More economic GOOD News...DOW hits new record..on track to hit 17K.

[Moonglow]

No, actually that's not true at all. There is more myth surrounding the Embargo, than fact.

No myths, I lived during this period of time and watched it's affect, and followed the reasons why it happened..

Arab oil embargo of 1973
The Event: The cessation of oil exports from Arab states to the United States and some Western European countries that supplied the Israeli military as a result of American support of Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War

Arab oil embargo of 1973

 

[Andylusion]

Bush's "massive stimulus bills" came in the form of tax cuts for the rich, under the notion that the rich are some how altruistic angels will to spend their windfalls on investment into their companies or innovation.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The rich, spend, on themselves. They buy massive mansions, boats and other big boy toys. One trip to Monaco will confirm that for you.

Bush didn't spend on infrastructure. There weren't many big federal builds during his time in office. Heck, they didn't even start rebuilding the Freedom Tower, until he was out of office. You would figure that, would at least, be completed.

Bush's notion, that somehow giving rich folks everything they wanted, was a dismal failure, as evidenced by the financial cataclysm he left for Obama.

Bush's tax cuts were larger for the middle class and poor than they were for the rich. In fact, it is because of Bush's moronic tax cuts that we now have half the country not paying any income taxes, ya moron.

"Bush didn't spend on infrastructure." Yeah cause all the money going to the infrastructure in NYC and NO that doesn't count. FT wasn't delayed by Bush dumb ass.

Bush warned about the realestate bubble, Frank was in charge and stonewalled republican reforms in congress.

But yes by and large Bush was a socialist POS aka moderate republican RINO, PNAC republican.

I'm not defending Bush, I'm just pointing out your lies.

Ya gotta be a "special" kind of stupid to think Frank, a member of the minority party until 2007, was in charge. Learn how our government functions and learn whether it's the majority party or the minority party which is in charge each respective chamber of the Congress so you can understand why that comment of yours is so asinine.

You are the special kind of stupid. When you are so dumb, that you think Frank, being a member of the minority party, matters at all, then you are an idiot.

It doesn't matter if you are member of the minority party. We don't operate like the UK. In the UK, the party in control... is just.... in control. The minority party can scream and yell, and nothing matters.

The US system, by the choice of the people in Congress, routinely shares power. Happens constantly. Neither party is a monolithic group. People switch sides on all kinds of issues all the time.

Barney Frank, was the ranking, leading member of the democrats on the House Committee on Financial Services, and the defacto leading proponent of affordable housing goals, and his position won.

For you to deny that, is just being willfully ignorant. That's all there is to it.

 

[Vigilante]

For the 49th time in the past 50 months, more unemployed workers dropped out of the labor force than found jobs

 

[Andylusion]

Americans net worth is up $20 trillion dollars since 2009.
America will be energy independent by 2030.
Unemployment has dropped from 10.2% to 6.1%
The stock market has more than doubled since the stimulus.
10 million private sector jobs have been created since 2009.
GDP has been growing since 2009.
Auto sales are up. Retail sales are up. Home sales are up.
Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.
Obama has done a very good job.

Obama has done very little to earn credit for our improvement.

That's incorrect.

He didn't stop TARP.
He enacted the Stimulus.
He kept Bernake.
He saved the Auto Industry.
He didn't immediately sunset the Bush tax cuts.
He enacted the ACA.
He rolled out Dodd-Frank.

That's the short list.

LOL. He didn't stop the bank bailouts......... while the left said the bailing out banks was bad.

He enacted the Stimulus that spent us trillions into debt, while not coming close to reversing the unemployment which they said would top out at 6% and recover, which instead topped out at almost 11%, and we're still "recovering".

He kept the guy most responsible for bad policy.

Didn't save the auto industry, but did give billions to rich people.

Allowed taxes to rise, during a recession period.

Enacted the biggest flop in history, which dozens of companies *STILL* have waivers from because otherwise they'd cancel their insurance policies, and has caused millions of workers to have their hours cut.

And rolled out Dodd Frank, which he didn't propose, didn't write, and it doesn't solve anything at all.

That's your short list? Zero, is a short list, I agree.

The results are there for all to see.

Market over 17K.
5 Straight years of solid employment growth.
GDP going up.
Manufacturing coming back to the US.
US Auto industry number one in sales world wide.

