US Midterm Elections - Predictions and Post-mortems

  • News
  • Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date
  • #151
CAC1001
To clarify, I don't personally hold the opinion that CAC wants to believe untrue things. My statement was expressing a lack of surprise over the knowledge that he would have heard/read this falsehood from one or more sources that I imagine were keen on propagating it.
I do know Obama came out against the Fairness Doctrine later on as you pointed out, I could swear I had read somewhere that way back before he was a presidential candidate though, that he had supported it (back in his State Senator days), however upon doing some Googling, I cannot find this, so either I am remembering wrong or the source was bogus.

You know, as well as (mheslep or) I do, that using a historical average to determine when a recession ought to turn around is essentially useless. Might as well vent your anger at the government for any long stretches of bad weather.
I get what you are saying (as each recession is unique), but cannot one partially gauge the severity of a recession by comparing it with the average historical length of past recessions? Like basically reason this recession is unusually bad because by historical standards, it should be over by now?
 
  • #152
CAC1001
The big picture isn't about winning or keeping power. It's about using it. I've made this argument before, but David Frum, the former speechwriter to President Bush, has made it better. In March, when Democrats secured enough votes to pass the bill, he castigated fellow conservatives who looked forward to punishing Pelosi and President Obama "with a big win in the November 2010 elections." Frum observed:

"Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. … No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition?
I don't think the Republicans are keen on actually repealing the bill, unless they maybe get a Republican President in 2012, and even that chance is really iffy. What I have heard however is that the Republicans are looking at all sorts of ways to basically pour tar into the gears of the healthcare bill, ranging from de-funding it, to calling up all the heads of the various agencies enforcing parts of the bill, if the individual mandate were to be overturned by the SCOTUS, that would cause problems, also different states can gum up the works as well, etc...

How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage?"
This one I don't know if people would mind all that much...?
 
  • #153
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Um no - that's misinformation.

Subprime mortgages were generated by mortgage brokers (e.g., Countrywide), in some cases which were owned by the big commercial banks or investment banks, and were not covered by CRA.

Fannie and Freddie bought mortgage back securities, which were put together by investment banks - Bear Stearns, Lehman, Morgan Stanley, . . . . Fannie and Freddie were late comers to the sub-prime market and MBSs, and they were not required to do so by the government, they were just competing with Wall Street for a lucrative market.
Astronuc - no, you are incorrect on several points here and above, some grossly so.
 
  • #154
149
0
That is...classic...really!

" how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition"

How many votes will Obama KEEP when (possibly millions) of retirees are notified in the next year that their former employers will no longer be paying for their group health care policies - because the tax credit has been eliminated.
Also, would anyone care to venture a guess how many Medicare recipients received a letter on October 1st that their current plan (mostly PFFS - but quite a few PDP's) would not be renewed for 2011 (hint-it's more than 6 figures).

IMO anger over the emerging details of health care reform will be driving seniors to the polls in 2012.
 
  • #155
Al68
Um no - that's misinformation.
No, it's fact. I'm not claiming it was the entire problem, just that it was part of it.
But yes - the details of the collapse of the housing and mortgage markets are subjects for another thread.
Yep.
However, the point I was making was the misinformation (fantasy fiction) being passed along to and among voters.
Like the misinformation in your post. Fannie and Freddie were not latecomers by any stretch of the imagination, unless you define an aspect of the problem so narrowly as to ignore its cause, as you did.
 
  • #156
CAC1001
It is an insanely complex system with several strongly interacting subsystems. For all practical purposes it isn't terribly deterministic.
Just curious, but what are these subsystems?
 
  • #157
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
I get what you are saying (as each recession is unique), but cannot one partially gauge the severity of a recession by comparing it with the average historical length of past recessions?
Sure you can!

Like basically reason this recession is unusually bad because by historical standards, it should be over by now?
Am I misunderstanding what you are saying there? How can you say those two things in the same sentence?

It is unusually bad = it will not be over in the typical time

How is it meaningful to recognize that this recession is particularly bad by any historical standards, and simultaneously hold the contradictory position that it is well past time for it to be over?
 
Last edited:
  • #158
russ_watters
Mentor
19,948
6,439
How can you say those two things in the same sentence?

It is unusually bad = it will not be over in the typical time

How is it meaningful to recognize that this recession is particularly bad by any historical standards, and simultaneously hold the contradictory position that it is well past time for it to be over?
Setting aside the fact that the recession is over, there is no contradiction in those statements: the second statement is the reason (CAC's reason) for the first. Ie, the fact that it was long is how it is judged to be severe (not that I like that criteria -- I prefer depth, or perhaps an integral sum, as the better judge of severity).
 
  • #159
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Setting aside the fact that the recession is over,
This was clarified in an earlier post. The word is being loosely used here to reflect employment levels.
there is no contradiction in those statements: the second statement is the reason (CAC's reason) for the first. Ie, the fact that it was long is how it is judged to be severe (not that I like that criteria -- I prefer depth, or perhaps an integral sum, as the better judge of severity).
I don't disagree with that - in fact, it is essentially what I said in the equation line. But, how does one argue that it is "well past time" for the recession to be over (and that is the statement being defended)?
 
