Who's to blame for the slow recovery?

[eohrnberger]

eohrn, you are posting about me. I posted about what you posted. You made the claim that you saw a video of "bastard Frank" encouraging the GSEs to buy more subprime loans. Not only did you cut and run from backing that up when requested, you also had to ignore that

Bush raised the GSE low income housing goals
Bush reversed the Clinton rule that restricted the GSE purchases of abusive subprime loans
Bush encouraged the GSEs to buy 400 million in subprime loans in the secondary market
Barney said Bush's policies would put people into houses they cant afford

And eohrn, you cant even admit that republicans controlled congress. You're simply trying to post words that give the appearance of you making a point because you cant post facts relevant to the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Its why you continue to post things you literally made up like your claim that you saw a video of "bastard Frank" encouraging the GSEs to buy more subprime loans

Still refusing to even look at the big picture? Have to say I'm not surprised in the least.

Let's start with a really simple question, Vern. One that's at the heart of it all.

Answer me this Vern: Was there, or was there not an entire industry that was flogging on mortgages which caused the bubble to inflate?

 

[Vern]

Still refusing to even look at the big picture? Have to say I'm not surprised in the least.

Let's start with a really simple question, Vern. One that's at the heart of it all.

Answer me this Vern: Was there, or was there not an entire industry that was flogging on mortgages which caused the bubble to inflate?

eohrn, I am looking at the big picture. Its why I'm able to post facts. You post things you've literally made up and ignore the actual facts because you cant look at the big picture. (you cant even acknowledge republicans controlled congress). And actually no, there wasn't an entire industry "flogging mortgages". After Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending, sections of the mortgage industry stopped checking the borrower's ability to repay the mortgage. And they couldn't do that until Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending. And not only did Bush's regulators not try to stop it, they fought with state regulators who did try to stop it.

You've not posted one thing relevant or factual concerning the documented timeframe and cause of the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You simply flail and flail at the facts that I and others have posted.

 

[Moderate Right]

exactly? exactly what? you made the ridiculous claim that for the most part, republicans didn't waste their time with partisan nonsense. Here, read what you wrote.


for the most part, Mrs Lincoln enjoyed the show and republicans passed over 50 repeal bills. Your "measuring stick" was convoluted enough if you ignore the 50 bills they wasted time with but me having to name "one Obamacare repeal bill that Obama signed" as proof of something only makes sense to you.


Lets review
Republicans routinely wasted their time bringing up legislation they knew had no chance.

You must have missed the original discussion that I responded to.

 

[eohrnberger]

eohrn, I am looking at the big picture. Its why I'm able to post facts. You post things you've literally made up and ignore the actual facts because you cant look at the big picture. (you cant even acknowledge republicans controlled congress). And actually no, there wasn't an entire industry "flogging mortgages".

Really? I think you'd better read up. You clearly are missing a bunch of facts you need.

After Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending, sections of the mortgage industry stopped checking the borrower's ability to repay the mortgage. And they couldn't do that until Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending. And not only did Bush's regulators not try to stop it, they fought with state regulators who did try to stop it.

You've not posted one thing relevant or factual concerning the documented timeframe and cause of the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You simply flail and flail at the facts that I and others have posted.

And yet, here you are again, re-engaging me yet again. It's like you have no one else who's post replies to your posts or something.

 

[Vern]

You must have missed the original discussion that I responded to.

actually MR, I went back to you calling President Obama the "president of the party of No". Was there something you posted before that that could add some context or explain your "For the most part they don't waste their time bringing up legislation they know has no chance". they routinely wasted time bringing up and actually voting on legislation that had no chance. It seems you were trying to explain why people are so dissatisfied with republicans without using reality.

 

[Vern]

Really? I think you'd better read up. You clearly are missing a bunch of facts you need.

good job assuring me I'm wrong. Hey remember when you assured me of these "bunch of facts":

you saw a video of "bastard frank" encouraging GSEs to buy more subprime loans
Bush was president in 2000
that bush should have fired HUD secretary Cuomo sooner
that loans to qualified minorities leads to toxic mortgages
congress mandated GSEs to buy more subprime loans
many actors, many actors, many actors.

so you really shouldn't be "assuring" anybody of anything concerning the Bush Mortgage Bubble.

