Newt Teaches Juan Conservatism

[Uncensored2008]

Yep ! They held up any regulation bills in the Housing committee and then waited till they were in power to take credit for fixing it, also making it worse with the Dodd Frank bill, the turds.
Video: Democrats insist “nothing wrong” at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004 « Hot Air

Shhhhhhh.

Don't tell Chris, g5000, or Truthmatters.

You'll upset our little Obamabot friends!

 

[g5000]

Yep ! They held up any regulation bills in the Housing committee and then waited till they were in power to take credit for fixing it, also making it worse with the Dodd Frank bill, the turds.
Video: Democrats insist “nothing wrong” at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004 « Hot Air

Shhhhhhh.

Don't tell Chris, g5000, or Truthmatters.

You'll upset our little Obamabot friends!

Nice try. Now try taking your fingers out of your ears.

I have never said the Democrats are blameless. In fact, I spent a great deal of time on another board proving Barney Frank and Chris Dodd obstructed legislation which would have forced the GSEs to start reducing their portfolios in 2005. Legislation which was requested by the Bush Administration.

I actually had people at the time denying a minority party can block legislation.

Of couse, now that the GOP is the minority party blocking legislation and the appointment of positions required by law to be filled...well, to be frank I don't know how they reconcile that in their minds.

Anyway.

I would be more than happy to hear you or your friend explain how the Dodd-Frank financial reform is "also making it worse". I hope to Christ you actually are prepared to answer that and aren't just parroting more bullshit you heard without taking the time to find out if it is true.

 

[California Girl]

"More people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any President in American history."

(wild applause)

"Now..I know that among the politically correct you aren't supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable..."

(laughter)

Gee, Newt. Here's something uncomfortable to think about. Which President was in power that crashed the economy that resulted in all those people starving and out of jobs? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

Please tell me you're not actually claiming that Bush crashed the economy?

Please.

 

[The Rabbi]

You would think George W Bush was still the president listening to the Obama knee-pad brigade.
What has Obama done for 3years to make this any better?

Not much. And what has Congress done for 3 years to make this any better? Oh, yeah. Nothing.

I'm all for tossing every last sonofabitch to the curb, man. Congress, Obama, Newt, Romney, Santorum, Biden, the whole bunch.

Bush inherited a recession and national security crisis from Clinton. I dont recall him blaming Clinton for any of that.

You must have been in diapers then. Clinton Derangement Syndrome lasted well into Bush's Administration.

And there is a HUGE difference between the recession of the 2001 and the crash of 2008.

Obama has made his career as president blaming otehrs for his own failures. When will he take responsibility for something? Anything?

All those people on food stamps. How did that happen? Was that Obama's doing?

No. That was the result of an 11 percent unemployment which was in full swing before he took office. And Newt makes it a special point to attach that to the Presidency. And so using his own rules, it's Bush who is the "food stamp president". He lost all those jobs and made all those poor people. Not Obama.

This is why I detest Newt to my very core. He is destroying the GOP. He talks like a fucking marxist out of one side of his mouth, and distorts the ever loving shit out of American history out of the other. He is the living emodiment of the old joke about how you can tell a politician is lying because his lips are moving. He is not the kind of fucking role model we need in the party. He is a piece of shit scumbag.

You ever notice that whenever he talks about anything in which he was involved, personal or professional, the story changes every time? What is that a pretty good indication of?

Fuck Newt. Fuck him all the way to hell.

You clearly have your haead up your ass.
Bush never blamed Clinton for any of his troubles.
Our unemployment rate was about 7.5% when Obama took office. There was no "11% UE in full swing."
I don't care for Newt. But I'd take him over the POS we have now.

 

[g5000]

"More people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any President in American history."

(wild applause)

"Now..I know that among the politically correct you aren't supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable..."

(laughter)

Gee, Newt. Here's something uncomfortable to think about. Which President was in power that crashed the economy that resulted in all those people starving and out of jobs? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

Please tell me you're not actually claiming that Bush crashed the economy?

Please.

I am using Newt's own rules. He blames Obama for all the people being out of work. So if he can blame Obama for all those people being out of work, I can blame the guy who was President when they all lost their jobs.

