Failure of the Welfare State

[PoliticalChic]

What is it you can't comprehend? Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

• 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.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

And maybe you just FORGOT this...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

Does the Constitution allow pols to support home ownership?

You have been reduced to babble.

The FACTS are the financial crisis was not caused by too much government, it was caused by not enough government regulations and oversight. It was caused by private lenders who were not subject to housing laws. It was caused by mostly rich people buying homes with no intention of residing in them. They were not interested in long term mortgages, they were only looking for a short term low or NO payment loan to buy and SELL. When the market crashed, they walked away. The housing bubble and its inevitable collapse would never have been possible without (1) hordes of speculators (2) absurdly easy financing and (3) widespread mortgage fraud.

Begin your education:

How Speculative Madness Changed the Housing Market

An article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in January 2007 painted a vivid picture of the speculative fever which gripped nearly all of Florida. Naples, near Ft. Myers, had become a "hot market" by early 2003. One Naples real estate agent, who owned 13 investment properties there, told the authors that by 2004, "investors were "scouring every corner of Naples."

Another realtor, mentioned in the same WSJ article, sold his own home in the fall of 2004 to an investor for $435,000, more than double what he had paid for it five years earlier. He soon sold numerous other properties to her including a duplex for $621,000 in October 2005 which he had bought seven months earlier for only $349,000. This same investor also bought another house in July for $690,000 which had sold for $275,000 in early 2001. The next door neighbor told the authors "We were just laughing at these prices.... I grew up here and it's out of control."

During the peak of the speculative bubble in Naples from early 2004 to the fall of 2005, median prices almost doubled from $250,000 to $420,000. The authors of the WSJ article talked to numerous local real estate agents who agreed that during this period "as many as 50% of buyers may have been investors."

Does the Constitution allow pols to support home ownership?

 

[Bfgrn]

Does the Constitution allow pols to support home ownership?

You have been reduced to babble.

The FACTS are the financial crisis was not caused by too much government, it was caused by not enough government regulations and oversight. It was caused by private lenders who were not subject to housing laws. It was caused by mostly rich people buying homes with no intention of residing in them. They were not interested in long term mortgages, they were only looking for a short term low or NO payment loan to buy and SELL. When the market crashed, they walked away. The housing bubble and its inevitable collapse would never have been possible without (1) hordes of speculators (2) absurdly easy financing and (3) widespread mortgage fraud.

Begin your education:

How Speculative Madness Changed the Housing Market

An article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in January 2007 painted a vivid picture of the speculative fever which gripped nearly all of Florida. Naples, near Ft. Myers, had become a "hot market" by early 2003. One Naples real estate agent, who owned 13 investment properties there, told the authors that by 2004, "investors were "scouring every corner of Naples."

Another realtor, mentioned in the same WSJ article, sold his own home in the fall of 2004 to an investor for $435,000, more than double what he had paid for it five years earlier. He soon sold numerous other properties to her including a duplex for $621,000 in October 2005 which he had bought seven months earlier for only $349,000. This same investor also bought another house in July for $690,000 which had sold for $275,000 in early 2001. The next door neighbor told the authors "We were just laughing at these prices.... I grew up here and it's out of control."

During the peak of the speculative bubble in Naples from early 2004 to the fall of 2005, median prices almost doubled from $250,000 to $420,000. The authors of the WSJ article talked to numerous local real estate agents who agreed that during this period "as many as 50% of buyers may have been investors."

Does the Constitution allow pols to support home ownership?

I found a new avatar for you...and you're welcome.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...as a temporary relief..."

The 'slow learners' are the folks who believe that any of the efforts will be temporary....


"According to Obama administration projections, combined federal and state welfare spending will not drop significantly once the
economy fully recovers. As we have seen, welfare spending has continued to increase." Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2010 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008), CD-ROM, Table 24-14, http:/ www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical Perspectives.


Let's review:
The Liberal plan is to put more and more folks on the rolls, and never, ever let them get off the welfare rolls.