And yet, here you are again, re-engaging me yet again. It's like you have no one else who's post replies to your posts or something.

I was trying to get you to back up your claim about a video you saw with "bastard Frank". You seemed to want to post about everything else but that. And eorhn, its not like I whined about posting about the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You have numerous times and in this thread even. So again, its not about me. Its about the facts and the hilarious "narratives" you post.

 

[Moderate Right]

actually MR, I went back to you calling President Obama the "president of the party of No". Was there something you posted before that that could add some context or explain your "For the most part they don't waste their time bringing up legislation they know has no chance". they routinely wasted time bringing up and actually voting on legislation that had no chance. It seems you were trying to explain why people are so dissatisfied with republicans without using reality.

What Republican policies do you think they should have spent their time passing that Obama was not going to veto? None? I agree that the Obamacare stuff was a waste of time (probably throwing bones to the far right) but, again, what Republican legislation were they going to get past Obama?

 

[eohrnberger]

good job assuring me I'm wrong. Hey remember when you assured me of these "bunch of facts":

you saw a video of "bastard frank" encouraging GSEs to buy more subprime loans
Bush was president in 2000
that bush should have fired HUD secretary Cuomo sooner
that loans to qualified minorities leads to toxic mortgages
congress mandated GSEs to buy more subprime loans
many actors, many actors, many actors.

so you really shouldn't be "assuring" anybody of anything concerning the Bush Mortgage Bubble.



I was trying to get you to back up your claim about a video you saw with "bastard Frank". You seemed to want to post about everything else but that. And eorhn, its not like I whined about posting about the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You have numerous times and in this thread even. So again, its not about me. Its about the facts and the hilarious "narratives" you post.

I notice that you don't both to answer even such a simple question. Must be that you don't like the answer.

The video stands all on it's own. Frank was completely blind to the potential threat, Bush admin and others were wanting to do something about it, and Frank and other Democrats in congress all say 'I don't see a problem and wish F&F would do more'.

It was one point of many where the crisis could have been thwarted, if not blunted.

You forget, when I look at the big picture, I see many people each having their part in the larger system. You, blind to anything other than what you believe, incorrectly I may add, blame a single individual.

Well, Vern.

Did Bush originate each of those toxic mortgages?
Did Bush buy those toxic mortgages?
Did Bush sell those toxic mortgages to the next level up in the supply chain?
Did Bush package those toxic mortgages into traunches?
Did Bush have those toxic mortgages rated by agencies who didn't know what they were?
Did Bush rate those toxic mortgages without known what they were?
Did Bush then turn around and sell all those toxic mortgages?
Did Bush cover the risk of these toxic mortgages with CDS?

My, my. In your mind Bush did all these things. I'm surprised that Bush even had time to be your most despised president.

The many actors involved is a statement of fact, Vern. It's irrefutable, and yet you keep crashing yourself against that fact, and flail and flop around like a fish out of water.

 

[Vern]

I notice that you don't both to answer even such a simple question. Must be that you don't like the answer.

Oh eohrn, its bad enough you cant address the facts that are routinely posted in response to your posts by myself and others but you cant even address me answering your question. Yea, I answered your question. You “assured” me I was wrong. I then posted a list of your most hilarious “assurances” from the past concerning the Bush Mortgage Bubble. And out of your typical desperation to avoid what is posted you go for the easy (and false) “wah wah, you didn’t answer my question”. Your “new and improved” questions are just another desperate dodge on your part. The Bush Mortgage Bubble started because Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending and Bush’s regulators not only didn’t stop it, they encouraged it.

The video stands all on it's own. Frank was completely blind to the potential threat, Bush admin and others were wanting to do something about it, and Frank and other Democrats in congress all say 'I don't see a problem and wish F&F would do more'.