 

[g5000]

You clearly have your haead up your ass.
Bush never blamed Clinton for any of his troubles.

Like I said, you must have still been in diapers back then. Bush did blame Clinton. So did Newt!

The effort began before Bush took office; Vice President-elect Dick Cheney kicked it off with a December 3, 2000, appearance on NBC's Meet the Press:

CHENEY: There's growing evidence out there, Tim, that the economy is slowing down. We're seeing it in automobile sales and a lot of other areas, earnings falling off for corporations, and we may well be on the front edge of a recession here. ...

RUSSERT: Do you think we're on the front edge of a recession?

CHENEY: I think so. ...

Two days later, FOX News Channel political contributor and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich carried Cheney's line forward on FOX, saying, "[T]here's a danger he's going to inherit a recession."[1] On December 14, 2000, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey told CNN, "[W]hen I listen to and talk to my fellow economists, they're predicting almost with a uniform voice that this new president may inherit a recession."[2] Gingrich continued the onslaught on the December 18, declaring on FOX, "I think there is a very severe danger of a recession. And I think that the Bush-Cheney administration should be planning on having inherited a recession as the farewell gift from Clinton."[3] By the time President-elect Bush and President Clinton held a brief joint media availability on December 19, the suggestion that Bush would "inherit a recession" had already taken hold, resulting in questions from a reporter to both Bush and Clinton:

Backdating the Recession: A Report by Media Matters for America ; Release date: May 3, 2004 | Media Matters for America


Read the full link from 2004. The "Bush inherited the recession from Clinton" drumbeat went on for years.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"More people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any President in American history."

(wild applause)

"Now..I know that among the politically correct you aren't supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable..."

(laughter)

Gee, Newt. Here's something uncomfortable to think about. Which President was in power that crashed the economy that resulted in all those people starving and out of jobs? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

'Which President was in power that crashed the economy that resulted in all those people starving and out of jobs? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?"

How about we make this a multiple choice?
a. Woodrow Wilson

b. FDR

c. Jimmy Carter

d. Bill Clinton.


Any one of 'em could be the correct answer.


Bet ya' didn't know that. Don't you love knowledge?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"More people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any President in American history."

(wild applause)

"Now..I know that among the politically correct you aren't supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable..."

(laughter)

Gee, Newt. Here's something uncomfortable to think about. Which President was in power that crashed the economy that resulted in all those people starving and out of jobs? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

Turds like Bawney Fwank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle, not Bush.

Would that be the GSE meme or the...

squawk! CRA...CRA squawk


meme?

Newt can tell you all about the GSEs, amiright? Seeing as he was in the employ of their top lobbyist all during the build-up to the crisis.

The fact that you aren't smart enough to have researched same, and learned that they are correct, doesn't mean that they aren't true.

 

[peach174]

The Dodd -Frank bill's goal was to “reform” another gigantically complex sector of the U.S. economy, the financial services industry.

The Act codified “too-big-to-fail” by allowing the government to guarantee “systemically important” banks, created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (headed by a single regulator and given sweeping, unchecked authority), and imposed hundreds of new regulations which make compliance very costly for small community banks. Including my Credit Union Bank.

Dodd-Frank plunged these banks and the small businesses that depend on them into even greater uncertainty, authorizing bureaucrats to write the details of over 300 new rules and inviting them to study over 100 more. The House Financial Services Committee reported this month that even a year later just 21 of these rules have been written; 62 percent have yet even to be proposed.
It's not allowing the Banks to make a profit. Without profit they can't lend.

You can't manage your business without knowing what is coming down the line for your costs.
With each and every bill that the Dem's try to fix, it ends up costing the business.
That makes businesses unable to expand or hire new employees or give raises.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I and some friends decide to run a bakery. Our philosophy states that pastries cook best when gunpowder is a prime ingredient. So we mix up batches and batches of gunpowder-laden batters and doughs. Then we pop it all in the oven.

BOOM!

We decide we are no longer in the bakery business.

Another guy decides to try to run the bakery. But first he has to clean up the mess left by the other guys. He also needs the cooperation of an industrial waste removal service, but the drivers have decided to fuck him over and not send any trucks.

