Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

The Great Bush Recession

FoxBat
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 10:58:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wow if I hear this one more time, a left wing flunky blaming Obama's failure and incompetence on the fall-out from the Democrat mandated bubble.

The truth is the downturn related to the sub-prime collapse was primarily the fault of the Democrats who pushed for the lowering of lending underwriting standards. That plus Bill Clintons 1995 Home Ownership Strategy that ultimately lowered capital requirements on the GSEs and put the GSEs under HUD regulatory power who places a ever increasing quota system on Fannie and Freddie built a huge bubble.

Clinton also pushed for the securitization of low quality loans through the GSEs. Fannie was the most corrupt of the bunch with Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replacing all executive positions including CEO of Fannie.

Yep, Clinton hired the criminal Franklin Raines
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 11:04:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 10:58:47 AM, FoxBat wrote:
Wow if I hear this one more time, a left wing flunky blaming Obama's failure and incompetence on the fall-out from the Democrat mandated bubble.

The truth is the downturn related to the sub-prime collapse was primarily the fault of the Democrats who pushed for the lowering of lending underwriting standards. That plus Bill Clintons 1995 Home Ownership Strategy that ultimately lowered capital requirements on the GSEs and put the GSEs under HUD regulatory power who places a ever increasing quota system on Fannie and Freddie built a huge bubble.

Clinton also pushed for the securitization of low quality loans through the GSEs. Fannie was the most corrupt of the bunch with Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replacing all executive positions including CEO of Fannie.

Yep, Clinton hired the criminal Franklin Raines

If i had a nickle for eevery time this excuse was used as well my friend, see the only reason why bush is always brought up is because you guys seem to think he was some kind of saint, nevermind the fact that under his administration he also deregulated many things, as well as charged 2 wars that could not be paid for. but all that right now is mute, i want to point out something, you just said "Obama's failure" yet all you did was talk about Clinton, now care to give evidence how this is Obama's failure, and site sources that back up your claims to Clinton? See I love people who blame Obama, then provide no other proof then "well he just is" it brightens my day.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
1Percenter
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:22:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 11:04:11 AM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:58:47 AM, FoxBat wrote:
Wow if I hear this one more time, a left wing flunky blaming Obama's failure and incompetence on the fall-out from the Democrat mandated bubble.

The truth is the downturn related to the sub-prime collapse was primarily the fault of the Democrats who pushed for the lowering of lending underwriting standards. That plus Bill Clintons 1995 Home Ownership Strategy that ultimately lowered capital requirements on the GSEs and put the GSEs under HUD regulatory power who places a ever increasing quota system on Fannie and Freddie built a huge bubble.

Clinton also pushed for the securitization of low quality loans through the GSEs. Fannie was the most corrupt of the bunch with Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replacing all executive positions including CEO of Fannie.

Yep, Clinton hired the criminal Franklin Raines

If i had a nickle for eevery time this excuse was used as well my friend, see the only reason why bush is always brought up is because you guys seem to think he was some kind of saint, nevermind the fact that under his administration he also deregulated many things, as well as charged 2 wars that could not be paid for.
Axtually, Bush tried to stop the real estate bubble by reining in Fannie and Feddie, and of course the democrats prevented that. And what do wars have to do with the recession? Sounds like you're regurgiating liberal talking points to distract from the facts.
but all that right now is mute, i want to point out something, you just said "Obama's failure" yet all you did was talk about Clinton, now care to give evidence how this is Obama's failure, and site sources that back up your claims to Clinton? See I love people who blame Obama, then provide no other proof then "well he just is" it brightens my day.
Look at his stimulus that he promised would prevent unemployment from going over 7.8%. Trillions of dollars of added debt. Economic growth has stagnated and failed to boom into recovery. Now were facing economic collapse.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 2:13:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 11:04:11 AM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:58:47 AM, FoxBat wrote:
Wow if I hear this one more time, a left wing flunky blaming Obama's failure and incompetence on the fall-out from the Democrat mandated bubble.

The truth is the downturn related to the sub-prime collapse was primarily the fault of the Democrats who pushed for the lowering of lending underwriting standards. That plus Bill Clintons 1995 Home Ownership Strategy that ultimately lowered capital requirements on the GSEs and put the GSEs under HUD regulatory power who places a ever increasing quota system on Fannie and Freddie built a huge bubble.

Clinton also pushed for the securitization of low quality loans through the GSEs. Fannie was the most corrupt of the bunch with Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replacing all executive positions including CEO of Fannie.

Yep, Clinton hired the criminal Franklin Raines

If i had a nickle for eevery time this excuse was used as well my friend, see the only reason why bush is always brought up is because you guys seem to think he was some kind of saint, nevermind the fact that under his administration he also deregulated many things, as well as charged 2 wars that could not be paid for. but all that right now is mute, i want to point out something, you just said "Obama's failure" yet all you did was talk about Clinton, now care to give evidence how this is Obama's failure, and site sources that back up your claims to Clinton? See I love people who blame Obama, then provide no other proof then "well he just is" it brightens my day.

Name the deregulation bills buddy.

No, I don't think Bush is a saint. That's dumb. But its naive to believe that he was the major cause of the recession.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 2:21:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:22:02 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/17/2013 11:04:11 AM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:58:47 AM, FoxBat wrote:
Wow if I hear this one more time, a left wing flunky blaming Obama's failure and incompetence on the fall-out from the Democrat mandated bubble.

The truth is the downturn related to the sub-prime collapse was primarily the fault of the Democrats who pushed for the lowering of lending underwriting standards. That plus Bill Clintons 1995 Home Ownership Strategy that ultimately lowered capital requirements on the GSEs and put the GSEs under HUD regulatory power who places a ever increasing quota system on Fannie and Freddie built a huge bubble.

Clinton also pushed for the securitization of low quality loans through the GSEs. Fannie was the most corrupt of the bunch with Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replacing all executive positions including CEO of Fannie.

