If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

[PoliticalChic]

If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

NEVER HAPPEN !!

there will be a great recovery from this fucking mess we are currently in, all caused by a muslime mulatto commie socialist son-of-a-bitch !!

MoRoN

December 2007
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



BUSH LOST 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obama has almost 7,000,000 created under him in less than 6 years and Obama is the failure? lol

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

The meltdown was due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I agree with what you posted PC, but you have to admit that Republicans (since WWII) have been their Willing Accomplices.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we should take a giant leap backwards and put the party of greed and excess back in charge cutting social programs while going hog wild on spending on corporate subsidies, tax breaks, defense contracts, and Federal Salaries and benefits -- the income gap will quickly grow to pre-Depression levels and when people have no money to spend in a Consumer Driven Economy -- the country will fall apart pretty fast.
And while the ship is sinking, the scumbags at Fox will blame Obama.

Oh look... more mindless partisan bigotry from the Nut.

Lets assume for the minute that you're right and the GOP-controlled congress passes bills that do all of the things you mention, in spades.
How will they ever become law?

No answer from Nut. What a surprise.

 

[Dad2three]

If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

NEVER HAPPEN !!

there will be a great recovery from this fucking mess we are currently in, all caused by a muslime mulatto commie socialist son-of-a-bitch !!

MoRoN

December 2007
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



BUSH LOST 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obama has almost 7,000,000 created under him in less than 6 years and Obama is the failure? lol

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

The meltdown was due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Got you CHOOSE to lie


GSE's around for 70 years, CRA around for 30+ years and weakened enforcement by Dubya was the problem. The GOP Congress was scared of Barney I guess, since we know the GOP LOVES regulations and regulators and the Dems hate them, lol




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March 2008 policy statement acknowledged that 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.”


Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

NEVER HAPPEN !!

there will be a great recovery from this fucking mess we are currently in, all caused by a muslime mulatto commie socialist son-of-a-bitch !!

MoRoN

December 2007
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



BUSH LOST 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obama has almost 7,000,000 created under him in less than 6 years and Obama is the failure? lol

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

The meltdown was due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative. How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia? How can we explain the boom occurring in countries that do not have a tax deduction for mortgage interest or government-sponsored enterprises? And why, after nearly a century of mortgage interest deduction in the United States, did it suddenly cause a crisis?

These questions show why proximity and statistical validity are so important. Let’s get more specific.The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a favorite boogeyman for some, despite the numbers that so easily disprove it as a cause.It is a statistical invalid argument, as the data show.

For example, if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.

What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.




•Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture

 

[Dad2three]

If we should take a giant leap backwards and put the party of greed and excess back in charge cutting social programs while going hog wild on spending on corporate subsidies, tax breaks, defense contracts, and Federal Salaries and benefits -- the income gap will quickly grow to pre-Depression levels and when people have no money to spend in a Consumer Driven Economy -- the country will fall apart pretty fast.
And while the ship is sinking, the scumbags at Fox will blame Obama.

Oh look... more mindless partisan bigotry from the Nut.

Lets assume for the minute that you're right and the GOP-controlled congress passes bills that do all of the things you mention, in spades.
How will they ever become law?

No answer from Nut. What a surprise.

You mean like today and for the past 6 years ass the GOP has REFUSED to pass anything that might help US? That's why so much Executive Actions? Taking the senate will slow Obama, specifically in judges... Can't slow US down much more than what the GOP has been doing though!

 

[PoliticalChic]

If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

NEVER HAPPEN !!

there will be a great recovery from this fucking mess we are currently in, all caused by a muslime mulatto commie socialist son-of-a-bitch !!

MoRoN

December 2007
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



BUSH LOST 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obama has almost 7,000,000 created under him in less than 6 years and Obama is the failure? lol

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

The meltdown was due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Got you CHOOSE to lie


GSE's around for 70 years, CRA around for 30+ years and weakened enforcement by Dubya was the problem. The GOP Congress was scared of Barney I guess, since we know the GOP LOVES regulations and regulators and the Dems hate them, lol




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March 2008 policy statement acknowledged that 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.”


Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

"Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.


Wrong.

"Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal." See more at: History News Network What Are the Origins of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

 

[Dad2three]

If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

NEVER HAPPEN !!

there will be a great recovery from this fucking mess we are currently in, all caused by a muslime mulatto commie socialist son-of-a-bitch !!

MoRoN

December 2007
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



BUSH LOST 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obama has almost 7,000,000 created under him in less than 6 years and Obama is the failure? lol

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

The meltdown was due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

June 17, 2004

Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush s low-income housing - Jun. 17 2004


Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Barney Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf




Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.



Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.

 

[Dad2three]

If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

NEVER HAPPEN !!

there will be a great recovery from this fucking mess we are currently in, all caused by a muslime mulatto commie socialist son-of-a-bitch !!

MoRoN

December 2007
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



BUSH LOST 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obama has almost 7,000,000 created under him in less than 6 years and Obama is the failure? lol

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

The meltdown was due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Got you CHOOSE to lie


GSE's around for 70 years, CRA around for 30+ years and weakened enforcement by Dubya was the problem. The GOP Congress was scared of Barney I guess, since we know the GOP LOVES regulations and regulators and the Dems hate them, lol




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March 2008 policy statement acknowledged that 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.”


Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

"Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.


Wrong.

"Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal." See more at: History News Network What Are the Origins of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

lol, WINGNUTTER

DUBYA'S OWN COMMISSION MARCH 2008

The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that 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.”

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.


“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”


Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

 

[Dad2three]

If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

NEVER HAPPEN !!

there will be a great recovery from this fucking mess we are currently in, all caused by a muslime mulatto commie socialist son-of-a-bitch !!

MoRoN

December 2007
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



BUSH LOST 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obama has almost 7,000,000 created under him in less than 6 years and Obama is the failure? lol

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

The meltdown was due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Got you CHOOSE to lie


GSE's around for 70 years, CRA around for 30+ years and weakened enforcement by Dubya was the problem. The GOP Congress was scared of Barney I guess, since we know the GOP LOVES regulations and regulators and the Dems hate them, lol




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March 2008 policy statement acknowledged that 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.”


Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

"Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.


Wrong.

"Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal." See more at: History News Network What Are the Origins of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

FF were bit-players in subprime, getting in late to the game as they lost so much market share to the private lenders who had long-ago forged bravely into the subprime space.

And I note, nothing on comparative default rates. Surprise surprise.


The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along. The big investment banks simply connected the investors to the originators, helped by the AAA ratings.


Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.


The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

NEVER HAPPEN !!

there will be a great recovery from this fucking mess we are currently in, all caused by a muslime mulatto commie socialist son-of-a-bitch !!

MoRoN

December 2007
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



BUSH LOST 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obama has almost 7,000,000 created under him in less than 6 years and Obama is the failure? lol

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

The meltdown was due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Got you CHOOSE to lie


GSE's around for 70 years, CRA around for 30+ years and weakened enforcement by Dubya was the problem. The GOP Congress was scared of Barney I guess, since we know the GOP LOVES regulations and regulators and the Dems hate them, lol




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March 2008 policy statement acknowledged that 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.”


Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

"Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.


Wrong.

"Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal." See more at: History News Network What Are the Origins of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

STILL waiting for how FDR creating F/F, which was FORCED by Dubya to buy $440 BILLION in MBS's AND up the 'low income' from 50% to 56% to meet DUBYA'S goals, was CRA, Dems, Clinton, Barney's, etc fault? lol


Government has encouraged home ownership for decades; why suddenly in 2002-07 was it so important?



There was no requirement in the Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to lend to marginal borrowers, just encouragement to try to lend to weaker borrowers in areas where the banks opened branches.

Further, most all sub-prime loans were not done by banks. They were done by “non-bank” lenders which were not covered by the CRA.



