More people blame Bush than Obama for economic mess

[Toro]

Using race-baiting they bullied the opposition into relaxing lending practices which came to a head in 2007 when the Dems changed lending requirements. It caused a shock to the system at the wrong time causing an acceleration in defaults.

As has continuously been refuted, the CRA did not cause the housing bubble. CRA loans did not default any faster than non-CRA loans. CRA home prices did not rise faster than non-CRA home prices. CRA home prices did not crash further or faster than non-CRA loans. If you believe in the efficacy of the market, then CRA-funded loans must have been at the epicenter of the Housing Bubble, with the biggest gains and worst losses and defaults in those areas. But that is not what happened. Otherwise, you don't believe in the market system and are probably a socialist, even if you don't realize it. I have yet to see anyone making this argument refer to any actual numbers whereas there is plenty of data refuting it.

The GSEs played a part but only a minor one. I have repeatedly asked people who make this argument how the GSEs also caused housing bubbles in Spain, Ireland, the UK, Canada, Australia, Portugal, China, Singapore, etc. US home prices actually lagged many developed countries. Yet the GSEs did not make a single loan that I know of to those countries. How can this be?

Lots and lots of evidence refuting this argument here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Math wasn't your best subject was it?

Bush added $5 trillion to the deficit

Obama has added $2 trillion

Really? and where did you get those numbers? From obama or was it nancy polsei?

What is wrong with you people? You have the Internet. Go look things up.

The CBO says the cost of both wars was 3 trillion dollars. Bush never included the cost of those wars in his budgets. How was he able to do that? That is your first assignment. Learn how to use the Internet and find out how Bush was able to keep the cost of both wars out of the budget.

The CBO says the 2.4 trillion dollar tax cuts will actually cost 3 trillion. For every dollar in tax cut, the country realizes $0.32 in real spending that helps the economy. For every dollar spent on unemployment, the country sees $1.61 in real spending that helps the economy.

That's six trillion right there. All from the Republicans.

This stuff is out in the open. It's not a conspiracy. Facts aren't hidden. They come from respected and no partisan sources. Unless you think the CBO is partisan.

Conspiracy is all the right wing Obama rhetoric. Spend some time learning the "truth". It calms you down and helps you to think.

Bush never did this bush never did that. HOLY FUICKING SHIT. What concerns me right now is what obama is doing. Bush is dead and gone he can't hurt you any more. obama is fucking things up far worse then carter and bush combined. sorce your information

 

[mudwhistle]

Americans Blame Bush, Not Obama, for Deficit, Jobs, Afghan War - BusinessWeek

Maybe the Dems should run against Bush again in 2010.

Not that either could do much anyways.

What it took Bush 8 years to do, obama has tripled in ONE and A HALF YEARS. Now thats a record.

Math wasn't your best subject was it?

Bush added $5 trillion to the deficit

Obama has added $2 trillion

You don't seem to know the difference between the deficit and the national debt....obviously.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What it took Bush 8 years to do, obama has tripled in ONE and A HALF YEARS. Now thats a record.

Math wasn't your best subject was it?

Bush added $5 trillion to the deficit

Obama has added $2 trillion

You don't seem to know the difference between the deficit and the national debt....obviously.

True even I over looked that part. I will do better next time.

 

[mudwhistle]

Using race-baiting they bullied the opposition into relaxing lending practices which came to a head in 2007 when the Dems changed lending requirements. It caused a shock to the system at the wrong time causing an acceleration in defaults.

As has continuously been refuted, the CRA did not cause the housing bubble. CRA loans did not default any faster than non-CRA loans. CRA home prices did not rise faster than non-CRA home prices. CRA home prices did not crash further or faster than non-CRA loans. If you believe in the efficacy of the market, then CRA-funded loans must have been at the epicenter of the Housing Bubble, with the biggest gains and worst losses and defaults in those areas. But that is not what happened. Otherwise, you don't believe in the market system and are probably a socialist, even if you don't realize it. I have yet to see anyone making this argument refer to any actual numbers whereas there is plenty of data refuting it.

The GSEs played a part but only a minor one. I have repeatedly asked people who make this argument how the GSEs also caused housing bubbles in Spain, Ireland, the UK, Canada, Australia, Portugal, China, Singapore, etc. US home prices actually lagged many developed countries. Yet the GSEs did not make a single loan that I know of to those countries. How can this be?

Lots and lots of evidence refuting this argument here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html

Where did I say anything about a bill that was signed in the 70s???

