FDR Prolonged Depression 7 Years: UCLA

My first question would be, what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China, my second question would be are you retarded or just stupid, my third question would be in regard to my second question, are you both.....


Summary
Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

Amazon.com: The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Eric Rauchway: Books
interesting for today
Project Syndicate

Here's my question.

Would your obnoxious response to the post be based on a sensitivity to the fact that Democrat policies have had deleterious effects on numerous occasions?

And specifically, the financial meltdown in which we find ourselves?

Further, while there were many good results of the FDR reign, ending the depression was not one, and many sources state exactly what the post claims. Here's one:
In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”

LOL. You idiots totally screwed up the US and World economy, failed in two wars, and now you want to blame your failures on President Obama and the Democrats. Sorry, you don't get to rewrite history. We had eight years of complete incompetance from you Conservatives. You could not get anything right, from natural disasters to wars, you screwed up every single thing that you touched.

Now you are going back and trying to rewrite history on the First Great Republican Depression, even as we are trying to prevent the Second Great Republican Depression. And be sure that is how it is going to be remembered if President Obama fails to prevent it. For all on the factory floor remember who was stating that the "economy was sound" on the Sunday before meltdown monday.

Bush was handed a prosperous nation with a balanced budget, and no wars. He was warned of the dangers of terrorists. And his people stated that "Clinton has a fixation on Bin Laden". So 3000 American died on American soil before you Conservatives realized that Clinton recognized a danger to our nation that you people ignored. And then you let Bin Laden get away with this murder. You Conservatives just told the whole world that you can safely strike America a greivous blow and get away with it.

So, having failed in every sphere, you accuse others of failure. And lie constantly about what a terrible state the nation is in after eight years of Conservative stewardship.

But just keep up the nonsense, 70 Dem Senators in 2010.
 
My first question would be, what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China, my second question would be are you retarded or just stupid, my third question would be in regard to my second question, are you both.....


Summary
Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

Amazon.com: The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Eric Rauchway: Books
interesting for today
Project Syndicate

Here's my question.

Would your obnoxious response to the post be based on a sensitivity to the fact that Democrat policies have had deleterious effects on numerous occasions?

And specifically, the financial meltdown in which we find ourselves?

Further, while there were many good results of the FDR reign, ending the depression was not one, and many sources state exactly what the post claims. Here's one:
In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”

LOL. You idiots totally screwed up the US and World economy, failed in two wars, and now you want to blame your failures on President Obama and the Democrats. Sorry, you don't get to rewrite history. We had eight years of complete incompetance from you Conservatives. You could not get anything right, from natural disasters to wars, you screwed up every single thing that you touched.

Now you are going back and trying to rewrite history on the First Great Republican Depression, even as we are trying to prevent the Second Great Republican Depression. And be sure that is how it is going to be remembered if President Obama fails to prevent it. For all on the factory floor remember who was stating that the "economy was sound" on the Sunday before meltdown monday.

Bush was handed a prosperous nation with a balanced budget, and no wars. He was warned of the dangers of terrorists. And his people stated that "Clinton has a fixation on Bin Laden". So 3000 American died on American soil before you Conservatives realized that Clinton recognized a danger to our nation that you people ignored. And then you let Bin Laden get away with this murder. You Conservatives just told the whole world that you can safely strike America a greivous blow and get away with it.

So, having failed in every sphere, you accuse others of failure. And lie constantly about what a terrible state the nation is in after eight years of Conservative stewardship.

But just keep up the nonsense, 70 Dem Senators in 2010.

From your side, conjecture is eminently more important than facts, but lets begin with the financial horror that Democrat philosophy has inflicted on the country:

a.Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b.In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c.In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d.ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e.Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f.Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g.Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h.Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i.Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

j.A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”

k.Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.

l.In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.

m.In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.

n.In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.

o.In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.

p.The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009

Now, since you have documented that you have no knowledge in the in the financial are, please feel free to bloviate on any other areas of which you are ignorant.
 
I'm shocked the american people, overwhelmingly elected him four times in a row! :eek:

I bet you're also shocked they elected George W. Bush twice, so that may not be the best measure of the effectiveness of a President.

Uh, the american people voted for al gore in 2000, in case you don't remember.


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

The "Uh," was the most intelligent thing you said.

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
Online NewsHour: Media Recount: Bush Won

The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....


New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - The New York Times

An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.
The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
Newspaper Study Says Bush Won Florida Recount
 
I bet you're also shocked they elected George W. Bush twice, so that may not be the best measure of the effectiveness of a President.

Uh, the american people voted for al gore in 2000, in case you don't remember.


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

The "Uh," was the most intelligent thing you said.

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
Online NewsHour: Media Recount: Bush Won

The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....


New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - The New York Times

An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.
The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
Newspaper Study Says Bush Won Florida Recount


Thank you for this well researched post. After working a couple hours, I just haven't the energy to do the research and really appreciate it when somone does.

Good post!
 
President Franklin D. Roosevelt
also sabatoged America as he kept to himself
the secrets of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Not giving Pearl Harbor the chance to defend itself.

I have a movie in the works where the Americans at Pearl Harbor
get wind of the Japanese attack and they themselves attack the Japanese fleet.
Sound good ?

Baltimore Bob
 
Great Myths of the Great Depression [Mackinac Center]


A Modern Fairy Tale
By Mr. Lawrence W. Reed / Posted: Jan. 1, 1998

According to this simplistic perspective, an important pillar of capitalism, the stock market, crashed and dragged America into depression. President Herbert Hoover, an advocate of "hands-off," or laissez-faire, economic policy, refused to use the power of government and conditions worsened as a result. It was up to Hoover’s successor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to ride in on the white horse of government intervention and steer the nation toward recovery. The apparent lesson to be drawn is that capitalism cannot be trusted; government needs to take an active role in the economy to save us from inevitable decline.

But those who propagate this version of history might just as well top off their remarks by saying, "And Goldilocks found her way out of the forest, Dorothy made it from Oz back to Kansas, and Little Red Riding Hood won the New York State Lottery." The popular account of the Depression as outlined above belongs in a book of fairy tales and not in a serious discussion of economic history.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top