Yep, Clinton hired the criminal Franklin Raines

If i had a nickle for eevery time this excuse was used as well my friend, see the only reason why bush is always brought up is because you guys seem to think he was some kind of saint, nevermind the fact that under his administration he also deregulated many things, as well as charged 2 wars that could not be paid for.
Axtually, Bush tried to stop the real estate bubble by reining in Fannie and Feddie, and of course the democrats prevented that. And what do wars have to do with the recession? Sounds like you're regurgiating liberal talking points to distract from the facts.

So Bush starting a war isn't a "fact"?

but all that right now is mute, i want to point out something, you just said "Obama's failure" yet all you did was talk about Clinton, now care to give evidence how this is Obama's failure, and site sources that back up your claims to Clinton? See I love people who blame Obama, then provide no other proof then "well he just is" it brightens my day.
Look at his stimulus that he promised would prevent unemployment from going over 7.8%. Trillions of dollars of added debt. Economic growth has stagnated and failed to boom into recovery. Now were facing economic collapse.

Unemployment started going down as soon as his first budget went into effect (budgets start at the start of Q4, by the way). I don't see how he promised that unemployment wouldn't go over 7.8% when it was already over that at the time of his inauguration. The debt is mainly due to lack of revenue due to the economic recession. Any other questions you need addressed?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 3:37:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 2:21:32 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/17/2013 12:22:02 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/17/2013 11:04:11 AM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:58:47 AM, FoxBat wrote:
Wow if I hear this one more time, a left wing flunky blaming Obama's failure and incompetence on the fall-out from the Democrat mandated bubble.

The truth is the downturn related to the sub-prime collapse was primarily the fault of the Democrats who pushed for the lowering of lending underwriting standards. That plus Bill Clintons 1995 Home Ownership Strategy that ultimately lowered capital requirements on the GSEs and put the GSEs under HUD regulatory power who places a ever increasing quota system on Fannie and Freddie built a huge bubble.

Clinton also pushed for the securitization of low quality loans through the GSEs. Fannie was the most corrupt of the bunch with Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replacing all executive positions including CEO of Fannie.

Yep, Clinton hired the criminal Franklin Raines

If i had a nickle for eevery time this excuse was used as well my friend, see the only reason why bush is always brought up is because you guys seem to think he was some kind of saint, nevermind the fact that under his administration he also deregulated many things, as well as charged 2 wars that could not be paid for.
Axtually, Bush tried to stop the real estate bubble by reining in Fannie and Feddie, and of course the democrats prevented that. And what do wars have to do with the recession? Sounds like you're regurgiating liberal talking points to distract from the facts.

So Bush starting a war isn't a "fact"?

but all that right now is mute, i want to point out something, you just said "Obama's failure" yet all you did was talk about Clinton, now care to give evidence how this is Obama's failure, and site sources that back up your claims to Clinton? See I love people who blame Obama, then provide no other proof then "well he just is" it brightens my day.
Look at his stimulus that he promised would prevent unemployment from going over 7.8%. Trillions of dollars of added debt. Economic growth has stagnated and failed to boom into recovery. Now were facing economic collapse.

Unemployment started going down as soon as his first budget went into effect (budgets start at the start of Q4, by the way).
As I recall, Obama started working with Congress in November to get things done, so that when he officially took office, he could sign stuff right away, including the budget for 2009. During this time, he said something along the lines of "unemployment will go over 8% if nothing is done". He did something, and it didn't work.

I don't see how he promised that unemployment wouldn't go over 7.8% when it was already over that at the time of his inauguration.

"The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
So, this budget was his for essencially his entire presedency.

I have noticed this is a new trend, of at least new to me, that Congress isn't doing their job in passing budgets on time. As a tax preparer, it is annoying as fvck to wait until the last minute to know what the law is.

The debt is mainly due to lack of revenue due to the economic recession. Any other questions you need addressed?

Well, lack of revenue, stimulus (increased unemployment comp, tax credits), and the war efforts...
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 3:46:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 10:58:47 AM, FoxBat wrote:
Wow if I hear this one more time, a left wing flunky blaming Obama's failure and incompetence on the fall-out from the Democrat mandated bubble.

The truth is the downturn related to the sub-prime collapse was primarily the fault of the Democrats who pushed for the lowering of lending underwriting standards. That plus Bill Clintons 1995 Home Ownership Strategy that ultimately lowered capital requirements on the GSEs and put the GSEs under HUD regulatory power who places a ever increasing quota system on Fannie and Freddie built a huge bubble.

Clinton also pushed for the securitization of low quality loans through the GSEs. Fannie was the most corrupt of the bunch with Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replacing all executive positions including CEO of Fannie.

Yep, Clinton hired the criminal Franklin Raines

Technically, the housing crash was due to the banks' greed, which was fortified by the government's backing of mortgages. We could ultimately blame Carter for the Community Redevolpment Act, which stated that banks needed to do equal business at all their branches. So, if banks wanted to expand, their harlem branch needed to have mortgages, which meant offering riskier loans.

If banks weren't trying to make more and more money and/or expand continuiously, the crash wouldn't have happened.
If the government didn't demand/guarantee these risky loans, the crash wouldn't have happened.
If consumers weren't stupid, and buy houses they couldn't afford, the crash wouldn't have happened.
Policticans were warned the bubble would burst and could have prevented it by laxing laws or no longer guaranteeing loans, but this bubble created jobs, which meant votes.

Bottom line, everyone is to blame.

Of course, if these happened, there would have been no bubble, and home prices wouldn't have soared at they did in the last few decades, either.
My work here is, finally, done.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 3:50:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 3:37:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/17/2013 2:21:32 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/17/2013 12:22:02 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/17/2013 11:04:11 AM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:58:47 AM, FoxBat wrote:
Wow if I hear this one more time, a left wing flunky blaming Obama's failure and incompetence on the fall-out from the Democrat mandated bubble.

The truth is the downturn related to the sub-prime collapse was primarily the fault of the Democrats who pushed for the lowering of lending underwriting standards. That plus Bill Clintons 1995 Home Ownership Strategy that ultimately lowered capital requirements on the GSEs and put the GSEs under HUD regulatory power who places a ever increasing quota system on Fannie and Freddie built a huge bubble.

