of Eastern Europe to Communist domination and the free world to almost half a century of conflict with the Soviet bloc.In 1945 the USSR was devastated and was in no condition to confront the Western allies.Perhaps Patton was right;we should have kept right on going and rolled the Russians up and liberated the entire Soviet Union.Churchill was agast at FDR's concessions to Stalin,and it was he who coined the term "Iron Curtain".

[Tom]

Looking at it today, yes, but look at from his eyes in 1945.....you gonna tell all those people dancing in the streets on VE Day that, oh, now we go to Russia.....don't think so. The war had to end when it did....we were more than done. we had paid far too much already, and no one then knew just what the Iron Curtain would turn into. How much more could he have asked "us" to give?

[ddog]

Pa


about your comparison , it's tough as the times were so different and while 9/11 was terrible it was not Pearl Harbor, the security of the COUNTRY in a declared war is not the same as a terrorist attack of 9/11 scope.

In my opinion and I still maintain that , we over-reacted to 9/11.

On the Japanese internment, what would have been the outcome if they were left free, possibly they would have been harmed as the war went on.

If 4-5 more attacks or some type of large scale attack had taken place on 9/11 around the country do you think that possibly Muslims in the country may have been in danger then and maybe a round up would have made sense to protect them?


It was clear at Pearl harbor that we were at war with the Japanese.
I do not think even after 9/11 it was or is clear we are at war with Muslims as a group or a country full of same.


Not the same at all.

As to FDR or Bush being a hero, not to me, they were just guys trying to make it to the end as best they could.

However, it seems a little at odds with the obvious mood of the country to say FDR was not looked on as a hero at the time.
he was elected how many times????

On the Stalin deal, there was no way we were going to have the stomach to fight another front, no way and no absolute victory even if we did.

Easy for the armchair types 70 years hence to declare certain victory in the deal.
Thank goodness some were more sober in their thoughts.

[Marshall Bennett]

We have touched on the domestic policy of FDR;what about his policy late in the war toward the Soviet Union?He gave Uncle Joe almost everything he asked for and condemmed all of Eastern Europe to Communist domination and the free world to almost half a century of conflict with the Soviet bloc.In 1945 the USSR was devastated and was in no condition to confront the Western allies.Perhaps Patton was right;we should have kept right on going and rolled the Russians up and liberated the entire Soviet Union.Churchill was agast at FDR's concessions to Stalin,and it was he who coined the term "Iron Curtain".
A lot easier said than done . We can re-visit history 60 years later and knowing now what they knew little of then makes all the difference . Several factors prevented us from attacking the Soviets . Tom points out one , we were a nation devastated ourselves by war . 300,000 dead , pain & suffering thru-out . Add that to years of depression prior to the war and Americans were ready for normalcy . The Soviets by 1945 were no war machine to be taken lightly . Stalin had , in a relatively short time , manufactured an army that took back all of Germanys control over Eastern Europe and virtually crushed the Nazi regime single handily . In all actuality , our effect on Hitler's other front was annoying in comparison to the Soviet's damage . Lastly , but certainly more important in respect to our moral selves , how do you turn on your allies with whom you've defeated the ultimate evil , and simply blow them off the map ? Thats what we would have had to do you know . Any hopes of winning a conventional war against this Soviet army would be in serious question , resulting in millions of American dead and many more years of war . Nuking them into oblideration would have been barbaric . For all practical purposes they were our friends in that without them , we may have well been in much more of a fight for our life against Germany . They bought us time to develope the very bomb that brought the war to an ultimate end .

[BlueShoe]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"--"War and politics make for strange bedfellows".Remember those sayings?We hopped in bed with the Soviets because at the time we perceived,correctly,that Germany was the larger threat.Stalins evil was no secret in 1945.The deliberate famines in the Ukraine and elsewhere,the horrible purges of the 1930's,the gulags,all this was well known to US officials in 1945.My point is that FDR should have stood firm against Stalin,and,at the very least,insisted that aside for an occupieing force in post war Germany,all armies withdraw to and recognize all pre war borders.Had this been done,untold millions of lives could have been spared,trillions of dollars spent on defense during wars both hot and cold saved,and heaven only knows how much human misery would have been avoided.Once again,the Red Army was no unstopable juggernaut in 1945,they had masses of men with poor logistics,much of which they got from us.Stalin was in no position to confront the West in a new shooting war,and he knew it.Perhaps this poster is just an unrepentant Cold Warrior whose hatred of the Evil Empire has never abated,but to the end of my days will always insist that the USSR could have been defeated in the 1940's not the 90's,and had that been done,China might not have fallen to Mao and the ChiComs.

[Marshall Bennett]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"--"War and politics make for strange bedfellows".Remember those sayings?We hopped in bed with the Soviets because at the time we perceived,correctly,that Germany was the larger threat.Stalins evil was no secret in 1945.The deliberate famines in the Ukraine and elsewhere,the horrible purges of the 1930's,the gulags,all this was well known to US officials in 1945.My point is that FDR should have stood firm against Stalin,and,at the very least,insisted that aside for an occupieing force in post war Germany,all armies withdraw to and recognize all pre war borders.Had this been done,untold millions of lives could have been spared,trillions of dollars spent on defense during wars both hot and cold saved,and heaven only knows how much human misery would have been avoided.Once again,the Red Army was no unstopable juggernaut in 1945,they had masses of men with poor logistics,much of which they got from us.Stalin was in no position to confront the West in a new shooting war,and he knew it.Perhaps this poster is just an unrepentant Cold Warrior whose hatred of the Evil Empire has never abated,but to the end of my days will always insist that the USSR could have been defeated in the 1940's not the 90's,and had that been done,China might not have fallen to Mao and the ChiComs.
As I mentioned in post # 22 , FDR's leniency with regards to Stalin and post war Europe dented his legacy . I doubt he fully understood nor could he fore-see Stalin's intentions and to what degree Eastern Europe would be effected . Churchill had a more grim expectation , made it known , and FDR didn't heed . MacAuthor had a simular sight set for Indo-China as Patton did with the Soviets . He was removed . I maintain my position that the U.S. had basically spent itself emotionally with WWII . Sure we were the most powerful force on earth and with the atomic bomb at our desposal , the sky was the limit . At what point however , are you sacrificing the emotional will and well-being of your people . A loss of 300,000 lives by " today's " standards seems almost unimaginable . A war with the Soviets would have cost millions , alot by any standard .

[NJ Stinks]

FDR may have been influenced by how many casualties Russia endured in World War II. According to records I found, it was over 20M deaths.

Here is a list of how many people were lost per country in World War II. It's below the stats for World War I.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2854730

[Tom]

FDR may have been influenced by how many casualties Russia endured in World War II. According to records I found, it was over 20M deaths.



Almost as many as Stalin himself had murdered!

[NJ Stinks]

Almost as many as Stalin himself had murdered!

True enough! :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

However, it seems a little at odds with the obvious mood of the country to say FDR was not looked on as a hero at the time.
he was elected how many times????No, no, no, no....I'm talking about today. He's looked upon TODAY as a hero (including by many if not most on the left). Yet, he violated many of the same civil liberties the left accuses Bush of violating, and FDR is still the hero, while Bush, they say, will be viewed as the worst Prez ever.

So, I'm just asking, why doesn't FDR's rep suffer for his heavy-handed ways?

[PaceAdvantage]

The big problem comparing the FDR situation is we live in the yr 2009 and think along those lines (modern technologies such as databases, etc).
But you cant apply 2009 thinking to the FDR era...... If something happens in San Fran, and we live in NY, you turn on CNN or FOX (in your case FOX) and you watch it live. Everyone (incl Govt) knows instantly what's taking place and the severity.
These didn't exist then... so the Govt acted in a way it knew best to identify everyone Japanese and control them to prevent what was percieved to possibly be, a takeover of the USA.Excellent dig at me there with the FOX thing. Bravo.