OMG, you’re still telling us what you remember about the “bastard Frank” video. Eohrn, no such video exists. Its another of your hilarious "assurances" on your part. Its bad enough you refuse to admit you saw no such video but you’ve seen Barney Frank telling you Bush’s GSE policies would put people into houses they cant afford. He nailed it and you say he was blind. And what makes your latest “assurance” even more hilarious is you cant acknowledge republicans controlled congress. Anyhoo, here are Bush’s GSE policies again special just for you
Bush stopping GSE reform 2003
Bush encouraging the GSEs to buy 400 million in subprime loans in the secondary market 2004
Bush raising the low income housing goals for the GSEs 2004
Bush reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSE purchases of abusive subprime loans
Bush stopping GSE reform again 2005

There is simply no way for you to reconcile your hilarious “assurance” that Bush tried to stop the bubble with the actual facts. Hence you ask more questions. Eohrn, you post questions and “assurances”. I post facts.

 

[Vern]

What Republican policies do you think they should have spent their time passing that Obama was not going to veto? None? I agree that the Obamacare stuff was a waste of time (probably throwing bones to the far right) but, again, what Republican legislation were they going to get past Obama?

no MR, not probably " throwing bones to the far right", definitely "throwing bones to the far right". and it seem crucial to your narrative explaining why people are disgusted with republicans to ignore that. But at least now you acknowledge that republicans did indeed waste time voting on (and passing) legislation that had no chance of passing. We are making progress. Now throw in the govt shutdown and threatening to default on the debt you too can see reasons why people may not be satisfied with the republican congress. While your “Obama would have vetoed” narrative sounded good to you, it required you to ignore the facts.

 

[eohrnberger]

. . . .

No such video exists? I do believe it was posted here as well as in the Mortgage FAQ thread at least one, if not multiple times.

No, not my 'assurances'. Facts.

• April 2001: Bush administration states that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage market is a "potential problem".
  Link
• May 2001: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02) Link
• Sept: 2003: President Bush proposes a new oversight committee to clean up Fannie Mae, but Democrats derail the effort.Link
• It’s the Administration line: "Treasury Secretary John Snow told Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the largest buyers of U.S. mortgages, need tougher oversight and suggested his department become their regulator. "
• George Bush's administration sends a bill to the congress asking them to deal with the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac crisis, and the committee said no.
  Link
• Barney Frank’s Response:
  ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
  Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something
  from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,''
  Mr. Watt said. Bloomberg: link
• September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
  /link
• Democrats Response:
  Sept. 10th House Financial Services Committee hearing (link)
  "I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . ." Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.)
  
  "Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?" Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez
  
  October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
  Link
• April 2005: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America ... Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
  Link
• July 2005: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
  Link

You may wish to note that I'm not disputing those actions that Bush and his administration took, and I've never tried to assert that Bush is blame free, he isn't.

You may want to consider taking a similar stance on both the Bush administration's actions listed above, the Democrats statements above, as well as the supply chain from toxic mortgage origination to their being sold as 'investment vehicles'.

 

[eohrnberger]

. . .

So your talking point That Bush and his administration did nothing isn't true. If anything, it seems they were inconsistent.
You should note that I've never held Bush and his administration as blame-free, no matter how much you try to assign that position to me.

You might want to take that as a stance a an example when it comes to Bush admin doing nothing but spurring the GSE's on as well as that it was only Bush (it's not - there was an entire industry and supply chain).

But then, I don't think you are capable be seeing or thinking past your ideological mental boundaries.

Really too bad. A closed mind is such a waste.

 

[backpacker]

Still not sure what makes people think they are entitled to some degree of economic performance that is better than some past measure of economic performance. Our "slow recovery" could be the new normal or it could be a high water mark for GDP.

 

[Kushinator]

No such video exists? I do believe it was posted here as well as in the Mortgage FAQ thread at least one, if not multiple times.

No, not my 'assurances'. Facts.

You may wish to note that I'm not disputing those actions that Bush and his administration took, and I've never tried to assert that Bush is blame free, he isn't.

You may want to consider taking a similar stance on both the Bush administration's actions listed above, the Democrats statements above, as well as the supply chain from toxic mortgage origination to their being sold as 'investment vehicles'.

Are you aware that the mortgages underwritten by the GSE's were far less likely to be in delinquency or default? Furthermore, are you aware that during the build up of the real estate bubble, GSE's took a back seat to private lending initiatives?

Your entire post misses the forest for the trees.

