HousingPanic Stupid Question of the Day

August 05, 2006

HousingPanic Stupid Question of the Day

Will Ben Bernanke and the 2008 US Presidential winner be forced to take the blame for their predecessors' mistakes?

31 comments:

Anonymous said...: It depends, SPIN can make wonders.

This is the very reason why our country is going down the drain. We refuse to confront the problem, learn from it, come up with solution and move on.

Politicians don't realize that for every truth they distort and misinformation they preach, will make their very own children pay a higher price (their future) for it.; August 05, 2006 2:30 PM
Rob Dawg said...: We already know the answer as so many here never cease to report the Clinton Recession as the Bush Recession the answer is it depends on the party in power.; August 05, 2006 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes. As Robert Cote proves, some Americans are stupid enough to believe anything. So, five years of the lowest job creation in 40 years....declining wages across the board except for the top 1%...an averge new job that pays $9000 less than the job it replaces...can all be blamed on anybody but the person responsible.; August 05, 2006 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: There is a famous quote of Clinton's. I beleive it goes like this. Clinton gathered his cabinet together in his first term. He spoke about what he wanted to accomplish and how he wanted to accomplish it. When he was finished he said............

WELCOME TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY; August 05, 2006 3:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous, you are almost right. He said, "We are the Eisenhower Republicans." And they were.

Naturally, that's why he was so hated by the unhinged radical right that has taken over the party today.; August 05, 2006 3:29 PM
Markus Arelius said...: The country went through a comparatively mild recession just before Clinton left office in 1998-1999. Bush acknowledged it when he arrived and was actually forthright - setting people's expectations appropriately.

We are likely at the cusp of a far worse recession in 2006-2007, yet the current administration and Republican congress is backslapping each other that the economy is growing, jobs are up, inflation is under control and interest rates are still at historic lows. Like a real estate agent themselves, these a-holes have to be optimistic with upcoming elections in Nov. and a 27% approval rating for C- Yale boy.

Look millions of Americans just don't share that optimism.

So yes, once the "shit hits the fan" with the housing market - and it's starting to - many ignorant home owners will get blindsided and say "WTF just happened to me?".

Fill in the blank:

_______ just happened to you.; August 05, 2006 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...: "When he was finished he said............WELCOME TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY"

Why is that? Umm, I think I know.

American’s would elect a Democrat if they could trust them to suppress their ideology and the true nature of their party. I think most registered Democrats are voting against the Republicans, not voting for ideas.

Right wingers scare many Americans, however more Americans are afraid of left wingers.

If Democrats want to win (it would pretty easy these days), they need to start talking like Republicans.

That summarizes American Politics.; August 05, 2006 3:51 PM
Osman said...: This morning, I thought Keith completely went off the deep end.

I typed in the url http://housingpanic.blogpsot.com into my browser and came to this site.

Then I saw the typo. ha!

Need more coffee.; August 05, 2006 4:17 PM
Dogcrap Green said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; August 05, 2006 5:21 PM
Dogcrap Green said...: Umm, Clinton left office in 2001. The economy started to slow down back in March of 2000 and entered a recession in 2001. 1998-1999 were the boom years.

Clinton was bad. Bush is worse. This country dispratley needs a Republican with Republican values as president.; August 05, 2006 5:24 PM
David in JAX said...: I believe that the current president and the 2008 president will get off completely. I think Ben Bernanke and The Fed will receive all of the blame. Why? Because both parties have gigantic spin machines that can put the blame squarely on The Fed. Also, the MSM loves to place blame on an easy target and The Fed is the easiest target since many people are very angry about their raising rates.; August 05, 2006 5:45 PM
David in JAX said...: Also, I think every president since Reagan has been a complete failure. All of this Clinton, Bush, Republican, Democrat bashing is all crap. There isn't room to slide a klenex between current Republican and Democrat policies. They are virtually the same. The only difference is which special interest groups they support. Their overall final goals are basicly the same and we have seen very little real difference between the Clinton and Bush administrations. (also, I know my spelling stinks); August 05, 2006 5:51 PM
Anonymous said...: I think that barring a miraculous turn around, we will be so far down the toilet come presidential election time that whoever is in power will get the shaft and the blame and the voters will turn on them. Bush haters who are looking foreword to a Dem controlled congress this November may get what they wish for but live to regret it. I would much rather be running against any incumbent in 08 when the economy will be crap city. That way there will be no doubt who to blame the inherited mess on. BTW I never voted for W.; August 05, 2006 5:52 PM
Anonymous said...: :The Fed is the easiest target

