The GOP Blames the Victim

[Andrew2382]

Palin has a road that leads to nowhere to accompany that bridge too...

It's the lenders fault of setting up the system the way it did and it's the borrowers fault for being too stupid, gullible or just plain desparate to fall into the trap.

What you fail to understandis the lenders/anks were forced to set up the system that way.

When Clinton put in the major provisions to the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act), banks were forced to have a portion of their loan portfolil go to low income areas. If they did not do this they woul dhave to pay penalties and they were not allowed to expand!

How do you make yourself accesible to low income people who would not qualify for a normal loan.

NO CREDIT
NO PROBLEM
SIGN HERE

Sub-Prime Mortgages became rampant after 1995, look it up.

Before 95, the housing market and inflation went up at a dead equal pace, after 95 the housing market flew right by inflation creating a huge bubble.

 

[Silence]

What you fail to understandis the lenders/anks were forced to set up the system that way.

When Clinton put in the major provisions to the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act), banks were forced to have a portion of their loan portfolil go to low income areas. If they did not do this they woul dhave to pay penalties and they were not allowed to expand!

How do you make yourself accesible to low income people who would not qualify for a normal loan.

NO CREDIT
NO PROBLEM
SIGN HERE

Sub-Prime Mortgages became rampant after 1995, look it up.

Before 95, the housing market and inflation went up at a dead equal pace, after 95 the housing market flew right by inflation creating a huge bubble.

hmmm weren't the Republicans in control of Congress during the Clinton years? who sent him the legislation?

sorry guys...you don't get credit for the things you claim the Republican Congress did that you like without taking the blame for the shit that's now coming back to haunt you.

oh and btw.... in 2001 when Bush took over, with a Republican Congress in control... we were in the BLACK... how did the manage to squander that money? SPEND SPEND SPEND! DEREGULATE DEREGULATE DEREGULATE!!

cut anyway you like... this is the Republicans fault as much as the Dems fault..

 

[sealybobo]

heh, great minds.

Great op/ed, give it a read, in, OMG!, The Wall Street Journal.

The GOP Blames the Victim - WSJ.com

Didn't I say this a couple weeks ago?

Gas problem ='s America is addicted to oil
Mortgage crisis ='s Dumb Americans who shouldn't have taken out a loan
Consumer Confidence ='s Americans are a bunch of whiners
War not going well was because of anti war liberals

And now that their policies are causing all these problems? Now EVERYONE can share the blame.

Bullshit.

 

[Andrew2382]

another facepalm

THe original CRA was put in during the carter years. Dems were in office.

The thing was already put into law by 1995. All Clinton did was add provisions to it.

Also, I love how people think we had a huge surplus under Bill Clinton's Admin.

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

"As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration"

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
Clinton?s $3 Trillion Raid on Social Security -- FreedomWorks.org
The National Debt

 

[Bern80]

of course they did get mortgages they ended up, not being able to pay! IT WAS SET UP THAT WAY....by their lenders!

Ah, so lenders gave people money knowing they wouldn't get it back? Sounds like a sure fire way to make money to me.

 

[Andrew2382]

Ah, so lenders gave people money knowing they wouldn't get it back? Sounds like a sure fire way to make money to me.

Yup, apparently banks figured out the best way to turn a profit was to loan money to people with no money

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

It's true. It's ALL true!

All it took were a few people to create a scheme that made millions of Americans suddenly lose thei wits and call real estate agents. The dementia then persisted as they scourd neighborhoods to look for houses before settling on one or two that then had to be followed by delusional offers and counter-offers.

Then these duped millions called mortgage brokers. In fits of insanity they compiled thier private financial data to givve to the broker's loan application processor. Through no fault of their own they then followed-up with the required documentation to clear underwiting conditions.

They were bamboozeled by Truth In Lending documents and left gibbering, mindless cretins by HUD Disclosures. The ARM disclosures sapped whatever little free will they had left resulting in millions of zombies signing their names no less than 60 times to close on the mortgage concocted hundreds of miles away in a smoke-filled backroom as nefarious bankers twirled their greasy mustaches.

No, really.

 

[Alpha1]

Someone get a dead horse for Ravi.

A dead jackass will do, he obviously don't know the difference anyway...