 

[Kushinator]

OMG, you’re still telling us what you remember about the “bastard Frank” video. Eohrn, no such video exists. Its another of your hilarious "assurances" on your part. Its bad enough you refuse to admit you saw no such video but you’ve seen Barney Frank telling you Bush’s GSE policies would put people into houses they cant afford. He nailed it and you say he was blind. And what makes your latest “assurance” even more hilarious is you cant acknowledge republicans controlled congress. Anyhoo, here are Bush’s GSE policies again special just for you
Bush stopping GSE reform 2003
Bush encouraging the GSEs to buy 400 million in subprime loans in the secondary market 2004
Bush raising the low income housing goals for the GSEs 2004
Bush reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSE purchases of abusive subprime loans
Bush stopping GSE reform again 2005

There is simply no way for you to reconcile your hilarious “assurance” that Bush tried to stop the bubble with the actual facts. Hence you ask more questions. Eohrn, you post questions and “assurances”. I post facts.

GSE's were never the problem.....

 

[Moderate Right]

no MR, not probably " throwing bones to the far right", definitely "throwing bones to the far right". and it seem crucial to your narrative explaining why people are disgusted with republicans to ignore that. But at least now you acknowledge that republicans did indeed waste time voting on (and passing) legislation that had no chance of passing. We are making progress. Now throw in the govt shutdown and threatening to default on the debt you too can see reasons why people may not be satisfied with the republican congress. While your “Obama would have vetoed” narrative sounded good to you, it required you to ignore the facts.

Yes, they did waste their time with Obamacare repeal legislation. Yes, they did this to throw bones to the far right. No, the mainstream Republicans did not want to play chicken with shutting down the government and defaulting on the debt. That was entirely the far right who was responsible for that. The mainstreamers just couldn't do anything to stop them but, in fact, in the end, did ultimately stop them. And yes, there was no point in sending any Republican legislation to the White House (the Obamacare repeal legislation proves that) because Obama would have vetoed anything because he belongs to the party of no. Please name any Republican partisan legislation that they could have sent to the White House that Obama would have signed. I've been waiting for your answer.

 

[eohrnberger]

Are you aware that the mortgages underwritten by the GSE's were far less likely to be in delinquency or default? Furthermore, are you aware that during the build up of the real estate bubble, GSE's took a back seat to private lending initiatives?

Your entire post misses the forest for the trees.

OK.

GSE's were never the problem.....

If so, then Bush's actions, as listed by Vern, wouldn't have had any effect on the mortgage bubble either.

 

[Vern]

Yes, they did waste their time with Obamacare repeal legislation. Yes, they did this to throw bones to the far right. No, the mainstream Republicans did not want to play chicken with shutting down the government and defaulting on the debt. That was entirely the far right who was responsible for that. The mainstreamers just couldn't do anything to stop them but, in fact, in the end, did ultimately stop them. And yes, there was no point in sending any Republican legislation to the White House (the Obamacare repeal legislation proves that) because Obama would have vetoed anything because he belongs to the party of no. Please name any Republican partisan legislation that they could have sent to the White House that Obama would have signed. I've been waiting for your answer.

MR, your post was close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades so I wasn't going to quibble with your narrative that the poor "mainstreamers" just couldn't do anything to stop the dang "far right". Just so you know, the poor "mainstreamers" did help shut down the govt. You seem to be trying to not acknowledge that. But when you reiterate your "party of no" narrative because you think President Obama would have vetoed legislation republicans didn't bring up, I have to respond. Your narrative blows up because they had no problem passing (passing, not talking about, not debating, passing) Obamacare repeal bills. that alone blows up your "wah wah, they didnt want to waste time voting on bills President Obama wouldn't sign" narrative. And the "party of No" belongs exclusively to republicans. They said they were going to make President Obama a "one termer". They voted against things they had supported previously. They refused to compromise on bills to reduce the deficit faster. they voted against President Obama's jobs bill.

President Obama compromised on mandates. President Obama compromised on not letting the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled for the top 4%. President Obama repeatedly tried to work with republicans but remember the part where they were trying to make him a "one termer"? so you are simply trying to create a narrative to explain why republicans are held in such low regard. it failed.

 

[Vern]

GSE's were never the problem.....