As to your other point, how exactly does being in the information age get FDR off the hook for what happened at the start of WWII? There's no way every single person of Muslim faith or Middle-Eastern background is currently in some database just waiting to be tracked.

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying, but I gather you feel an FDR-style roundup isn't necessary because of the technology at our disposal today. I'm not sure I buy that argument.

[Lefty]

FDR, had Japanese citizens rounded up simply because they were Japanese and we were at war with Japan. When Bush went to war with Muslim terrorists, how many Muslims were rounded up here in the U.S. ?
ZERO.
Libs have no quarrel with FDR but criticize Bush for impounding terrorists at Gitmo. it's terribly inconsistent, eh what?

[slewis]

Excellent dig at me there with the FOX thing. Bravo.

As to your other point, how exactly does being in the information age get FDR off the hook for what happened at the start of WWII? There's no way every single person of Muslim faith or Middle-Eastern background is currently in some database just waiting to be tracked.

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying, but I gather you feel an FDR-style roundup isn't necessary because of the technology at our disposal today. I'm not sure I buy that argument.

Regarding an FDR style round up........ PA, regardless of how technologically advanced we may or may not be, even in a case of severe National emergency you know that it wouldn't be feasible (to gather everyone suspected of whatever up). Secondly, it's much easier to identify someone of oriental decent then of religious persuasion.

Lastly, neither you nor I have the knowledge to know to what extent ANYONE in this country is tracked or databased. 95%?.. 80%?? 30% of the population... of Muslims ?.. I think that one of the main reasons the Tel. co's DEMANDED from the courts immunity from litigation if they opened access to their lines for taps (I watched those hearings on CSPAN)
and their databases for info.. is that the US govt probably discussed the need to gather as much info on as many as possible and required their full cooperation for National security purposes.

[Lefty]

Yeah, it's soo easy to tell the Japanese from the Chinese, Filipenos and Koreans. A piece of cake.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah, it's soo easy to tell the Japanese from the Chinese, Filipenos and Koreans. A piece of cake.Can we not go there? Thanks.

[Marshall Bennett]

My apologizes to Gen. MacArthur in the spelling of his name ... :(

[slewis]

Yeah, it's soo easy to tell the Japanese from the Chinese, Filipenos and Koreans. A piece of cake.


What's your point lefty??

[Lefty]

PA, why not? It's legitimate when slewis says it's easier to identify Orientals than religious persuasion. Of course he meant Japanese and i reminded him that it's not all that easy to tell Japanese from other Asians. So i don't get your reprimand.

Ya get my point now, slewis?

[slewis]

PA, why not? It's legitimate when slewis says it's easier to identify Orientals than religious persuasion. Of course he meant Japanese and i reminded him that it's not all that easy to tell Japanese from other Asians. So i don't get your reprimand.

Ya get my point now, slewis?

Ok I;ll answer your dumb ass question since you want to be a wise ass with me.

I guarantee that in under 1 hour of training, any law good enforcement org. can teach even a right wing - see the world one way fool like you how to distinguish between Asian nationals.
Start with the Sir names... they're like night and day.

If you need further assistance ... google it. It's a great tool for those with a lack of culture.

[Lefty]

slewis, you prove once again that libs just can't engage in a debate without the namecalling. And for your information Oriental is considered a racist term by Asians. and it sur names not sir names and i'll bet those same law enforcement agencies would have little trouble identifying Muslims.
there ya go.

[slewis]

slewis, you prove once again that libs just can't engage in a debate without the namecalling. And for your information Oriental is considered a racist term by Asians. and it sur names not sir names and i'll bet those same law enforcement agencies would have little trouble identifying Muslims.
there ya go.

Lefty lefty lefty.......


If you read my posts on here you would know that I'm far far far from a lib....

Sorry about the typo... I was too busy watching the new mistake in the white house give his 36th speech in 24 days.

I could care less if Asians or Muslims are offended by my description of an Oriental.. they could leave our country if it offends too badly, I wont lose sleep, would you?
And ...if you can look at 100 random people and tell whose muslim easier then I can tell whose Asian.. OR ORIENTAL....... you're the 2009 version of Karnac.

That was your original statement/post.

So come back with an insult/arguement, etc.. and we'll put this silly debate to sleep....
AND DONT CALL ME A LIB! (please)

[ddog]

No, no, no, no....I'm talking about today. He's looked upon TODAY as a hero (including by many if not most on the left). Yet, he violated many of the same civil liberties the left accuses Bush of violating, and FDR is still the hero, while Bush, they say, will be viewed as the worst Prez ever.

So, I'm just asking, why doesn't FDR's rep suffer for his heavy-handed ways?


i think his rep does suffer NOW , easy of course, from the action then.
The threat was different and the actions were different so the history.


I still say the difference between the two events are the basis of the difference in the views.
As to the surveillance , the capability that could be deployed was so different in scale/scope that the very "darkness" of the current methods gave a more ominous cast to the policies of Bush.



That isn't going to carry any water with you, but that seems the point to me.

[Lefty]

slewis, sorry I mistook you for a lib. Man, that is an insult.

[Lefty]

slewis, I know quite a few asians and they don't like the O word, so i don't use it. and I didn't say it was easier to tell a Muslim as an asian. We were talking about Japanese and not all Asians.

[slewis]

slewis, I know quite a few asians and they don't like the O word, so i don't use it. and I didn't say it was easier to tell a Muslim as an asian. We were talking about Japanese and not all Asians.


You know what.. Im going to go to the dictionary and look up the definition of oriental, asian, etc.... and take things from there.

You've raised my curiousity.

But if anyone has a problem with the English language, they can protest the Brittish consulate, they invented it.

If Asians fit into the definition of O, O it is.... unless you're telling me O is the new "N" word.. because if that's the case what's next OAAOP?????
Their are already too many foreigners trying to change the dynamics of culture in the USA....

Still think I'm a lib??

[slewis]

slewis, I know quite a few asians and they don't like the O word, so i don't use it. and I didn't say it was easier to tell a Muslim as an asian. We were talking about Japanese and not all Asians.

But lefty... if your going do do a "roundup" hypothetcally, it would need to be enforced by police or militia, they would approach an Oriental and ask for ID.

If their name was Japanese (very simple stuff here... very different then Chinese or Thai) they would proceed from there.

If muslims needed to god forbid be "rounded up" , law enforcement would find it difficult visually to start the process.

I.E... if you didn't watch Basketball... you wouldn';t know who the muslim was:
Kareem or Shaq just by looking at them... get my point?
That's what I was trying to portray to PA.
This is silly so lets move on....

[riskman]

If muslims needed to god forbid be "rounded up" , law enforcement would find it difficult visually to start the process.

I would say it would. Muslim is a religion, not a race. Indonesia ,Pakistan and Bangdalesh have the largest Muslim populations in the world and none of these have Arab ethnicity close to a majority.

[Lefty]

Aren't most Muslims of arab descent? By rounding those up, it would have been a pretty good start, but the point is, Bush didn't do it nor wanted to.

[jballscalls]

If Asians fit into the definition of O, O it is.... unless you're telling me O is the new "N" word.. because if that's the case what's next OAAOP?????
\??

I had a buddy in my frat that said the o word is just as bad as the n word. I love that we now have to use a letter to abbreviate words, ridiculous liberal scumbags!!

anyways, his contention was that oriental was a type of rug, not a race of people.

[cj's dad]

I'm sure I'm going to regret jumping in here but I believe the Orient is an all encompassing region.

I have to admit that I am not very good at distinguishing among Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, etc... nor do I believe the inability to make that distinction should be considered offensive to or dismissive of one's culture.

So, if a person from that region were to be catergorized as Oriental, why is that so terrible?

Would this not be similar to a person from Saudi Arabia being referred to as a Middle Easterner?

[Bubba X]

So, I'm just asking, why doesn't FDR's rep suffer for his heavy-handed ways?

His rep does not suffer because he is regarded as having been successful. That's why.

FDR now has years of history behind him to be judged by. George Bush does not. Perhaps history will be kind to GWB. Perhaps not.