If that's "failure" to you..I can't wait to see what you find successful.

If you find a country doing better? Move.

That's an economically illiterate position. If you are so uneducated, that you think the entire economy exists, grows, and dies, with the whims of just the president, or even the entire Federal Government, then you are just flat out ignorant.

The economy is not government. The economy, is not the president. The economy is *US*. We are the economy. It's organic. It's driven from the bottom up.

The economy is people making, buying and selling stuff.

Does government show up at HP, and say "Hey HP, you know you should make Laptops, and sell them!"? No.

Does government show up at Walmart, and say "Hey Walmart, you should get HP laptops, and sell them to consumers!"? No.

Does government show up at your door, and say "Hey citizens, you really want to go to a store and buy a laptop from HP"? Of course not.

Every aspect of the free-market economy exists NATURALLY. No one had to explain to AirBnB, that they should come up with a service people wanted, and sell it. They figured it out, with zero dollars, zero direction, zero regulation from the government. They figured it out on their own.

No one had to tell customers "you should go to AirBnB next time you are going out of town."... The figured out what they wanted on their own.

The point is, the economy would have recovered if the government had done NOTHING. Only in economically illiterate Leftard land, where "without government we'd all die die die!" does it make since to claim that the stock market, GDP, employment, manufacturing and auto sales, are all due to the benevolent divine power of Almighty Obama.

If you are an idiot.... then that makes sense. To the rest of us, who understand the basics of economics... that's retarded, and so is anyone who believes it.

I find it almost adorable how righties blame Obama for the economy when it's bad, but then claim he has little to do with it when good news of the economy comes out.

Almost.

That's because we're right. Government, whether it's Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Obama, Carter, or anyone else, does not cause the economy to grow.

Reagan did not cause the economy to grow. Reagan simply stopped (reduced) stealing money from those who did.... and they caused the economy to grow. Reagan didn't grow Apple Computer. Reagan just didn't take all the money from Steve Jobs, who grew Apple Computer.

Reagan's great policy was not "let's have government grow the economy", Reagan's great policy was "let's get out of the way of the people who grow the economy".

I find it pathetic that lefties, are so ignorant, that they want to give credit to Obama for something he had no control over. Just shows how terrible our socialized education system is.

 

[Moonglow]

Stocks are doing better and more people are going into and back to retirement, Housing values have moderated and increased in some

For the 49th time in the past 50 months, more unemployed workers dropped out of the labor force than found jobs

Notice how it was just as high during Bush, 2008, compared to Obama, 2014? Now talk shit about Bush...

 

[Vigilante]

Stocks are doing better and more people are going into and back to retirement, Housing values have moderated and increased in some

For the 49th time in the past 50 months, more unemployed workers dropped out of the labor force than found jobs

Notice how it was just as high during Bush, 2008, compared to Obama, 2014? Now talk shit about Bush...

Do you know how to read a graph? Did you notice under Bush more people had jobs than didn't until the very end of his term as president, and under Obuma, only ONE month had it that way out of 50?.... No, Butthead, you don't know how to read a graph! It also shows BUSH had a much higher employed rate until the CUOMO housing bubble crash!

 

[Faun]

Bush's "massive stimulus bills" came in the form of tax cuts for the rich, under the notion that the rich are some how altruistic angels will to spend their windfalls on investment into their companies or innovation.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The rich, spend, on themselves. They buy massive mansions, boats and other big boy toys. One trip to Monaco will confirm that for you.

Bush didn't spend on infrastructure. There weren't many big federal builds during his time in office. Heck, they didn't even start rebuilding the Freedom Tower, until he was out of office. You would figure that, would at least, be completed.

Bush's notion, that somehow giving rich folks everything they wanted, was a dismal failure, as evidenced by the financial cataclysm he left for Obama.

Bush's tax cuts were larger for the middle class and poor than they were for the rich. In fact, it is because of Bush's moronic tax cuts that we now have half the country not paying any income taxes, ya moron.

"Bush didn't spend on infrastructure." Yeah cause all the money going to the infrastructure in NYC and NO that doesn't count. FT wasn't delayed by Bush dumb ass.

Bush warned about the realestate bubble, Frank was in charge and stonewalled republican reforms in congress.

