So lets say it was all CDS and derivatives.

How is that Bush's fault?

He was the President when the market blew up, isn't it his job to know what is happening and stop it? 

Oops, I forgot it was just a natural cycle; Bush couldn't stop nature, let the next guy clean up his mess.

So Derivatives which have been around for hundreds of years and CDS which are very new and an almost unknown entity and which caused the burst of the Real estate bubble to have a far greater impact than normally would have happened, are now something Bush should have magically known about?

And they didnt cause the crash, they just made it worse.

So why didnt the 20 or so Presidents that have been around since Derivitaives started being used ever try to ban them? Answer of course is they are vital to the free market economy.

It is a little technical, but a derivative allows you to secure deals in the future. Say you are going to harvest 100 units of wheat in 3 months and the price today is 10 dollars a unit. I want to make sure I get paid that amount in the future so I can pay my bills, and a grainery wants to make sure they have enough to keep in business so we make a deal that in 3 months when I harvest you will pay me $10 a unit. If it goes up I lose, if it goes down I win, but at least we are both safe.

Without them the free market system we live under collapses.

Some people did twist the system a bit, and this caused problems. All was discovered after the crash.

As for CDS this was a new invention. And like other new inventions sometimes things happen bad. And this is also something we discovered post crash.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/8/2012 1:09:00 AM (view original):
So Derivatives which have been around for hundreds of years and CDS which are very new and an almost unknown entity and which caused the burst of the Real estate bubble to have a far greater impact than normally would have happened, are now something Bush should have magically known about?

And they didnt cause the crash, they just made it worse.

So why didnt the 20 or so Presidents that have been around since Derivitaives started being used ever try to ban them? Answer of course is they are vital to the free market economy.

It is a little technical, but a derivative allows you to secure deals in the future. Say you are going to harvest 100 units of wheat in 3 months and the price today is 10 dollars a unit. I want to make sure I get paid that amount in the future so I can pay my bills, and a grainery wants to make sure they have enough to keep in business so we make a deal that in 3 months when I harvest you will pay me $10 a unit. If it goes up I lose, if it goes down I win, but at least we are both safe.

Without them the free market system we live under collapses.

Some people did twist the system a bit, and this caused problems. All was discovered after the crash.

As for CDS this was a new invention. And like other new inventions sometimes things happen bad. And this is also something we discovered post crash.

On paper derivatives sound great.  When your only knowledge of them is by what you read on wikipedia you dont really know what has and did happen to make the 2008 bubble burst harder then it had any right to.  And CDSs are somewhat new, but they have been on the market for several years.  And here is the truth that you obviously didnt uncover.  There was QUADRUPLE in value of CDSs in play when the crash happened then the actual value of the companies being leveraged.  QUADRUPLE!  if you were to do a smidgen of reading on what CDSs are you would know what I am talking about, so I am not going to spend a half hour typing precisely what I mean in leveraged value.  But if that isnt absolutely criminal I dont know what is.  And this all happened under the nose of your saviour BUSHY.  Now partially here is my point, you like to put all the blame squarely on the shoulders of Obama for the lack of progress in Americas economy, and yet you dont want to but ANY of the blame for Americas great collapse on Bush.  WTF?  Are you so blind with love for Bush and hate for Obama that you cant be reasonably fair here?  I for one dont want to 100% blame either one in their respective parts in this whole shenanigen because I believe that people need to be responsible for their own actions.  Including you, me, corporations in general, and the leadership of our respective countries.  Presidents and Prime Ministers are supposed to be able to guide countries in a way that doesnt completely destroy their economies, AS WELL as guide the way out of the muck.  But there really is only so much that a person can do.  And that is all that presidents and PMs are.  People.  Bush is truly only partly to blame for sleeping on the job, as is Obama.  At a certain point we all need to point our fingers at ourselves in addition to the elephant in the room CORPORATIONS after all if it werent for their circumventing rules, and ofcourse lobbying for less strict rules in absolutely everything imaginable there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this crash would have been a fraction as hard hitting as its turned out to be.