I agree. Also, realize that the moniker "Helicopter Ben" was in place even before he took the helm. He's been setup for the fall and he was dumb enough to take the job like a lot of ivory tower academicians who think that the world functions along their academic prescience. (FYI, I have a bias against academics because they've confused book smarts for experience. I also have A/A- GPA but when I entered the workworld, my so-called academic self-confidence was shattered after discovering the politics of advancing the ladder and the fact that the 3Rs has little to do with real world success.) Bernanke also hasn't learned this and he's in his 50s/60s which is a little too late for a baptism by fire. Instead, he'll take the fall for everyone else including Greenspan, Milton Friedman, the President, and Congress.; August 05, 2006 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...: OFF the topic:

I am a conservative who did not care about Clinton, and after two years of Bush started to hate Bush for all of his lies, deceits, arrogance, limited inteligence & etc.

When I look at the Clinton era (sure he was a lier and low life and everything else) BUT can someone tell me WHY WAS HE A BAD PRESIDENT. Objectively looking at Clinton, he was a good president. Just my 2 cents.

Have a nice weekend.
wawawa; August 05, 2006 6:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Too many Americans are uninformed (or just plain stupid) and don't care about that dusty Constitution written by those dead white guys. They want Uncle Sugar to take care of them, their kids, and to allow them to spend $1.08 for every dollar they earn, forever.

Politicians pander to the voters, and that's why we're in this mess. You want to know who's to blame? Just look in the mirror.; August 05, 2006 6:09 PM
David in JAX said...: I'm also an economic conservative who can't stand Bush. Here's my opinion. Clinton is seen as a terrible president for three reasons, none of which are not due to his policies. 1) Monica Lewenski 2) a lot of his cabinet members were indicted for various illegal acts 3) he had very shady fundraising policies that often included taking money from people who wanted to do our country harm. If he didn't have these three problems (and they are big problems), he probably would be seen as a great president because he is so charismatic and people want to like him.

Also remember, Clinton only really had a two year presidency. The last six years were really the Newt Gengrich presidency since there is a major shift in ideology between the first two years in office and the last six.; August 05, 2006 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Why was Clinton a "bad" President?

His first term was a disaster because he exercised poor leadership and appointed little kids to do the work of government. The dems in Congress got the boot in '94 as payback for Clinton's stupidity. He then hired Dick Morris to run the country while he sought reelection and to his credit, Morris actually put together a competent administration by '96.

Monica "blew" his second term but even without that fiasco, I can find numerous failings. He missed the opportunity to squash Al qaeda and we sufferend increasingly bold attacks from Muslin extremists. His treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, cut a deal with China and Japan that we now see was very destructive for our economy.

We got Bush in '00 because enough dems were so disappointed in Clinton, they couldn't stomach another guy connected with that admisistration sitting in the Oval Office.

Will history be kinder to him? Probably, but IMO he will never be remembered as a great leader or President.; August 05, 2006 6:23 PM
Anonymous said...: I blame Monica for the deaths of thousands of US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis

No Monica, No Bush = No Mess; August 05, 2006 7:40 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm a republican who will vote democrat for the first time ever if we nominate anyone from the christian right again, or anyone like Bush; August 05, 2006 7:42 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't blame Monica. A nation's leader should be allowed to bang any consenting adult he chooses. This one's our Puritanical society's fault.