But yes by and large Bush was a socialist POS aka moderate republican RINO, PNAC republican.

I'm not defending Bush, I'm just pointing out your lies.

Ya gotta be a "special" kind of stupid to think Frank, a member of the minority party until 2007, was in charge. Learn how our government functions and learn whether it's the majority party or the minority party which is in charge each respective chamber of the Congress so you can understand why that comment of yours is so asinine.

You are the special kind of stupid. When you are so dumb, that you think Frank, being a member of the minority party, matters at all, then you are an idiot.

It doesn't matter if you are member of the minority party. We don't operate like the UK. In the UK, the party in control... is just.... in control. The minority party can scream and yell, and nothing matters.

The US system, by the choice of the people in Congress, routinely shares power. Happens constantly. Neither party is a monolithic group. People switch sides on all kinds of issues all the time.

Barney Frank, was the ranking, leading member of the democrats on the House Committee on Financial Services, and the defacto leading proponent of affordable housing goals, and his position won.

For you to deny that, is just being willfully ignorant. That's all there is to it.

Stocks are doing better and more people are going into and back to retirement, Housing values have moderated and increased in some

For the 49th time in the past 50 months, more unemployed workers dropped out of the labor force than found jobs

Notice how it was just as high during Bush, 2008, compared to Obama, 2014? Now talk shit about Bush...

Do you know how to read a graph? Did you notice under Bush more people had jobs than didn't until the very end of his term as president, and under Obuma, only ONE month had it that way out of 50?.... No, Butthead, you don't know how to read a graph! It also shows BUSH had a much higher employed rate until the CUOMO housing bubble crash!

Unbelievably stupid. One member of the minority party in the House cannot possibly block the entire majority party. You really have no knowledge of how our government operates if you believe that. Furthermore, there were 3 bills which had the potential of preventing the crash. Two never made it out of the Senate, so Frank couldn't block either of them. The third made it out of the House, so Frank didn't block that one either, though that bill was such a piece of shit, even Bush tore it to shreds. So 3 bills and Frank didn't block any one of them. Rightards who blame Frank for the failures of the majority Republican party truly are a "special" kind of stupid.

 

[Faun]

Stocks are doing better and more people are going into and back to retirement, Housing values have moderated and increased in some

For the 49th time in the past 50 months, more unemployed workers dropped out of the labor force than found jobs

Notice how it was just as high during Bush, 2008, compared to Obama, 2014? Now talk shit about Bush...

Do you know how to read a graph? Did you notice under Bush more people had jobs than didn't until the very end of his term as president, and under Obuma, only ONE month had it that way out of 50?.... No, Butthead, you don't know how to read a graph! It also shows BUSH had a much higher employed rate until the CUOMO housing bubble crash!

And had Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 4.2% instead of 7.8%, employment would have been much better during his presidency also. So what?

 

[Moonglow]

They now think the recession didn't start till after Oblama was president? To add to the fact they at first they only said Bush was a rino, and Bush had to go into hiding from his own party to hide from their hostility and embarrassment....

 

[Andylusion]

Bush's "massive stimulus bills" came in the form of tax cuts for the rich, under the notion that the rich are some how altruistic angels will to spend their windfalls on investment into their companies or innovation.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The rich, spend, on themselves. They buy massive mansions, boats and other big boy toys. One trip to Monaco will confirm that for you.

Bush didn't spend on infrastructure. There weren't many big federal builds during his time in office. Heck, they didn't even start rebuilding the Freedom Tower, until he was out of office. You would figure that, would at least, be completed.

Bush's notion, that somehow giving rich folks everything they wanted, was a dismal failure, as evidenced by the financial cataclysm he left for Obama.

Bush's tax cuts were larger for the middle class and poor than they were for the rich. In fact, it is because of Bush's moronic tax cuts that we now have half the country not paying any income taxes, ya moron.

"Bush didn't spend on infrastructure." Yeah cause all the money going to the infrastructure in NYC and NO that doesn't count. FT wasn't delayed by Bush dumb ass.

Bush warned about the realestate bubble, Frank was in charge and stonewalled republican reforms in congress.

But yes by and large Bush was a socialist POS aka moderate republican RINO, PNAC republican.

I'm not defending Bush, I'm just pointing out your lies.