I agree. I simply post the Bush GSE policies in response to the dual conservative narratives of "bush tried to stop it" and "the GSEs caused it". the "GSEs caused it" is just the natural evolution of the "barney frank caused it". So I simply let conservatives know, if they want to blame the GSEs then they have to blame bush.

And ironic thing is that while some conservatives still cling to "reform would have stopped the bubble", the 2003 GSE reform would more than likely have made the Bush Mortgage Bubble worse. While they talked about "protecting the GSEs" it was just a grab for political control of the GSEs. This is from the Independent Community Bankers of America concerning the 2003 GSE reform bill.

"We strongly urge Congress to make certain that any potential legislation contain appropriate firewalls and independence between Fannie and Freddie and the Treasury’s politically-appointed policy makers. Politicizing regulation is an ever-present danger, and we believe it is paramount to maintain the independence of any new regulator overseeing safety and soundness and Fannie and Freddie’s congressionally-mandated missions to support home "

http://www.banking.senate.gov/publi...6/33A699FF535D59925B69836A6E068FD0.torpey.pdf

I also believe that the GSEs were going to fail regardless. While their loan quality was higher, people losing their jobs and people were walking away from loans they could afford would have doomed them. The GSEs fighting for subprime loans that didn't account for the borrower's ability to repay the loan only made the failure bigger.

 

[Moderate Right]

MR, your post was close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades so I wasn't going to quibble with your narrative that the poor "mainstreamers" just couldn't do anything to stop the dang "far right". Just so you know, the poor "mainstreamers" did help shut down the govt. You seem to be trying to not acknowledge that. But when you reiterate your "party of no" narrative because you think President Obama would have vetoed legislation republicans didn't bring up, I have to respond. Your narrative blows up because they had no problem passing (passing, not talking about, not debating, passing) Obamacare repeal bills. that alone blows up your "wah wah, they didnt want to waste time voting on bills President Obama wouldn't sign" narrative. And the "party of No" belongs exclusively to republicans. They said they were going to make President Obama a "one termer". They voted against things they had supported previously. They refused to compromise on bills to reduce the deficit faster. they voted against President Obama's jobs bill.

President Obama compromised on mandates. President Obama compromised on not letting the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled for the top 4%. President Obama repeatedly tried to work with republicans but remember the part where they were trying to make him a "one termer"? so you are simply trying to create a narrative to explain why republicans are held in such low regard. it failed.

But the bottom line is Obama would have vetoed any and all partisan Republican legislation as is proven by the fact that he vetoed the Obamacare repeal, thus Obama is the head of the party of no. What did you want them to do with their time, offer up Democratic partisan legislation? They (all) did pass some bipartisan stuff that both sides agreed to, nothing else because nothing else would have got through the party of no.

 

[Vern]

But the bottom line is Obama would have vetoed any and all partisan Republican legislation as is proven by the fact that he vetoed the Obamacare repeal, thus Obama is the head of the party of no. What did you want them to do with their time, offer up Democratic partisan legislation? They (all) did pass some bipartisan stuff that both sides agreed to, nothing else because nothing else would have got through the party of no.

MR, your attempts to spin away the low approval ratings of the republican congress continues to fail. Your first attempt required you to ignore the 50+ bills to repeal Obamacare. Your additional "party of no" narrative fails because it requires you to ignore that republicans voted against things they previously supported to make President Obama a "one termer" and the fact that he was willing to and did compromise with the republican congress. And what you also have to ignore is that President Obama only had 12 vetoes. That's how many Bush had (according to Wikipedia). President Obama had arguably the most hostile and obstructionist congress for 6 years (remember, you and yours thought he was born in kenya and wanted to kill old people so you mindlessly approved of their refusal to work with him). so no MR, you don't get to whine about President Obama for bills the republican congress didn't send to President Obama to sign to call democrats the party of no. Democrats didn't put their agenda ahead of helping average Americans. Republicans did routinely.

