What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
- Status
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Nope you're lying agian. Yes, again.
The very first reason listed by the S&P for the downgrade was not the deficit or debt itself. It was the very fact that the debt ceiling was abused as a bargaining chip by Republicans. Raising the ceiling should never be questioned, yet Republicans held it hostage until the final 12 hours. The S&P called them on that.
Everything else you said is just lies and misdirection.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
They were just saying on NPR how the flat job numbers were somewhat a product of the debt ceiling standoff from the previous month. Employers were holding back hiring at the end of July because of it and that spilled over into August.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
Soros radio, cool, MORON.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
You're still funny. Should I start with a refrain from a childrens song about name calling or maybe a junior high school limeric to make you feel better?
And what about the $4T reduction that the credit rating agencies floated as a target before the debt discussions began? Did you conveniently forget that? The dems held firm for only superficial firm reductions of only about $900B over 10 years (with most of the reductions coming in the later years when the current administration will be long gone) and another couple trillion that would be discussed this fall with a trigger that is bad for the Republicans (putting them in a weak negotiating position). The dems got everything that they wanted except an increase in taxes.
The dems screwed America in their debt discussions. S&P said "$4T in debt reductions or you get a downgrade" and the dems wouldn't agree to more than a small piddling amount. It's the dems that caused the downgrade and their attempts to shift the blame to the Republicans was pretty transparent and pathetic also.
Last edited:
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
It wasn't the tsunami any more? Is it still George Bush's fault? Maybe it was the fault of the little girl trying to run a lemonade stand who was warned by a government official to ceast and desist that caused the employment numbers to stall. Is there anyone else for the whiner-in-chief to blame?
How about it's the fault of the dems overweaning leftist policies? That's the ticket! It's obvious.
Last edited:
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Still beating that tired old drum, pretending to know anything about my personal life? I suppose you don't mind being wrong about everything else, why worry about this huh?
You didn't actually READ the S&P report that listed one of the major reasons for the downgrade was political brinkmanship concerning the debt ceiling. The fact that the GOP pushed it right to the edge and that some were even willing to go into default. But then, once again, you don't worry about being wrong about much of anything do you? You just make up whatever bullshit makes you feel better and run with it. You'll pardon me if i take the word of S&P over what you "feel" was the cause.
Last edited:
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Particularly hilarious coming from you.. Not that being a raging hypocrite has ever bothered you before either, but it's funny to point out.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
Still beating that tired old drum, pretending to know anything about my personal life? I suppose you don't mind being wrong about everything else, why worry about this huh?
You didn't actually READ the S&P report that listed one of the major reasons for the downgrade was political brinkmanship concerning the debt ceiling. The fact that the GOP pushed it right to the edge and that some were even willing to go into default. But then, once again, you don't worry about being wrong about much of anything do you? You just make up whatever bullshit makes you feel better and run with it. You'll pardon me if i take the word of S&P over what you "feel" was the cause.
Brinksmanship. Yes.
The democrats said "We want to raise taxes to start to pay for all the new spending we value so much".
The republicans said "No new taxes, reduce spending back to traditional and historical levels instead"
I say the ones that raised spending are at fault (especially since it did NO good). Trying to deflect blame?
The democrats could have tried to raise the debt ceiling at any time, why did they wait so long?
Last edited:
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
show me S n Pee said that
Didnt EVERY DUMOH Senator vote NO on debt ceiling increase in 2006? Didnt Obama himself say it was a failure of leadership that made an increase necessary?
tell me
You wont, cause you are a FUCKING LIAR!
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
First, lets cover the real estate debaucle that led us to this position. All the new regulators in the world wouldn't have prevented this because it was politically driven by the democrats. All this discussion about new regulators and blaming banks is a diversion.
The democrat politicians said "make the loans" and when the loans came up bad the politicians pointed to the banks and said "Why'd you make those loans?"
Next, the politicians put together a bill that says "We're going to regulate these greedy bastards so they don't make risky loans with our precious dollars".