Along comes Newt Gingrich. "This bakery owner has the messiest bakery in the history of America. What a fucking idiot! He has no idea how to run a bakery."

The other guy comes in with a cement truck full of concrete mixed with horseshit and fills the ovens with the mixture while telling you that he's "saving or creating millions of jobs." You declare him Messiah® and demand that filling the ovens with his mixture is the smartest thing anyone can do and makes the best pastries. Yes you did....

 

[g5000]

Turds like Bawney Fwank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle, not Bush.

Would that be the GSE meme or the...

squawk! CRA...CRA squawk


meme?

Newt can tell you all about the GSEs, amiright? Seeing as he was in the employ of their top lobbyist all during the build-up to the crisis.

The fact that you aren't smart enough to have researched same, and learned that they are correct, doesn't mean that they aren't true.

I can almost guarantee I have researched this subject more than everyone on this board put together.

 

[del]

Newt was impressive there. He could win this thing after all.

 

[g5000]

I and some friends decide to run a bakery. Our philosophy states that pastries cook best when gunpowder is a prime ingredient. So we mix up batches and batches of gunpowder-laden batters and doughs. Then we pop it all in the oven.

BOOM!

We decide we are no longer in the bakery business.

Another guy decides to try to run the bakery. But first he has to clean up the mess left by the other guys. He also needs the cooperation of an industrial waste removal service, but the drivers have decided to fuck him over and not send any trucks.

Along comes Newt Gingrich. "This bakery owner has the messiest bakery in the history of America. What a fucking idiot! He has no idea how to run a bakery."

The other guy comes in with a cement truck full of concrete mixed with horseshit and fills the ovens with the mixture while telling you that he's "saving or creating millions of jobs." You declare him Messiah® and demand that filling the ovens with his mixture is the smartest thing anyone can do and makes the best pastries. Yes you did....

Actually, the new guy came in and said he had ingredients which were "bakery-ready", when in fact he hadn't even grown any wheat yet because the land the wheat was supposed to be grown on was still not out of the environmental impact statement phase and some loonies were protesting that it was not carbon neutral.

So Newt says to Juan about the poor people, "Let them eat cake!"

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nice try. Now try taking your fingers out of your ears.

I have never said the Democrats are blameless. In fact, I spent a great deal of time on another board proving Barney Frank and Chris Dodd obstructed legislation which would have forced the GSEs to start reducing their portfolios in 2005. Legislation which was requested by the Bush Administration.

I actually had people at the time denying a minority party can block legislation.

Of couse, now that the GOP is the minority party blocking legislation and the appointment of positions required by law to be filled...well, to be frank I don't know how they reconcile that in their minds.

Anyway.

I would be more than happy to hear you or your friend explain how the Dodd-Frank financial reform is "also making it worse". I hope to Christ you actually are prepared to answer that and aren't just parroting more bullshit you heard without taking the time to find out if it is true.

Look, you're a far left democrat, so the fact that Dodd-Frank creates a dozen new federal agencies and vastly expands the scope and reach of the federal government fits exactly with your basic "government everywhere" philosophy.

No act is completely without merit, not even this one. The first issue I have is the reeking hypocrisy of having two of the biggest crooks, the architects of the 2008 crash as the sponsors of this bill. A bit like having Adolf Hitler as the sponsor of the Holocaust museum.

As with Sarbanes-Oxley, this bill takes the approach that by adding hundreds of layers of bureaucracy, somehow the opportunities for fraud and malfeasance are lessened. Idiocy at best, malignancy is a better description.

Good points; Supposedly blocks further looting of the public treasury on behalf of well connected interests such as Goldman-Sachs, Chase and BofA. I'm more than a bit skeptical of the effectiveness of this provision.

Bad Points - establishes a Stalinesq "5 year plan" with levels of reporting that will suck any efficiency out of financial firms. This is done primarily to sabotage start-up competitors and ensure the primacy of established institutions like GS and Chase. Essentially, the federal government will put any competitors out of business for the next five years through layers of absurd bureaucracy that only the behemoths can absorb.