The only meaningful comparisons between the two are what their approval ratings were while in office. Probably the best and only way to look at how FRD and GWB were viewed in a critical, negative light is what their approval ratings were at their worst.

FDR's lowest approval rating was 48%; GWB's lowest was 25%. So, apparently, at the lowest points of their popularity, FDR was roughly twice as popular as Bush.

President's have to make hard choices, whether it is rounding up Asians or using extreme interrogation methods. Popular or not, strictly legal or considered fair or not, it really does not matter, at least to me when Americans have been attacked and killed.

In the end, it is all about how good their judgement in making those choices turns out.

[Lefty]

I was very young at the time but I believe FDR applied a level of censorship of the press. The reason Bush's ratings were so low is that the press saw to it. They wrote negative stories on him from day 1 of his presidency. NY Times wrote 50+ front page stories on Abu Graeve. He was constantly called dumb.
Obama said, when his wife had a few negative ratings that sure they were because the press wrote a few negative stories about her. Now imagine that over 8 years like what happened to Bush.

[Marshall Bennett]

I was very young at the time but I believe FDR applied a level of censorship of the press. The reason Bush's ratings were so low is that the press saw to it. They wrote negative stories on him from day 1 of his presidency. NY Times wrote 50+ front page stories on Abu Graeve. He was constantly called dumb.
Obama said, when his wife had a few negative ratings that sure they were because the press wrote a few negative stories about her. Now imagine that over 8 years like what happened to Bush.
:ThmbUp: Well said !! Not to mention all the negative shit spashed over television screens for 8 years .

[ddog]

I was very young at the time but I believe FDR applied a level of censorship of the press. The reason Bush's ratings were so low is that the press saw to it. They wrote negative stories on him from day 1 of his presidency. NY Times wrote 50+ front page stories on Abu Graeve. He was constantly called dumb.
Obama said, when his wife had a few negative ratings that sure they were because the press wrote a few negative stories about her. Now imagine that over 8 years like what happened to Bush.


you are still very young if you don't think there is NOW a level of censorship applied to the press.

my goodness.


You go back and look at the papers , etc. of the day, you can't possibly mean that FDR got all flowers and hearts.

Look it up.

[Bubba X]

:ThmbUp: Well said !! Not to mention all the negative shit spashed over television screens for 8 years .
Negative shit? Try bullshit.

Bush had the highest approval rating ever for a president, just after 9/11.

He went downhill from there except for a bump up in 2003 when he declared, "major combat operations are over in Iraq."

His approval ratings were decent enough through his first term to get reelected.

Stop blaming the press. His second term was awful.

[Pace Cap'n]

The press in FDR's day failed to report the fact that the president couldn't even walk.

[Lefty]

Yeah, for a short time after 9-11.
They reported every negative story out of Iraq and didn't print anything good even when there was good to be reported. All they could say was there was no WMD's. B,S. Saddam killed his own people with Mustard gas. So he clearly had a WMD right there. Bush acted on worlwide intel but to listen to and read the media we were led to believe it was a whim on his part to avenge daddy and all that baloney. The lying ass congress gave him the okay, but when things didn't go exactly swimmingly(do they ever in a war)they said they were lied to. More B.S. And how about those 50+ stories sympathizing with Terrorists at Abu Graeb, and intimating Bush knew what was going on. And then there's the entertainment media portraying him as dumb at every turn. One line in a TV series even said this. "Our boy's dumb. oh not George Bush dumb, but he needs a tutor." I paraphrase because I forget the exact wording that came after "George Bush dumb."
Bush kept the economy going after 9-11 but he got zero credit for that. Bush took it like a man and never whined. CBS even fabricated documents and a bogus story to keep him from getting elected a 2nd time. But somehow he did.
If the press turns on Obama the manchild will whine as his ratings plummet. It prob won't happen because the press today is more akin to Pravda than Poor Richards Almanac.
oh yeah, the media is fair and balanced. Uh, huh...

[Marshall Bennett]

Stop blaming the press. His second term was awful.
His second term wasn't awful . The MSM and followers like yourself made it out to be awful . Your team was determained to get a democrat in the white house and took all measures necessary to insure it . You got what you want , I just can't wait to see how it ends .

[ddog]

Yeah, for a short time after 9-11.
They reported every negative story out of Iraq and didn't print anything good even when there was good to be reported. All they could say was there was no WMD's. B,S. Saddam killed his own people with Mustard gas. So he clearly had a WMD right there. Bush acted on worlwide intel but to listen to and read the media we were led to believe it was a whim on his part to avenge daddy and all that baloney. The lying ass congress gave him the okay, but when things didn't go exactly swimmingly(do they ever in a war)they said they were lied to. More B.S. And how about those 50+ stories sympathizing with Terrorists at Abu Graeb, and intimating Bush knew what was going on. And then there's the entertainment media portraying him as dumb at every turn. One line in a TV series even said this. "Our boy's dumb. oh not George Bush dumb, but he needs a tutor." I paraphrase because I forget the exact wording that came after "George Bush dumb."
Bush kept the economy going after 9-11 but he got zero credit for that. Bush took it like a man and never whined. CBS even fabricated documents and a bogus story to keep him from getting elected a 2nd time. But somehow he did.
If the press turns on Obama the manchild will whine as his ratings plummet. It prob won't happen because the press today is more akin to Pravda than Poor Richards Almanac.
oh yeah, the media is fair and balanced. Uh, huh...



check billboys press while in office.

fair - balanced :lol:

[Tom]

Anyone who thinks the press did not go out of it's way to attack Bush at every opportunity is delusional.

[Secretariat]

There's a reason FDR was elected to four terms, and is recognized by most historians as one of the greatest Presidents in American history. The latest Republican revisionism is pretty sad.

An excellent article in Salon regarding this:

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/02/02/the_new_deal_worked/

[Tom]

Revisionism?
Perhaps you could tell us what is not true that has been posted?

[Lefty]

sec, revisionism or fact? When he was elected a third term, I understand unemployment was 20% in his first 2 terms!

[Lefty]

dog, Clinton got favorable coverrage for most of his terms. They might have gotten a little negative when he was caught in the Lewinski lie. But even then they cited psychiatrists that said, heck, everybody lies. some even tried to make him out some kind of hero for lying to "protect his family." Bush was vilified from day 1.
When the Repub Congress forced Clinton to sign the Welfare bill, he even told Jesse Jackson at the Dem convention, not to worry that he would fix it. The Repub congress also forced a bal budget. To this day, the Press gives Clinton the credit and not the Repub congress.

[Secretariat]

sec, revisionism or fact? When he was elected a third term, I understand unemployment was 20% in his first 2 terms!

Thank you Herbert Hoover. First, unemployment was calculated then differently than today. Second, even at that rate, it was significantly down from the Great Depression.

I hope you actually read the article Lefty instead of living in the dark.

[Secretariat]

sec, revisionism or fact? When he was elected a third term, I understand unemployment was 20% in his first 2 terms!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200812030014

"In a July 5, 2007, Slate article, University of California-Davis history professor Eric Rauchway noted: "Except in the 1937-38 recession, unemployment fell every year of the New Deal. Also, real GDP grew at an annual rate of around 9 percent during Roosevelt's first term and, after the 1937-38 dip, around 11 percent." Further, New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote that it was a reversal of New Deal policies that contributed to rising unemployment during the 1937-38 recession.

[Lefty]

UCLA economists believe FDR's policies prolonged the depression by SEVEN YEARS!
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

[BlueShoe]

Those UCLA profs. nailed it.On the other hand,we have Comrade Paul Krugman,the leading propagandist for the east coast edition of Pravda making the usual flawed excuses in defense of collectivism.The depression might have dragged on for years had it not been for the Nazi threat that the free world finally took seriously.Remember,World War II started on September 1,1939,more than two years before Pearl Harbor.It sounds cynical,and it was a horrible price to pay,but once again,Adolph Hitler did more to bring the USA out of the depression than anything FDR ever did.

