That is all completely true and, as you say, not a good thing.

I see this as two claims: 1) gov't policy set off the speculative mania in RE and 2) the Democrats were mostly behind the policy.
1: This rings true since speculative mania are usually started by a real trend. Manias usually start with a real change in supply or demand that eventually takes on an irrational life of its own.

I don't like the gov't artificially shifting the demand curve using the GSEs, but I blame the mania on people who took it an ran with it-- basically anyone who made those crazy loans and anyone who took them out. The gov't was not the worst offender in those areas.

They should have done less bailing out IMHO, letting people who did those bad deals face the consequences.

2) I read some of the news articles at the time, and contrary to what the TJ Hancock article says, I did not get the impression it was partisan. It seemed like once the mania got started, all politicians were on board. It seems like a lot of people did stupid stuff, and in the aftermath politicians are masters of telling you just whom to blame it on.

"The economic cycle swings back and forth randomly." In the short term I agree, but policies and legislation tinkering with the economy have big effect and sometimes lag. I agree both parties are responsible as well as Presidents.

Believe what you will. Democrats seem long on good will/intentions, short on prudent economics and prone to sophistry happily propagated by a main stream media with a liberal that fits their preferred ideology. If that is the majority of one’s exposure it is only natural to believe what is heard.

Here are some more facts to consider. The statist program and premise that government backed lenders like Freddie and Fannie would back loans to people that were not highly creditworthy and more risky was foolhardy. The recent recession and slowest recovery since WWII was precipitated because of an housing bubble that burst, “too big to fail” banks collapsing and needing bailouts (It was not started because of a military spending collapse.) The reason all of these events occurred can be traced back to the community re-investment act started by Carter (D), doubled down on by Clinton (D) and continued by Bush (R) who questioned the program, yet continued it after multiple reassurances by banking committee members Dodd (D) and Frank (D) that the program and the primary lenders Fannie and Freddie were sound and solvent. Then after the inevitable collapse we got Dodd-Frank regulation that strangled many small time lenders/community banks with onerous regulations though the small banks were not the problem. This has exacerbated the poor economic outlook, potential for growth and prolonged recovery. Statism is government control and these are the results.

To the Democrats’ credit, there was JFK (D) who said “ask not what your country can do for you…” there was also Clinton (D) signing welfare reform put forth by Newt Gingrich (R) and Bob Dole (R)… after vetoing it twice. Too bad Obama (D) has completely gutted that program, by rolling back the work requirements. To show that I am an equal opportunity critic and objective: Bush 41(R) went back on his word when he said, “Read my lips, no new taxes.” And Bush 43 (R) took us into Iraq. These actions also produced unacceptable economic burdens placed on the citizens, but they pale in comparison to the long term, mounting welfare state burdens.

I do not support any party blindly or ignore unfavorable facts. The facts are all there if you google them and are willing to analyze them objectively without dismissing them out of hand because they are uncomfortable to one’s loyalty to party. Here is another exhaustive analysis for you to dispute, though I doubt you can convincingly dispute the direct quotes that tell the story. https://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housi...

I's ironic that he's attracted so much interest over his willingness to openly lambast the government people are so fed up with, but what an intellectual vacuum.

thanks mc. Happy 4th. thanks for liking our novels. crying now. love the US. so sad I had to leave...

You're welcome. I copied the above to an Amazon review. I use a different handle on Amazon than I do here, but you'll recognize the review.

I noticed an "anomaly" you may want to fix in future revisions. That is when Hank and Abigail ducked out of the cafe the to get away from Jesus and his henchmen, they left their BOBs in the Suzuki. Then when they were outside the library where Hank needed to use the Internet, he reached into his BOB and pulled out one of his prepaid cell phones. Later they went back and got the Suzuki and their BOBs (recall the email ruse). Therefore, Hank couldn't have gotten the cell phone from his BOB, which was in the Suzuki. Made me go "Hmmm" with a smile.

agreed

Yes, it was Harry Reid who did it for Obama. Reid refused to allow a vote on the budget so Obama wouldn't have to veto it, then they blamed "the Republicans" for "shutting down the government" and for the deliberate destruction caused by Obama's unauthorized use of additional resources expended to punish people for which he then falsely blamed "the Republicans" -- all as if Obama is entitled to the budget he wants and Congress has an obligation to rubber stamp it rather than the Constitutional requirement that the budget originates from the House and must pass the Senate before the President can do anything.