From Investors Business Daily:
How Mortgage Crisis Happened: Good Intentions Paved Dire Path
Posted 11/01/2008 12:59 AM ET
Investors Business Daily
On the eve of what may be the most important election of our time, the financial catastrophe that many believe will most influence Tuesday's vote remains only partially covered by the major media. IBD has run many articles and editorials on the mortgage meltdown, including a 7,500-word history from Web magazine American Thinker on Thursday. This timeline is condensed from that article, written by M. Jay Wells. It lays out the essential facts of the crisis, which at its heart is a tale of misguided government intervention rather than a failure of free-market capitalism, as argued by presidential candidate Barack Obama.
1933-38
President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated "New Deal" reform programs designed to affect the mortgage market and homeownership. Fannie Mae, the Federal National Mortgage Association, was established to facilitate liquidity among lending institutions.
1968
As part of President Johnson's Great Society reform plan, much of Fannie Mae became a privately owned yet government-chartered company, a government-sponsored enterprise, or GSE. Fannie Mae bought home loans to preserve liquidity in the mortgage market. Though private, it remained backed by the federal government.
1970
President Nixon chartered Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, as a GSE to compete with Fannie Mae.
1977
President Carter, pressed by grass-roots organizations (though opposed by the banking industry) signed the Community Reinvestment Act to boost lending in poorer communities, regardless of the borrowers' ability to repay their home loans.
August 1989
Amid the savings and loan fallout, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act. It mandated public release of lender evaluations and performance ratings, boosting pressure on the banking industry. Such oversight enabled bullying abuses of community organization groups such as ACORN to further influence lending practices.
1990s
Community organizer Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN activists. Employing the intimidation tactics of radical activist Saul Alinsky that Obama had learned and was teaching, activists crowded bank lobbies, blocked drive-up teller lanes and demonstrated at the homes of bankers to browbeat them into risky lending in poor and minority communities. Those who resisted were accused of racism.
At first, the GSEs resisted purchasing risky mortgages. Eventually the Clinton administration instructed them to substantially increase the percentage of these mortgages in their portfolios.
February 1990
Madeline Talbott, a well-known radical ACORN leader and banking industry agitator, challenged the merger of a Chicago thrift, Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, which responded that it was being bullied into irresponsible "affirmative-action lending policy."
1992
Enforcement of CRA was "sporadic," as the Washington Times notes, until a flawed Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study asserted that there were "substantially higher denial rates for black and Hispanic applicants than for white applicants."
October 1992
Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, warned about the impending danger nonregulated GSEs posed. He worried that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were changing "from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few."
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., countered that "the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans."
November 1994
President Clinton addressed the housing issue: "I am committed to a new and unprecedented partnership between industry leaders and community leaders and government to recommit our nation to the idea of homeownership and to create more homeowners than ever before."
June 1995
Republicans won control of Congress and planned CRA reforms. The Clinton administration, allied with Frank, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., did an end-around by directing HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to inject GSEs into the subprime mortgage market.
1997
Cuomo said, "GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities and families living in underserved areas."
1998
By falsifying signatures on Fannie Mae accounting transactions, $200 million in expenses was shifted from 1998 to later periods, thereby triggering $27.1 million in bonuses for top executives.
April 1998
HUD announced a $2.1 billion settlement with AccuBanc Mortgage Corp. for alleged discrimination against minority loan applicants. The funds would provide poor families with down payments and low-interest mortgages.
Fall 1999
Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers issued a warning: "Debates about systemic risk should also now include government-sponsored enterprises, which are large and growing rapidly."
September 1999
With pressure from the Clinton administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans.
2000
The Senate Banking Committee estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion had gone to pay for services and salaries of ACORN and other organizers.
Winter 2000
The City Journal warned that the Clinton administration had turned CRA into "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks," committing $1 trillion for mortgages and development projects, most of it funneled through the community organizers.
March 2000
Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight in a House subcommittee on capital markets. Rep. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."
June 2000
Competitive Enterprise Institute President Fred L. Smith Jr. on the Treasury Department's $2 billion line of credit to Fannie and Freddie: "As long as the pipeline is there, it is like it is very expandable. ... It is only $2 billion today. It could be $200 billion tomorrow." Because of Democrat obfuscation, Smith's "tomorrow" arrived in 2008, when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship.