One would think that understanding that loans made by CRA banks in CRA areas reached their height in 1994 and steadily decreased right through the bubble would convince even the most stubborn ideologue to look elsewhere.

http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/governmentprograms/n08-2_park.pdf

But like the 40% loss of market share of the GSEs during the bubble, the almost equal market share loss of CRA banks means nothing. Instead, we have to listen to people talking about a bubble caused by banks that were losing business, and in the case of CRA banks, steadily losing business over a ten year period.

In my opinion there are only two ways to deal with Cognitive Dissidents; Prozac or a baseball bat. One they have to administer themselves, one I would be happy to administer(particularly to the CRA DID IT! group).

 

[Dad2three]

If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

NEVER HAPPEN !!

there will be a great recovery from this fucking mess we are currently in, all caused by a muslime mulatto commie socialist son-of-a-bitch !!

MoRoN

December 2007
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



BUSH LOST 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obama has almost 7,000,000 created under him in less than 6 years and Obama is the failure? lol

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

The meltdown was due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Got you CHOOSE to lie


GSE's around for 70 years, CRA around for 30+ years and weakened enforcement by Dubya was the problem. The GOP Congress was scared of Barney I guess, since we know the GOP LOVES regulations and regulators and the Dems hate them, lol




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March 2008 policy statement acknowledged that 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.”


Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

"Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.


Wrong.

"Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal." See more at: History News Network What Are the Origins of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

Pretty boilerplate conservative, always blubbering excuses about how conservatives aren't responsible for the complete and utter failure of their policies


Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis

The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

 

[Youch]

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

This is socialistic gibberish. Making a million dollars means you invested in or created something that benefitted many other people, which results in jobs, salaries, wages, inventions, opportunities, products, usually cheaper products, and commerce, all adding to the economy.... This notion that the pie is of a defined and static size only shows a lack of understanding of how an economy works. Just because I succeed does not mean anyone else fails......on the contrary, I succeed by way of increased economic activity, mine, theirs, ours or all of the above. The punk in Detroit has nothing to do with it. You think people go poor because Zuckerberg made billions? Is he, or Buffett or Gates or the Koch Brothers or the idiot Steyer all responsible for the abysmal economic failings of the Obama administration? Come on, your ability to cut and paste tells me you are smarter than that!!!

MORE right wing garbage from you, I'm shocked


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less.

Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics


I KNOW, YOU CAN'T REFUTE MY LINKS SO YOU'LL USE AD HOMS, AND I'LL BE IMPRESSED *SHAKING HEAD*

I won't even try to refute your links, as they defy the most basic economics courses......perhaps take one course, at a reputable school, and get back to us.

The idea that posting/arguing with links is dumb.

Try again.

 

[Youch]

v

If we should take a giant leap backwards and put the party of greed and excess back in charge cutting social programs while going hog wild on spending on corporate subsidies, tax breaks, defense contracts, and Federal Salaries and benefits -- the income gap will quickly grow to pre-Depression levels and when people have no money to spend in a Consumer Driven Economy -- the country will fall apart pretty fast.

And while the ship is sinking, the scumbags at Fox will blame Obama.

Nutjob,
Are you aware that more corporate subsides and tax credits, and SPENDING, have happened Barry Obama?

Corporatism is not a party issue. It is a modern political issue that infects both sides.

Rather than mire yourself in the shallowness of party BS., why not instead embrace the movement that wants to end it all? Got a clue????

Please tell us how the "income gap" (a wedge issue born from jealously, envy and political leverage/fear-mongering) actually hurts anyone?

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around 4 percent during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent by the mid-2000s. During this period, the average tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to below 25 percent.

The study said that "as top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the income distribution increases" and that "these relationships are statistically significant."

In other words, cutting taxes on the rich may not grow the economic pie. But the study found that those cuts can effect "how that economic pie is sliced."




Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don't Spur Growth


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-dont-spur-151649273.html



If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

LOL.

