Bush is responsible but Obama isnt? Logic?

[NYcarbineer]

It won't make you laugh but it might make some cry.

Housing like many other things in our economy belong in only the private sector. F&F should have been abolished years ago.

You haven't told us how Congress could have prevented the recession in 2007.

I never said it could have been prevented. The damage could have lessened had anyone actually cared enough to stop the spending and froze institutions like F&F.

Besides this thread is about how democrats (you) wont accept responsibility for their roll in anything that turns out negative.

You want the Democrats to accept responsibility, and you name the Democratic Congress elected in 2006, but you won't tell us what they're supposed to take responsibility for in 2007,

the last year before the recession, the housing meltdown, the financial meltdown.

Just for the record, they passed Bush's stimulus package in 2008.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

um...no.
The robust economy was partly due to a housing boom caused by a false demand in three ways:
1) Lower interest rates set by the FED
2) Fannie & Freddie buying up mortgages like there was no tomorrow
3) Government strongly - STRONGLY - encouraging the mortgage industry to make risky loans both ignoring poor credit and dramatically raising the debt/income ratio as well as no money down loans.

Also - consumers everywhere was treating debt like it was income. Negative savings rates and increased credit card spending created another false demand.

Yep. Exactly right. We came out of the dotcom, or NASDAQ bubble and were looking for ways to spur growth. SO, the typical moron economists, namely, Krugman and Co. were clamoring for a housing bubble to make another boom. He got his wish.

The next bubble to burst, after Obama loses that is, will be the student loans quite possibly.

It will, but at least that bubble won't have as deep of an impact as the housing collapse/credit crunch.
At some point the student loan policies have GOT to change. This insanity of giving grants and loans to anyone who applys has driven tuition through the roof.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You haven't told us how Congress could have prevented the recession in 2007.

I never said it could have been prevented. The damage could have lessened had anyone actually cared enough to stop the spending and froze institutions like F&F.

Besides this thread is about how democrats (you) wont accept responsibility for their roll in anything that turns out negative.

You want the Democrats to accept responsibility, and you name the Democratic Congress elected in 2006, but you won't tell us what they're supposed to take responsibility for in 2007,

the last year before the recession, the housing meltdown, the financial meltdown.

Just for the record, they passed Bush's stimulus package in 2008.

Nothing apparently idiot. Its not like they had any influence on where we find ourselves today huh?

Jackass

 

[RockyRacoon]

The economy collapsed at the end of Bush's two terms which was preceeded by two years of democratic controlled congress. A time during which red flags were raised about the elephant in the room (housing) but democrats denied and the GOP was too spineless to push forward with reforms.

Obama had two more years of that same congress and even managed to pass HCA with 0 republican votes. Yet the faltering economy nearly four years later is not his fault. He never mentions Reid won't do his job in the senate. Reid and Obama bare the brunt of the responsibility for our current situation in my opinion.

You are a very special brand of lying stupidity. The neocon marching orders were to make Obama fail from day one. No president in my memory has had to work with such organized butthurt hatred at having lost an election.

Youre a ******* idiot. Obama had the very same people in congress for his first two terms that Bush had for his last two. And to top it off Democrats had control.

Now go sit back in the corner and drink some more of your ******* koolaid idiot.

The stated goal of the republican party was to do anything and everything possible to make Obama a one term president. Democrats did not have a filibuster proof majority so when repubs said NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO , NO there was little for Obama to do. So pick your knuckles up off the ground and quit being a total ******* idiot!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yep. Exactly right. We came out of the dotcom, or NASDAQ bubble and were looking for ways to spur growth. SO, the typical moron economists, namely, Krugman and Co. were clamoring for a housing bubble to make another boom. He got his wish.

The next bubble to burst, after Obama loses that is, will be the student loans quite possibly.

It will, but at least that bubble won't have as deep of an impact as the housing collapse/credit crunch.
At some point the student loan policies have GOT to change. This insanity of giving grants and loans to anyone who applys has driven tuition through the roof.

Student loans pop could be the catalyst that pops the real bubble that replaced housing. Government spending.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's all Bush's fault... how original.

Only the colossally stupid are buying this anymore. The Dems. push CRA, Bush warns them that it's a mess, they do nothing, then they blame Bush.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The damage could have lessened had anyone actually cared enough to stop the spending and froze institutions like F&F.

Why do you keep suggesting that? Almost 90% of the bad mortgages had NOTHING to do with F&F. Zilch, nada, NOTHING. So freezing F&F would be a drop in the ocean. Why didn't the Bush Admin. go after the private sector where the real damage was done? Oh yeah, he was in collusion with Wall St.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You are a very special brand of lying stupidity. The neocon marching orders were to make Obama fail from day one. No president in my memory has had to work with such organized butthurt hatred at having lost an election.

Youre a ******* idiot. Obama had the very same people in congress for his first two terms that Bush had for his last two. And to top it off Democrats had control.

Now go sit back in the corner and drink some more of your ******* koolaid idiot.

The stated goal of the republican party was to do anything and everything possible to make Obama a one term president. Democrats did not have a filibuster proof majority so when repubs said NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO , NO there was little for Obama to do. So pick your knuckles up off the ground and quit being a total ******* idiot!