Everything happened in the last 20 years.

The relaxing of regulations and then the sudden tightening of them was a major contributor of the crisis.

None of this was done through legislative avenues....but instead by arm-twisting and threats.

 

[rdean]

Using race-baiting they bullied the opposition into relaxing lending practices which came to a head in 2007 when the Dems changed lending requirements. It caused a shock to the system at the wrong time causing an acceleration in defaults.

As has continuously been refuted, the CRA did not cause the housing bubble. CRA loans did not default any faster than non-CRA loans. CRA home prices did not rise faster than non-CRA home prices. CRA home prices did not crash further or faster than non-CRA loans. If you believe in the efficacy of the market, then CRA-funded loans must have been at the epicenter of the Housing Bubble, with the biggest gains and worst losses and defaults in those areas. But that is not what happened. Otherwise, you don't believe in the market system and are probably a socialist, even if you don't realize it. I have yet to see anyone making this argument refer to any actual numbers whereas there is plenty of data refuting it.

The GSEs played a part but only a minor one. I have repeatedly asked people who make this argument how the GSEs also caused housing bubbles in Spain, Ireland, the UK, Canada, Australia, Portugal, China, Singapore, etc. US home prices actually lagged many developed countries. Yet the GSEs did not make a single loan that I know of to those countries. How can this be?

Lots and lots of evidence refuting this argument here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html

which came to a head in 2007 when the Dems changed lending requirements

Let me get this straight. From something the Democrats did, in just a single year later, this brought down an economy as big as the US economy?

Do Republicans believe their own bullshit? Seriously? No wonder they believe "death panels" and all that other nonsense. It's got to be just a political ploy. If Democrats believed such nonsense, Republicans would be calling them "fucking morons".

 

[Toro]

Excellent comeback.

Prove I'm wrong.

Today's economic insecurity isn't because of Bush but because of fears from changes in government regulations and from all of the spending.

Nobody trusts what Obama says anymore....unless you're black. Even the Libs don't trust him much anymore.

The Democrats didn't 'take control' until January 2009. By then the country had been in recession for over a year.

Man do you need a civics lesson.

Once Congress was in the hands of the Democrats Jan of 07' they started monkeying with banking regulations. While they were in the minority they pushed crazy anti-discrimination in lending policies in 04'. Then when they were put in charge of oversight of various parts of FDIC and other governmental entities after they won the majority they started tweaking regulations making it harder for anyone to get loans.....which caused a vacuum in lending. Then all of those ARMs started going variable and became a bad deal. Low-income Sub-prime borrowers started walking away from their mortgages. Not to mention they were encouraged to do so because of all of the anti-Fat Cat rhetoric the Dems started pumping out in the MSM.

Remember the phrase "Predatory Lending"???

I had a loan pending in 06' and ended up closing in 07' with almost no money down on some apartments and when the Dems took charge in 07' they changed the underwriting requirements so that I had to come up with 20% which resulted in an increase of around $52,000 in my down-payment. I almost lost the properties.

Please cite evidence of this. Please show specific policies and bills passed by the Dems or government agencies that tightened lending requirements.


You do realize that you are destroying your argument. Asset bubbles always occur because of easy credit. What you are saying - and you have not cited evidence of this, you've only to proclaimed that it is so - is that because the Dems tightened lending standards, i.e. stopped the insanity, they caused the financial crisis, not the banks who essentially gave away money to anyone who could fog a mirror. That's like saying it wasn't drinking a case of beer that was responsible for the DWI fatality but instead was that red light that the city put up you drove through.

Let's not forget that Congress wasn't in the hands of the GOP completely except for 2004-2006. The Dems controlled the Senate up until 04' and won it back in 07'.

By 04' the housing bubble had already started.

The Republicans controlled both chambers in 2002.

United States congressional elections, 2002 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Using race-baiting they bullied the opposition into relaxing lending practices which came to a head in 2007 when the Dems changed lending requirements. It caused a shock to the system at the wrong time causing an acceleration in defaults.

As has continuously been refuted, the CRA did not cause the housing bubble. CRA loans did not default any faster than non-CRA loans. CRA home prices did not rise faster than non-CRA home prices. CRA home prices did not crash further or faster than non-CRA loans. If you believe in the efficacy of the market, then CRA-funded loans must have been at the epicenter of the Housing Bubble, with the biggest gains and worst losses and defaults in those areas. But that is not what happened. Otherwise, you don't believe in the market system and are probably a socialist, even if you don't realize it. I have yet to see anyone making this argument refer to any actual numbers whereas there is plenty of data refuting it.