 

[Tech_Esq]

hmmm weren't the Republicans in control of Congress during the Clinton years? who sent him the legislation?

sorry guys...you don't get credit for the things you claim the Republican Congress did that you like without taking the blame for the shit that's now coming back to haunt you.

oh and btw.... in 2001 when Bush took over, with a Republican Congress in control... we were in the BLACK... how did the manage to squander that money? SPEND SPEND SPEND! DEREGULATE DEREGULATE DEREGULATE!!

cut anyway you like... this is the Republicans fault as much as the Dems fault..

I love the way you Dems do that. It's almost like a ballet it's so pretty. Oh, your people were in charge of some other part of government, so it's all your fault. Nice try Pubs. Sure our guy thought it up, our guy pushed, our guys benefited from it, but since it was a stinker, it's your fault.

Absolutely beautiful the way you pirouette in mid-air like that.

And, might I say while I'm in a complementary mood, I do love your untiring faith in my fellow Washingtonians. Your belief that in their brilliant bureaucratic brains the apparatchikis of Washington can regulate anything to profitability, to prevent and detect any misdeeds from occurring. Even when it is shown year in and year out how these same folks waste your tax dollars in new and inventive ways, you continue to believe their devotion to regulation is the answer to all the problems in the country. Amazing. And I do applaud your devotion as do my bleary-eye compatriot bureaucrats. We need more people like you so we can keep the bureaucracy growing!!!

 

[Jon]

It's rare that I so definitively win a message board debate.

Today's no different, sweetheart.

 

[Andrew2382]

I think they also had a glass a gin in their hand and a white furry cat on their laps as they twirled they curly mustaches

 

[Silence]

another facepalm

THe original CRA was put in during the carter years. Dems were in office.

The thing was already put into law by 1995. All Clinton did was add provisions to it.

Also, I love how people think we had a huge surplus under Bill Clinton's Admin.

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

"As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration"

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
Clinton?s $3 Trillion Raid on Social Security -- FreedomWorks.org
The National Debt

FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

February 3, 2008
Updated: February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

perhaps you should write to factcheck.org cuz they just called you a liar

 

[Alpha1]

hmmm weren't the Republicans in control of Congress during the Clinton years? who sent him the legislation?

sorry guys...you don't get credit for the things you claim the Republican Congress did that you like without taking the blame for the shit that's now coming back to haunt you.

oh and btw.... in 2001 when Bush took over, with a Republican Congress in control... we were in the BLACK... how did the manage to squander that money? SPEND SPEND SPEND! DEREGULATE DEREGULATE DEREGULATE!!

cut anyway you like... this is the Republicans fault as much as the Dems fault..

Try looking up Sept. 11, 2001, Sonny....

 

[chopcrazy]

Yup, apparently banks figured out the best way to turn a profit was to loan money to people with no money

The game is called hot potato...the last one holding it loses. One bank gives you the loan and you roll the costs (title fees, inspection fees and a whole host of other fees) into the loan. Then Bank 1 sells that loan to another bank and so on. The loans being sold are bundled. If Bank 2 or whoever is the last bank and does not adequately assess the risk of the bundle (hot potato), they lose.

Here in Texas, title insurance fee is about 1% of the house value. Imagine if the homeowner refinances to pull equity out or get a lower rate, the bank is making off like bandits with the original 1% fee. How can it cost $1,000 or more to ensure that no liens/judgements have been made against the property if the owners have not changed? The bank makes its money off of the fees and the more times it can get the fee for previous work done the more profit it makes.

 

[Care4all]

We know---they were tricked--just like congress was tricked into Iraq. We got a whole nation of dumb shits that fall for anything.

when 61% of the subprime borrowers QUALIFIED for a Conventional ''A'' Prime mortgage with lower closing fees, better terms, and lower interest rates, but chose the subprime loan INSTEAD, then YES, logically, i would say they were TRICKED or Fooled by the PERP.....

can't see how anyone could think otherwise....

 

[Silence]

Try looking up Sept. 11, 2001, Sonny....

ohhh yes....when in doubt, blame September 11th

it's the reason for EVERYTHING that's gone wrong in the last 8 years...

 

[sealybobo]

another facepalm

THe original CRA was put in during the carter years. Dems were in office.

The thing was already put into law by 1995. All Clinton did was add provisions to it.