  • #160
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Just curious, but what are these subsystems?
savings banks, investment banks, GSEs, fiscal legislation, monetary policy, exchange rates, international economies, foreign trade, derivatives and securities, housing markets, demographic changes, ... butterflies?
 
  • #161
CAC1001
I don't disagree with that - in fact, it is essentially what I said in the equation line. But, how does one argue that it is "well past time" for the recession to be over (and that is the statement being defended)?
I just mean if we take an average of the length of previous recessions, then by that average, this "recession" probably should have ended by now.
 
  • #162
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Let me rephrase. I believe you are saying that this recession should have long ended if it were similar to the average recession.

How does one go from that statement to the statement that it is well past time for this particular recession to have ended? That statement necessarily demands that this recession be no worse than the average recession. What is the justification for such a demand, and whose fault is it that such a demand is not met?
 
  • #163
CAC1001
I see what you mean, although now I am more confused! I think I was originally saying that one can determine this isn't an average recession, because if it was, then historically, it would have ended by now (healthy economic growth and unemployment down to a healthy level).
 
  • #164
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
I see what you mean, although now I am more confused! I think I was originally saying that one can determine this isn't an average recession, because if it was, then historically, it would have ended by now (healthy economic growth and unemployment down to a healthy level).
Well, the original point was slightly different.

To recap:
Well http://www.nber.org/feldstein/bg120401.html" [Broken] time for it to go up; I expect people know that and make voting judgements accordingly.
The way I read it was mheslep was saying that historically, in terms of the lengths of recessions, this recession is past due for the time it was expected to recover.
I believe the implication was that because this recession is taking longer to end than the average recession one must conclude that it's the fault of the government in office.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #165
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,236
215
I believe the implication was that because this recession is taking longer to end than the average recession one must conclude that it's the fault of the government in office.
If it wasn't for Obama [and the final actions of Bush], we would be in a depression, not a recession. But I doubt the right would ever acknowledge this as it would mean admitting that their entire platform is a fallacy.

The real irony is that Bush was the one who turned socialist when he took over Fannie and Freddie. Bush did the right thing, but had this been Obama instead of Bush, we never would have heard the end of it!
 
Last edited:
  • #166
CAC1001
If it wasn't for Obama [and the final actions of Bush], we would be in a depression, not a recession. But I doubt the right would ever acknowledge this as it would mean admitting that their entire platform is a fallacy.
The extreme right perhaps, but most on the Right acknowledge that the government intervening to bailout the financial system was a necessary evil. Also how is acknowledging this "admitting the entire platform is a fallacy"?

The real irony is that Bush was the one who turned socialist when he took over Fannie and Freddie. Bush did the right thing, but had this been Obama instead of Bush, we never would have heard the end of it!
I agree here, but that's politics for you.
 
  • #167
Al68
The real irony is that Bush was the one who turned socialist when he took over Fannie and Freddie.
Are you really not aware that Fannie and Freddie were government sponsored enterprises (GSE's) since their creation? Did you think they were completely private entities, chartered by private stockholders for private purposes? Despite private stock ownership in them, they have never been private institutions in the sense that would make anything "ironic".

The only thing ironic here is that some of Bush's other actions were pretty socialist, yet you pick this one to label as socialist.

Did Clinton "turn socialist" when he had them relax their mortgage buying standards for the CRA? :uhh:

Gee, I wonder how those on this forum who routinely object to the word "socialist" being used to describe government control of completely private companies will react to your use of it to describe Bush exercising control of GSE's? :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #168
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Bloomberg better be ready for the heat he's going to have to take for his remarks yesterday: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/08/bloomberg-newly-elected-pols-read/
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, traveling in Hong Kong over the weekend, warned that the new crop of politicians elected to Congress last week could spark a trade war with China because their criticism of the Asian superpower is bred in ignorance.

The billionaire mayor reportedly said Americans who voted for these politicians may do a disservice to U.S.-Chinese relations because the incoming freshmen aren't worldly enough to grasp diplomacy or the economic upside of China's emerging economy.

"If you look at the U.S., you look at who we're electing to Congress, to the Senate -- they can't read," The Wall Street Journal quoted Bloomberg as saying.

"I’ll bet you a bunch of these people don't have passports. We're about to start a trade war with China if we're not careful here only because nobody knows where China is. Nobody knows what China is," he reportedly said.
I liked the lone comment at the bottom of the article:
There are no comments about that arogant A*S - BECAUSE WE CAN'T READ!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #169
149
0
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #170
CAC1001
Bloomberg is a leftist in centrist's clothing. As for China, they ought to be lucky America doesn't put a tariff on all their imports to make up for their artificially keeping their currency de-valeud to benefit themselves.
 

Related Threads on US Midterm Elections - Predictions and Post-mortems

Replies
20
Views
4K
  • Last Post
7
Replies
170
Views
11K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
6K
Replies
75
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Top