From the standpoint of an effective and vibrant economy, this does massive harm.

From the standpoint of establishing a managed economy where the federal government determines the winners and losers, it is well designed.

You as a leftist desire a managed economy that merges federal and corporate power structures to stave off free enterprise, so I expect you view the law as wonderful.

 

[g5000]

Nice try. Now try taking your fingers out of your ears.

I have never said the Democrats are blameless. In fact, I spent a great deal of time on another board proving Barney Frank and Chris Dodd obstructed legislation which would have forced the GSEs to start reducing their portfolios in 2005. Legislation which was requested by the Bush Administration.

I actually had people at the time denying a minority party can block legislation.

Of couse, now that the GOP is the minority party blocking legislation and the appointment of positions required by law to be filled...well, to be frank I don't know how they reconcile that in their minds.

Anyway.

I would be more than happy to hear you or your friend explain how the Dodd-Frank financial reform is "also making it worse". I hope to Christ you actually are prepared to answer that and aren't just parroting more bullshit you heard without taking the time to find out if it is true.

Look, you're a far left democrat,

Right out of the gate you're wrong!

[ so the fact that Dodd-Frank creates a dozen new federal agencies

More failure. You did not mention it combines and eliminates agencies as well. But that wouldn't fit into your confirmation bias, now would it?

and vastly expands the scope and reach of the federal government fits exactly with your basic "government everywhere" philosophy.

Please provide evidence I have a "government everywhere" philosophy. You couldn't be more wrong and I can direct you to topics which demonstrate that if you are too stupid to find them.

As with Sarbanes-Oxley, this bill takes the approach that by adding hundreds of layers of bureaucracy, somehow the opportunities for fraud and malfeasance are lessened. Idiocy at best, malignancy is a better description.

This is just a repeat of the failure above which neglects the reality that some agencies are removed and some are combined.

But if you can give us specific examples of these "hundreds of layers" that have been added, that would be great. Just so we know you aren't blowing rhetorical projectile diarrhea out of your ass.

Bad Points - establishes a Stalinesq "5 year plan" with levels of reporting that will suck any efficiency out of financial firms. This is done primarily to sabotage start-up competitors and ensure the primacy of established institutions like GS and Chase. Essentially, the federal government will put any competitors out of business for the next five years through layers of absurd bureaucracy that only the behemoths can absorb.

Please point us to the provisions in the bill which do this. And quote the relevant parts that prove your point.

I am guessing you have not actually read the legislation and therefore don't know it only has reporting requirements for financial institutions that have more than $50 billion in assets. Which means only "behemoths" fall under those requirements.

You as a leftist desire a managed economy that merges federal and corporate power structures to stave off free enterprise, so I expect you view the law as wonderful.

Careful. If you keep repeating an untruth, you will begin to believe it. That's how you have acquired so many self-delusions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Would that be the GSE meme or the...

squawk! CRA...CRA squawk


meme?

Newt can tell you all about the GSEs, amiright? Seeing as he was in the employ of their top lobbyist all during the build-up to the crisis.

The fact that you aren't smart enough to have researched same, and learned that they are correct, doesn't mean that they aren't true.

I can almost guarantee I have researched this subject more than everyone on this board put together.

1. Welcome to the board, grasshopper.
I read your previous post, in which you've identified the facts as a meme, implying that you have been instructed in said manner numerous times.

Wouldn't this lead you to believe that you might have missed something when you "have researched this subject more than everyone on this board put together"?


Could you have erred?

2. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to take the brickbats that you will certainly be receiving....since you are totally incorrect in your perspective.

It should be noted that we, on the right owe you, as you make us appear learned, when we have simply realized the error of Left-wing thinking.

3. So, as an olive branch, let me offer the following to you, and save you future embarrassment. Don't hesitate to relate any errors you find:

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.

q. Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes.
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009


Did you note the fingerprints of the Democrats all over the meltdown?
Good.
You're welcome.

 

[theHawk]

The crash in 2008 came at the hands of the Democrats.

I've heard some ignorance about the crash, but this takes the cake.