Also, I love how people think we had a huge surplus under Bill Clinton's Admin.

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

"As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration"

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
Clinton?s $3 Trillion Raid on Social Security -- FreedomWorks.org
The National Debt

I explain it to people like you like this:

If Reagan spent 6 & HW Bush spent 8 and GW Bush spent 10, Clinton spent 2.

 

[Andrew2382]

FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

February 3, 2008
Updated: February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

perhaps you should write to factcheck.org cuz they just called you a liar

Wow, you are just an imbecile aren't you?


I see you erased your comment on the 2001 year?

Did you realize those numbers belong to Clinton?

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.


Since you don't like to read the sites I will list it here for you so maybe you can understand.

So why do they said he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intergovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intergovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:


Year Year Claimed Public Inter-Gov Total national
End Surplus Debt Holdings Debt

97 9/30/97 0 3.78T 1.62T 5.413T
98 9/30/98 69B 3.73T 1.79T 5.52T
down 69B up 168B UP 113B
99 9/30/99 122B 3.63T 2.02T 5.65T
down 97B up 227B UP 130B
00 9/29/00 230B 3.40T 2.26T 5.67T
down 230B up 248B 17.98B
01 9/28/01 0 3.339 T 2.46T 5.807T
down 66B UP 199B Up 133B

T= Trillion
B= Billion


I cant make the chart look nice

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

to see the chart I am refrencing


Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intergovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intergovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the lie.

When Clinton (and others) said that he had paid down the national debt, that was patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings.

Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intergovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intergovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.

The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

Consider the following quotes (and accompanying links) that demonstrate how people have known this for years:


An overall "downsizing" of government and a virtual end to the arms race have contributed to the surplus, but the vast majority is coming from excess Social Security taxes being paid by the workforce in an attempt to keep Social Security benefit checks coming once the "baby-boomers" start to retire.
Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes.
When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.
Despite a revenue shortfall, full benefits are expected to be paid out between 2017 and 2041. The system will draw on its trust fund, a collection of special-issue bonds from the government, which borrowed prodigiously from the program's surplus over the years. But since the country is already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money to pay back its debt to Social Security. That's a little like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
The surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a deficit of $112.9 billion... The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges.


Are intergovernmental holdings really debt?

Absolutely! The intergovernmental debt is every bit as real as the public debt. It's not "a wash" simply because you owe the government owes the money to "itself."

As I explained in a previous article, Social Security is legally required to use all its surpluses to buy U.S. Government securities. From Social Security's standpoint, it has a multi-trillion dollar reserve in the form of U.S. Government securities. When the Social Security system starts to falter due to insufficient contributions to pay for all the benefits of retiring baby-boomers, probably around 2017, it will start cashing those securities and will expect the U.S. Government to pay it back, with interest. The problem is, the government doesn't have the money. The money has already been spent--in part, effectively, to pay down the public debt under Clinton.

The Federal Government cannot just wave a magic wand and somehow "write off" the intergovernmental debt. Essentially, citizens invested money in Social Security and Social Security invested that money in the Federal Government. Now Social Security effectively owes you money (in the form of future retirement benefits) and won't be able to pay you that money if the Federal Government just cancels the intergovernmental debt. The only way the Federal Government can "write off" intergovernmental debt is if it simultaneously eliminates the Social Security system. That might very well be a good idea, but it isn't likely. And Social Security will go bankrupt in about 2017 if the Federal Government doesn't honor those intergovernmental holdings as real debt.

In short, if the government doesn't pay back intergovernmental holdings, other government agencies (like Social Security) will fail. Since allowing Social Security to fail is not a politically viable option, the debt represented by intergovernmental holdings is just as real as the public debt. It can't just be eliminated by some fancy accounting trick or political maneuvering. If it were possible, believe me, politicians would have done it already and taken credit for reducing the national debt by trillions of dollars.


that comes from stats from the fucking treasury

Read th elinks I posted for the full articles.

Now please remove your foot from your mouth

 

[Jon]

I love the title of this thread "The GOP blames the victim." You know who the victim in this situation is? It's me, you, and every other taxpayer that DIDN'T default on their mortgage.

 

[Chris]

Reagan and Bush are responsible for 90% of the National Debt...

ReaganBushDebt.org