Clinton also pushed for the securitization of low quality loans through the GSEs. Fannie was the most corrupt of the bunch with Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replacing all executive positions including CEO of Fannie.

Yep, Clinton hired the criminal Franklin Raines

If i had a nickle for eevery time this excuse was used as well my friend, see the only reason why bush is always brought up is because you guys seem to think he was some kind of saint, nevermind the fact that under his administration he also deregulated many things, as well as charged 2 wars that could not be paid for.
Axtually, Bush tried to stop the real estate bubble by reining in Fannie and Feddie, and of course the democrats prevented that. And what do wars have to do with the recession? Sounds like you're regurgiating liberal talking points to distract from the facts.

So Bush starting a war isn't a "fact"?

but all that right now is mute, i want to point out something, you just said "Obama's failure" yet all you did was talk about Clinton, now care to give evidence how this is Obama's failure, and site sources that back up your claims to Clinton? See I love people who blame Obama, then provide no other proof then "well he just is" it brightens my day.
Look at his stimulus that he promised would prevent unemployment from going over 7.8%. Trillions of dollars of added debt. Economic growth has stagnated and failed to boom into recovery. Now were facing economic collapse.

Unemployment started going down as soon as his first budget went into effect (budgets start at the start of Q4, by the way).
As I recall, Obama started working with Congress in November to get things done, so that when he officially took office, he could sign stuff right away, including the budget for 2009. During this time, he said something along the lines of "unemployment will go over 8% if nothing is done". He did something, and it didn't work.

http://www.wolframalpha.com...

Assuming this graph is correct (and I do trust Wolfram Alpha), the unemployment rate reached 8% in January. There isn't a lot a president can do in his first month of office to reduce unemployment.

I don't see how he promised that unemployment wouldn't go over 7.8% when it was already over that at the time of his inauguration.

"The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
So, this budget was his for essencially his entire presedency.

He signed it, but he didn't start it. Looking back at the graph, the trend on unemployment seemed to slow in April. Looking further into the start of Q4, the unemployment rate peaked, but has been on a downward trend ever since.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
FoxBat
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 6:04:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:22:02 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/17/2013 11:04:11 AM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:58:47 AM, FoxBat wrote:
Wow if I hear this one more time, a left wing flunky blaming Obama's failure and incompetence on the fall-out from the Democrat mandated bubble.

The truth is the downturn related to the sub-prime collapse was primarily the fault of the Democrats who pushed for the lowering of lending underwriting standards. That plus Bill Clintons 1995 Home Ownership Strategy that ultimately lowered capital requirements on the GSEs and put the GSEs under HUD regulatory power who places a ever increasing quota system on Fannie and Freddie built a huge bubble.

Clinton also pushed for the securitization of low quality loans through the GSEs. Fannie was the most corrupt of the bunch with Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replacing all executive positions including CEO of Fannie.

Yep, Clinton hired the criminal Franklin Raines

If i had a nickle for eevery time this excuse was used as well my friend, see the only reason why bush is always brought up is because you guys seem to think he was some kind of saint, nevermind the fact that under his administration he also deregulated many things, as well as charged 2 wars that could not be paid for.
Axtually, Bush tried to stop the real estate bubble by reining in Fannie and Feddie, and of course the democrats prevented that. And what do wars have to do with the recession? Sounds like you're regurgiating liberal talking points to distract from the facts.
but all that right now is mute, i want to point out something, you just said "Obama's failure" yet all you did was talk about Clinton, now care to give evidence how this is Obama's failure, and site sources that back up your claims to Clinton? See I love people who blame Obama, then provide no other proof then "well he just is" it brightens my day.
Look at his stimulus that he promised would prevent unemployment from going over 7.8%. Trillions of dollars of added debt. Economic growth has stagnated and failed to boom into recovery. Now were facing economic collapse.

Well let me give you a clearer picture of how the Democrats built the market that allowed the Sub-prime collapse to happen in the first place. How they built and mandated the bubble.

Ill start in 1992...In 1992 an Affordable Housing Mandate was put on Fannie and Freddie ( in Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 ) which was enforced through HUD ( Housing Urban Development ) regulations by placing them under a Quota System which started at 30% , then 40% and 50% under Clinton and then 55% under Bush. That's out of their total share's of Mortgage Debt Purchased an increasing mandated percentage HAD to be low quality mortgages ( LMI ) and in 2000 the HUD director Andrew Cuomo pledged 2 trillion dollars to of "affordable mortgages".

"We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals," Fannie Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick beseeched lenders gathered at a banking conference in 2000, just after HUD hiked the mortgage giant"s affordable housing quotas to 50% and pressed it to buy more CRA-eligible loans to help meet those new targets. "We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities."

The Clinton Administration"s 1995 CRA changes authorized GSE"s to buy subprime mortgages, which it began to do in 1997. "Subprime" means that the person receiving the loan has a poor credit record and/or very low income compared to the loan size.

" Almost immediately, Fannie began to loosen its standards, requiring people to show lower wealth amounts in order to qualify for mortgages. By 1997, Fannie Mae was offering to buy 97% loan-to-value (LTV) mortgages. If a mortgage is $300,000 on a house worth $500,000, the LTV is 60% (3/5). The higher the mortgage relative to the house value, the higher the LTV. In other words, in 1997, Fannie started offering to buy mortgages that required recipients to put barely any money down. Fannie"s subprime backing caused the percentage of all new US mortgages that were of subprime quality to rise to 13% by 1999, versus 5% in 1994 when the Clinton Administration changed the CRA. According to a 2002 Housing Department report, "From 1993 to 1998, the number of subprime refinance increased tenfold."

The changes to CRA from the 1995 Home Ownership Strategy changed the way banks were allowed comply with CRA regulations. It changed the Compliance from a "process" oriented compliance to a "target " oriented compliance.

That means in order to receive good CRA scores they HAD TO LOAN to people at or below the 80% mean income range in the community they serviced.

THAT mandated a turning away from standards that had been used in the lending industry for over a 100 years.