This was predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville, almost 200 years ago:

Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”


Again: ...relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking...


Shoe fit?

As the chart below shows to those of you without the common sense to figure it out on your own,
the poverty rate goes up and down with the business cycle.

So....now you agree with the OP?

There was no reason to waste the $15 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

No. I don't agree, and nothing I said even implied I agreed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have been reduced to babble.

The FACTS are the financial crisis was not caused by too much government, it was caused by not enough government regulations and oversight. It was caused by private lenders who were not subject to housing laws. It was caused by mostly rich people buying homes with no intention of residing in them. They were not interested in long term mortgages, they were only looking for a short term low or NO payment loan to buy and SELL. When the market crashed, they walked away. The housing bubble and its inevitable collapse would never have been possible without (1) hordes of speculators (2) absurdly easy financing and (3) widespread mortgage fraud.

Begin your education:

How Speculative Madness Changed the Housing Market

An article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in January 2007 painted a vivid picture of the speculative fever which gripped nearly all of Florida. Naples, near Ft. Myers, had become a "hot market" by early 2003. One Naples real estate agent, who owned 13 investment properties there, told the authors that by 2004, "investors were "scouring every corner of Naples."

Another realtor, mentioned in the same WSJ article, sold his own home in the fall of 2004 to an investor for $435,000, more than double what he had paid for it five years earlier. He soon sold numerous other properties to her including a duplex for $621,000 in October 2005 which he had bought seven months earlier for only $349,000. This same investor also bought another house in July for $690,000 which had sold for $275,000 in early 2001. The next door neighbor told the authors "We were just laughing at these prices.... I grew up here and it's out of control."

During the peak of the speculative bubble in Naples from early 2004 to the fall of 2005, median prices almost doubled from $250,000 to $420,000. The authors of the WSJ article talked to numerous local real estate agents who agreed that during this period "as many as 50% of buyers may have been investors."

Does the Constitution allow pols to support home ownership?

I found a new avatar for you...and you're welcome.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

You should have picked an owl.

I guess you don't realize that I was documenting your agreement that the Constitution of the United States does not endorse the federal government providing assistance toward private home ownership.

Therefore...the 1938 creation of the GSE's by FDR was illegal, and led to the mortgage meltdown, and financial crash.

Every step that I listed was correct, and further evidence that the Democrat-Liberal-Progressive policies are both dangerous and destructive.

All that remains is for you to verify what I have highlighted so often: Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.

OK...you're on-

 

[PoliticalChic]

As the chart below shows to those of you without the common sense to figure it out on your own,
the poverty rate goes up and down with the business cycle.

So....now you agree with the OP?

There was no reason to waste the $15 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

No. I don't agree, and nothing I said even implied I agreed.

This is only fun when someone bites it big time....that's where you come in!

OK, franco....here goes:

You said: "the poverty rate goes up and down with the business cycle."

If that is the case, then why did we waste $15 trillion in welfare?



(Hint: Could it be to buy votes?)

 

[Bfgrn]

Does the Constitution allow pols to support home ownership?

I found a new avatar for you...and you're welcome.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

You should have picked an owl.

I guess you don't realize that I was documenting your agreement that the Constitution of the United States does not endorse the federal government providing assistance toward private home ownership.

Therefore...the 1938 creation of the GSE's by FDR was illegal, and led to the mortgage meltdown, and financial crash.

Every step that I listed was correct, and further evidence that the Democrat-Liberal-Progressive policies are both dangerous and destructive.

All that remains is for you to verify what I have highlighted so often: Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.

OK...you're on-

The Constitution is not a factor. The financial crisis was not caused by government. It was caused by the PRIVATE sector.

WHY are you so dense?

 

[Samson]

If you want to dispute the FACT that the wealthy get huge tax cuts in the Romney/Ryan budget plans,

just say so, in a mature manner.

Otherwise, stay quiet.

Sure: I want to dispute your contention the wealty get huge tax cuts in the Romney/Ryan budget plans.