April 2001
The White House, releasing the 2002 budget, declared 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."
February 2003
Fannie and Freddie's regulator warned that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
June 2003
Freddie Mac reported it had understated its profit by $6.9 billion.
July 2003
Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., and John Sununu, R-N.H., introduced legislation to address regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.
September 2003
Treasury Secretary John Snow testified that Congress should 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. But Rep. Frank replied: "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis."
October 2003
Fannie Mae disclosed a $1.2 billion accounting error.
November 2003
Greg Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, warned: "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole. "
September 2004
Regulators reported that Fannie Mae and CEO Franklin Raines had manipulated the agency's accounting to overstate its profit. Fannie Mae ran radio and TV ads ahead of a key Senate committee meeting, depicting a Latino couple who fretted that if the bill passed, mortgage rates would go up. Again, GSE pressure prevailed.
October 2004
Rep. Baker again warned about the coming crisis: "Although their bonds bear the disclaimer 'not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government,' the market does not believe it and looks right past the companies' risk strategies to the taxpayers' pockets."
Rep. Waters said: "Through nearly a dozen hearings ... we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. ... We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn.: "And you have about 3% of your portfolio set aside. If a bank gets below 4%, they are in deep trouble. So I just want you to explain to me why I shouldn't be satisfied with 3%?"
Fannie Mae CEO Raines: "Because ... there aren't any banks who only have multifamily and single-family loans. These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%."
January 2005-July 2006
Sen. Hagel, with Sens. Sununu and Dole and later Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., reintroduced legislation to address GSE regulation.
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios "poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders (GSEs) ... should one get into financial trouble."
January 2006
Greenspan, in a letter to Sens. Sununu, Hagel and Dole, warned that the GSEs' practice of buying their own mortgage-based securities "creates substantial systemic risk while yielding negligible additional benefits for homeowners, renters or mortgage originators."
March 2006
Sens. Sununu and Hagel introduced an amendment to a Lobbying Reform Bill directing GAO to study GSE lobbying and requiring HUD to audit the GSEs annually.
May 2006
After years of Democrats blocking legislation, Sens. Hagel, Sununu, Dole and McCain wrote a letter to Majority Leader Bill Frist demanding that GSE regulatory reform be "enacted this year" to avoid "the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."
John McCain addressed the Senate: "Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were 'illusions deliberately and systematically created' by the company's senior management.
"Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. ... OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay."
April 2007
Sens. Sununu, Hagel, Dole and Mel Martinez, R-Fla., reintroduced legislation to improve GSE oversight.
The New York Times wrote that the "democratization of credit" is "turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare for many borrowers." The "newfangled mortgage loans" — called affordability loans — "represent 60% of foreclosures."
September 2007
President Bush: "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. ... The United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."
2007-08
The housing bubble began to burst, bad mortgages began to default, and finally the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolios were revealed to be in collapse. And the testimony is evident as to why.
As Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute put it, "Fannie and Freddie were ... the poster children for corporate welfare."
September 2008
Rep. Arthur Davis, D-Ala., now admits Democrats were in error: "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie: We were wrong."
The democrat politicians said "make the loans" and when the loans came up bad the politicians pointed to the banks and said "Why'd you make those loans?"
Next, the politicians put together a bill that says "We're going to regulate these greedy bastards so they don't make risky loans with our precious dollars".
From Investors Business Daily:
How Mortgage Crisis Happened: Good Intentions Paved Dire Path
Posted 11/01/2008 12:59 AM ET
Investors Business Daily
On the eve of what may be the most important election of our time, the financial catastrophe that many believe will most influence Tuesday's vote remains only partially covered by the major media. IBD has run many articles and editorials on the mortgage meltdown, including a 7,500-word history from Web magazine American Thinker on Thursday. This timeline is condensed from that article, written by M. Jay Wells. It lays out the essential facts of the crisis, which at its heart is a tale of misguided government intervention rather than a failure of free-market capitalism, as argued by presidential candidate Barack Obama.