In 1994 The Riegle Neal Act was passed that tied a banks CRA score to new acquisitions. The National Bureau of Economic Research recently published a study that tied a banks CRA exams after the 1995 Act directly to mortgage foreclosures.

From the NY Times...
"Fannie Mae, the nation"s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."


Franklin Raines arguing for even lower standards in 1999, "Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990R42;s by reducing down payment requirements. Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market."

"You"ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don"t despair: You can still buy a house." " so said an April 1995 Chicago Sun Times article that directed people with very poor credit to contact to a group of "community organizers" called ACORN.

As I have already stated Clinton replaced all of the executives at Fannie and Freddie with his own corrupt people.

Franklin Raines was fined 40 million for misreporting billions in false profits and forced to resign. He is estimated to walked away with 50 million, AFTER the fine. He should be in prison.
A NOTE FROM FANNIE AND FREDDIE FOUNDATION
" Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs. "
When necessary"in cases where applicants have no established credit history, for example"Countrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs "


Freddie by 2004 owned up to 40% of all privately traded MBS's and by that time had bundled and sold off enough toxic securities to cause a world wide financial crisis.

Bush immediately tried to tighten up regulatory control on Fannie and Freddie in hearings in 2003 the Democrats fought off any attempt to regulate Fannie and Freddie further.

Some Democrat testimony

Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY): "And my worry is that we"re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie"s mission."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): "nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn"t broke" In fact, the GSEs (Fannie, Fr
FoxBat
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 6:13:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bush's attempts

From the NY Times

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac " which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt " is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Dmocrat's rejected...


Democrats 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.

Plus a letter sent to Bush signed by 27 Democrats warning him NOT to place the GSE's under harsher regulations.

A more in depth view of the 1994 Home Owners Strategy..

In the Spring and Summer of 1994, Secretary Henry Cisneros met with leaders of major national organizations from the housing industry to solicit their views about establishing a national homeownership partnership."
- HUD, "Partners in the American Dream", May 1995

"In 1994, at the President"s request, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began work to develop a National Homeownership Strategy with the goal of lifting the overall homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the end of the year 2000. While the most tangible goal of the National Homeownership Strategy was to raise the overall homeownership rate, in presenting the strategy HUD pointed explicitly to declines in homeownership rates among low-income, young, and minority households as motivation for these efforts." - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research website

"At the request of President Clinton, HUD is working with dozens of national leaders in government and the housing industry to implement the National Homeownership Strategy, an unprecedented public-private partnership to increase homeownership to a record-high level over the next 6 years." - Urban Policy Brief Number 2, August 1995

"Federal institutions, policies, and programs alone cannot meet President Clinton's goal of record-high levels of homeownership within the next 6 years. HUD has forged a nationwide partnership that will draw on the resources and creativity of lenders, builders, real estate professionals, community-based nonprofit organizations, consumer groups, State and local governments and housing finance agencies, and many others in a cooperative, multifaceted campaign to create ownership opportunities" - The National Homeownership Strategy

Action 11: Removing Barriers to Mortgage Financing for Starter Homes
Action 29: Alternative Approaches to Homebuying Transactions
Action 35: Home Mortgage Loan-to-Value Flexibility
Action 36: Subsidies to Reduce Downpayment and Mortgage Costs
Action 44: Flexible Mortgage Underwriting Criteria
Action 45: Public-Private Leveraging for Affordable Home Financing

By 1996, HUD was directing the GSE's to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to low-income borrowers and 12% of their portfolios to "special affordable" loans. NOT BUSH'S GREAT RECESSION, CLINTONS GREAT RECESSION....

"This unprecedented public-private partnership is founded on a deeply rooted and almost universally held belief that homeownership provides important advantages that merit continued public support. The National Homeownership Strategy cites four fundamental benefits:" Urban Policy Brief Number 2, August 1995

"Through homeownership, a family...invests in an asset that can grow in value and... generate financial security."
"Homeownership enables people to have greater control and exercise more responsibility over their living environment."
"Homeownership helps stabilize neighborhoods and strengthen communities."
"Homeownership helps generate jobs and stimulate economic growth."
FoxBat
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 6:15:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bush's and the Republicans repeatedly tried to reign in a growing and corrupt Fannie and Freddie...

** 2001

April: The Administration"s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

** 2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO"s review found earnings manipulations.

September: 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.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004

February: The President"s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore"should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie"s House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005

April: Treasury Secretary John 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)

** 2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August " up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month " the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I"ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs " and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

** 2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation
and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by " helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that " and Congress is making progress on this " is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a
FoxBat
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 6:28:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Now in response to Izayah003 question on how is this Obama's failure ?

I'm merely heading off the narrative that Obama and his minion are trying to push, that his incompetence and his terrible policies are actually just left over from the " Great Bush Recession "

Sure the economy is horrible, and most likely we are heading for a inevitable crash.

But understand something, we are a free market economy and the Government does not create wealth, it cant. It has to first take it from the private sector to re-inject it back into to the growing number of people dependent on Govt.

Their are consequences to coming out and publicly attacking those who create wealth, those who contribute, those who provide real growth. There are consequences to passing laws that mandate expenses for private corporations and private individuals.

SEVERE consequences. It's why Obama will be a huge failure. He's simply printing and borrowing, just to keep growth at a meager 2% average, And it's NOT real growth.

What his central bank appointee is currently doing is disastrous on its own. Driving up bond values with printed currency, driving up asset and equity values with printed currency. If you thought the sub-prime collapse was bad stick around.

Understand that Bernake CANT STOP. He CANT give ANY indication that he's stopping QE or he'll trigger a huge sell off.

Not too mention the FED is monetizing over 70% of our short term debt..

And why ? Because the stupidest among us have decided our fate by American Idoling the most incompetent President ever elected....twice.

What do you think is going to happen the next time a REAL recovery starts up ? With banks holding record reserves ? With the Financial Markets loaded with monopoly money ?

Any REAL recovery will be met with massive inflationary pressure and then....HIGHER interest rates. With higher interest rates on bonds and Treasuries there is higher debt service payments, THAT WILL BANKRUPT US.