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh understood that and didn't intend to contradict it while musing about potential benefits arising from the government not doing so much of what it usually does.

people understand budgets that are held to. they can not plan for outrageous and onerous social programs that change their lives forever because the govt said they had to be a part of some fanciful, unaccountable scheme.

"I will grant you Bush 1 on raising taxes, but Clinton retro-activated higher tax rates. How does a middle class person plan for that? "

It's similar to the planning difficulties caused by EGTRA expiration.

"Forcing people to buy something they do not want under the force of a gun to their head is certainly more evil than voting for how existing resources are allocated?"

What does this mean?

"welfare/medicaid is the same as military spending and social security/medicare are not voluntary btw."

Yes. That's why I said "esp if you count them as separate from other spending". You're right that they're not voluntary and maybe should not be counted as separate.

"Republicans list of fears were their warnings that democratically pushed social agendas of largess would break the budget and bankrupt this nation."

That's true, but that's not what I mean as a list of fears. I'm saying Republicans have a list of reasons why gov't needs more money and power. The need to live within our means isn't a Republican or Democratic concept; it's just a fact, one people are ignoring at the moment.

“Social security and medicare are all going broke.”

I completely reject this and almost the entire contents of the article you linked to. Social Security and Medicare take tax dollars from workers and spend them on retirement and insurance benefits. Unlike an ordinary retirement account or insurance contract, they don't take premiums and invest them. They're just are all spent out except for a small trust fund invested in Treasuries. I completely understand why this is a bad idea. It's broke by nature. It's disingenuous to point out with indignation that the system can only pay out what workers of the current time pay into it. That how it was designed, i.e. badly IMHO. I also completely reject the accounting gimmick argument for the same reasons.

I disagree too with the part about Clinton boom being caused by Reagan and Bush 41. This eight-year delay narrative works for Republicans because in recent decades we've had economic expansion during Democratic presidents and recessions during Republican presidents. The Democrats' narrative is they're responsible for the expansions. I don't believe either one. The economic cycle swings back and forth randomly. If I could predict them based on political developments or anything else, I would be rich from trading options and futures.

I do agree with the part about Republicans being a huge part of the balanced budget in the late 90s. It would not have happened with Democrats alone.

The article tries to this this to the recession of 08-09 by saying Democrats urged the GSEs to underwrite risky loans. Reading the article, you'd think that President Bush would have used his eight years to rein them in, but in reality President Bush said just b/c you're poor doesn't mean you shouldn't own a nice house. He say that! It was part of his ownership society idea and supporting the real estate and finance industries.

I don't have time to hit every point I think is wrong in that article, but going back to the start about the need to get the federal budget under control--- that's an elephant in the room that people are just ignoring until it becomes a crisis.

just now reading this mccannon! thanks so much. have you given us review on Amazon yet? this is a perfect one! it will be all over social media from "a fan"! lol

How spending is allocated is completely different from raising taxes. I will grant you Bush 1 on raising taxes, but Clinton retro-activated higher tax rates. How does a middle class person plan for that? Forcing people to buy something they do not want under the force of a gun to their head is certainly more evil than voting for how existing resources are allocated? welfare/medicaid is the same as military spending and social security/medicare are not voluntary btw.

Republicans list of fears were their warnings that democratically pushed social agendas of largess would break the budget and bankrupt this nation. Social security and medicare are all going broke. The military spending is excessive I grant you, but the responsibility to protect the nation was legitimately granted to the federal government and authorized in the constitution since the beginning; not so for the social programs. Clinton's balanced budget was mostly an accounting gimmick by stealing more from social security and putting it in the general fund ( http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-destroyed-the-economy-2012-9 ), and what austerity he had and growth of revenue that aided were because of a republican congress and the growth of the economy while riding the residual wave of Reagan economic policies.

Trump's interviews have been obsessive about "making deals" and arrogantly insisting that he "knows all the smart people". He appeals to people fed up with Washington but has nothing to say about a political philosophy of what government is supposed to be and what his goals are in principle. He has nothing to say about protecting the freedom of the individual.