The GSEs played a part but only a minor one. I have repeatedly asked people who make this argument how the GSEs also caused housing bubbles in Spain, Ireland, the UK, Canada, Australia, Portugal, China, Singapore, etc. US home prices actually lagged many developed countries. Yet the GSEs did not make a single loan that I know of to those countries. How can this be?

Lots and lots of evidence refuting this argument here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html

which came to a head in 2007 when the Dems changed lending requirements

Let me get this straight. From something the Democrats did, in just a single year later, this brought down an economy as big as the US economy?

Do Republicans believe their own bullshit? Seriously? No wonder they believe "death panels" and all that other nonsense. It's got to be just a political ploy. If Democrats believed such nonsense, Republicans would be calling them "fucking morons".

Look to fredy and fanny the democrats pet projects that is where the house of banking card's rest upon.

 

[Charles_Main]

Americans Blame Bush, Not Obama, for Deficit, Jobs, Afghan War - BusinessWeek

Maybe the Dems should run against Bush again in 2010.

Not that either could do much anyways.

What it took Bush 8 years to do, obama has tripled in ONE and A HALF YEARS. Now thats a record.

Math wasn't your best subject was it?

Bush added $5 trillion to the deficit

Obama has added $2 trillion

Bush took 8 years Obama 18 months. you do the math. FOOL, and according to Obama's own numbers it is 2.7 Trillion nice rounding down you do

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Democrats didn't 'take control' until January 2009. By then the country had been in recession for over a year.

Man do you need a civics lesson.

Once Congress was in the hands of the Democrats Jan of 07' they started monkeying with banking regulations. While they were in the minority they pushed crazy anti-discrimination in lending policies in 04'. Then when they were put in charge of oversight of various parts of FDIC and other governmental entities after they won the majority they started tweaking regulations making it harder for anyone to get loans.....which caused a vacuum in lending. Then all of those ARMs started going variable and became a bad deal. Low-income Sub-prime borrowers started walking away from their mortgages. Not to mention they were encouraged to do so because of all of the anti-Fat Cat rhetoric the Dems started pumping out in the MSM.

Remember the phrase "Predatory Lending"???

I had a loan pending in 06' and ended up closing in 07' with almost no money down on some apartments and when the Dems took charge in 07' they changed the underwriting requirements so that I had to come up with 20% which resulted in an increase of around $52,000 in my down-payment. I almost lost the properties.

Please cite evidence of this. Please show specific policies and bills passed by the Dems or government agencies that tightened lending requirements.


You do realize that you are destroying your argument. Asset bubbles always occur because of easy credit. What you are saying - and you have not cited evidence of this, you've only to proclaimed that it is so - is that because the Dems tightened lending standards, i.e. stopped the insanity, they caused the financial crisis, not the banks who essentially gave away money to anyone who could fog a mirror. That's like saying it wasn't drinking a case of beer that was responsible for the DWI fatality but instead was that red light that the city put up you drove through.

Let's not forget that Congress wasn't in the hands of the GOP completely except for 2004-2006. The Dems controlled the Senate up until 04' and won it back in 07'.

By 04' the housing bubble had already started.

The Republicans controlled both chambers in 2002.

United States congressional elections, 2002 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOPE they didn't

* There were 50 Ds and 50 Rs until May 24, 2001, when Sen. James Jeffords (R-VT) switched to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001; he announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage.
Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

 

[EriktheRed]

The Republicans controlled both chambers in 2002.

United States congressional elections, 2002 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, I agree with your arguments, but I gotta call that one...

the Dems were still in control of the Senate through all of 2002, they just lost control of it during the Nov. elections that year.

 

[Toro]

Do Republicans believe their own bullshit? Seriously? No wonder they believe "death panels" and all that other nonsense. It's got to be just a political ploy. If Democrats believed such nonsense, Republicans would be calling them "fucking morons".

I continuously hear this argument over and over put forth by the Right on this but they don't ever produce any actual data backing it up. I'm more than happy to say that the GSEs and the CRA were responsible for this mess if they can produce anything other than a timeline, but they haven't thus far. All they ever do is produce a timeline of legislation and events but don't ever show the causal effect of the legislation on the mortgage market in the data.