[delayjf]

Thank you Herbert Hoover. First, unemployment was calculated then differently than today.

I don't think that's quite accurate, one difference in the way Rauchway calculated in the individuals on Workfare. I don't think we have workfare today so it would be the same as counting those recieving unemployment as employed.

With regards to the number of people "working" Rauchway calculations were correct but his unemployment figures did not apply to the private sector. It was in the private sector that the new deal failed.

[JustRalph]

There's a reason FDR was elected to four terms, and is recognized by most historians as one of the greatest Presidents in American history. The latest Republican revisionism is pretty sad.

An excellent article in Salon regarding this:

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/02/02/the_new_deal_worked/


There is a reason, he was the TEET and they were suckling while FDR's propaganda campaign played in their ears...........

[ddog]

dog, Clinton got favorable coverrage for most of his terms. They might have gotten a little negative when he was caught in the Lewinski lie. But even then they cited psychiatrists that said, heck, everybody lies. some even tried to make him out some kind of hero for lying to "protect his family." Bush was vilified from day 1.
When the Repub Congress forced Clinton to sign the Welfare bill, he even told Jesse Jackson at the Dem convention, not to worry that he would fix it. The Repub congress also forced a bal budget. To this day, the Press gives Clinton the credit and not the Repub congress.



clinton was on the gridle before he was elected.

the difference between lefty and a top?
the top stops spinning eventually.

on our welfare to work deal, you are of course wrong there as well.

as i keep trying to impress upon you, it's what they do not what they say they will do that matters.





:lol:

[toetoe]

FDR was such a bum he:

1. Introduced Unemployent Insurance, Social Security, encouraged unionism, ended child labor, and signed maximum hours and minimum wage laws on a national basis.



Items 1, 2 and 3 are definite "With blessings like these, who needs curses?" material.

Item 4 is good enough to rank him with King Barack as Co-humanitarian of the Century.

Item 5 is okay with me, although some whose views I respect might regret its enactment.

[NJ Stinks]

Items 1, 2 and 3 are definite "With blessings like these, who needs curses?" material.

Did you have any relatives or friends that rely on their Social Security checks to pay their bills, buy their food, live out their lives with dignity, Toetoe?

If not, you are unique.

[slewis]

clinton was on the gridle before he was elected.

the difference between lefty and a top?
the top stops spinning eventually.

on our welfare to work deal, you are of course wrong there as well.

as i keep trying to impress upon you, it's what they do not what they say they will do that matters.





:lol:

Dog,

Why are you barking and barking up this tree....

Lefty is Lefty beacuse he's righty and will never give the lefty (or middles) the right time of day.
Anyone who battles and battles for Bush and knocks Clinton sees the world 1 way and 1 way only.
Wow, Am I glad we dont have real problems in our country like back in the day... you know... how can we impeach a President for getting a little BJ and then trying to protect his reputation.. Those were REAL problems for America.
The dilemma left by 8 yrs of GWB, ah, no big deal.
So your kids kids and maybe their kids kids, ALL have it a lot worse then we did...
Toooooo bad, the spoiled little bastards... Nothing wrong with our kids kids working an hour or two extra a day (their entire lives) to pay for China's roads and schools and military and on and on .........

[toetoe]

Yes sir.

I also had people who depended on begging to survive; people who indulged their bigotry and used that to get them through tough times; people who abused their loved ones, thereby getting their rocks off and making it through the night; people who depended on alcohol and other horrible things to survive.

There is my point. Do you have a deeper one that I am missing ?

[JustRalph]

Did you have any relatives or friends that rely on their Social Security checks to pay their bills, buy their food, live out their lives with dignity, Toetoe?

If not, you are unique.

it was never intended to be permanent

[NJ Stinks]

Yes sir.

I also had people who depended on begging to survive; people who indulged their bigotry and used that to get them through tough times; people who abused their loved ones, thereby getting their rocks off and making it through the night; people who depended on alcohol and other horrible things to survive.

There is my point. Do you have a deeper one that I am missing ?

Apparently not.

[PaceAdvantage]

The dilemma left by 8 yrs of GWB, ah, no big deal.I know this is way off topic, but could you summarize this "dilemma" with a few bullet points and tell me exactly how it is the fault of GWB.

We should probably start with all these bad loans banks were making to folks buying houses and such...then we could go to the money spent on the Iraq war (probably sounds like baby poop right about now compared to all the money thrown around these stimulus bills...including GWB's own TARP).

I just need some clarification...I need to know exactly what was his fault and why. Then we can move on to some others to blame.

[ddog]

Those UCLA profs. nailed it.On the other hand,we have Comrade Paul Krugman,the leading propagandist for the east coast edition of Pravda making the usual flawed excuses in defense of collectivism.The depression might have dragged on for years had it not been for the Nazi threat that the free world finally took seriously.Remember,World War II started on September 1,1939,more than two years before Pearl Harbor.It sounds cynical,and it was a horrible price to pay,but once again,Adolph Hitler did more to bring the USA out of the depression than anything FDR ever did.


i would ask you to explain exactly what you think those profs said in article posted since you seem to be in total agreement with their outcome and thus the reasons they gave for same.


Maybe Pa instead of dragging bush into it could take a whack at it too?

[hcap]

UCLA economists believe FDR's policies prolonged the depression by SEVEN YEARS!
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

They were wrong.

http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/363/Depression_GDP_output_1.gif

Unemployment (% labor force)
Year Lebergott Darby[61]
1933 24.9 20.6
1934 21.7 16.0
1935 20.1 14.2
1936 16.9 9.9
1937 14.3 9.1
1938 19.0 12.5
1939 17.2 11.3
1940 14.6 9.5
1941 9.9 8.0
1942 4.7 4.7
1943 1.9 1.9
1944 1.2 1.2
1945 1.9 1.9

[slewis]

I know this is way off topic, but could you summarize this "dilemma" with a few bullet points and tell me exactly how it is the fault of GWB.

We should probably start with all these bad loans banks were making to folks buying houses and such...then we could go to the money spent on the Iraq war (probably sounds like baby poop right about now compared to all the money thrown around these stimulus bills...including GWB's own TARP).

I just need some clarification...I need to know exactly what was his fault and why. Then we can move on to some others to blame.

PA,

Im tired of people defending GWB. His father was a reasonably good president who made solid, not perfect, but solid decisions.
This guy and all his advisors made every bad key decison possible.

Let's start with the sub-prime dilemma.

I posted this previously. Several years ago I had a horse with Mott who was a Payson Park near Stuart FL.
A friend who was a GIANT trader at UBS had retired there. After watching the horse train we went to lunch. He told me he pulled every dime out of the equities market including retirement. He explained if I was aware of what was taking place in the sup prime mkt. I had left wall st 7 yrs prior and hadn't followed regulatory changes. He explained what was going on.
I couldn't believe they (Govt) allowed the regulatory changes (Lobbyist at work and put in place to safeguard against what we are seeing) but even worse, that the banks would be acting so irresponsibly. He told me the heads of these banks had little choice and that they were making 100's of millions, today. It turned into a case of.... write loans like your competitors were doing and seriously risk bringing down the institution, or do the right thing and face your bd of directors having to explain why your competitors stocks are up 40% and ours isn't... and get canned. Bank execs choose the former.....
He explained that the house HAD to crash..... I agreed.
Now here's the key point.... If my friend was aware of this.. believe me.... THE TOP BANKERS IN THE COUNTRY KNEW IT TOO.......
It is the job of THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER of the USA and his staff to know this, AND ACT SWIFTLY to stop it.
It makes no difference who started the legislation that got us here... it makes no difference whether it was REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT lobbying that pushed through sweeping changes. IT was BUSH"S responsibility on HIS WATCH.
Ever hear of "The Buck stops here". No, but this jerk off has the audacity to get up before the American people and say "The Economy is good, it's strong." To me that makes him and his staff either incompetant, liars, or both.
I dont want to hear about the policies of Clinton or Regan. There is nothing wrong wth trying to help the poor....When things were good Fannie and freddie could easily do business the way they did if a solid economy would sustain it. BUT.... when things start to tip like economies cyclically do, he, as CEO of the USA must act to put on the brakes.
He didn't...... we all lose.