 

[Moderate Right]

MR, your attempts to spin away the low approval ratings of the republican congress continues to fail. Your first attempt required you to ignore the 50+ bills to repeal Obamacare. Your additional "party of no" narrative fails because it requires you to ignore that republicans voted against things they previously supported to make President Obama a "one termer" and the fact that he was willing to and did compromise with the republican congress. And what you also have to ignore is that President Obama only had 12 vetoes. That's how many Bush had (according to Wikipedia). President Obama had arguably the most hostile and obstructionist congress for 6 years (remember, you and yours thought he was born in kenya and wanted to kill old people so you mindlessly approved of their refusal to work with him). so no MR, you don't get to whine about President Obama for bills the republican congress didn't send to President Obama to sign to call democrats the party of no. Democrats didn't put their agenda ahead of helping average Americans. Republicans did routinely.

The low approval ratings are for both sides of Congress not working together. For Obama's first two years in office the Republicans were the party of no. Since the Republicans gained control of both the House and Senate, the Democrats have been the party of no. Neither side is willing to compromise with the other. It's either their way or the highway. That's the non-partisan truth.

 

[mmi]

Obama would have vetoed any and all partisan Republican legislation

What about compromise legislation?

>>proven by the fact that he vetoed the Obamacare repeal, thus Obama is the head of the party of no.

Yes, in the sense of "No, I will not sign a bill dismantling what I see as my most important legislative achievement." By that reasoning, it sure is easy to become "the head of the party of no."

>>What did you want them to do with their time, offer up Democratic partisan legislation?

No, I expect them to work out compromises.

>>They (all) did pass some bipartisan stuff that both sides agreed to

Can you offer any examples where the Republicans took the initiative?

>>nothing else because nothing else would have got through the party of no

Again, nothing else … because the Negro would not have simply acquiesced and signed stuff he was dead set against.

Neither side is willing to compromise with the other. It's either their way or the highway. That's the non-partisan truth.

Obummer made it clear that he wanted to govern as a centrist right from the beginning. He:

• kept Gates on at Defence
• sought common ground on the very difficult and divisive issue of reproductive freedom
• met openly with GOP Leaders to discuss health insurance reform, then abandoned his position on a single-payer, Medicare-for-all system, and eventually adopted the "individual mandate" structure originally advanced by the Heritage Foundation and later codified in RomneyCare
• agreed in 2010 to extend the Bush tax cuts for wealthy households to get extended UI benefits, a payroll tax holiday, and no default on the debt
• accepted another budget compromise in 2013, avoiding the "fiscal cliff" that threatened to end the recovery.

The truth lies in what you posted earlier:

[T]he mainstream Republicans did not want to play chicken with shutting down the government and defaulting on the debt. That was entirely the far right who was responsible for that.​

These are the people who gave yer party The Molester as yer presidential nominee. That's what happens when you get in bed politically with extremist lunatics. Mr Ryan knows better.

 

[LibDave]

You said, "Automation does not lose jobs. Automation makes the average worker more productive .... ". Those two things are one and the same. A business requires fewer workers as it becomes more efficient, and automation is one way a business becomes more efficient, ergo, automation allows a business to require fewer workers, ergo, automation "loses jobs".



Which would be pointless if the number apples in demand is A.



Because the extra production is largely wasted due to the fact that the demand for apples was already being met.



Ergo, automation "loses jobs".



This assumes that the Dingle Berries corporation isn't also increasing their efficiencies and using fewer workers.



The bolded above can only be accomplished if owners of such efficient businesses pay their employees in accordance with those new efficiencies. If a worker used to make $10/hr and now needs only to work 1 hour instead of 10 to produce that "A"-number of apples, then he needs to be paid $100 for his hour of work and then be sent home. But that's not what's happening. He's still making $10/hr and the owner is pocketing the other $90.