Except pass the biggest piece of shit legislation that got not 1 republican vote. Now tell us genius, if he could do that why couldnt he do anything else?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You are a very special brand of lying stupidity. The neocon marching orders were to make Obama fail from day one. No president in my memory has had to work with such organized butthurt hatred at having lost an election.

Youre a ******* idiot. Obama had the very same people in congress for his first two terms that Bush had for his last two. And to top it off Democrats had control.

Now go sit back in the corner and drink some more of your ******* koolaid idiot.

The stated goal of the republican party was to do anything and everything possible to make Obama a one term president. Democrats did not have a filibuster proof majority so when repubs said NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO , NO there was little for Obama to do. So pick your knuckles up off the ground and quit being a total ******* idiot!

Calm the **** down asshole... take a Xanbar or two...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The damage could have lessened had anyone actually cared enough to stop the spending and froze institutions like F&F.

Why do you keep suggesting that? Almost 90% of the bad mortgages had NOTHING to do with F&F. Zilch, nada, NOTHING. So freezing F&F would be a drop in the ocean. Why didn't the Bush Admin. go after the private sector where the real damage was done? Oh yeah, he was in collusion with Wall St.

Just like EVERY president is. Its the game, and they all play it.

Why do you keep fooling yourself?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Just like EVERY president is. Its the game, and they all play it.

Why do you keep fooling yourself?

AND now we're to the real problem. Are you for gettng special interest money out of our government and election processes? Otherwise, this will never change.

 

[Warrior102]

You want the Democrats to accept responsibility, and you name the Democratic Congress elected in 2006, but you won't tell us what they're supposed to take responsibility for in 2007,

the last year before the recession, the housing meltdown, the financial meltdown.

Just for the record, they passed Bush's stimulus package in 2008.

Earth to Assbrain -

Newsflash!!

Bush isn't President any longer.

You may now put your mouth back on Obama's balls and ass.

 

[Warrior102]

The stated goal of the republican party was to do anything and everything possible to make Obama a one term president. Democrats did not have a filibuster proof majority so when repubs said NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO , NO there was little for Obama to do. So pick your knuckles up off the ground and quit being a total ******* idiot!

So Obama not winning re-election is the Republican's fault?

Gee, isn't that the way it's supposed to work, assbrain?

 

[MuadDib]

Can this mess be fixed in 4 years? No.

Bush did his part to accelerate the problem and Obama kicked it into overdrive, but the problems that we are experiencing are 150 years in the making, beginning with the Lincoln administration. That was the point in American history when socialism was introduced into the system by the Forty Eighters.

These European socialists fled Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia after their failed revolution and brought their ideas to America, where they entered the Union army and various posts in the Federal government, swung the Northern vote in Lincoln's favor, pushed for various government subsidies, and were rewarded with free land by the Homestead Act.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Just like EVERY president is. Its the game, and they all play it.

Why do you keep fooling yourself?

AND now we're to the real problem. Are you for gettng special interest money out of our government and election processes? Otherwise, this will never change.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Wall St. wasn't the problem. Govt. programs, GSEs and low interest rates were the problem. Back in 2001, FM and FM both showed unfunded liabilities in the trillions. They were most certainly a large part of the problem.

I do not agree with the entire assessment from Wiki, but they do have this and a few other parts correct.

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush.[122] In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers.[123] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[124]

From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market.

These GSEs, while not acting alone, were at the very heart of the crisis.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The damage could have lessened had anyone actually cared enough to stop the spending and froze institutions like F&F.

Why do you keep suggesting that? Almost 90% of the bad mortgages had NOTHING to do with F&F. Zilch, nada, NOTHING. So freezing F&F would be a drop in the ocean. Why didn't the Bush Admin. go after the private sector where the real damage was done? Oh yeah, he was in collusion with Wall St.

And we wonder why this country is full of misinformed dipshits. I hear this mantra on the regular and it is patently false. It's so ******* false it's actually funny and I tend to without restraint, laugh at my own friends for being so gullible.

Why is wall st. blamed? Because the govt. sure as hell doesn't want to be pinned as the real and correct culprit of the crisis. Which is why Wall St. gets the blame and Bernanke gets a second term and praised for avoiding a depression. The very depression that asshat helped create.

I see gullible people. Lots of them.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market.

From your own quote. Notice that yes, they did own about half the mortgages, but what percentage of them were sub-prime? Answer:

"Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to 2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped from $2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector, the amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from $335 billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in 2003. Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn’t accept crazy floating rate loans, which required income verification and minimum down payments, were left out of the insanity."

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

"Federal Reserve Board data show that:
More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007,"

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#storylink=cpy"

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Why is wall st. blamed? Because the govt. sure as hell doesn't want to be pinned as the real and correct culprit of the crisis.

They were responsible in that they did not regulate the financial sector and private lenders. Because they are in collusion. We have a plutocracy now, didn't you know?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

They were still buying subprime mortgages as was the directive from the governments incentives programs. The real estate meltdown was not in full caused by subprime mortgages, as i've already stated. It was a piece of the pie, a big piece. One that FM&FM BOTH hand a huge hand in.


Saying that these GSEs had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis is patently false. They were instructed and given the incentives to buy up those securities. These GSEs, with govt. "homeowner programs", coupled with artificially low interest rates from teh federal reserve, or a credit expansion, is how this bubble was built and how it popped. As all bubbles do.