Outside of Huffpo and sources as dubiously objective Barney Frank and Barak Obama, I cannot find anything (including the Ryan-Romney budget) that defines what new taxes "the wealthy" will pay.

By the way, speaking of good ol' Barack....when was the last time he had a budget?

JFC Faux etc doesn't tell you morons anything LOL. Except it will cut the deficit. BTW, that will be in 2036!! Pure idiocy for the dupes.

Wiki, Ryan Plan...

The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal was presented as the Republican budget proposal for 2013 in March 2012.[6] The proposal focuses includes plans to reform Medicare, cap discretionary federal spending at $1.029 trillion and cut the highest individual tax rates.[7]

Dumbazz dupes!LOL

"Wiki, Ryan Plan?"



Another blithering idiot....

 

[Chris]

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans cost the U.S. Treasury $11.6 million every hour, according to the National Priorities Project.

Between 2001 and the current projected end of the Bush tax cut extension, tax cuts for the wealthiest 5 percent will cost the U.S. Treasury $1.184 trillion.

If extended through 2021 as gop lawmakers propose, the total cost will exceed $3.2 trillion.

 

[Chris]

Government spending as a percentage of GDP is the same now as when Reagan was in office....23%. But since the financial crisis in 2008, revenues as a share of GDP have hit 60-year lows, coming in at around 15%. And yet the Republicans signed the Grover Norquist "tax pledge" not to raise taxes.

Grover Norquist is the man who is destroying America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I found a new avatar for you...and you're welcome.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

You should have picked an owl.

I guess you don't realize that I was documenting your agreement that the Constitution of the United States does not endorse the federal government providing assistance toward private home ownership.

Therefore...the 1938 creation of the GSE's by FDR was illegal, and led to the mortgage meltdown, and financial crash.

Every step that I listed was correct, and further evidence that the Democrat-Liberal-Progressive policies are both dangerous and destructive.

All that remains is for you to verify what I have highlighted so often: Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.

OK...you're on-

The Constitution is not a factor. The financial crisis was not caused by government. It was caused by the PRIVATE sector.

WHY are you so dense?

Poor, poor BoringFriendlessGuy....


1. 'In “Reckless Endangerment,” Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner argue that cozy connections between government and the financial industry were the primary cause of the financial crisis. In a series of clearly written narratives with many names, dates and figures, they show that government officials took actions that benefited well-connected individuals, who in turn helped the government officials. This mutual support system thwarted good economic policies and encouraged reckless ones. It thereby brought on the crisis, sending the economy into a tailspin.'
‘Reckless Endangerment’ by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner - The Washington Post

2. "The Republican Party and especially its Tea Party wing have just acquired a new weapon of mass destruction — and it has nothing to do with any of Congressman Wiener’s rogue body parts. If they deploy this weapon effectively in the next election cycle — a big if — then they have the biggest opportunity to move the country rightward since Ronald Reagan took the oath of office back in 1981.

3. The Tea Party WMD stockpile is currently stored in book form: "Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon." By Gretchen Morgenson, one of America’s best business journalists who is currently at The New York Times, and noted financial analyst Joshua Rosner, Reckless Endangerment gives the best available account of how the growing chaos in the mortgage and personal finance markets and the rampant bundling of dubious loans into exotically toxic securities plunged the world, and millions of American families, into the gravest financial crisis since World War Two.

4. The villains? An unholy alliance between Wall Street, the Democratic establishment, community organizing groups like ACORN and La Raza, and politicians like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Cisneros. (Frank got a cushy job for a lover, Pelosi got a job and layoff protection for a son, Cisneros apparently got a license to mint money bilking Mexican-Americans of their life savings in cheesy housing developments.)

5. If the GOP can make this narrative mainstream, and put this picture into the heads of voters nationwide, the Democrats are toast.

6. If Morgenstern and Rosner are to be believed, the American dream didn’t die of old age; it was murdered and most of the fingerprints on the corpse come from Democratic insiders. Democratic power brokers stoked the housing bubble and turned a blind eye to the increasingly rampant corruption and incompetence at Fannie Mae and the associated predatory lenders who sheltered under its umbrella; core Democratic ideas may well be at fault.