Very briefly regarding the Iraq war.... He had no game plan. None.
When we went in and swept the Republican Army, we didn't know how the people would react. I honestly thought they would embrace us too. I thought we might see another Democratic state that could counter-balance those Arab countries that speak from both sides of their mouth's. Create a larger version of say, Turkey or Dubai.
If it were to happen, great. But it didn't. So, BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO GO IT MILITARILY, you'd better have plan A, B, C and D.
And you'd better prepare to take a lot of civillian lives until they (IRAQI'S) see things "our way".
Our boys getting fired upon out of "holy Mosque's" and we dont take it down.
How would you like your son walking around with a target on his back and he cant fire back???
Think Patton or Ike would have stood for that shit!!!!

I read posts how people are saying "we are winning the war in Iraq". Ok, define winning. To me, anything less then a pro-western, pro-Israel, Democratic anti Iran govt... and we LOST... LOSE LOSE LOSE LOSE.
Sadam Hussain provided a buffer in the region and posed no threat to us, not in my lifetime or yours.
All you've created now is a larger IRAN.
Don't deny that these people who we "liberated" dont hate us and want us OUT!

[Bubba X]

I know this is way off topic, but could you summarize this "dilemma" with a few bullet points and tell me exactly how it is the fault of GWB.

I just need some clarification...I need to know exactly what was his fault and why. Then we can move on to some others to blame.

I'm with you.

The just released footnote to Bush's administration tells us GDP fell by over 6% in the 4th Quarter of 2008. Worst drop in 26 years. Worst drop ever in the last Quarter of a two-term Republican President.

You have convinced me. I now fully agree with your prior posts blaming Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Joe Biden's hair and, of course, the Obama Birth Certificate conspiracy for the nation's ills.

Those sound good to me.

[BlueShoe]

Assuming the stats are correct,in 1933 the jobless rate was 24.9% and in 1938 19.0%.This was progress?.After five years of FDR the nation was still mired in misery.Now go forward five more years and only 1.9% were not working.In 1943 any person had a job that wanted one.As usual,the libs on this forum have tried to turn this thread away from FDR and,what else is new,onto George Bush.Just how GWB had something to do with the many shortcomings of FDR and the depression is beyond my understanding,but am sure that the libs will come up with something.

[ddog]

i would ask you to explain exactly what you think those profs said in article posted since you seem to be in total agreement with their outcome and thus the reasons they gave for same.


Maybe Pa instead of dragging bush into it could take a whack at it too?

"Those UCLA profs NAILED IT"
quote from mr shoe.

crickets .... crickets i hear... seems many things are beyond your understanding.

You endorsed something you can't explain it appears.


pa a lib, he would be stunned i expect. seems he did some dragging too.
:lol:

typical.

[BlueShoe]

Guess grade school arithmetic is a bit too difficult for some of our more liberal members.Must be real hard to figure out what all those years and funny numbers next to them mean.Am sure that if they ask a bright 10 year old he would be happy to help them out.

[delayjf]

The just released footnote to Bush's administration tells us GDP fell by over 6% in the 4th Quarter of 2008.
I believe the above was base on 2000 dollars. Based on current dollars the GDP only fell 3.8 % and the GDP rose by about 1% for the entire 2008.

[JustRalph]

Jesus Amiga!!! There are videos posted all over this board showing that Bush and coincidentally, John McCain, were screaming for more regulation and the Dems stopped it............and then added more requirements that increased the gravity of the markets falling apart................

Do you guys read these threads and then push the reset button just below your anus right before going to bed each night? The evidence of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters conspiring with Chuckles Schumer and the rest of the Dems to drop a first class stink bomb on the economy is all over the net and in many threads here at Pace Advantage............

[toetoe]

Do you guys read these threads and then push the reset button just below your anus right before going to bed each night?


"Tain't so, Sir." :mad: . And anyway, unless you imply that we share one, the term should be ani, no ?

[slewis]

Jesus Amiga!!! There are videos posted all over this board showing that Bush and coincidentally, John McCain, were screaming for more regulation and the Dems stopped it............and then added more requirements that increased the gravity of the markets falling apart................

Do you guys read these threads and then push the reset button just below your anus right before going to bed each night? The evidence of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters conspiring with Chuckles Schumer and the rest of the Dems to drop a first class stink bomb on the economy is all over the net and in many threads here at Pace Advantage............


Let's see Ralph... the last BS I heard this amusing was "If it don't fit you must acquit".

Umm... Republicans calling for more Govt regulation and intervention of the Banking indusrty..:lol:

[Tom]

Nice dodge of the facts, there.

[toetoe]

Hey Tom, gimme back my anus button. Yeah, that's it --- the red thing upon which someone has stamped FACTS. Give it back, I say. :mad: .

[Secretariat]

They were wrong.

http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/363/Depression_GDP_output_1.gif

Unemployment (% labor force)
Year Lebergott Darby[61]
1933 24.9 20.6
1934 21.7 16.0
1935 20.1 14.2
1936 16.9 9.9
1937 14.3 9.1
1938 19.0 12.5
1939 17.2 11.3
1940 14.6 9.5
1941 9.9 8.0
1942 4.7 4.7
1943 1.9 1.9
1944 1.2 1.2
1945 1.9 1.9

Hcap, the right has never been interested in facts. That is why they are a laughingstock today.

[toetoe]

Every nondrinker of "liberal" Kool-Aid such as ourself must decide for theirself how bad of English they wants to speak, but please ... linking "... the right has ..." with "... they are ... [ :( ]" makes me think I coulda went and even wrote something clever (strictly taboo), and it still could of been defensible. Dang, when I think of all the clever things I could of wrote, but was preemptively discouraged from writing ... now I believe I just should of did it, damn the torpedos(sp.?).

[hcap]

Every nondrinker of "liberal" Kool-Aid such as ourself must decide for theirself how bad of English they wants to speak, but please ... linking "... the right has ..." with "... they are ... [ :( ]" makes me think I coulda went and even wrote something clever (strictly taboo), and it still could of been defensible. Dang, when I think of all the clever things I could of wrote, but was preemptively discouraged from writing ... now I believe I just should of did it, damn the torpedos(sp.?).Something clever is not your forte. Attempts at clever don't make it so. Being "preemptively discouraged" is an interesting choice of words. Is that like wanting to say something really, really STUPID, but stopped by your generally missing-in-action common sense?
Hey Tom, gimme back my anus button. Yeah, that's it --- the red thing upon which someone has stamped FACTS. Give it back, I say

Try pressing higher up. Towards the cranial.

[toetoe]

Cute girl with sign on face,

I shall endeavor to be as silent as the *e* on the @$$ end of forte.

[Indulto]

Something clever is not your forte. Attempts at clever don't make it so. Being "preemptively discouraged" is an interesting choice of words. Is that like wanting to say something really, really STUPID, but stopped by your generally missing-in-action common sense?

Try pressing higher up. Towards the cranial.Seems like a heavy-handed response to a lightweight offense. The posters here who are determined to spin every new development against the administration are more worthy of your disdain. I hope your unfortunate underestimation doesn't unleash yet another unrelenting obstacle to restoring confidence and cooperation.

[toetoe]

generally missing-in-action common sense?




So you're saying there's a chance ... ? Ja or :9: ?

[hcap]

Seems like a heavy-handed response to a lightweight offense. The posters here who are determined to spin every new development against the administration are more worthy of your disdain. I hope your unfortunate underestimation doesn't unleash yet another unrelenting obstacle to restoring confidence and cooperation.
Every nondrinker of "liberal" Kool-Aid such as ourself.........
Notice the phrase "liberal" Kool-Aid"

Since before the election the righties on this board have been drinking conservative/repug/Rushbo/BillO koolaid. To the point of being totally intoxicated. The latest crap is about FDR, with the obvious connection to how any Obama style FDR stimulus is doomed because FDR ACTUALLY MADE THINGS WORSE!!