He's a statist Pragmatist who in typical Republican fashion like the Bushes thinks his job would be to "manage" statism more effectively, this time with an obsessive explicit emphasis on "deals", i.e. compromising our rights away, to get whatever it is he is after at the moment. His Pragmatism of "making deals" is his philosophy -- in a self-caricature of the domination of Pragmatism replacing principle since William James in the late 19th century.

His thinking is oblivious to both principle and knowledge of facts and background as he shoots his mouth off making dramatic pronouncements, like the pompous blowhard Christy, without knowing what he is talking about, for example his trashing of Pamela Geller.

This is frightening and dangerous. We don't need a fascist demagogue claiming to be riding in on a 'white horse' to 'save' us.

Good point. Rush was only thinking of Congress being closed down and I recall this was when Harry Reid ran the Senate. He did not factor in what the royal dictator did to parks and to veterans in order to blame it all on the GOP.

“The fact is that Democrats voted in O'care without one single vote from republicans and it is the largest bit of statism that has occurred in generations, though it is but one example of such a proclivity.”

I do not see the PPACA as the worst statism in generations, but it is a good example of gov't trying to solve citizens' little problems that should be outside the purview of gov't.

“Of the two major parties republicans are the only ones ever willing to talk about cutting or ending any federal agencies, or enacting and maintaining sequestration, while the only solutions offered by democrats aside from cutting military (which is the most important and legitimate function of the federal government), are more taxes and expanding government programs.”

You wrote that Republicans are the only ones willing to talk about cutting gov't, In the very same sentence you say Democrats offer to cut military spending, which is far and away the largest area of spending (esp if you count Social Security / Medicare as separate from other gov't spending) and an area that the Founders would have been opposed to on principle b/c they didn't want a large standing army. None of this matters, though, because as you say neither the Republicans nor Democrats execute on this rhetoric. Cutting military spending to be equal to the sum of spending by the top three other countries is beyond the pale for Democrats. It's all talk.

“"Republicans' list of fears" have been realized.”

Does this mean statism is okay if it's for programs the Republicans support? If we turn over large amounts of wealth and power to the gov't, it doesn't matter whether we did it because of a list of fears or a list of hopes.

“The Democrats' attempts to fix everything by government actions and spending since at least FDR's New deal, have given us a national debt that has put us on the same path as Greece.”

We had a balanced budget at the end of the Clinton administration, until Republicans hit their trifecta of excuses to borrow money. It's not just Republicans fault. It's gotten worse during President Obama. Democrats have proposed budgets with more borrowing, so they are definitely part of the problem.

“If enough people voted for advocates of small government and austerity as our founding principles dictated and constitution authorized we would not be ruining the future for our posterity.”

Many people run their personal finances irresponsibly, and Congress does a good job of representing them by running the gov't in the same way. We won't stop the borrowing until we hit a crisis, which is really unfortunate.

“Unfortunately if one party embraces buying votes with other peoples' money, those with prudent economics are at a disadvantage politically.”

I agree, but I think Republicans are the worst offenders. I do not think Democrats started it because of Republicans or the other way around. The same factors lead them both to support large/intrusive gov't.

Obama and Harry Reid only shut down 17% of the government. All employees were paid retroactively. Obama exploited his shutdown to punish the citizens, spending more in unauthorized funding to shut off access to private and state property at Federal parks, blocking access to veterans, etc.