The crash was not the result of something that suddenly occured in 2008. Some new piece of legilation which blew up the entire industrial world's economies.

No. A crash of this scale and scope took years and years of effort. And it was an all hands effort.

Oh, nice change of your story. At first it was all BOOOOOSH caused everything. Now that it has been pointed out that he didn't even have any power at that time, its suddenly wasn't anyone one piece of legislation.

Yes, decades of the government meddling in bank lending practices helped cause it, not any one man. But that political agenda was pushed by social justice libs like the Hussein, and was not fought against hard enough by the Republicans.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The crash in 2008 came at the hands of the Democrats. Bush became a lame duck President in 2007 when the Dems took full control of Congress. We're supposed to believe the Bush rammed through an all Dem Congress his policies? Bullshit - Dems, including an inexperienced senator from Illinois, voted for all the policies that have bankrupt this country, including the Wall Street bailouts.

The Hussein is every bit responsible if not more so for the economic collapse of this country, much more so than a lame duck Bush. Bush with a Repub Congress enjoyed 5% unemployment, of which libs screamed was too high.

The fact is Dems have controlled the government since 2007, and that hasn't changed.

Man, are you an ignorant dumbass. The bottom was falling out of the housing market in 2006! The recession was in full swing in 2006/2007 with people losing their homes and jobs (esp. in the construction and mortgage lender sectors). Don't be a willful idiot. The recession had NOTHING to do with a newly Democrat controlled congress. Come ON!

"In 2006, the bubble burst as housing prices started to decline. This caught many homeowners off guard, who had taken loans with little money down. As they realized they would lose money by selling the house for less than their mortgage, they foreclosed. An escalating foreclosure rate panicked many banks and hedge funds, who had bought mortgage-backed securities on the secondary market and now realized they were facing huge losses.

By August 2007, banks became afraid to lend to each other because they didn't want these toxic loans as collateral. This led to the $700 billion bailout, and bankruptcies or government nationalization of Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, IndyMac Bank, and Washington Mutual. By December 2008, employment was declining faster than in the 2001 recession.

In 2009, the government launched the economic stimulus plan. It was designed to spend $185 billion in 2009. And in fact, it halted a four-quarter decline in GDP by Q3 of that year, thus ending the recession. However, unemployment continued to rise to 10%, and many business leaders still expected a W-shaped recession by the end of 2010. High unemployment rates still persisted into 2011."

Causes of Economic Recession

 

[g5000]

Did you note the fingerprints of the Democrats all over the meltdown?
Good.
You're welcome.

Please provide evidence the following entities were subject to the CRA or negro blackmail or whatever it is you go on about:

Lehman Brothers
Bear Stearns
Northern Rock
Iceland
Ireland
Deutsche Bank
UBS
Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan Chase
Morgan Stanley
AIG
Spain
Allied Irish Bank

Go ahead. I'll wait.

While you are at it, show us any CEO of any failed financial institution who blames the CRA. Do you need a list of names of CEOs for Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, AIG? I can roll them off in my sleep if you need help in your futile search for evidence.

You cannot see the forest for the trees. How did a few loans to some negroes cause a global credit crisis? Are ten million foreclosures, in America alone, all negroes? What about the foreclosures from the property bubbles in Ireland and Iceland? I bet negroes are thin on the ground in Iceland...

We are in the middle of another credit crisis. Perhaps you heard. Same players, same factors. Just different underlying assets.

What fools like you don't know is that the structured finance products and credit derivatives market doesn't give a shit what the underlying assets are. Home loans, commercial loans, sovereign debt, whatever. And until the unregulated derivatives disaster force mulitplier effect is stopped, we will see crisis after crisis.

 

[g5000]

The crash in 2008 came at the hands of the Democrats.

I've heard some ignorance about the crash, but this takes the cake.

The crash was not the result of something that suddenly occured in 2008. Some new piece of legilation which blew up the entire industrial world's economies.

No. A crash of this scale and scope took years and years of effort. And it was an all hands effort.

Oh, nice change of your story. At first it was all BOOOOOSH caused everything.

You have a comprehension problem. I was illustrating Newt's illogic by applying it to Bush so that his partisan bullshit would become evident.