So why would Obama want to destroy this economy and the next few down the line ? Why would he want to force a entire generation to high unemployment and massive debt ?
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 6:53:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
as for the whole "when obama came into office" comment, here is the same thing i tell everyone who think it was obama's fault. I could go into your house, and in 8 min I would trash everything you own, break everything you own and leave ya in ruin, now i want you to go in and fix, repair, and replace everything that was messed up, but you are not allowed to spend a single dime, and must do it in half the time so 4 mins.

That is basically what everyone who blames obama is saying, ignoring the facts and pawning all on him.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
FoxBat
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 7:07:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 6:53:10 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
as for the whole "when obama came into office" comment, here is the same thing i tell everyone who think it was obama's fault. I could go into your house, and in 8 min I would trash everything you own, break everything you own and leave ya in ruin, now i want you to go in and fix, repair, and replace everything that was messed up, but you are not allowed to spend a single dime, and must do it in half the time so 4 mins.

That is basically what everyone who blames obama is saying, ignoring the facts and pawning all on him.

Wow, he's NOT TRYING to fix anything. First off this whole notion of NEO-Keynesian economic activity turning the country around has already been thoroughly rebutted.

Keynesian only works in a isolated economy with a MANUFACTURING base. We are currently a tertiary economy. So the Obama borrows or prints money, distributes it and his dependents buy Chinese junk.

Right.

Or do I need to post the fact that the poverty rate has climbed to 1 in 6 or the disability roles have doubled ?

You mentioned the economy was going down hill fast, I gave you a brief synopsis of why and apparently you ignored it.

Look, corporations and investors are holding their cash, their capital and for a damn good reason. Because a twisted ideologue has made it into the presidency twice and has been pushing his re-distributive rhetoric, that incidentally forces people with REAL wealth to NOT invest. Corporations, NOT to hire.

Sorry, I could get more in depth but I have a feeling it would be ignored. 20 year of economic study shouldn't be wasted on a ideologue such as your self.

And if you are telling people that, you are giving them bad information.
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 7:09:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 7:07:01 PM, FoxBat wrote:
At 4/17/2013 6:53:10 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
as for the whole "when obama came into office" comment, here is the same thing i tell everyone who think it was obama's fault. I could go into your house, and in 8 min I would trash everything you own, break everything you own and leave ya in ruin, now i want you to go in and fix, repair, and replace everything that was messed up, but you are not allowed to spend a single dime, and must do it in half the time so 4 mins.

That is basically what everyone who blames obama is saying, ignoring the facts and pawning all on him.


Wow, he's NOT TRYING to fix anything. First off this whole notion of NEO-Keynesian economic activity turning the country around has already been thoroughly rebutted.

Keynesian only works in a isolated economy with a MANUFACTURING base. We are currently a tertiary economy. So the Obama borrows or prints money, distributes it and his dependents buy Chinese junk.

Right.

Or do I need to post the fact that the poverty rate has climbed to 1 in 6 or the disability roles have doubled ?

You mentioned the economy was going down hill fast, I gave you a brief synopsis of why and apparently you ignored it.

Look, corporations and investors are holding their cash, their capital and for a damn good reason. Because a twisted ideologue has made it into the presidency twice and has been pushing his re-distributive rhetoric, that incidentally forces people with REAL wealth to NOT invest. Corporations, NOT to hire.

Sorry, I could get more in depth but I have a feeling it would be ignored. 20 year of economic study shouldn't be wasted on a ideologue such as your self.

And if you are telling people that, you are giving them bad information.

Sorry lost interest when you started the long tired "NEO-Keynesian economic activity" conspiracy.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 7:13:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 7:09:15 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 7:07:01 PM, FoxBat wrote:
At 4/17/2013 6:53:10 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
as for the whole "when obama came into office" comment, here is the same thing i tell everyone who think it was obama's fault. I could go into your house, and in 8 min I would trash everything you own, break everything you own and leave ya in ruin, now i want you to go in and fix, repair, and replace everything that was messed up, but you are not allowed to spend a single dime, and must do it in half the time so 4 mins.

That is basically what everyone who blames obama is saying, ignoring the facts and pawning all on him.


Wow, he's NOT TRYING to fix anything. First off this whole notion of NEO-Keynesian economic activity turning the country around has already been thoroughly rebutted.

Keynesian only works in a isolated economy with a MANUFACTURING base. We are currently a tertiary economy. So the Obama borrows or prints money, distributes it and his dependents buy Chinese junk.

Right.

Or do I need to post the fact that the poverty rate has climbed to 1 in 6 or the disability roles have doubled ?

You mentioned the economy was going down hill fast, I gave you a brief synopsis of why and apparently you ignored it.

Look, corporations and investors are holding their cash, their capital and for a damn good reason. Because a twisted ideologue has made it into the presidency twice and has been pushing his re-distributive rhetoric, that incidentally forces people with REAL wealth to NOT invest. Corporations, NOT to hire.

Sorry, I could get more in depth but I have a feeling it would be ignored. 20 year of economic study shouldn't be wasted on a ideologue such as your self.

And if you are telling people that, you are giving them bad information.

Sorry lost interest when you started the long tired "NEO-Keynesian economic activity" conspiracy.

Dude, he's actually agreeing that neo-keynesian economics works. But only in manufacturing and isolated economies.

Wait....do you even know what keynesian economics is? Do you think he's referring to something else?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 7:16:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 7:13:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/17/2013 7:09:15 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 7:07:01 PM, FoxBat wrote:
At 4/17/2013 6:53:10 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
as for the whole "when obama came into office" comment, here is the same thing i tell everyone who think it was obama's fault. I could go into your house, and in 8 min I would trash everything you own, break everything you own and leave ya in ruin, now i want you to go in and fix, repair, and replace everything that was messed up, but you are not allowed to spend a single dime, and must do it in half the time so 4 mins.

That is basically what everyone who blames obama is saying, ignoring the facts and pawning all on him.


Wow, he's NOT TRYING to fix anything. First off this whole notion of NEO-Keynesian economic activity turning the country around has already been thoroughly rebutted.