Ya gotta be a "special" kind of stupid to think Frank, a member of the minority party until 2007, was in charge. Learn how our government functions and learn whether it's the majority party or the minority party which is in charge each respective chamber of the Congress so you can understand why that comment of yours is so asinine.

You are the special kind of stupid. When you are so dumb, that you think Frank, being a member of the minority party, matters at all, then you are an idiot.

It doesn't matter if you are member of the minority party. We don't operate like the UK. In the UK, the party in control... is just.... in control. The minority party can scream and yell, and nothing matters.

The US system, by the choice of the people in Congress, routinely shares power. Happens constantly. Neither party is a monolithic group. People switch sides on all kinds of issues all the time.

Barney Frank, was the ranking, leading member of the democrats on the House Committee on Financial Services, and the defacto leading proponent of affordable housing goals, and his position won.

For you to deny that, is just being willfully ignorant. That's all there is to it.

Stocks are doing better and more people are going into and back to retirement, Housing values have moderated and increased in some

For the 49th time in the past 50 months, more unemployed workers dropped out of the labor force than found jobs

Notice how it was just as high during Bush, 2008, compared to Obama, 2014? Now talk shit about Bush...

Do you know how to read a graph? Did you notice under Bush more people had jobs than didn't until the very end of his term as president, and under Obuma, only ONE month had it that way out of 50?.... No, Butthead, you don't know how to read a graph! It also shows BUSH had a much higher employed rate until the CUOMO housing bubble crash!

Unbelievably stupid. One member of the minority party in the House cannot possibly block the entire majority party. You really have no knowledge of how our government operates if you believe that. Furthermore, there were 3 bills which had the potential of preventing the crash. Two never made it out of the Senate, so Frank couldn't block either of them. The third made it out of the House, so Frank didn't block that one either, though that bill was such a piece of shit, even Bush tore it to shreds. So 3 bills and Frank didn't block any one of them. Rightards who blame Frank for the failures of the majority Republican party truly are a "special" kind of stupid.

Did we not just cover this??? Parties, especially in the US, are not monolithic. You don't have to block the "entire majority party". Both parties are not monolithic. People vote on different side of issues all the time. Why is this so hard for you leftists to grasp?

Frank only had to convince numerous Republicans friendly to the 'pro affordable housing' cause, to gain the advantage. And... HE DID.

 

[Moonglow]

Bush was in charge when the economy crashed-fact. The economy has improved under Obama-fact.
Deal with it crusty rwer's and it's going to get better, why? It's a business cycle phenomena...

 

[Andylusion]

They now think the recession didn't start till after Oblama was president? To add to the fact they at first they only said Bush was a rino, and Bush had to go into hiding from his own party to hide from their hostility and embarrassment....

When Bush was first elected, he was more conservative, than he ended up.

He was in favor of privatizing social security, which was my biggest pro-Bush issue. I'd vote for him NOW, if he ran again with that as his goal.

As for when the Recession, no it started during his presidency.

But unlike the ignorant, mindless leftards.... I'm too intelligent to simply think

"Dur Recession started when Bush was president... therefore Bush must have caused recession, because I'm leftard that thinks correlation equals causation! Dur"

We've had that phrase "correlation does not equal causation" for almost 100 years, and yet morons leftists, still think that is how the world works.

Bush was president when the economy crashed. But the cause of the recession, is rooted back in the 90s. That's when the price bubble started, and that's when sub-prime loans starting flying. But of course leftists are too dumb to look at data before per-determining their conclusions.

 

[Faun]

Bush's "massive stimulus bills" came in the form of tax cuts for the rich, under the notion that the rich are some how altruistic angels will to spend their windfalls on investment into their companies or innovation.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The rich, spend, on themselves. They buy massive mansions, boats and other big boy toys. One trip to Monaco will confirm that for you.

Bush didn't spend on infrastructure. There weren't many big federal builds during his time in office. Heck, they didn't even start rebuilding the Freedom Tower, until he was out of office. You would figure that, would at least, be completed.

Bush's notion, that somehow giving rich folks everything they wanted, was a dismal failure, as evidenced by the financial cataclysm he left for Obama.

Bush's tax cuts were larger for the middle class and poor than they were for the rich. In fact, it is because of Bush's moronic tax cuts that we now have half the country not paying any income taxes, ya moron.