Swamp, Doug, Baker, Raucus, and the rest of you righties you guys are proud freedom loving Americans that like to think they have something to do with the way their lives are run right?  Stop blaming all of your problems on 1 man, start thinking of ways that you can make a difference.  Quit yer belly aching!  Your better then that arent you?

Will respond to the last part first.

It isnt Obama. He is in office and he gets the flak, but it is the left wing of the Democratic party and their agenda that has been dragging us down since the early 60s.

Clinton was their only 2 term president and he wasnt a hard core leftist like Obama. He worked with Republicans and made the economy work. He tried to socialize medicine and did take away many of our guns, but that is what the left is.

The left controlled the Congress for so long because they didnt need to stand up and get one guy to answer questions to middle America. That is why they had a stranglehold of the congress and were getting massacred for President. Gingrich found a way to make the local national and put congress in play.

So when we address Obama it isnt that we hate him or think he is a Muslim Kenyan communist.

We think he is taking America to a bad place. If the economy was solid it would be such a disaster. He could play around like Carter did and the next guy would fix it. This is a crisis and we cannot allow 4 more years of us moving towards Sweden.

I learned about direvatives in high school long before Wilipedia was even thought of. I did use the Wiki example becuase it stuck in my head when I was reviewing.

You mention that and try to insult me but you never exlpained why they were bad. You will admit we cannot survive without them correct?

And the CDS is very new. Less than 10 years before he took office. There was an issue and Bush may have not responded in a timely manner. That didnt cause the crash though and also didnt really make it a disaster for most people. The financial markets were saved at a fairly cheap rate.

Again this isnt really Bush's fault. Not because I am not being fair, but because of a logical analysis of the facts.

And the recovery is Obama's fault, again based not on fairness but on a logical analysis of the facts.

And the idea that Corporations are the cause of our problems, and not the reason for out success is a left wing idea.

Unemployment is over 14%. Obama sucks.

Mitt Romney  2006

<<"I came in and the jobs had been just falling off a cliff. And I came in and they kept falling for 11 months. And then we turned around and we're coming back. And that's progress.

"And if you're going to suggest to me that somehow the day I got elected, somehow jobs should immediately turn around, well that would be silly. It takes a while to get things turned around. We were in a recession; we were losing jobs every month, we've turned around, and since the turn around we've added 50,000 jobs. That's progress.

"There will be some people who try to say, 'Well governor, net-net you've only added a few thousand jobs since you've been in.' Yeah, but ... we were in free-fall for three years and the last year of that I happened to be here and then we've turned it around as a state, private sector, government sector turned it around and now we're adding jobs.... I'm very pleased that over the last two, two-and-a-half years we've seen pretty consistent job growth.">>


Mitt Romney...the campaign gift that just keeps on giving.  Hey Cons...what you gonna do?

You keep trying to find something that equals Obama. like everything is equal.

Obama has been in for over 3 years and nothing.

And when he was aksed to lay out his vision in the debate he just said same as the first term.

Romney kept making plans and they worked. Obama has one scheme, more speding and more government.

Dont tell me what Mitt said 6 years ago about another job in a single state,

Tell me who wins now!

So the right can pull out what Obama said six years ago but stuff RMoney said six years ago is not fair game. BULL ****! 

If it is relevant you can get stuff that Romney said 36 years ago.

You just cant make a false connection between unrelated issues.

And you cry in other threads that no one will respond to you. It's when you say BS like this that no one sees the point of responding to you. What Romney said six years ago is probably an accurate statement. And the exact same thing can be said for the President. It is only because you are such a tool that you cannot see how these are the EXACT SAME THING.

The issue with Romneys statement is he turned it around.

Obama has not. The Unemployment rate has gone down but it is still way too hight and he isnt fixing it.

He wants more of the same reckless spending and government make work jobs.

No one ever epxected Obama to snap his fingers and it would work. He has no vision or plan for America. Just more of the same throwing money at a prolem with no idea how to fix it.

Tell me what the unemployment rate "should" be. Tell me what the Dow should be.

Remember to save $20 for my GC. I will still accept an offer to double down, in the face of Romney's game-changing debate performance.