If Hillary and Bill have decided to stay together, as companions, but screw other people on the side, then all the power to them.; August 05, 2006 8:13 PM
Anonymous said...: The problem is we are about to get more of the same. The Republicans seem poised to nominate someone like Condoleeza Rice or Bill Frist who will just continue Bush's insane economic policies and social policies. Worse the Democrats seem to be heading towards nominating Hillary Clinton, who seems to be even closer to a lot of Bush's policies than even the Republicans, except she would also add more social spending. The only people I would support are people like Al Gore or John McCain who seem to be more goal-oriented and more concerned with FIXING the system however it must be done than ideological partisanship. Still, I think the 2008 election will be one of the biggest for third parties. The Constitution Party will likely get a lot of support because of its staunch anti-illegal immigrant policy (however, it will be bogged down by its ultra-right Christian fundamentalism). The Greens will appeal to Dems disgruntled with Hillary. Libertarian Party will be big. Hopefully we'll see someone run Independent who wants to fix the system.; August 05, 2006 9:32 PM
Anonymous said...: What kind of person would want to be the President of the US? Think about it. S/he would have to be delusional, meglamaniacal, and ambitious beyond being healthy. And the power elite don't want a person to be president who is actually an independent, powerful person, as s/he might do something revolutionary and threaten the power elite's status. Therefore, the president is likely to be a totally person with an unhealthy self-image and totally flawed personality, so much so as to be easily manipulated and even blackmailed by those behind the curtain pulling the levers.

Thinks of the so-called "great leaders" of history: Attila, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Churchill, an so on. How many of these people with their personality would we want running the US today?; August 05, 2006 10:07 PM
Anonymous said...: It’s anyone’s guess where the next boom will be, get out your wallet and place your bets.

Next Thread Keith?; August 05, 2006 10:36 PM
Anonymous said...: 'Thinks of the so-called "great leaders" of history: Attila, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Churchill, an so on. How many of these people with their personality would we want running the US today?'

Oh easily... Genghis Khan. That guy'll kick some real butt and get things in order.; August 05, 2006 10:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Of course.

Repubs f it up. People get "desperate" and vote Dem.

It's been going on forever.

Hypocrites and voting fraud. What a beautiful aroma.; August 05, 2006 11:08 PM
Anonymous said...: This country dispratley needs a Republican with Republican values as president.

Following the words of our esteemed Reichsmarshall Rumsfeld:

You Go To Vote For the Republicans That You Have Not the Republicans You Want.

The reality is that you ARE seeing the results of 100% authentic 21st century Republicanism.

Why else has David Eisenhower (grandson of Ike) repudiated the current party?

Seriously: look up what Russ Feingold is saying and doing. You might not agree with everything, but he has balls to call em as he sees them.

The Democratic party is not Barney Frank.; August 06, 2006 1:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Basically the Fed is not controlled by the Federal Government it is a private bank named the federal reserve in 1913

The day to day operations of the Federal Reserve is not controlled by the Federal government.

But the power and purpose of the Fed does depend on authority granted by Congress, who could revoke it if it desired.

Congress need only pass a law prohibiting the Fed from printing money or buying US treasuries. The Treasury department, should it want to and if authorized by Congress, could take over the principal operations, interbank settlements, printing of physical currency, bank regulation and monetary policy.

The Fed is technically privately owned but is not managed for profits; excess "profits" are turned over for free to the US Treasury.

If the Fed were to act like a really "private" bank and pay its chairman a few hundred million, and do all sorts of schemes to increase its profitability and pay fat dividends, there is no doubt Congress would remove its charter and start a new one.; August 06, 2006 2:19 AM
Anonymous said...: "The Democratic party is not Barney Frank."

How true -- he's one of the more normal, rational dems. Unfortunately the Democrat party is now run by the Wavy Gravy, foaming at the mouth crowd who seem a lot closer to Pol Pot than Thomas Jefferson.; August 06, 2006 3:55 AM
Dogcrap Green said...: It’s anyone’s guess where the next boom will be, get out your wallet and place your bets.

RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION; August 06, 2006 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Howard Dean.......need i say more?; August 11, 2006 5:14 AM

HousingPANIC - The Housing Bubble Blog with an Attitude Problem, 2005 - 2008

August 05, 2006

HousingPanic Stupid Question of the Day

31 comments:

About Me

HP blogs & websites

Blog Archive