One can easily find that the GSEs saw their market share cut in half in the non-prime mortgage market during the bubble, and that 24 of the top 25 subprime loan originators were not covered by the CRA. Yet all these people who claim to believe in the market seem not to understand how markets work. If the CRA caused the housing bubble, then what one would have expected to happen was to have more than one CRA-lender in the top 25 lenders in non-prime loans. If the GSEs were the reason for the housing bubble, then you wouldn't have seen them lose market share. That's not how markets work.

 

[Oscar Wao]

]

You guys are in the tank.

In case you haven't noticed you're in here with us ...........well at least you will be when you land from whatever fantasy land, collectivist utopia you're orbiting this year, but what the heck at least it's warm and we can all oppressed together.

I think Dixie might have been right all along. ​

No, I don't.

And if anyone actually "misses" Bush, then, well, they have pathetic standards for governance.

 

[Toro]

Sorry, I agree with your arguments, but I gotta call that one...

the Dems were still in control of the Senate through all of 2002, they just lost control of it during the Nov. elections that year.

Right, my mistake. I meant to say they got elected in 2002. However, the economy was just beginning to come out of a recession in 2002. Its irrelevant anyways. For four years, the Republicans controlled everything.

This mess occurred mainly for reasons outside of the political arena, but highly partisan people who look at the world through a political prism and have a limited understanding of financial markets and the economy will always try to find some reason why their side is not to blame while the other guys are responsible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Math wasn't your best subject was it?

Bush added $5 trillion to the deficit

Obama has added $2 trillion

Really? and where did you get those numbers? From obama or was it nancy polsei?

Like Casey Stengle used to say "You can look it up"

Bush entered with a budget surplus and a $5 trillion deficit

He left with a collapsed economy and an $11 trillion deficit

Current deficit is $13 trillion

Now,,,,show me how that equates to tripled?

Under Bush the debt, over 8 years, went from $5,727,776,738,304.64 to $10,626,877,048,913.08, an increase of $4,899,100,310,608.44, the largest portion of which came during the 110th Congress, which was dominated by Democrats.

In just less than 18 months Obama has managed to increase the national debt from $10,626,877,048,913.08 to $13,249,290,450,415.23, a difference of $2,622,413,401,502.15. In other words, in less than 18 months Obama has increased our national debt by just over half of what Bush did in 8 years. he has accelerated the rate of deficit spending while simultaneously claiming he will halve the debt, is he planning to spend until the debt goes down?

 

[mudwhistle]

Using race-baiting they bullied the opposition into relaxing lending practices which came to a head in 2007 when the Dems changed lending requirements. It caused a shock to the system at the wrong time causing an acceleration in defaults.

As has continuously been refuted, the CRA did not cause the housing bubble. CRA loans did not default any faster than non-CRA loans. CRA home prices did not rise faster than non-CRA home prices. CRA home prices did not crash further or faster than non-CRA loans. If you believe in the efficacy of the market, then CRA-funded loans must have been at the epicenter of the Housing Bubble, with the biggest gains and worst losses and defaults in those areas. But that is not what happened. Otherwise, you don't believe in the market system and are probably a socialist, even if you don't realize it. I have yet to see anyone making this argument refer to any actual numbers whereas there is plenty of data refuting it.

The GSEs played a part but only a minor one. I have repeatedly asked people who make this argument how the GSEs also caused housing bubbles in Spain, Ireland, the UK, Canada, Australia, Portugal, China, Singapore, etc. US home prices actually lagged many developed countries. Yet the GSEs did not make a single loan that I know of to those countries. How can this be?

Lots and lots of evidence refuting this argument here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html

which came to a head in 2007 when the Dems changed lending requirements

Let me get this straight. From something the Democrats did, in just a single year later, this brought down an economy as big as the US economy?

Do Republicans believe their own bullshit? Seriously? No wonder they believe "death panels" and all that other nonsense. It's got to be just a political ploy. If Democrats believed such nonsense, Republicans would be calling them "fucking morons".

Banks stopped lending in 07' under qualifications allowed in 06'.

Underwriting conditions sometimes change day to day...along with interest rates and other factors.

Stated income was no longer acceptable. Which means that borrowers that got an Adjustable Rate Mortgage loan in 04' found out they weren't qualified for the home they lived in in 07' when they attempted to refinance.....so many of them just walked away rather then pay the higher interest rates that were about to kick in.

Stated income as a qualifier is a Sub-prime mortgage regardless of what Toro says.