7. Big government, affirmative action and influence peddling among Democratic insiders came within inches of smashing the US economy.

8. The Great Villain, the man who almost ruined America according to the book, is James Johnson, long one of the most important members of the Democratic establishment. ...Barack Obama, impressed by this track record of discernment, reportedly asked him to lead Obama’s search in 2008 ...

9. Politically, this story is a killer app for the GOP. It demonizes Dems, lends itself to attack ads, divides Democrats between their Wall Street and union bases, and combines GOP hate figures in ways calculated to unify the GOP and heighten the intensity of the faithful. The story illustrates everything the Tea Party thinks about the corrupt Washington establishment and the evils of big government. It demonstrates the limits on the ability of government programs to help the poor.

10. ...if the GOP plays its cards right, Fanniegate could push this country into a new political era."
Fanniegate: Gamechanger For The GOP? | Via Meadia

 

[gallantwarrior]

Are you that disingenuous or that ignorant?

Do you know WHY since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent?

If an alcoholic has sclerosis of the liver, would you blame the doctor?

1. "Do you know WHY since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent?"

Sure....

Obama told all that the welfare wasn't because folks needed the money....

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.
Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


Read more: OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT - NYPOST.com


He...and you....have this loopy idea that taking from the producers and giving it to any who don't work is a good plan.
That's what you believe, isn't it?


2. "Are you that disingenuous or that ignorant?"

Hey...you forgot choice "c".....What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.

Did anyone tell you about the economic crisis under Bush, where millions of people lost their jobs?

Now, LIST the laws Obama changed that would allow more people to qualify for relief than before he took office?


Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

How about extending unemployment benefits to two years?

 

[Bfgrn]

You should have picked an owl.

I guess you don't realize that I was documenting your agreement that the Constitution of the United States does not endorse the federal government providing assistance toward private home ownership.

Therefore...the 1938 creation of the GSE's by FDR was illegal, and led to the mortgage meltdown, and financial crash.

Every step that I listed was correct, and further evidence that the Democrat-Liberal-Progressive policies are both dangerous and destructive.

All that remains is for you to verify what I have highlighted so often: Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals.

OK...you're on-

The Constitution is not a factor. The financial crisis was not caused by government. It was caused by the PRIVATE sector.

WHY are you so dense?

Poor, poor BoringFriendlessGuy....


1. 'In “Reckless Endangerment,” Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner argue that cozy connections between government and the financial industry were the primary cause of the financial crisis. In a series of clearly written narratives with many names, dates and figures, they show that government officials took actions that benefited well-connected individuals, who in turn helped the government officials. This mutual support system thwarted good economic policies and encouraged reckless ones. It thereby brought on the crisis, sending the economy into a tailspin.'
‘Reckless Endangerment’ by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner - The Washington Post

2. "The Republican Party and especially its Tea Party wing have just acquired a new weapon of mass destruction — and it has nothing to do with any of Congressman Wiener’s rogue body parts. If they deploy this weapon effectively in the next election cycle — a big if — then they have the biggest opportunity to move the country rightward since Ronald Reagan took the oath of office back in 1981.

3. The Tea Party WMD stockpile is currently stored in book form: "Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon." By Gretchen Morgenson, one of America’s best business journalists who is currently at The New York Times, and noted financial analyst Joshua Rosner, Reckless Endangerment gives the best available account of how the growing chaos in the mortgage and personal finance markets and the rampant bundling of dubious loans into exotically toxic securities plunged the world, and millions of American families, into the gravest financial crisis since World War Two.

4. The villains? An unholy alliance between Wall Street, the Democratic establishment, community organizing groups like ACORN and La Raza, and politicians like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Cisneros. (Frank got a cushy job for a lover, Pelosi got a job and layoff protection for a son, Cisneros apparently got a license to mint money bilking Mexican-Americans of their life savings in cheesy housing developments.)