Hello CircuitGuy,

The fact is that Democrats voted in O'care without one single vote from republicans and it is the largest bit of statism that has occurred in generations, though it is but one example of such a proclivity. Of the two major parties republicans are the only ones ever willing to talk about cutting or ending any federal agencies, or enacting and maintaining sequestration, while the only solutions offered by democrats aside from cutting military (which is the most important and legitimate function of the federal government), are more taxes and expanding government programs. Does this escape you? Are you hearing them? All one has to do is listen to campaign speeches of the different parties to see the differences (not that the republicans actually deliver as much as they promise). You did not acknowledge or address several key points in my previous comment. Though I recognize republicans are far from acceptable due to their own lesser tendencies of statism, I believe you are overlooking a great deal. "Republicans' list of fears" have been realized. The Democrats' attempts to fix everything by government actions and spending since at least FDR's New deal, have given us a national debt that has put us on the same path as Greece. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ All of the burden has, of basic economic laws, been necessarily placed on the backs of those that still work while encouraging more sloth, resulting in massive debt, economic stagnation, flat wages and the worst job participation rate in 60 years. Yes, voting for the party that most revels in buying votes for political one-upsmanship with government largess has encouraged/forced all parties into a competition of ultimate destruction. If enough people voted for advocates of small government and austerity as our founding principles dictated and constitution authorized we would not be ruining the future for our posterity. Unfortunately if one party embraces buying votes with other peoples' money, those with prudent economics are at a disadvantage politically. The majority of short term thinking voters naturally want theirs and contemplate not of the future. Nobody wants to see their own benefits cut or see the downtrodden without help, but there is only so much burden that can be placed upon the productive before they say "enough is enough" and go no strike as they did in AS. Then many more will have nothing. How will that help? We should recognize the problem confronting us and vote for the candidates most likely to stop the runaway train regardless of party. When Democrats speak of repealing O'care, eliminating federal agencies, reducing taxes, or simplifying the tax code and eliminating the IRS, which is the most powerful and oppressive agent of statism, which republicans are doing, then the comparison might be more evenly balanced.

Respectfully,

O.A.

“Today’s Democrats believe in democracy. The root of their party name is what? Democracy is mob rule.”

Colloquially democracy can mean a democratic republic. It truly believe most people who use the word positively think a constitutional framework to prevent tyranny of the majority goes without saying. Both parties believe in “democracy” and use the word to mean a constitutional democratic republic.

“As you suggested they hear you have a problem and automatically think they can solve it at a governmental level. That is the epitome of statism and with every executive order from our POTUS you see prime examples.”

Statism is the result. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This is how it is with career politicians.

“Some problems are best left to the individual if liberty is to be preserved. Federalism was meant to be a federation of states. Each, would, with their sovereign powers, handle the individual state problems and those not enumerated in the state constitutions would be relegated to the communities and to the individuals. They were all off limits to the Federal government since they were not enumerated in the Constitution. The Republic was not founded as a democracy just for that reason. The Constitution never mentions the word democracy, but guarantees us a constitutionally limited Republican form of government. A republican form of government that respects the constitution is one that is anti-statist to the degree that is practicable. That is the reason the framers created and enumerated the limited powers of the federal government with the constitution and the bill of rights.”

Yes!! Yes, to every bit of it.

“It is true that some republicans do not adhere strictly to these principles, thus the term RINO, but the magnitude/contrast is apparent.”

My claim is they generally don't even pretend do. They should get a different name, so they wouldn't all have to be in name only. They start with a model that accepts a large and intrusive federal gov't because of a list of philistine bogymen.

“We do hear many republicans talking about the problems of common core”

It blows my mind that they politicize something so mundane, esp with the over-the-top rhetoric. One Republican in the WI legislature rightly said something to the effect of I can't believe we've gone down this path with Common Core”.

“the over-reach of the EPA”

There may be some ideological desire to protect the environment in a different way, but the main reason is polluters fund their campaigns.

“Neither party is truly respecting our constitution, but one party is unabashedly promoting a more statist philosophy.”

I agree, but I think it's the Republicans. It's sort of a moot point, though, because the result is in the same whether you get there via Democrats' laundry list of problems gov't could “help” with or the Republicans' list of fears requiring more gov't spending and power.

Nicely said. Actually, I never liked the contemporary use of left right and center, where we have a totalitarian left and totalitarian right and somehow, miraculously, we have a free Constitutional center between the two. Bah, rock and a hard place. I prefer an up/down analogy where up is light, long life, liberty, and prosperity and down is darkness, untimely death, slavery, and destitution. The US Constitutional Republic in its beginning and over time did move up the line further than any previous endeavor, but now it's slipping IMHO.

Behavioral choices are the forces that move a people up, down, or hold them in stasis (actually, stasis turns out to be stagnation, which in the long run is a down). What choices to make in our time are clearly documented in the historical record, should a people be bothered to know it.