No new regulations have been legislated since 08' yet it is next to impossible to get a loan these days. Why is that??? Somebody explain how that happens.

 

[rightwinger]

Really? and where did you get those numbers? From obama or was it nancy polsei?

What is wrong with you people? You have the Internet. Go look things up.

The CBO says the cost of both wars was 3 trillion dollars. Bush never included the cost of those wars in his budgets. How was he able to do that? That is your first assignment. Learn how to use the Internet and find out how Bush was able to keep the cost of both wars out of the budget.

The CBO says the 2.4 trillion dollar tax cuts will actually cost 3 trillion. For every dollar in tax cut, the country realizes $0.32 in real spending that helps the economy. For every dollar spent on unemployment, the country sees $1.61 in real spending that helps the economy.

That's six trillion right there. All from the Republicans.

This stuff is out in the open. It's not a conspiracy. Facts aren't hidden. They come from respected and no partisan sources. Unless you think the CBO is partisan.

Conspiracy is all the right wing Obama rhetoric. Spend some time learning the "truth". It calms you down and helps you to think.

Bush never did this bush never did that. HOLY FUICKING SHIT. What concerns me right now is what obama is doing. Bush is dead and gone he can't hurt you any more. obama is fucking things up far worse then carter and bush combined. sorce your information

I take this as a concession you didn't know what you were talking about when you said Obama tripled the Deficit

I knew you would change subjects

 

[rightwinger]

What it took Bush 8 years to do, obama has tripled in ONE and A HALF YEARS. Now thats a record.

Math wasn't your best subject was it?

Bush added $5 trillion to the deficit

Obama has added $2 trillion

Bush took 8 years Obama 18 months. you do the math. FOOL, and according to Obama's own numbers it is 2.7 Trillion nice rounding down you do

OK

Show how $2.7 trillion amounts to tripling the debt?

Obama came in at $11 trillion ....now calculate triple

 

[rightwinger]

Really? and where did you get those numbers? From obama or was it nancy polsei?

Like Casey Stengle used to say "You can look it up"

Bush entered with a budget surplus and a $5 trillion deficit

He left with a collapsed economy and an $11 trillion deficit

Current deficit is $13 trillion

Now,,,,show me how that equates to tripled?

Under Bush the debt, over 8 years, went from $5,727,776,738,304.64 to $10,626,877,048,913.08, an increase of $4,899,100,310,608.44, the largest portion of which came during the 110th Congress, which was dominated by Democrats.

In just less than 18 months Obama has managed to increase the national debt from $10,626,877,048,913.08 to $13,249,290,450,415.23, a difference of $2,622,413,401,502.15. In other words, in less than 18 months Obama has increased our national debt by just over half of what Bush did in 8 years. he has accelerated the rate of deficit spending while simultaneously claiming he will halve the debt, is he planning to spend until the debt goes down?

Bush came in with a sound economy and a budget surplus

Obama came in during the worst recessionin 70 years and the first thing the Republicans did was say "You are not allowed to deficit spend like we did"

Big question is what did we get for Bush doubling the debt?

Two wars and tax cuts for the rich

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is wrong with you people? You have the Internet. Go look things up.

The CBO says the cost of both wars was 3 trillion dollars. Bush never included the cost of those wars in his budgets. How was he able to do that? That is your first assignment. Learn how to use the Internet and find out how Bush was able to keep the cost of both wars out of the budget.

The CBO says the 2.4 trillion dollar tax cuts will actually cost 3 trillion. For every dollar in tax cut, the country realizes $0.32 in real spending that helps the economy. For every dollar spent on unemployment, the country sees $1.61 in real spending that helps the economy.

That's six trillion right there. All from the Republicans.

This stuff is out in the open. It's not a conspiracy. Facts aren't hidden. They come from respected and no partisan sources. Unless you think the CBO is partisan.

Conspiracy is all the right wing Obama rhetoric. Spend some time learning the "truth". It calms you down and helps you to think.

Bush never did this bush never did that. HOLY FUICKING SHIT. What concerns me right now is what obama is doing. Bush is dead and gone he can't hurt you any more. obama is fucking things up far worse then carter and bush combined. sorce your information

I take this as a concession you didn't know what you were talking about when you said Obama tripled the Deficit

I knew you would change subjects

It was explained to you in another reply by someone else that you do not know the difference between Budget and deficit. I suggest you study up, but you will not listen to my suggestion but will continue to look foolish in your replies