Keynesian only works in a isolated economy with a MANUFACTURING base. We are currently a tertiary economy. So the Obama borrows or prints money, distributes it and his dependents buy Chinese junk.

Right.

Or do I need to post the fact that the poverty rate has climbed to 1 in 6 or the disability roles have doubled ?

You mentioned the economy was going down hill fast, I gave you a brief synopsis of why and apparently you ignored it.

Look, corporations and investors are holding their cash, their capital and for a damn good reason. Because a twisted ideologue has made it into the presidency twice and has been pushing his re-distributive rhetoric, that incidentally forces people with REAL wealth to NOT invest. Corporations, NOT to hire.

Sorry, I could get more in depth but I have a feeling it would be ignored. 20 year of economic study shouldn't be wasted on a ideologue such as your self.

And if you are telling people that, you are giving them bad information.

Sorry lost interest when you started the long tired "NEO-Keynesian economic activity" conspiracy.

Dude, he's actually agreeing that neo-keynesian economics works. But only in manufacturing and isolated economies.

Wait....do you even know what keynesian economics is? Do you think he's referring to something else?

lol oh I know what it is, I thought the sarcasm was apparent.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
FoxBat
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 7:17:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 7:09:15 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 7:07:01 PM, FoxBat wrote:
At 4/17/2013 6:53:10 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
as for the whole "when obama came into office" comment, here is the same thing i tell everyone who think it was obama's fault. I could go into your house, and in 8 min I would trash everything you own, break everything you own and leave ya in ruin, now i want you to go in and fix, repair, and replace everything that was messed up, but you are not allowed to spend a single dime, and must do it in half the time so 4 mins.

That is basically what everyone who blames obama is saying, ignoring the facts and pawning all on him.


Wow, he's NOT TRYING to fix anything. First off this whole notion of NEO-Keynesian economic activity turning the country around has already been thoroughly rebutted.

Keynesian only works in a isolated economy with a MANUFACTURING base. We are currently a tertiary economy. So the Obama borrows or prints money, distributes it and his dependents buy Chinese junk.

Right.

Or do I need to post the fact that the poverty rate has climbed to 1 in 6 or the disability roles have doubled ?

You mentioned the economy was going down hill fast, I gave you a brief synopsis of why and apparently you ignored it.

Look, corporations and investors are holding their cash, their capital and for a damn good reason. Because a twisted ideologue has made it into the presidency twice and has been pushing his re-distributive rhetoric, that incidentally forces people with REAL wealth to NOT invest. Corporations, NOT to hire.

Sorry, I could get more in depth but I have a feeling it would be ignored. 20 year of economic study shouldn't be wasted on a ideologue such as your self.

And if you are telling people that, you are giving them bad information.

Sorry lost interest when you started the long tired "NEO-Keynesian economic activity" conspiracy.

I think you lost interest because a description of fundamental Keynesian economics wen't over your head.

Keynesian economics which argues against massive structural debts.

What should Obama have done to repair the economy ? Or is it your opinion that NOTHING could be done ?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 7:18:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 3:46:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:58:47 AM, FoxBat wrote:
Wow if I hear this one more time, a left wing flunky blaming Obama's failure and incompetence on the fall-out from the Democrat mandated bubble.

The truth is the downturn related to the sub-prime collapse was primarily the fault of the Democrats who pushed for the lowering of lending underwriting standards. That plus Bill Clintons 1995 Home Ownership Strategy that ultimately lowered capital requirements on the GSEs and put the GSEs under HUD regulatory power who places a ever increasing quota system on Fannie and Freddie built a huge bubble.

Clinton also pushed for the securitization of low quality loans through the GSEs. Fannie was the most corrupt of the bunch with Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replacing all executive positions including CEO of Fannie.

Yep, Clinton hired the criminal Franklin Raines

Technically, the housing crash was due to the banks' greed, which was fortified by the government's backing of mortgages. We could ultimately blame Carter for the Community Redevolpment Act, which stated that banks needed to do equal business at all their branches. So, if banks wanted to expand, their harlem branch needed to have mortgages, which meant offering riskier loans.

If banks weren't trying to make more and more money and/or expand continuiously, the crash wouldn't have happened.
If the government didn't demand/guarantee these risky loans, the crash wouldn't have happened.
If consumers weren't stupid, and buy houses they couldn't afford, the crash wouldn't have happened.
Policticans were warned the bubble would burst and could have prevented it by laxing laws or no longer guaranteeing loans, but this bubble created jobs, which meant votes.

Bottom line, everyone is to blame.

Of course, if these happened, there would have been no bubble, and home prices wouldn't have soared at they did in the last few decades, either.

Ugh, honesty is so refreshing. Thank you.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FoxBat
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 7:23:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 7:13:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/17/2013 7:09:15 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 7:07:01 PM, FoxBat wrote:
At 4/17/2013 6:53:10 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
as for the whole "when obama came into office" comment, here is the same thing i tell everyone who think it was obama's fault. I could go into your house, and in 8 min I would trash everything you own, break everything you own and leave ya in ruin, now i want you to go in and fix, repair, and replace everything that was messed up, but you are not allowed to spend a single dime, and must do it in half the time so 4 mins.

That is basically what everyone who blames obama is saying, ignoring the facts and pawning all on him.


Wow, he's NOT TRYING to fix anything. First off this whole notion of NEO-Keynesian economic activity turning the country around has already been thoroughly rebutted.

Keynesian only works in a isolated economy with a MANUFACTURING base. We are currently a tertiary economy. So the Obama borrows or prints money, distributes it and his dependents buy Chinese junk.

Right.

Or do I need to post the fact that the poverty rate has climbed to 1 in 6 or the disability roles have doubled ?

You mentioned the economy was going down hill fast, I gave you a brief synopsis of why and apparently you ignored it.

Look, corporations and investors are holding their cash, their capital and for a damn good reason. Because a twisted ideologue has made it into the presidency twice and has been pushing his re-distributive rhetoric, that incidentally forces people with REAL wealth to NOT invest. Corporations, NOT to hire.