1933-38
President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated "New Deal" reform programs designed to affect the mortgage market and homeownership. Fannie Mae, the Federal National Mortgage Association, was established to facilitate liquidity among lending institutions.
1968
As part of President Johnson's Great Society reform plan, much of Fannie Mae became a privately owned yet government-chartered company, a government-sponsored enterprise, or GSE. Fannie Mae bought home loans to preserve liquidity in the mortgage market. Though private, it remained backed by the federal government.
1970
President Nixon chartered Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, as a GSE to compete with Fannie Mae.
1977
President Carter, pressed by grass-roots organizations (though opposed by the banking industry) signed the Community Reinvestment Act to boost lending in poorer communities, regardless of the borrowers' ability to repay their home loans.
August 1989
Amid the savings and loan fallout, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act. It mandated public release of lender evaluations and performance ratings, boosting pressure on the banking industry. Such oversight enabled bullying abuses of community organization groups such as ACORN to further influence lending practices.
1990s
Community organizer Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN activists. Employing the intimidation tactics of radical activist Saul Alinsky that Obama had learned and was teaching, activists crowded bank lobbies, blocked drive-up teller lanes and demonstrated at the homes of bankers to browbeat them into risky lending in poor and minority communities. Those who resisted were accused of racism.
At first, the GSEs resisted purchasing risky mortgages. Eventually the Clinton administration instructed them to substantially increase the percentage of these mortgages in their portfolios.
February 1990
Madeline Talbott, a well-known radical ACORN leader and banking industry agitator, challenged the merger of a Chicago thrift, Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, which responded that it was being bullied into irresponsible "affirmative-action lending policy."
1992
Enforcement of CRA was "sporadic," as the Washington Times notes, until a flawed Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study asserted that there were "substantially higher denial rates for black and Hispanic applicants than for white applicants."
October 1992
Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, warned about the impending danger nonregulated GSEs posed. He worried that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were changing "from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few."
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., countered that "the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans."
November 1994
President Clinton addressed the housing issue: "I am committed to a new and unprecedented partnership between industry leaders and community leaders and government to recommit our nation to the idea of homeownership and to create more homeowners than ever before."
June 1995
Republicans won control of Congress and planned CRA reforms. The Clinton administration, allied with Frank, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., did an end-around by directing HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to inject GSEs into the subprime mortgage market.
1997
Cuomo said, "GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities and families living in underserved areas."
1998
By falsifying signatures on Fannie Mae accounting transactions, $200 million in expenses was shifted from 1998 to later periods, thereby triggering $27.1 million in bonuses for top executives.
April 1998
HUD announced a $2.1 billion settlement with AccuBanc Mortgage Corp. for alleged discrimination against minority loan applicants. The funds would provide poor families with down payments and low-interest mortgages.
Fall 1999
Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers issued a warning: "Debates about systemic risk should also now include government-sponsored enterprises, which are large and growing rapidly."
September 1999
With pressure from the Clinton administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans.
2000
The Senate Banking Committee estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion had gone to pay for services and salaries of ACORN and other organizers.
Winter 2000
The City Journal warned that the Clinton administration had turned CRA into "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks," committing $1 trillion for mortgages and development projects, most of it funneled through the community organizers.
March 2000
Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight in a House subcommittee on capital markets. Rep. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."
June 2000
Competitive Enterprise Institute President Fred L. Smith Jr. on the Treasury Department's $2 billion line of credit to Fannie and Freddie: "As long as the pipeline is there, it is like it is very expandable. ... It is only $2 billion today. It could be $200 billion tomorrow." Because of Democrat obfuscation, Smith's "tomorrow" arrived in 2008, when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship.
April 2001
The White House, releasing the 2002 budget, declared 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."
February 2003
Fannie and Freddie's regulator warned that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
June 2003
Freddie Mac reported it had understated its profit by $6.9 billion.
July 2003
Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., and John Sununu, R-N.H., introduced legislation to address regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.
