…of poor judgment:
The judgment errors are many and serious. He misread his mandate, confused campaign rhetoric for persuasive communication, overexposed himself, refused to let go of his juvenile fixation on blaming George W. Bush for all the problems he faced, replaced bipartisanship with hyper-partisanship, and declined to take seriously early-warning signs sent by the voters in New Jersey and Virginia. The common thread through all of this: arrogance. “We won!” he pronounced early on and therefore never seemed to take seriously criticism or objections, whether from the other party, concerned Democrats, the media, or even polls. He simply plunged ahead, oblivious to the backlash that was building.
I predict that even if he loses today, he’ll continue to double down.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of doubling down, Richard Fernandez has some depressing thoughts.
I put too many links in my response and its awaiting moderation.
As Rand has stated that hes not feeling well I’ll repost minus the links.
Didn’t Fannie and Freddie write the standards for conforming loans?
IE the terms may be set by the specific bank, but if they meet conforming standards they can sell them to Fannie and Freddie.
At the end of 2008 Fannie and Freddie owned 1/2 the entire us outstanding mortgage debt. Given just this one fact how can you say they did not cause the collapse by providing a market for bad loans?
Paul Breed – conforming loans are, by definition, not subprime loans. A subprime loan is one that does not conform to Fanny / Freddie rules.
Curt Thompson – mortgage companies are not regulated by those regulators. Banks are. These are different entities.
Obama at the rally for Marcia:
It was your tax dollars that saved Wall Street banks from their own recklessness, keeping them from collapsing and dragging our entire economy down with them. But today, those same banks are once again making billions in profits and on track to hand out more money in bonuses than ever before, while the American people are still in a world of hurt. Now, we’ve recovered most of your money already, but I don’t think “most of your money” is good enough. We want all our money back. We’re going to collect every dime.
One problem there:
Citigroup Inc posted a $7.6 billion quarterly loss on Tuesday
There are other problems, such as bank profit being the interest given to investors, which are taxpayers themselves and are taxed on that interest by the IRS. So call it a double dip by Uncle Sam. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how this will play with foreign investors.
I am no more holding a gun to your head with social security and medicare than with requiring you to attend jury duty. All governments have an element of coercion. All just governments end up with allowing the majority to rule. You don’t like a program – persuade a majority to cancel it.
You are getting warmer, Chris. You are holding a gun to my head with regards to jury duty as well. That’s why the summons talks about the penalties for failure to comply. And yes, the Founders called it “the Tyranny of the Majority”. That word tyranny is important. The closest current equivalent today is the word fascism. So you could call it “the Fascism of the Majority”.
It’s almost incoherent for you to act like you are not putting a gun to my head and then admit you are coercing me.
Of course the difference is that I have had jury duty twice in my entire life, but Social Security and Medical comes out of every paycheck – the equivalent of about one working hour every working day!
The only just system would allow anyone to opt out of these programs – and when I say opt out, I mean cash out as well. That way if you like them you are in, and if you don’t you are out.
Yours,
Tom
It didn’t make the bubble, it just made the bubble a lot worse.
Then explain why the commercial real estate bubble was as bad as the residential one, when there was no “government prodding” in commercial real estate.
One problem there: Citigroup Inc posted a $7.6 billion quarterly loss on Tuesday
Citigroup is not the only bank.
There are other problems, such as bank profit being the interest given to investors
Huh? Some bank profits are returned to shareholders as dividends, the rest go to the bank’s balance sheet. “Interest to investors” does not come into it.
At the end of 2008 Fannie and Freddie owned 1/2 the entire us outstanding mortgage debt. Given just this one fact how can you say they did not cause the collapse by providing a market for bad loans?
That one fact does not say anything about whether the loans owned by Fannie and Freddie were the risky ones that triggered the collapse. In fact, as your Wikipedia link explains, they did not own most of the subprime loans — in the subprime market they were also-rans, responding to market share gains by others.
when there was no “government prodding” in commercial real estate.
No prodding as in prodding with a cattle prod, but plenty of encouragement through artificially low interest rates.
“Pharma and insurance companies get benefits too, and no one would mistake them for Democratic party allies. Basically, anyone with the power to stop reform got something in exchange for not stopping it. Ugly, but that’s politics.”
Except as a group they gave more money to Obama than anyone else.
“Citigroup is not the only bank.”
Most of the banks have paid their TARP money back WITH INTEREST. It wasn’t a free or cheap loan. Some were forced to take it and didn’t want it. Why should hey have to pay more?
“Paul Breed – the rules for a loan, stated income or otherwise, are written by the lender.”
I see you aren’t familiar with the CRA and other rules lenders have to follow when writing loans.
Along with what Bill Maron wrote, not every bank even took TARP money. Obama cannot tax certain banks, unless he does it by some level of profit/revenue. Otherwise, he can’t target only the banks that took TARP funds for taxes. And he has never said he would. So really, Obama is just planning on building another revenue stream, and again I point out, the source is still the taxpayer or foreign investment. Both sources are nearly tapped out.