And TT claims he avoids kool aid? :lol:
Actually I am waiting for TT to post something clever.
It would be nice if it addressed the facts of the issue

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm with you.

The just released footnote to Bush's administration tells us GDP fell by over 6% in the 4th Quarter of 2008. Worst drop in 26 years. Worst drop ever in the last Quarter of a two-term Republican President.

You have convinced me. I now fully agree with your prior posts blaming Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Joe Biden's hair and, of course, the Obama Birth Certificate conspiracy for the nation's ills.

Those sound good to me.Are you going to tell me HOW Bush caused GDP to drop by over 6%? And if the President has such command over GDP, why does GDP EVER drop? It should just shoot straight to the moon, right Bubba? After all, the President has ultimate control over everything...:rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

It is the job of THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER of the USA and his staff to know this, AND ACT SWIFTLY to stop it.OK...how wrong is this info?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html

Or perhaps an article in the New York Times from 2003 might be better evidence:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

I will kindly reprint the first line from that NYT article now:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

That's from the New York Times. Not some obscure line buried in some budget report.

New York Times...September 11, 2003

[Bubba X]

Are you going to tell me HOW Bush caused GDP to drop by over 6%? And if the President has such command over GDP, why does GDP EVER drop? It should just shoot straight to the moon, right Bubba? After all, the President has ultimate control over everything...:rolleyes:

Bush caused GDP to drop because he, like many, was convinced by your posts and those of other conspiracy theory alarmists about the importance of spending all his time and energy chasing down Obama's real birth certificate.

Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's sad that more credence and support is given to "Bush and Cheney were behind 9/11" than there is to getting Obama to release his academic and other hidden records. But you keep fighting the good (but boring) fight Bubba! These recent posts of yours are GOLD I tells ya...pure GOLD!

[slewis]

OK...how wrong is this info?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html

Or perhaps an article in the New York Times from 2003 might be better evidence:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

I will kindly reprint the first line from that NYT article now:



That's from the New York Times. Not some obscure line buried in some budget report.

New York Times...September 11, 2003

PA,

The gatewaypundit story is rightwing rubbish that picks and chooses quotes and stories to show their point of view. Thank you, I choose to be an Independant thinker.
The Times article, I've read previously, (and by the way dont think I dont know the Times will skew things favorably left, and many of their articles are laughable as well.

If you'd like to read a (in my opinion) very good unbiased breakdown of this sub-prime mess go to www.reason.com/news/show/130330.html (http://www.reason.com/news/show/130330.html)

I will never debate the fact that Barney Frank, Nancy, and Harry Reid are jerks with a counter agenda for the left vs right. Ive stated this on PA previously.
If we are to get out of this mess we need complete (or as close to)bi-partisan support, something that does not exist.. and Im fearful that this might be the final downfall of this country as we know it today.

I've stated before that Fannie and Freddie were good ideas run amuck.
Nothing wrong with helping the poor when times are good....BUT..
IF THE "RUN AMUCK" PART HAPPENS DURING YOUR WATCH...and the house crashes, you are responsible.
If Bush would have thrown the same tissy back in 2003 thru 2005 that he threw when Congrass was threatening to cut off funding to troops in Iraq, we wouldn't be in this mess today.
That's what a leader does.

Just proposing changes to Freddie and Fannie knowing in today's political climate with lobbyists and opposition looking to protect their interests, was not enough given the long term possibilities for disaster, which we are in now.
Barney Frank stating the whole Fan and Fred situation was "ok" years back is almost as dumb as Bush stating several month's ago that "The Economy is Strong".
Problem PA, is that BUSH WAS THE PRESIDENT.

We now live in a country where executives (and Politicos)refuse to take responsibility for failure and look elsewhere to blame (GM, AIG, Lehman) .
They even expect huge compensation when the ship sinks.
But one thing you and I must agree on, is that with the President, regarding important issues, it must be understood that "THE BUCK STOPS WITH HIM". With something as serious as this crisis has turned out, anything less then BUSH standing on his desk and throwing a tissy until Congrass re-regulates the system that caused this collapse is and was,not acceptable.

So people can defend Bush and blame Clinton and Frank... I guess we see it differently.....

[delayjf]

If Bush would have thrown the same tissy back in 2003 thru 2005 that he threw when Congrass was threatening to cut off funding to troops in Iraq, we wouldn't be in this mess today.
That's what a leader does.

On a level I agree with the above, they did attempt to get more regulation but that attempt was or would have been filabustered. And no doubt the war was his top priority and sometimes you have to pick your battles. That's unfortunate because had he made such a big issue of Freddie / Fannie - the those who propped it up would have no where to hide today.

[Lefty]

And then Senator Obama was one who said he would join the filabuster.

[ddog]

Guess grade school arithmetic is a bit too difficult for some of our more liberal members.Must be real hard to figure out what all those years and funny numbers next to them mean.Am sure that if they ask a bright 10 year old he would be happy to help them out.



ok, one last attempt ... define unemployed figures -- composition of same both then and now.

Can't ?? don't understand the relevance ??

Still looking for your 10 year old?

Try Pa, his comments seem on that plane nowadays.

Pfftttttttttt!

[slewis]

On a level I agree with the above, they did attempt to get more regulation but that attempt was or would have been filabustered. And no doubt the war was his top priority and sometimes you have to pick your battles. That's unfortunate because had he made such a big issue of Freddie / Fannie - the those who propped it up would have no where to hide today.

Delay,

I worked in the banking industry and I posted earlier (I'm sure you read it) the story with my friend who traded at UBS.
My problem is that if HE knew what outcome was coming, and when explained to me, I was so scared, I sold off equities in my portfolio, what were they thinking in the White House and on Cap hill??.
We are not smarter (my friend and I) then anyone else.
We viewed it as a potential crisis... they didn't.
Now I'm not going to say that politicians dont view and handle crisis and issues (I label this a crisis, not just an issue) differently. I read numerously what Barney Frank stated. I dont know if he's an idiot, liar or both. He is not president.
But the President is the President, and he is held to a different standard.
And if he believes there is a BIG SERIOUS problem... he needs to take actions necessary. He didn't. Case closed.
There will ALWAYS be political posturing and partisan BS. But on the serious issues you MUST find a way past it.

[Bubba X]

It's sad that more credence and support is given to "Bush and Cheney were behind 9/11" than there is to getting Obama to release his academic and other hidden records. But you keep fighting the good (but boring) fight Bubba! These recent posts of yours are GOLD I tells ya...pure GOLD!:lol:

A few short posts ago you said I was "underwhelming" you.

Now, I am drawing superlatives from you.

I don't know the medical term for the condition that fits these sorts of swings but I'm sure it's treatable.

[boxcar]

:lol:

A few short posts ago you said I was "underwhelming" you.

Now, I am drawing superlatives from you.

I don't know the medical term for the condition that fits these sorts of swings but I'm sure it's treatable.

What part of PA's sarcastic response to you, didn't you understand?

Boxcar
P.S. I'm not sure your chronic dullness is treatable.

[Bubba X]

What part of PA's sarcastic response to you, didn't you understand?

Boxcar
P.S. I'm not sure your chronic dullness is treatable.
Why would you care?

And thanks for the kind words. Taking time away from your search for Obama's birth certificate and report cards is not something to be taken lightly. I appreciate the effort.

[ddog]

Delay,

I worked in the banking industry and I posted earlier (I'm sure you read it) the story with my friend who traded at UBS.
My problem is that if HE knew what outcome was coming, and when explained to me, I was so scared, I sold off equities in my portfolio, what were they thinking in the White House and on Cap hill??.
We are not smarter (my friend and I) then anyone else.
We viewed it as a potential crisis... they didn't.
Now I'm not going to say that politicians dont view and handle crisis and issues (I label this a crisis, not just an issue) differently. I read numerously what Barney Frank stated. I dont know if he's an idiot, liar or both. He is not president.
But the President is the President, and he is held to a different standard.
And if he believes there is a BIG SERIOUS problem... he needs to take actions necessary. He didn't. Case closed.
There will ALWAYS be political posturing and partisan BS. But on the serious issues you MUST find a way past it.