September 2003
Treasury Secretary John Snow testified that Congress should 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. But Rep. Frank replied: "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis."
October 2003
Fannie Mae disclosed a $1.2 billion accounting error.
November 2003
Greg Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, warned: "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole. "
September 2004
Regulators reported that Fannie Mae and CEO Franklin Raines had manipulated the agency's accounting to overstate its profit. Fannie Mae ran radio and TV ads ahead of a key Senate committee meeting, depicting a Latino couple who fretted that if the bill passed, mortgage rates would go up. Again, GSE pressure prevailed.
October 2004
Rep. Baker again warned about the coming crisis: "Although their bonds bear the disclaimer 'not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government,' the market does not believe it and looks right past the companies' risk strategies to the taxpayers' pockets."
Rep. Waters said: "Through nearly a dozen hearings ... we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. ... We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn.: "And you have about 3% of your portfolio set aside. If a bank gets below 4%, they are in deep trouble. So I just want you to explain to me why I shouldn't be satisfied with 3%?"
Fannie Mae CEO Raines: "Because ... there aren't any banks who only have multifamily and single-family loans. These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%."
January 2005-July 2006
Sen. Hagel, with Sens. Sununu and Dole and later Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., reintroduced legislation to address GSE regulation.
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios "poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders (GSEs) ... should one get into financial trouble."
January 2006
Greenspan, in a letter to Sens. Sununu, Hagel and Dole, warned that the GSEs' practice of buying their own mortgage-based securities "creates substantial systemic risk while yielding negligible additional benefits for homeowners, renters or mortgage originators."
March 2006
Sens. Sununu and Hagel introduced an amendment to a Lobbying Reform Bill directing GAO to study GSE lobbying and requiring HUD to audit the GSEs annually.
May 2006
After years of Democrats blocking legislation, Sens. Hagel, Sununu, Dole and McCain wrote a letter to Majority Leader Bill Frist demanding that GSE regulatory reform be "enacted this year" to avoid "the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."
John McCain addressed the Senate: "Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were 'illusions deliberately and systematically created' by the company's senior management.
"Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. ... OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay."
April 2007
Sens. Sununu, Hagel, Dole and Mel Martinez, R-Fla., reintroduced legislation to improve GSE oversight.
The New York Times wrote that the "democratization of credit" is "turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare for many borrowers." The "newfangled mortgage loans" — called affordability loans — "represent 60% of foreclosures."
September 2007
President Bush: "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. ... The United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."
2007-08
The housing bubble began to burst, bad mortgages began to default, and finally the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolios were revealed to be in collapse. And the testimony is evident as to why.
As Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute put it, "Fannie and Freddie were ... the poster children for corporate welfare."
September 2008
Rep. Arthur Davis, D-Ala., now admits Democrats were in error: "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie: We were wrong."
Last edited:
S
seamus221
Guest
Bet your feeling real dumb right now ,what with zero job growth, food and gas prices jumping up!
just cause the bad news isn't reported doesn't mean everthings ok,just means someone spilled a glass of water in TX and the news is covering the great TX flood!
The sky's not falling but your Hope and Change sure is,ha ha facts will screw you over every time
just cause the bad news isn't reported doesn't mean everthings ok,just means someone spilled a glass of water in TX and the news is covering the great TX flood!
The sky's not falling but your Hope and Change sure is,ha ha facts will screw you over every time
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Read the S&P report. Don't take my word for it or U_D's.
You're not going to read it though. Because it will shatter your extremist narrative you want to tell.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
This Bad Jobs Report Is Worse Than it Seems
September 2, 2011 9:59 A.M.
By Kevin A. Hassett
Job creation ground to a halt in August, and the U.S. is now clearly sputtering toward a recession. Downward revisions to prior months make this bad report worse than it seems.