Having read just the first paragraphs, I find several problems in their assumptions, and critical omissions in their analysis. Not only does it avoid the most obvious thing, that just because top marginal rates were 90% in the '50, it fails to admit that nobody paid that rate, as many, many loopholes and havens were purposely in play. Also, the analysis seems to ignore the more recent proof that reducing tax rates does indeed promote economic growth!!!........care to discuss when that was, and how it worked?

But hey, you sure are good and cutting and pasting....

Weird, you read the first couple paragraphs and refuted the study huh? lol


WHERE WAS THE ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH DUBYA'S TAX CUTS AGAIN?

The CRS report, by researcher Thomas Hungerford, concluded:

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009.

Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.


Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP UPDATE


EFFECTIVE TAX RATES BUBBA

A 2011 study by the CBO found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP



These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Do you fail to properly cite your graphs for fear of being shut down?

Do you ignore the fact that many millions have dropped out of the equation (to become dependents) and thus skew your stats?\

You really think we are better off than 4-8 years ago? If so, in what way? You can post all the non-cited graphs all day long, it does not change the reality of the economy. You think employment amongst young people, amongst young black people is good?? Under Barry Obama? It has been nearly 10 years since the Dems have controlled two branches of the federal government, and you continue to blame republicans? How stupid is that?

Welfare and food stamp pay rolls have grown exponentially in the last 6 years. You think THAT is success?

Start-up business applications are at an all time low.

Federal debt and deficit levels are at an all time high, an historic and dangerous high, yet the dems don't seem to care a wit as long as it advances more of the same.

So, you can site all day long your socialistic income-equality graphs, but it does not fool me. Clearly, people here and elsewhere, now and throughout history, are better off without government intervention.

Want me to explain it further? Afterall, I've not done so thus far. Logic is most often a better tactic. Let me know.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

NEVER HAPPEN !!

there will be a great recovery from this fucking mess we are currently in, all caused by a muslime mulatto commie socialist son-of-a-bitch !!

MoRoN

December 2007
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



BUSH LOST 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obama has almost 7,000,000 created under him in less than 6 years and Obama is the failure? lol

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

The meltdown was due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Got you CHOOSE to lie


GSE's around for 70 years, CRA around for 30+ years and weakened enforcement by Dubya was the problem. The GOP Congress was scared of Barney I guess, since we know the GOP LOVES regulations and regulators and the Dems hate them, lol




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March 2008 policy statement acknowledged that 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.”


Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

Telling a lie over and over again doesn't make it true, only those who don't understand the economy's and how our government system works is gullible enough to blame it all on one man - president George W Bush. If you want to admit that the Democrats in power and control of Congress stood by as bystanders and simply WATCHED and ALLOWED the economy to go down hill into a recession, go right ahead... you will make yourself look like a bigger fool in your blind obsession over Buuuusssh !!!

 

[Dad2three]

If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

NEVER HAPPEN !!

there will be a great recovery from this fucking mess we are currently in, all caused by a muslime mulatto commie socialist son-of-a-bitch !!

MoRoN

December 2007
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



BUSH LOST 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obama has almost 7,000,000 created under him in less than 6 years and Obama is the failure? lol

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

The meltdown was due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Got you CHOOSE to lie


GSE's around for 70 years, CRA around for 30+ years and weakened enforcement by Dubya was the problem. The GOP Congress was scared of Barney I guess, since we know the GOP LOVES regulations and regulators and the Dems hate them, lol




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March 2008 policy statement acknowledged that 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.”


Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

Telling a lie over and over again doesn't make it true, only those who don't understand the economy's and how our government system works is gullible enough to blame it all on one man - president George W Bush. If you want to admit that the Democrats in power and control of Congress stood by as bystanders and simply WATCHED and ALLOWED the economy to go down hill into a recession, go right ahead... you will make yourself look like a bigger fool in your blind obsession over Buuuusssh !!!

