If the GOP had somebody who could've run to the left of Obama he/she/it would have won in a walk.
Instead they chose a near-billionaire parasitical private equity corporate raider.
Still, they did get almost 50% of the vote with that.
Romney was making some of the right noises about China and the yuan.
We done screwed up getting so dependent on their cheap-labor state capitalism.
We've benefitted a bit, initially, but since the original sugar high of much cheaper consumer stuff wore off (ca 2000) we've just used these savings to bid up the cost of essentials (housing, healthcare), while seeing millions of mfg jobs disappear and not really doing anything about it.
But the current GOP's catechism about "job creators" simply doesn't understand, or worse, intentionally hides, the reality that the top 1% own too much of this nation's wealth flows, and it's still getting worse.
The GOP arent perfect. However, either was NAFTA or the CRA and easy money loans. When Reps thought these be done differently, they were should down, at different times. Then, just when we thought their was a lot of Repub to blame, we find out that Gramm held out for months to not repeal Glass Stegal, but he eventually caved.
Now it plausible that the loss of manufacturing, and the CRA type of loans that spread into FHA and private are to blame for the bulk of the financial bubbles. Calculate the cost of the wars and they are minimal.
The same entitlemented voted in Obama, also thought that there was no bubble in 2004, from my low data survey.
Plus, if any of these tax and game ideas were functional, the highest tax state in the Union with a majority of Dems would be flush with money. Sadly quite the contraire.
It wasn't the gummint that was offering no-down, negative-amortization, teaser-rate, prepay penalty, stated income etc etc loans.
NO It wasnt the loans -- no down, teasers, stated income (mainly for consultants) many of these loans were around for many other consumer products for years before.
Even with the same kind of loan when prices are 50-60% lower wouldnt result in a mortgage crisis.
fact is many home buyers knew very well what kind of mortgages they were signing.
So the mortgages were NOT the problem.. it was the irrational PRICING of homes by consumers.
And frankly.. that problem hasnt gone away...
There are a lot of people out there who still believe their homes are worth some insane 'fair value'.
Have you ever over the past some 6-10 years seen someone from the govt say...
folks.. You really need to understand that prices of home only appreciate at rate of inflation and are connected to incomes (which has been down)... and when prices disconnect as they did back past 1990.. they eventual do correct downward..
No one from the Nanny Govt even today came forward to provide that warning.... not a single person except Robert Shiller.
And frankly the US Govt was all to willing to bundle those loans and sell them to investors.. with no so implied (actual implied) backing of the US Govt .... else why are we tax payers on the hook for Fannie Mae...
If Gramm was so against his bill why did he defend it earlier this year:
We had the SEC act of 33/34 for some 60+ years.. yet the public paid no warning that prices of stock were fundamentally disconnected by earnings and stock prices were going to crash...
Are we going to blame lack of regulation for causing the stock bubble in late 90s...
Clearly regulations did prevent stock bubble from occurring.
Argue with someone in Cupertino back in 2005 why a home priced at $200K in mid 90s cannot possible be worth $1 Million dollars by 2005. But they all had their insane delusions and reasons to justify these prices.
Its the same thing.. irrational buyers.
Does anyone want to step forward and state they bough Facebook Stock at $40...
Someone did .. actually many many people did... Dumb ASS Suckers...