Bush and HIS gvt was pushing for more "loans" in 2004 and 2005 and bragged about it in State of the Unions.

it's just a fools paradise to take this prattle from the revisionists nowadays.

All were in on the game all suffer the outcomes.

I can't recall (in the 100s if not 1000s) on this very board who praised all the economy stats during those years right along with the admin and congress.

Well, their judgement isn't any better now than then, that's for sure.

At some point, we are now past it, their pleas and cries of hoocoodanode and we didn't do it are just useless. Although they need to believe I guess as it keeps the real truth from being dealt with and that they can't abide.

[delayjf]

Bush and HIS gvt was pushing for more "loans" in 2004 and 2005 and bragged about it in State of the Unions.

President Bush advocated down payment assistance and tax credits for new home buyers. He did not advocate buying homes that one could not afford to pay for. That's not to say he does not have some culpability in not putting up a bigger fight. But neither did Alan Greenspan, where was the SEC. Who if anyone on the Dems side said anything at all.

One other thing, what do you think the Lefts reaction would have been had President Bush called out the dogs on Fannie / Freddie. Groups like Acorn and all the congressmen bought and paid for by Freddie / Fannie would have come down on him like a ton of bricks making him out to be the evil tyrant who wanted to throw every black home owner out in the street.

[ddog]

President Bush advocated down payment assistance and tax credits for new home buyers. He did not advocate buying homes that one could not afford to pay for. That's not to say he does not have some culpability in not putting up a bigger fight. But neither did Alan Greenspan, where was the SEC. Who if anyone on the Dems side said anything at all.

One other thing, what do you think the Lefts reaction would have been had President Bush called out the dogs on Fannie / Freddie. Groups like Acorn and all the congressmen bought and paid for by Freddie / Fannie would have come down on him like a ton of bricks making him out to be the evil tyrant who wanted to throw every black home owner out in the street.



nobody "advocated" for that, it was understood.
The stats showed that was the only market left to exploit.
The fan/fred deal was well known as a cesspool for many many years.

As to what people would think of him, that just doesn't cut it with me.

not a factor.
just as what people think of bama decisions don't matter to me either.

he does what he thinks he needs to do and while i think that many of them are foolish , i see he gets push back on them, that's not to say he should not try to do them.

it's the old Mac line , "Make 'em famous".

[delayjf]

nobody "advocated" for that, it was understood.
The stats showed that was the only market left to exploit.
Not sure what you are referring to here. The American Dream Downpayers Assistence Act was passed in 2003. The subprime market was alive and well at that time.

[slewis]

President Bush advocated down payment assistance and tax credits for new home buyers. He did not advocate buying homes that one could not afford to pay for. That's not to say he does not have some culpability in not putting up a bigger fight. But neither did Alan Greenspan, where was the SEC. Who if anyone on the Dems side said anything at all.

One other thing, what do you think the Lefts reaction would have been had President Bush called out the dogs on Fannie / Freddie. Groups like Acorn and all the congressmen bought and paid for by Freddie / Fannie would have come down on him like a ton of bricks making him out to be the evil tyrant who wanted to throw every black home owner out in the street.


We know what the left's reaction would have been. They would have been up in arms.
But that's not my arguement. I'm saying that economists were saying all along that the economy was tanking. Your wrong about Greenspan, he got up on capital hill and gave a speech how the bubble might burst soon (Remember the term "Irrational exhuberance"). He was one of the few that showed balls.
Most pols from both sides chose to ignore the warning signs. (thanks again lobbyists of major corporations).
Delay, my contention is that as PRESIDENT.. you need to see through the BS and get things done, and put your foot down... Hell Regan used to do it...You need to evaluate the risk, weigh the pros and cons come up with plan A+B+C and even D...(which he didn't do in Iraq either),or you run the risk ..as Bush will after the smoke clears from the war and the economy, as going down in history as the worst President in history.

[delayjf]

Slewis,

I do understand your perpective, it happened on his watch therefore he's responsible. But there is a difference between being responsible and being culpable - and that's were I'm willing to give him a bit of a break.

With regards to Greenspan (correct me if I'm wrong) - I recall him admitting that he didn't see this coming and didn't he at one time encourage the banks to use alternative financing for home loans? If his warning didn't come until 2005, would that not have been too late as that was the year the market peaked?

Loved the article best synopsis I've read so far.

[onefast99]

Slewis,

I do understand your perpective, it happened on his watch therefore he's responsible. But there is a difference between being responsible and being culpable - and that's were I'm willing to give him a bit of a break.

With regards to Greenspan (correct me if I'm wrong) - I recall him admitting that he didn't see this coming and didn't he at one time encourage the banks to use alternative financing for home loans? If his warning didn't come until 2005, would that not have been too late as that was the year the market peaked?

Loved the article best synopsis I've read so far.
Yes he asked for alternative financing along with Bush who wanted more minorities to own homes. None of these people ever saw this coming because they were wined and dined by Wallstreet who made it possible thru lenders to get loans as long as you had a breath on the mirror. The fact that Greenspan never once talked about hedging against a decline in home values by setting up an economic stress test shows me Greenspan had the auto pilot on and the storm of the century was just over the horizon.

[slewis]

Slewis,

I do understand your perpective, it happened on his watch therefore he's responsible. But there is a difference between being responsible and being culpable - and that's were I'm willing to give him a bit of a break.

With regards to Greenspan (correct me if I'm wrong) - I recall him admitting that he didn't see this coming and didn't he at one time encourage the banks to use alternative financing for home loans? If his warning didn't come until 2005, would that not have been too late as that was the year the market peaked?

Loved the article best synopsis I've read so far.

Delay,

I always enjoy these discussions with you and I thank you.
I'm glad you enjoyed the reference article.

I just want to comment on Greenspan... I cant say for sure if I ever recall reading whether he ever saw "this" coming and I dont care to research it.
But what I will tell (and I'm certain you'll agree) is being chairman of the fed, he knew it was possible. If you read my post regarding the discussion with my friend who used to trade at UBS, he thought the house would collapse. He used the word depression. The week after my discussion with him I made some calls to other top traders who I worked with (before moving my positions, I wanted some good "free" advice) One worked at Chase and one at Bank Of Montreal. They had different outlooks on the dangers of the sub-prime mess with one of those guys telling me "There's way too much money in this country for things to ever go really sour like 1929."
His theory is that wealthy people will buy bad assets at bargain rates, including property and bad debt. He was very wrong, and he was probably the best trader of the three. My point is, is that Greenspan proabably didn't think things would get THIS bad, but trust me, he knew it WAS possible and has a keen understanding of the derivitive and sub-prime markets.

[jonnielu]

As Seth Meyers would say on SNL...REALLY?

You think George W. Bush was the first President to push the envelope when it came to wiretapping Americans? REALLY?Lots of under-the-radar talk about how evil GWB and Cheney were...they were the ones really behind 9/11...they set up the shockingly original Gitmo...they were going to bring Marshall Law to America and round up folks into American Concentration camps...REALLY?Why is this man such a hero to the left? He trampled on civil liberties left and right and some say allowed Pearl Harbor to "happen" so as to justify American involvement in World War II.[/left]




REALLY?



Because he cut the trail to socialism so that Obama can now pour concrete.
FDR instituted many a vote buying scheme.

jdl

[Golf and Horses]

These recent posts of yours are GOLD I tells ya...pure GOLD!
Kenny Banya Lives!!
:lol: :lol:

[Lefty]

G&H, great pickup of that line from Seinfeld.

[onefast99]

Delay,

I always enjoy these discussions with you and I thank you.
I'm glad you enjoyed the reference article.