Got it, you don't know how much POLICY matters and Dubya had the REGULATORS

AFTER YOU BLAMED THE MUSLIM? LOL. AND THEN THE DEMS? WINGNUTTER!!


PLEASE TELL ME WHICH DEMS WERE 'IN CHARGE' AND WHO DID WHAT?


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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


EXEC BRANCH:

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!



Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments

PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

NEVER HAPPEN !!

there will be a great recovery from this fucking mess we are currently in, all caused by a muslime mulatto commie socialist son-of-a-bitch !!

MoRoN

December 2007
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



BUSH LOST 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obama has almost 7,000,000 created under him in less than 6 years and Obama is the failure? lol

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

The meltdown was due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Got you CHOOSE to lie


GSE's around for 70 years, CRA around for 30+ years and weakened enforcement by Dubya was the problem. The GOP Congress was scared of Barney I guess, since we know the GOP LOVES regulations and regulators and the Dems hate them, lol




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March 2008 policy statement acknowledged that 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.”


Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

Telling a lie over and over again doesn't make it true, only those who don't understand the economy's and how our government system works is gullible enough to blame it all on one man - president George W Bush. If you want to admit that the Democrats in power and control of Congress stood by as bystanders and simply WATCHED and ALLOWED the economy to go down hill into a recession, go right ahead... you will make yourself look like a bigger fool in your blind obsession over Buuuusssh !!!

Again, the Bush Administration gutted the White Collar Crime Division after 911.

The bureau slashed its criminal investigative work force to expand its national security role after the Sept. 11 attacks, shifting more than 1,800 agents, or nearly one-third of all agents in criminal programs, to terrorism and intelligence duties. Prosecutions of frauds against financial institutions dropped 48 percent from 2000 to 2007, insurance fraud cases plummeted 75 percent, and securities fraud cases dropped 17 percent. This is what less government can look like. So, mention this to your Ron Paul supporter friends, k? Without the help of FBI Whitecollar Investigators, the fraudsters are free to rampage.




More from the NYtimes:

During these years, the bureau asked for an increase of $800 million, but received only $50 million more. In the 2007 budget cycle, the F.B.I. obtained money for a total of one new agent for criminal investigations.

In 2004, one senior F.B.I. official, Chris Swecker, warned publicly that a flood of fraudulent mortgage deals had the potential to become “an epidemic.”
Yet the next year, as public warnings about fraud in the subprime lending markets began to approach their height, the F.B.I. had the equivalent of only 15 full-time agents devoted to mortgage fraud out of a total of some 13,000 agents in the bureau.

That number has grown to 177 agents, who have opened 1,522 cases. But the staffing level is still hundreds of agents below the levels seen in the 1980s during the savings and loan crisis.


Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:


Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.



This helps explain why many of the FBI and DOJ cases now being addressed are for crimes committed WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.​

Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March 2008 policy statement acknowledged that 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.”

 

[Dad2three]

v

If we should take a giant leap backwards and put the party of greed and excess back in charge cutting social programs while going hog wild on spending on corporate subsidies, tax breaks, defense contracts, and Federal Salaries and benefits -- the income gap will quickly grow to pre-Depression levels and when people have no money to spend in a Consumer Driven Economy -- the country will fall apart pretty fast.

And while the ship is sinking, the scumbags at Fox will blame Obama.

Nutjob,
Are you aware that more corporate subsides and tax credits, and SPENDING, have happened Barry Obama?

Corporatism is not a party issue. It is a modern political issue that infects both sides.

Rather than mire yourself in the shallowness of party BS., why not instead embrace the movement that wants to end it all? Got a clue????

Please tell us how the "income gap" (a wedge issue born from jealously, envy and political leverage/fear-mongering) actually hurts anyone?

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around 4 percent during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent by the mid-2000s. During this period, the average tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to below 25 percent.

The study said that "as top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the income distribution increases" and that "these relationships are statistically significant."

In other words, cutting taxes on the rich may not grow the economic pie. But the study found that those cuts can effect "how that economic pie is sliced."




Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don't Spur Growth


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-dont-spur-151649273.html



If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

LOL.

Having read just the first paragraphs, I find several problems in their assumptions, and critical omissions in their analysis. Not only does it avoid the most obvious thing, that just because top marginal rates were 90% in the '50, it fails to admit that nobody paid that rate, as many, many loopholes and havens were purposely in play. Also, the analysis seems to ignore the more recent proof that reducing tax rates does indeed promote economic growth!!!........care to discuss when that was, and how it worked?

But hey, you sure are good and cutting and pasting....

Weird, you read the first couple paragraphs and refuted the study huh? lol


WHERE WAS THE ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH DUBYA'S TAX CUTS AGAIN?

The CRS report, by researcher Thomas Hungerford, concluded:

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009.

Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.


Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP UPDATE


EFFECTIVE TAX RATES BUBBA

A 2011 study by the CBO found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP



These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Do you fail to properly cite your graphs for fear of being shut down?

Do you ignore the fact that many millions have dropped out of the equation (to become dependents) and thus skew your stats?\

You really think we are better off than 4-8 years ago? If so, in what way? You can post all the non-cited graphs all day long, it does not change the reality of the economy. You think employment amongst young people, amongst young black people is good?? Under Barry Obama? It has been nearly 10 years since the Dems have controlled two branches of the federal government, and you continue to blame republicans? How stupid is that?

Welfare and food stamp pay rolls have grown exponentially in the last 6 years. You think THAT is success?

Start-up business applications are at an all time low.

Federal debt and deficit levels are at an all time high, an historic and dangerous high, yet the dems don't seem to care a wit as long as it advances more of the same.

So, you can site all day long your socialistic income-equality graphs, but it does not fool me. Clearly, people here and elsewhere, now and throughout history, are better off without government intervention.

Want me to explain it further? Afterall, I've not done so thus far. Logic is most often a better tactic. Let me know.

THE CITE IS RIGHT THERE ON THE GRAPH DUMMY? CAN'T REFUTE IT? LOL

Note I actually DO CITE AND HAVE LINKS? ALL YOU HAVE IS THE USUAL RIGHT WING BULLSHIT? LOL

8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES THE US LOSES 1,000,0-00+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEAR

LESS THAN 6 YEARS AND OBAMA HAS NEARLY 7 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS AND O'S THE 'FAILURE' LOL

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


PLEASE GIVE ME THE BILLS THE DEMS HAD 2007-JAN 2009 THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES? LOL




Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

This is socialistic gibberish. Making a million dollars means you invested in or created something that benefitted many other people, which results in jobs, salaries, wages, inventions, opportunities, products, usually cheaper products, and commerce, all adding to the economy.... This notion that the pie is of a defined and static size only shows a lack of understanding of how an economy works. Just because I succeed does not mean anyone else fails......on the contrary, I succeed by way of increased economic activity, mine, theirs, ours or all of the above. The punk in Detroit has nothing to do with it. You think people go poor because Zuckerberg made billions? Is he, or Buffett or Gates or the Koch Brothers or the idiot Steyer all responsible for the abysmal economic failings of the Obama administration? Come on, your ability to cut and paste tells me you are smarter than that!!!

MORE right wing garbage from you, I'm shocked


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less.

Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics


I KNOW, YOU CAN'T REFUTE MY LINKS SO YOU'LL USE AD HOMS, AND I'LL BE IMPRESSED *SHAKING HEAD*

I won't even try to refute your links, as they defy the most basic economics courses......perhaps take one course, at a reputable school, and get back to us.

The idea that posting/arguing with links is dumb.

Try again.

Conservative policy NEVER works. Pretty simple really

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership

Wait!! Stop the press!! So now you are saying that it's Republicans and not Democrats who stand up for minorities and the middle class?? I never thought I'd see any liberal try to admit to that about Republicans in a post!!

Now what will Dad2three possibly try and say next? lol