5. If the GOP can make this narrative mainstream, and put this picture into the heads of voters nationwide, the Democrats are toast.

6. If Morgenstern and Rosner are to be believed, the American dream didn’t die of old age; it was murdered and most of the fingerprints on the corpse come from Democratic insiders. Democratic power brokers stoked the housing bubble and turned a blind eye to the increasingly rampant corruption and incompetence at Fannie Mae and the associated predatory lenders who sheltered under its umbrella; core Democratic ideas may well be at fault.

7. Big government, affirmative action and influence peddling among Democratic insiders came within inches of smashing the US economy.

8. The Great Villain, the man who almost ruined America according to the book, is James Johnson, long one of the most important members of the Democratic establishment. ...Barack Obama, impressed by this track record of discernment, reportedly asked him to lead Obama’s search in 2008 ...

9. Politically, this story is a killer app for the GOP. It demonizes Dems, lends itself to attack ads, divides Democrats between their Wall Street and union bases, and combines GOP hate figures in ways calculated to unify the GOP and heighten the intensity of the faithful. The story illustrates everything the Tea Party thinks about the corrupt Washington establishment and the evils of big government. It demonstrates the limits on the ability of government programs to help the poor.

10. ...if the GOP plays its cards right, Fanniegate could push this country into a new political era."
Fanniegate: Gamechanger For The GOP? | Via Meadia

The “Big Lie,” in a nutshell, is that the 2008 financial crisis was caused not by Wall Street’s shady lending practices or exotic (and ultimately worthless) financial instruments but by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were forced by the government’s expansive housing policy to make riskier and riskier loans. Because it conveniently lays the blame for the recession at the feet of the government, the Big Lie is a conservative favorite. The problem is, it’s not remotely supported by facts. Morgenson finds it ironic that “Washington’s push to increase homeownership opened the door for companies to sell poisonous and tricky loans that have now imperiled many of the most vulnerable,” yet private lenders were the ones to pioneer these poisonous loans, and made more of them than Fannie or Freddie ever did. Joe Nocera, a colleague of Morgenson’s at the Times who got his start as a business reporter, summed it up quite nicely on Dec. 23 when he stated that conservative scholar Peter Wallison “almost single-handedly created the myth that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the financial crisis.” Almost, because Wallison had a passel of partners in crime, including the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Congressional Republicans looking for any excuse to attack Fannie and Freddie, and — though he doesn’t mention her — Gretchen Morgenson herself. The Times evidently has a policy against speaking ill of one’s co-workers, as demonstrated by Paul Krugman’s wink-wink-nod criticism of David Brooks’ economic ignorance (“as some pundits have said . . . .&#8221, but Morgenson and her bestselling book Reckless Endangerment are pretty hard to overlook. Reckless Endangerment is the Big Lie writ large — 352 pages large — and has been parroted as gospel by the news media despite an overwhelming consensus by mainstream economists that federal housing policy had almost nothing to do with the financial crisis.

Poly want a cracker PC???

 

[Bfgrn]

1. "Do you know WHY since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent?"

Sure....

Obama told all that the welfare wasn't because folks needed the money....

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.
Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


Read more: OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT - NYPOST.com


He...and you....have this loopy idea that taking from the producers and giving it to any who don't work is a good plan.
That's what you believe, isn't it?


2. "Are you that disingenuous or that ignorant?"

Hey...you forgot choice "c".....What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.

Did anyone tell you about the economic crisis under Bush, where millions of people lost their jobs?

Now, LIST the laws Obama changed that would allow more people to qualify for relief than before he took office?


Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

How about extending unemployment benefits to two years?

He didn't change any laws. Ignorance is not an excuse. Keep trying though...

Unemployment Compensation

The Social Security Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-271) created the Federal-State Unemployment Compensation (UC) Program. The program has two main objectives: (1) to provide temporary and partial wage replacement to involuntarily unemployed workers who were recently employed; and (2) to help stabilize the economy during recessions

 

[Wiseacre]

" to help stabilize the economy during recessions "

Well, I guess if you're happy with a stable economy with low to no growth and high unemployment, you must be in liberal heaven.