I just want to comment on Greenspan... I cant say for sure if I ever recall reading whether he ever saw "this" coming and I dont care to research it.
But what I will tell (and I'm certain you'll agree) is being chairman of the fed, he knew it was possible. If you read my post regarding the discussion with my friend who used to trade at UBS, he thought the house would collapse. He used the word depression. The week after my discussion with him I made some calls to other top traders who I worked with (before moving my positions, I wanted some good "free" advice) One worked at Chase and one at Bank Of Montreal. They had different outlooks on the dangers of the sub-prime mess with one of those guys telling me "There's way too much money in this country for things to ever go really sour like 1929."
His theory is that wealthy people will buy bad assets at bargain rates, including property and bad debt. He was very wrong, and he was probably the best trader of the three. My point is, is that Greenspan proabably didn't think things would get THIS bad, but trust me, he knew it WAS possible and has a keen understanding of the derivitive and sub-prime markets.
Greenspan continued to lower the interest rates and fuel the sub-prime markets. There was no regulations against lenders unless they were banks like Fremont, Indymac, Bank of Arizona and several others who were finally forced out by the FDIC. Individual lenders continued to make it easy for those in homes to refi even if their values were on the decline. Bush came out to the Rose Garden in the summer of 2007 and said he didnt think there was a problem but he would look into it. One year later the problem hit the USA housing market harder then any we have ever seen since the great depression. The economists were afraid to meet this challenge head on, banks and investment companies began to fail and the snowball effect has hit a new high with AIG floundering in their life raft. The system is broken trillions of investment dollars no longer are part of the system. The next move is the critical one, this administration has to get mortgage money moving again for both commercial and residential properties.

[ddog]

Not sure what you are referring to here. The American Dream Downpayers Assistence Act was passed in 2003. The subprime market was alive and well at that time.



the market for the sub prime alt a type stuff was where the money was to be made.
the demand for the crap to package was unreal on the buy side of the deals.

they - the big players needed something to bundle to sell to get their rake.

that's what i mean.

the deals that were done in the field at the mkt pusher level were ONLY possible DUE to someone being able and willing to then take the stuff and pass it on.

those acts and stuff had little to do with any of that.

the MARKET demanded something to ride to make commissions off and that's why the street level dudes would lie/cheat/steal/sell their grandma a liar loan to get something to pass up the line.

believe me i have been in and around banking for 30 years.

you had to see it to believe it.

we sat around and laughed about what shit would hit the fan first years ago.

No, the banks I am in didn't so it, we didn't need to to make a straight buck.


You keep making a basic mistake it seems to be, conflating what happenned with the these various gvt programs, none of which i am sure outlined liar loand and no doc loans at 100%ltv to make a deal.
No one who had his money on the line for the term of those type of deals would have done them.

The structure broke down right in there.

Everyone thought by combining a whole bunch of small POS into a large POS you would end up with a rose.

it don't work that way, mo matter the maths whizz theory.

[ddog]

Slewis,

I do understand your perpective, it happened on his watch therefore he's responsible. But there is a difference between being responsible and being culpable - and that's were I'm willing to give him a bit of a break.

With regards to Greenspan (correct me if I'm wrong) - I recall him admitting that he didn't see this coming and didn't he at one time encourage the banks to use alternative financing for home loans? If his warning didn't come until 2005, would that not have been too late as that was the year the market peaked?

Loved the article best synopsis I've read so far.

greenie believed that people would ULTIMATLY act in their own best interests despite the pull of the immediate buck(unchecked greed) and would not blow themselves UP.

That was his guiding light , he said so many times.

He now sees that this time (as in the past) that is not true.

He really seems to have thought that those markets would be self regulating.
The problem is that they could have been , but could we and the world withstand the "regulating" part of that story?

The gvt and fed and I guess most people seem to think not.

SO, if you are going to live by the gun but not die by the gun then you have a problem.

[ddog]

Not sure what you are referring to here. The American Dream Downpayers Assistence Act was passed in 2003. The subprime market was alive and well at that time.
and another , check the rate of growth of those markets.
you will find the farther along it got the worse the results.

of course this was to be expected.

[ddog]

Greenspan continued to lower the interest rates and fuel the sub-prime markets. There was no regulations against lenders unless they were banks like Fremont, Indymac, Bank of Arizona and several others who were finally forced out by the FDIC. Individual lenders continued to make it easy for those in homes to refi even if their values were on the decline. Bush came out to the Rose Garden in the summer of 2007 and said he didnt think there was a problem but he would look into it. One year later the problem hit the USA housing market harder then any we have ever seen since the great depression. The economists were afraid to meet this challenge head on, banks and investment companies began to fail and the snowball effect has hit a new high with AIG floundering in their life raft. The system is broken trillions of investment dollars no longer are part of the system. The next move is the critical one, this administration has to get mortgage money moving again for both commercial and residential properties.


my two bits on this is that the problem should not be seen as getting mtg money flowing again. although i think that's how it is being played by many.

I think what should be seen as the problem is what type of system we want and getting back to what Volcker said.
Simple banking for the main economy and then a basically free AND totally unbacked other funding source. Like the old IB and the hedgies.

The vast bulk of the normal funding would be from the "old style" glass/steagall system of banking.

The risk and spec guys could play in the other pool along with anyone that wanted to give them money at risk of total loss.

[slewis]

Greenspan continued to lower the interest rates and fuel the sub-prime markets. There was no regulations against lenders unless they were banks like Fremont, Indymac, Bank of Arizona and several others who were finally forced out by the FDIC. Individual lenders continued to make it easy for those in homes to refi even if their values were on the decline. Bush came out to the Rose Garden in the summer of 2007 and said he didnt think there was a problem but he would look into it. One year later the problem hit the USA housing market harder then any we have ever seen since the great depression. The economists were afraid to meet this challenge head on, banks and investment companies began to fail and the snowball effect has hit a new high with AIG floundering in their life raft. The system is broken trillions of investment dollars no longer are part of the system. The next move is the critical one, this administration has to get mortgage money moving again for both commercial and residential properties.

I dont disagree with anything your saying. Greenspan was under constant pressure to lower rates. Lowering of rates has been the "in vogue" thing for central banks around the globe to do to "tweak" the economy.
Problem is that cutting rates to tweak and cutting rates for damage control are two different things.
We have been beyond the tweaking point, in my opinion, for quite some time.
Cutting rates for damage control does not work. (See Japan economy... 1999 - present).

[slewis]

my two bits on this is that the problem should not be seen as getting mtg money flowing again. although i think that's how it is being played by many.

I think what should be seen as the problem is what type of system we want and getting back to what Volcker said.
Simple banking for the main economy and then a basically free AND totally unbacked other funding source. Like the old IB and the hedgies.

The vast bulk of the normal funding would be from the "old style" glass/steagall system of banking.

The risk and spec guys could play in the other pool along with anyone that wanted to give them money at risk of total loss.

Good point , as usual Dog...

The good ole' days..... until the Investment banks like Goldman and AIG wanted to play like the BANK BANKS do.
So what do they do??

Lobby, lobby lobby,.... pay off the right people...... change some legislation, de-regulate and voila!

[delayjf]

and another , check the rate of growth of those markets.
you will find the farther along it got the worse the results.

You are absolutely correct the markets did explode. But did the markets explode because of the American Dream act or did it have more to do with the liar's loan, no - interest loans etc. Recall, Bush's bill capped the downpayment grants to 10,000 or 6% of the purchase price.

[ddog]

You are absolutely correct the markets did explode. But did the markets explode because of the American Dream act or did it have more to do with the liar's loan, no - interest loans etc. Recall, Bush's bill capped the downpayment grants to 10,000 or 6% of the purchase price.


the caps did not APPLY to the vast segment of the market that was doing these deals.

that's the problem.

they thought the market (that part) (the part that is DEAD NOW) would self police.


well.......................


not so much it seems???
or it did but we didn't and don't have the nuts to take the self correcting part.

private profit - socialized loss.

same old American story as always it seems.