"Bush didn't spend on infrastructure." Yeah cause all the money going to the infrastructure in NYC and NO that doesn't count. FT wasn't delayed by Bush dumb ass.

Bush warned about the realestate bubble, Frank was in charge and stonewalled republican reforms in congress.

But yes by and large Bush was a socialist POS aka moderate republican RINO, PNAC republican.

I'm not defending Bush, I'm just pointing out your lies.

Ya gotta be a "special" kind of stupid to think Frank, a member of the minority party until 2007, was in charge. Learn how our government functions and learn whether it's the majority party or the minority party which is in charge each respective chamber of the Congress so you can understand why that comment of yours is so asinine.

You are the special kind of stupid. When you are so dumb, that you think Frank, being a member of the minority party, matters at all, then you are an idiot.

It doesn't matter if you are member of the minority party. We don't operate like the UK. In the UK, the party in control... is just.... in control. The minority party can scream and yell, and nothing matters.

The US system, by the choice of the people in Congress, routinely shares power. Happens constantly. Neither party is a monolithic group. People switch sides on all kinds of issues all the time.

Barney Frank, was the ranking, leading member of the democrats on the House Committee on Financial Services, and the defacto leading proponent of affordable housing goals, and his position won.

For you to deny that, is just being willfully ignorant. That's all there is to it.

Stocks are doing better and more people are going into and back to retirement, Housing values have moderated and increased in some

For the 49th time in the past 50 months, more unemployed workers dropped out of the labor force than found jobs

Notice how it was just as high during Bush, 2008, compared to Obama, 2014? Now talk shit about Bush...

Do you know how to read a graph? Did you notice under Bush more people had jobs than didn't until the very end of his term as president, and under Obuma, only ONE month had it that way out of 50?.... No, Butthead, you don't know how to read a graph! It also shows BUSH had a much higher employed rate until the CUOMO housing bubble crash!

Unbelievably stupid. One member of the minority party in the House cannot possibly block the entire majority party. You really have no knowledge of how our government operates if you believe that. Furthermore, there were 3 bills which had the potential of preventing the crash. Two never made it out of the Senate, so Frank couldn't block either of them. The third made it out of the House, so Frank didn't block that one either, though that bill was such a piece of shit, even Bush tore it to shreds. So 3 bills and Frank didn't block any one of them. Rightards who blame Frank for the failures of the majority Republican party truly are a "special" kind of stupid.

Did we not just cover this??? Parties, especially in the US, are not monolithic. You don't have to block the "entire majority party". Both parties are not monolithic. People vote on different side of issues all the time. Why is this so hard for you leftists to grasp?

Frank only had to convince numerous Republicans friendly to the 'pro affordable housing' cause, to gain the advantage. And... HE DID.

He didn't block shit and you're ignoring reality to claim he did.

Again, there was only one bill that was voted on in the House and it passed in the House. Frank did not block it. That bill and the two others all died in the Senate. Barney Frank did not block shit. Rightards are imbeciles. Two undeniable facts.

 

[Faun]

They now think the recession didn't start till after Oblama was president? To add to the fact they at first they only said Bush was a rino, and Bush had to go into hiding from his own party to hide from their hostility and embarrassment....

When Bush was first elected, he was more conservative, than he ended up.

He was in favor of privatizing social security, which was my biggest pro-Bush issue. I'd vote for him NOW, if he ran again with that as his goal.

As for when the Recession, no it started during his presidency.

But unlike the ignorant, mindless leftards.... I'm too intelligent to simply think

"Dur Recession started when Bush was president... therefore Bush must have caused recession, because I'm leftard that thinks correlation equals causation! Dur"

We've had that phrase "correlation does not equal causation" for almost 100 years, and yet morons leftists, still think that is how the world works.

Bush was president when the economy crashed. But the cause of the recession, is rooted back in the 90s. That's when the price bubble started, and that's when sub-prime loans starting flying. But of course leftists are too dumb to look at data before per-determining their conclusions.

umm, the subprime loans started flying in 2003....

... next lie ... ?

 

[Andylusion]

No, actually that's not true at all. There is more myth surrounding the Embargo, than fact.

No myths, I lived during this period of time and watched it's affect, and followed the reasons why it happened..