Bill Maron – actually, I work at a bank and am quite familiar with CRA rules. CRA requires that you only turn down loans for financial reasons. The bank gets to pick what financial ratios lead to a turn-down.
Tom DeGisi – our Founding Fathers seemed okay with the tyranny of the majority when they put down the Whisky Rebellion. I’m not sure where you’re going, but if you want to opt out of contributing to the common good, okay. Just remember that “no man is an island.”
No man is a doormat either.
actually, I work at a bank and am quite familiar with CRA rules
Wow, your political viewpoint suddenly makes a lot more sense.
Tom DeGisi – our Founding Fathers seemed okay with the tyranny of the majority when they put down the Whisky Rebellion. I’m not sure where you’re going, but if you want to opt out of contributing to the common good, okay. Just remember that “no man is an island.”
Nope. I didn’t say I want to opt out of jury duty. Didn’t say I wanted to pay no taxes – I think I said I wanted a 25% total tax bill. I said I wanted to be in charge of my own retirement and health insurance. The Founders believed that when the majority did not oppress the minority, it wasn’t tyranny.
Personally I think I’m doing much more for the common good than you are.
Yours,
Tom
Jim says: “I don’t think there will ever be a point when I think ‘that’s it, it will never make sense to increase the power of the state again.'”
Well, at least he gave an honest answer. With Jim and Chris there’s no Stop sign on the Road to Serfdom.
Chris Gerrib writes: “Regarding the “grand inquisitor” remark – governments can’t provide for the national defense. All they can do is make the taxpayers pay and serve. That’s how any government works.” Oh ho, now we’re talking national defense! (Yeah, like that’s what the fable of the Grand Inquisitor is about. Chris is either being unsually dense, or following his usual , let’s divert-the-narrative weasel approach.) So now ou’re a limited-government conservative, who only wants taxes to support national defense?
Bilwick1 – I was responding to a stupid critique of how government works.
Carl Pham – my employer is a community bank that didn’t get or need bailout money.
Of course they are, but it’s the BANK that lends the money, and decides what level of income, net worth, documentation, etc. is required. And if it is found to have violated federal regulations in those requirements (including CRA regulations), it is exposing itself to penalties. From the CRA:
financial institutions “have a continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of their communities, including low- and moderate-income areas”
If you think banks have not altered their lending standards based on fear of penalties for violating that… you’re seriously misinformed.
Caesar’s wife, eh, Chris? But you mistake my meaning. Bankers have been friends of big strong government going right back to Hamilton and JP Morgan bailing out the Treasury at the turn of the last century. Maybe it’s the taste for orderliness. Or the fact that, unfairly to be sure, ordinary people just tend not to like bankers. They’re at best tolerant on the deposit side, and often frankly hostile on the borrower side.
The only people who really like bankers are the very wealthy and government, both of whom like to make use of the laundering and leveraging possibilities.
I’m sure your bank’s customers love you personally, of course.
Chris, since you previously said “there’s no gun at anyone’s head,” regarding SS and Medicare, you obviously haven’t a clue of how government works; unless you’re doing you’re usual dissimulation. Here’s a non-stupid critique of how government works:
“Government is the age-old device for removing money from one person’s pocket and putting it another’s.”–Voltaire.
Curt Thompson – a mortgage company is NOT a bank. They are NOT federally-regulated. CRA is a FEDERAL regulation. 75% of sub-prime loans were written by mortgage companies. The 25% of sub-primes written by banks are actually performing better than the mortgage company junk.
Carl Pham – so Hamilton was a socialist? I mean, I’ve been called a socialist and a liberal, neither of which is a typical position for a banker, and now I’m a typical banker? I’m confused.
Well, actually I’m not confused – I understand that on this board, any government stronger than that of the US circa 1820 is considered bad. And if the world had stayed the same from then to now, maybe that would be true.
That must be why federal regulators never take them over then.
Carl Pham – so Hamilton was a socialist?
Up to a point, and certainly by the standards of his day, he could reasonably have been called a statist. He was, after all, a passionate advocate of a far stronger central government. He it was who shrewdly realized that if the new Federal government assumed the state’s Revolutionary War debt, an act of apparent generosity, it would willy nilly shortly require taxing authority, a functioning Treasury (which he would head), and a growing permanent apparatus of power fueled by a steady stream of revenue. Sound familiar? It was for this the Jeffersonians hated him.
He, of course, was merely trying to make the Union indissoluble, in the days when the benefits of Union were largely theoretical, although the evils of disunion had been amply proved. He was not attempting to solve existential problems through complex versions of three card Monte. So he can’t be called a socialist. That particular evil, the hitching of public morality to issues of governance, so that “good” government became synonymous not with merely competent but with morally superior or sympathetic “We Care!” government — taking us right back to the unity of Church and State last seen in the 1400s — lay 150 years in the future.
I wouldn’t call you a socialist. Socialists are normally well-informed on the history and theories. You’re more of a fellow traveler, a passer-by overhearing tidbits of the Sermon on the Mount. Blessed are the cheesemakers? Golly!
Curt Thompson – IndyMac was a BANK, not a mortgage company. Mortgage companies do not accept deposits at retail, and are not regulated by the Federal government.