It's important to understand, work is limitless. Available labor is not. When workers must alter their work to produce different goods at higher value you see this as a loss of a job. What you should be considering is whether it is a NET loss in the number of jobs or a NET increase. What you should be seeing is an increase in the productive value of those workers. Understand there is no way to increase one's pay without increasing the value of what one produces (either in quality or quantity). After all, it is through the resulting increase in production and the profits which go hand-in-hand that employers pay their workers. The owner has no alternative but to give the increase in profits to the workers if they are indeed the source of the increased profits. Otherwise their competitors will entice the employees away and run them out of business. Just like workers seek out employment with the highest pay for the work, employers seek out workers with the highest production for the pay. It is a market just like going to the grocery store. In fact it is largely women (I know that's not PC) in the grocery stores of America who do the vast amount of hiring and firing every day. And they are totally uncaring and ruthless in doing so. Your job never enters their mind nor should it. Only her most unbiased judgment of the value of your labor will succeed in saving our beloved nation needless waste of your valuable labor. When she walks into a grocery store and sees a Butterfinger candy bar for $1.10 and a Snicker bar for $1.20 and chooses one she is in fact hiring the workers (and the investors) who produced that candy bar AFTER SHE HAS ALREADY SEEN THEIR WORK PRODUCT. There is no more efficient job interview in the world than the unknown customer no worker ever meets 1000 miles away standing over that bar deciding whether your efforts passed the muster. This is the ultimate source of your pay and no one is better suited to judge your value than the one who not only pays for it, but consumes it.

Let's say the employer attempts to do as you say. His workers previous value producing X Apples was $10/hour and now they produce 2X Apples/hour. The demand curve for apples doesn't change from our previous example, so he must layoff 40% of his workers to produce 120% of what he was previously producing. Remember the apples are now cheaper so at the point of maximum profits there will be some percentage increase in apples consumed. Here we assume 20%. So the employer decides he wants to keep the workers pay at 10$ per hour and keep the profits for himself.

 

[LibDave]

Before:
(100 Workers) X (10$/Worker hour) = 1000$ / hour to produce 10,000 apples (i.e. assuming each worker produces 100 apples / hour)
His unit labor cost is therefore $0.10/Apple. He sells them for $0.20/Apple and after expenses of $0.08/Apple capital goods he pockets $0.02/Apple X 10,000 = $200/hour to pay himself and split with the shareholders.

After:
(60 Workers) X (10$/Worker hour) = 600$ / hour to produce 12,000 apples. (lower price more apples sold).
His unit labor cost is therefore $0.05/Apple. He sells them for $0.16/Apple and after expenses of $0.08/Apple capital goods he pockets $0.03/Apple X 12,000 = 360$/hour to pay himself and split with the shareholders. He chooses to keep the extra 160$ and leave his workers with no increase in compensation.

His competitor on an equal footing realizes these workers are more productive giving him more leeway to pay these workers and take a bigger market share. So he raises his wages and not only keeps his workers but entices our 60 workers over to his endeavors.
Competitor Pay:
(1200$+320$)/(120 Workers) = $12.67/hour

The greedy Apple Company failing to realize the worth of it's more productive workers loses them to a competitor offering over 25% higher pay. They say, good riddance to you for having the nerve to demand what you are worth, we can find new orchard workers, albeit they only produce apples at the original $0.10/Apple. Our competitor now produces twice as many apples at 0.16$/Apple and enjoys double the profit of $720/hour (up from 200$/hour).

We find ourselves unable to capture our previous market share and sell 40% fewer apples at $0.20/apple. We drop our price to $0.16/Apple to meet the market price. Our profits are now
$0.10/Apple and we can only sell them for $0.16/Apple and after expenses of $0.08/Apple capital goods we are now losing $0.02/Apple selling 6,000 Apples for a loss of $120. We won't be getting a check and our shareholders are not happy. Investors seek other opportunities with more profit for less risk and we are forced to sell off capital goods to compensate for the losses. Unless we can entice our more productive workers to return we will be forced out of business as we cannot profit at the market price for apples otherwise. So regardless of what we decide (to pay or not to pay our workers) the choice is the same. The market will decide for us that we are not to employ Apple workers at 10$/hour. The workers will get paid what they are worth even if we don't recognize their value. It is just a matter of whether we pay them more to make us money or our competitors pay them more and they make the money. This happens every day in our country. The labor markets are a 2-way street. With both laborers and employers looking for the best deals. There is a great deal of profit to be made if you are better at determining the exact value of your workers or do it to a better extent than your competitors. Vast amounts of money and effort is extended every day trying to entice the workers of competitors over to one's own enterprise. The closer I get to providing just a smidge under what they are worth the better I will do. If I misjudge and end up paying them a smidge over what they are worth then that smidge is a detriment to me and benefits my competitor rather than helps me. It's a constant battle assessing labor value better than your competitors all the while dealing with the consumer's constantly swaying demand.