 

[Bfgrn]

" to help stabilize the economy during recessions "

Well, I guess if you're happy with a stable economy with low to no growth and high unemployment, you must be in liberal heaven.

No, I'm not happy at all. Economists were RIGHT...Stimulus Too Small But, I thank GOD we have a Democrat not a Republican in the White House, because it would be MUCH worse today.

 

[Wiseacre]

" to help stabilize the economy during recessions "

Well, I guess if you're happy with a stable economy with low to no growth and high unemployment, you must be in liberal heaven.

No, I'm not happy at all. Economists were RIGHT...Stimulus Too Small But, I thank GOD we have a Democrat not a Republican in the White House, because it would be MUCH worse today.

So why didn't you guys pass a bigger stimulus bill? Why didn't you raise taxes on the rich when you had the chance? Simple fact: you guys fucked up and you aren't honest enough to admit it.

 

[Chris]

Not for nothing did US billionaire Warren Buffett call them the real ‘weapons of mass destruction’


By Margareta Pagano and Simon Evans
12 October 12 2008

The market is worth more than $516 trillion, (£303 trillion), roughly 10 times the value of the entire world’s output: it’s been called the “ticking time-bomb”.

It’s a market in which the lead protagonists – typically aggressive, highly educated, and now wealthy young men – have flourished in the derivatives boom. But it’s a market that is set to come to a crashing halt – the Great Unwind has begun.

Last week the beginning of the end started for many hedge funds with the combination of diving market values and worried investors pulling out their cash for safer climes.

Some of the world’s biggest hedge funds – SAC Capital, Lone Pine and Tiger Global – all revealed they were sitting on double-digit losses this year. September’s falls wiped out any profits made in the rest of the year. Polygon, once a darling of the London hedge fund circuit, last week said it was capping the basic salaries of its managers to £100,000 each. Not bad for the average punter but some way off the tens of millions plundered by these hotshots during the good times. But few will be shedding any tears.

The complex and opaque derivatives markets in which these hedge funds played has been dubbed the world’s biggest black hole because they operate outside of the grasp of governments, tax inspectors and regulators. They operate in a parallel, shadow world to the rest of the banking system. They are private contracts between two companies or institutions which can’t be controlled or properly assessed. In themselves derivative contracts are not dangerous, but if one of them should go wrong – the bad 2 per cent as it’s been called – then it is the domino effect which could be so enormous and scary.

A £516 trillion derivatives ‘time-bomb’ « Did You Know

 

[Chris]

" to help stabilize the economy during recessions "

Well, I guess if you're happy with a stable economy with low to no growth and high unemployment, you must be in liberal heaven.

If we could just stop spending so much money supporting retired military sitting on their asses, we might be ok.

 

[Wiseacre]

" to help stabilize the economy during recessions "

Well, I guess if you're happy with a stable economy with low to no growth and high unemployment, you must be in liberal heaven.

If we could just stop spending so much money supporting retired military sitting on their asses, we might be ok.

Fuck you asshole. So tell me, you also okay with a stop in spending money on retired cops, firefighters and teachers? And all those gov't workers that risked getting papercuts every day, you're alright with that, right?

 

[Chris]

" to help stabilize the economy during recessions "

Well, I guess if you're happy with a stable economy with low to no growth and high unemployment, you must be in liberal heaven.

If we could just stop spending so much money supporting retired military sitting on their asses, we might be ok.

Fuck you asshole. So tell me, you also okay with a stop in spending money on retired cops, firefighters and teachers? And all those gov't workers that risked getting papercuts every day, you're alright with that, right?

Not at all. I actually respect you and your service.

But to blame the collapse of the economy and the outsourcing of jobs during the Bush administration on libs is bullshit.

Spending on education, health care, technology, and infrastructure is what drives an economy, not tax cuts for the rich or trillions thrown away on useless wars.