It might be that this jobs report stimulates the Obama team to drop all the Keynesian nonsense, but I doubt it. Frankly, I expect Obama’s jobs speech to be the worst presidential speech in my lifetime. Their position throughout this recovery has been that the U.S. can have the highest corporate tax on earth, a big regulatory crackdown, and a vast expansion of labor-union power, and still expect a positive jobs story because of cash-for-clunkers and green jobs. This jobs report indicates how much damage that view has done.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
No that's not "from" Investors Business Daily you disingenuous liar. It's an op-ed piece that someone posted there that's just repackaged from The American Thinker.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html
Nothing like laundering your extremist Republican tripe though third-party sites in a desperate attempt to sound remotely legitimate. When will you stop lying?
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
I point at the results and say "this approach isn't working"
You give lots of excuses, call me a few names....and then say I'm extremist? lol.
Last edited:
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
And it's false? I got it from Investors Business Daily.
When are you going to stop making excuses and admit that this horrible economy is the democrats fault and that we're on the wrong path? It seems that large numbers of Americans are thinking this through and coming to the same conclusions I'm coming to. Are you going to argue that 70% of Americans are "extremists" too?
Last edited:
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Yes you're an extremist.
1) You're refusing to read the S&P report
2) You're refusing to read the analysis of every/any mainstream economic entity
3) You take any piss-poor article posted The American Thinker as fact.
Therefore you're an extremist idealogue.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
lol...I guess we'll just have to let people read the dialoge and make their own decisions. Your name calling really doesn't impress me much.
My posts are logical, accurate, complete and compelling and you....you do a lot of name calling.
Last edited:
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
No, if you were a reasonable person you'd say "hmm, literally every single economic entity in the private sector is saying the exact same thing about the stimulus and that means a whole lot."
Instead an extremist like you refuses to listen to anything but extremist partisan sources. Therefore you're an extremist. You think far-right blogs and opinion pieces are more valid than the most sophisticated economic entities in the world.
No, ignoring actual economic analysis in favor of American Thinker blogs is irrational and favors distortion over actual thinking. You prove over and over that you're a rabid ideologue. Logic and accuracy aren't a factor.
Last edited:
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
There you go with the name calling again. If you cherry pick your points and don't think about them, even you can make the Obama economic approach sound almost plausible, until you look at the real bottom line, the current state of the economy. The bottom line is that the economy sucks now and Obama and the Democrats caused it. You can try to tell me it's not so 1,000 times and make all the quotes and reference you want and you can even jump up and down till you're blue in the face, but the bottom line is still that there are millions of people who have been unemployed for a long time and nothing Obama is doing is helping fix the situation - the ultimate measure is the economy and it's bad.
Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job
The stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.
12:07 PM, Jul 3, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.
The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.
Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
$615,000 for a temporary job?
Some cite the dubious Congressional Budget Office estimates of at least 1.3 million net new jobs created in 2010 as a result of temporary stimulus. But for $800 billion of stimulus, this works out to $615,000 per temporary job. Not so supportive of the Keynesian view, but even this estimate understates the job losses.
http://www.thestarpress.com/article...0308/-615-000-temporary-job-?odyssey=obinsite
Some cite the dubious Congressional Budget Office estimates of at least 1.3 million net new jobs created in 2010 as a result of temporary stimulus. But for $800 billion of stimulus, this works out to $615,000 per temporary job. Not so supportive of the Keynesian view, but even this estimate understates the job losses.
http://www.thestarpress.com/article...0308/-615-000-temporary-job-?odyssey=obinsite
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
What is this thing with the democrats where you have to agree with everything they say or you're an extremist or "not reasonable"?
Despite your happy quotes, the economy is still bad.
I think that raising taxes during a teetering recession is a bad idea. Obama tried to not make it sound like a tax increase, in fact, I think he called it everything but a tax increase, but that was his position. After all his other miscues (unemployment won't go over 8% if we pass the stimulus, ObamaCare will bend the cost curve down) I'm not ready to happily pass more of the money I earn over to him and the democrats and watch the economy continue to deteriorate.
I think it's unreasonable to have $1.6T annual deficits and only offer superficial spending reductions. I think it's unreasonable to call me unreasonable for not being overjoyed at the thought of paying a whole lot of new taxes for the pleasure of watching the economy continue to deteriorate or voicing my opinion that tax increases during a recession is a bad idea.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