Sorry, I could get more in depth but I have a feeling it would be ignored. 20 year of economic study shouldn't be wasted on a ideologue such as your self.

And if you are telling people that, you are giving them bad information.

Sorry lost interest when you started the long tired "NEO-Keynesian economic activity" conspiracy.

Dude, he's actually agreeing that neo-keynesian economics works. But only in manufacturing and isolated economies.

Wait....do you even know what keynesian economics is? Do you think he's referring to something else?

Ah, read closely.

Neo-Keynesian economics is what Obama and his ilk are doing to shove this country into a hole so deep no amount of growth will save us,

KEYNESIAN economics has not been tried under Obama, and no I don't think it would work.

All the printing and borrowing in the world won't engage the private sector when our President is pushing the "eat the rich " narrative and mandating expenses for every private citizen, company and corporation.
FoxBat
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 7:38:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 3:46:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:58:47 AM, FoxBat wrote:
Wow if I hear this one more time, a left wing flunky blaming Obama's failure and incompetence on the fall-out from the Democrat mandated bubble.

The truth is the downturn related to the sub-prime collapse was primarily the fault of the Democrats who pushed for the lowering of lending underwriting standards. That plus Bill Clintons 1995 Home Ownership Strategy that ultimately lowered capital requirements on the GSEs and put the GSEs under HUD regulatory power who places a ever increasing quota system on Fannie and Freddie built a huge bubble.

Clinton also pushed for the securitization of low quality loans through the GSEs. Fannie was the most corrupt of the bunch with Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replacing all executive positions including CEO of Fannie.

Yep, Clinton hired the criminal Franklin Raines

Technically, the housing crash was due to the banks' greed, which was fortified by the government's backing of mortgages. We could ultimately blame Carter for the Community Redevolpment Act, which stated that banks needed to do equal business at all their branches. So, if banks wanted to expand, their harlem branch needed to have mortgages, which meant offering riskier loans.

If banks weren't trying to make more and more money and/or expand continuiously, the crash wouldn't have happened.
If the government didn't demand/guarantee these risky loans, the crash wouldn't have happened.
If consumers weren't stupid, and buy houses they couldn't afford, the crash wouldn't have happened.
Policticans were warned the bubble would burst and could have prevented it by laxing laws or no longer guaranteeing loans, but this bubble created jobs, which meant votes.

Bottom line, everyone is to blame.

Of course, if these happened, there would have been no bubble, and home prices wouldn't have soared at they did in the last few decades, either.

Read the data I posted after my initial post.

Your'e coming in with a description of interim activity when in fact I merely set out to explain why that activity existed in the first place.

It's really one dimensional to blame it on the banks, when Fannie started bundling and securitizing low quality loans in 1997.

Years before any private MBS was traded,

Without the demand, which was funded by Freddie and Fannie, without the pushing for lowering lending standards, NO sub-prime collapse would have happened.

If you think banks wanted to write these loans, which were to their detriment, that countered all sensible standards for the last hundred years, then you need to do more research,

They had a buyer....the GSE's who were stocked with corrupt Democrats and under HUD mandate to buy increasingly more and more substandard loans.....and securitize them.

Yea I can give a detailed explanation of interim tactics and trading, but it's besides the point.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 7:46:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 7:23:27 PM, FoxBat wrote:
At 4/17/2013 7:13:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/17/2013 7:09:15 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 7:07:01 PM, FoxBat wrote:
At 4/17/2013 6:53:10 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
as for the whole "when obama came into office" comment, here is the same thing i tell everyone who think it was obama's fault. I could go into your house, and in 8 min I would trash everything you own, break everything you own and leave ya in ruin, now i want you to go in and fix, repair, and replace everything that was messed up, but you are not allowed to spend a single dime, and must do it in half the time so 4 mins.

That is basically what everyone who blames obama is saying, ignoring the facts and pawning all on him.


Wow, he's NOT TRYING to fix anything. First off this whole notion of NEO-Keynesian economic activity turning the country around has already been thoroughly rebutted.

Keynesian only works in a isolated economy with a MANUFACTURING base. We are currently a tertiary economy. So the Obama borrows or prints money, distributes it and his dependents buy Chinese junk.

Right.

Or do I need to post the fact that the poverty rate has climbed to 1 in 6 or the disability roles have doubled ?

You mentioned the economy was going down hill fast, I gave you a brief synopsis of why and apparently you ignored it.

Look, corporations and investors are holding their cash, their capital and for a damn good reason. Because a twisted ideologue has made it into the presidency twice and has been pushing his re-distributive rhetoric, that incidentally forces people with REAL wealth to NOT invest. Corporations, NOT to hire.

Sorry, I could get more in depth but I have a feeling it would be ignored. 20 year of economic study shouldn't be wasted on a ideologue such as your self.

And if you are telling people that, you are giving them bad information.

Sorry lost interest when you started the long tired "NEO-Keynesian economic activity" conspiracy.

Dude, he's actually agreeing that neo-keynesian economics works. But only in manufacturing and isolated economies.

Wait....do you even know what keynesian economics is? Do you think he's referring to something else?

Ah, read closely.

Neo-Keynesian economics is what Obama and his ilk are doing to shove this country into a hole so deep no amount of growth will save us,

KEYNESIAN economics has not been tried under Obama, and no I don't think it would work.

All the printing and borrowing in the world won't engage the private sector when our President is pushing the "eat the rich " narrative and mandating expenses for every private citizen, company and corporation.

Do you subscribe to Post-Keynesian economics then? As far as I'm concerned those are the two main schools of keynesian thought, Neo and Post. Post-Keynesian encompasses a bunch of theories. I like Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis.

What would you prescribe to mitigate the harms of recessions then?

Yes, I'd agree that regulatory uncertain and fears are a major factor that contribute to a prolong recession. Although I don't see the harms of increasing taxes on the rich 'cause its not like anything stupid is seriously proposed (like France's income tax rate).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 8:07:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
From what I understand we have a few things that are contributing to our current economic environment:

1.) Higher natural rate of unemployment because of UI benefits and this will go even higher if minimum wage is hiked.

2.) A good deal of regime uncertainty stemming from all of these expansions of regulations that have taken place recently. In particular, the health care bill and Dodd Frank.

3.) A persistent shortfall in AD as a result of a federal reserve that has pursued a tight monetary policy.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 8:41:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 3:50:31 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/17/2013 3:37:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/17/2013 2:21:32 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/17/2013 12:22:02 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 4/17/2013 11:04:11 AM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/17/2013 10:58:47 AM, FoxBat wrote:
Wow if I hear this one more time, a left wing flunky blaming Obama's failure and incompetence on the fall-out from the Democrat mandated bubble.

The truth is the downturn related to the sub-prime collapse was primarily the fault of the Democrats who pushed for the lowering of lending underwriting standards. That plus Bill Clintons 1995 Home Ownership Strategy that ultimately lowered capital requirements on the GSEs and put the GSEs under HUD regulatory power who places a ever increasing quota system on Fannie and Freddie built a huge bubble.

Clinton also pushed for the securitization of low quality loans through the GSEs. Fannie was the most corrupt of the bunch with Clinton from 1993 to 1998 replacing all executive positions including CEO of Fannie.

Yep, Clinton hired the criminal Franklin Raines

If i had a nickle for eevery time this excuse was used as well my friend, see the only reason why bush is always brought up is because you guys seem to think he was some kind of saint, nevermind the fact that under his administration he also deregulated many things, as well as charged 2 wars that could not be paid for.
Axtually, Bush tried to stop the real estate bubble by reining in Fannie and Feddie, and of course the democrats prevented that. And what do wars have to do with the recession? Sounds like you're regurgiating liberal talking points to distract from the facts.

So Bush starting a war isn't a "fact"?

but all that right now is mute, i want to point out something, you just said "Obama's failure" yet all you did was talk about Clinton, now care to give evidence how this is Obama's failure, and site sources that back up your claims to Clinton? See I love people who blame Obama, then provide no other proof then "well he just is" it brightens my day.
Look at his stimulus that he promised would prevent unemployment from going over 7.8%. Trillions of dollars of added debt. Economic growth has stagnated and failed to boom into recovery. Now were facing economic collapse.

Unemployment started going down as soon as his first budget went into effect (budgets start at the start of Q4, by the way).
As I recall, Obama started working with Congress in November to get things done, so that when he officially took office, he could sign stuff right away, including the budget for 2009. During this time, he said something along the lines of "unemployment will go over 8% if nothing is done". He did something, and it didn't work.

http://www.wolframalpha.com...

Assuming this graph is correct (and I do trust Wolfram Alpha), the unemployment rate reached 8% in January. There isn't a lot a president can do in his first month of office to reduce unemployment.

He said something needed to be done to prevent X% unemployment in November after he was elected, if memory serves. The point is, after his policies were in place, unemployment still went up. Therefore, his policies were wrong, whether too late, not enough, or the wrong plan, they failed in preventing unemployment to go further.

Honestly, with unemployment as it was, I am not sure his policies did anything. With the baby boomers retiring, people not looking for work, and the initial crunch of the recession over, it is difficult to say if his policies (or any policy) worked, failed, or had any effect at all.

I don't see how he promised that unemployment wouldn't go over 7.8% when it was already over that at the time of his inauguration.

"The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
So, this budget was his for essencially his entire presedency.

He signed it, but he didn't start it. Looking back at the graph, the trend on unemployment seemed to slow in April. Looking further into the start of Q4, the unemployment rate peaked, but has been on a downward trend ever since.

See above.
It started its downward trend after two years. Honestly, I think if nothing were to have been done, the trend would have started around the same time. Whether it being faster or slower, I don't know.

My point on the second point was to say that FY2009 was as much his budget as anyone else's, so we shouldn't attribute it to Bush. So, Obama's first term would have had 4.5 years of budgets, when first terms should only have 4 years of influence. (Keeping in mind that most of the influence of the last year is yet to be seen when the polls open)
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 8:48:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 8:07:45 PM, BigRat wrote:
From what I understand we have a few things that are contributing to our current economic environment:

1.) Higher natural rate of unemployment because of UI benefits and this will go even higher if minimum wage is hiked.

2.) A good deal of regime uncertainty stemming from all of these expansions of regulations that have taken place recently. In particular, the health care bill and Dodd Frank.

3.) A persistent shortfall in AD as a result of a federal reserve that has pursued a tight monetary policy.

Wat!
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 9:15:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 8:48:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/17/2013 8:07:45 PM, BigRat wrote:
From what I understand we have a few things that are contributing to our current economic environment:

1.) Higher natural rate of unemployment because of UI benefits and this will go even higher if minimum wage is hiked.

2.) A good deal of regime uncertainty stemming from all of these expansions of regulations that have taken place recently. In particular, the health care bill and Dodd Frank.

3.) A persistent shortfall in AD as a result of a federal reserve that has pursued a tight monetary policy.

Wat!

Do you disagree?
FoxBat
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 9:33:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In response to darkkemits question, " Do I support post Keynesian economics" I support and adhere to the Austrian school of economics. Supply side economics.

Post Keynesian is archaic, non functional in a world economy. Neo-Keynesian implies that massive structural debts, QE to the third power and deficit spending is the cure for a depressed economy.

You can add to that a President who literally goes around and threatens the private sector.

Its " BRILLIANT"....no actually its reeeaally dumb.

Its the hitch in Obama's economic plan as he nose dives fhe US economy into the ground.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 10:56:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 9:15:26 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 4/17/2013 8:48:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/17/2013 8:07:45 PM, BigRat wrote:
From what I understand we have a few things that are contributing to our current economic environment:

1.) Higher natural rate of unemployment because of UI benefits and this will go even higher if minimum wage is hiked.

2.) A good deal of regime uncertainty stemming from all of these expansions of regulations that have taken place recently. In particular, the health care bill and Dodd Frank.

3.) A persistent shortfall in AD as a result of a federal reserve that has pursued a tight monetary policy.

Wat!

Do you disagree?

Yes, how can you say that QE is a "tight monetary policy".
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...