No, it's a myth. Even OPEC itself said their embargo was almost entirely ineffective.

Look, if you had read the data from the economists and researchers that I posted, you would not be sitting there doing the 'lalala I can't hear you routine'.

If you want to be ignorant, that's fine. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Andylusion]

Stocks are doing better and more people are going into and back to retirement, Housing values have moderated and increased in some

For the 49th time in the past 50 months, more unemployed workers dropped out of the labor force than found jobs

Notice how it was just as high during Bush, 2008, compared to Obama, 2014? Now talk shit about Bush...

I have. Bush raised the minimum wage, and that killed jobs. Bush supported sub-prime loans, and that caused the bubble and crash.

The problem is... you people support both of those positions yourself, and did so before Bush was in office. Obama supports both of those position too. So now talk shit about Clinton and Obama.

Oh wait, you people are hypocrites, and refuse to believe anything either of those two did, was bad.

See there's the real difference. We on the right, are more than willing, and have, complained bitterly about the things Bush did wrong. You people on left, never do. NEVER do. You would defend your leftard heros no matter what they did.

 

[Andylusion]

They now think the recession didn't start till after Oblama was president? To add to the fact they at first they only said Bush was a rino, and Bush had to go into hiding from his own party to hide from their hostility and embarrassment....

When Bush was first elected, he was more conservative, than he ended up.

He was in favor of privatizing social security, which was my biggest pro-Bush issue. I'd vote for him NOW, if he ran again with that as his goal.

As for when the Recession, no it started during his presidency.

But unlike the ignorant, mindless leftards.... I'm too intelligent to simply think

"Dur Recession started when Bush was president... therefore Bush must have caused recession, because I'm leftard that thinks correlation equals causation! Dur"

We've had that phrase "correlation does not equal causation" for almost 100 years, and yet morons leftists, still think that is how the world works.

Bush was president when the economy crashed. But the cause of the recession, is rooted back in the 90s. That's when the price bubble started, and that's when sub-prime loans starting flying. But of course leftists are too dumb to look at data before per-determining their conclusions.

umm, the subprime loans started flying in 2003....

... next lie ... ?

That's ratio. Who cares about ratio? How about when did the sub-prime mortages start being used period? 1994. When did they first become a significant part of the market? 1997. Your cherry picked graph, doesn't even go back far enough.

Here, how about a source from inside the mortgage market?

Between 1994 and 1997, the sub-prime market was a niche market with almost no growth at all. Before 1994, it practically didn't exist as a market. There were only a few isolated areas that had them.

In 1997, the market increased dramatically. That was the start.

"Well I'm a dumb leftard, and clear evidence isn't enough for me!"

Ok ok ok...... When did the price bubble start? When did housing prices, due to the drastic increase in sub-prime loans, start raising from the additional demand?

Looky there.... 1997. Can't see that? Let me blow it up for you.

Look at that.... 1997.

So the sub-prime mortgage market shoots off in 1997, and we see clearly that housing prices began their march up into oblivion, in 1997. Both of these are established facts.

You want to debate Yale economist Robert Shiller, go for it. But until you have some counter evidence to his, I'm going with the Yale economist over doofus on the internet with an opinion.

So then we have to ask... what the crap happened in 1997 to 1998? Because clearly something did happen, and I highly doubt it was 'greed'. You are telling me that before 1997, all the bankers were altruistic, and then magically 'poof' became greedy in 1997? And I don't buy the idea they were all sitting around one night after too many beers, and all spontaneously said "Hey, lets engage in super risky loans, and ask the government to bail us out when we crash!" "yeah yeah! that's a good plan!".

So what could have happened. My theory.... carrot and stick.

First the stick.



Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of HUD, announces a successful lawsuit against a bank, for BILLIONS, to be used in CRA loans. Cuomo openly admits these loans will go to unqualified borrowers. Openly admits the default rates will be higher.

So the government is beating banks with a stick to make exactly the kind of loans that caused the crash.

Now the carrot.

First Union Capital Markets Corp. Bear Stearns Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re CHARLOTTE N.C. Oct. 20 PRNewswire --

First Union Capital Markets Corp.
and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the
industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the
investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE: FTU).

Let's review. First Union became Wachovia. So Wachovia and Bear Stearns, two of the biggest early crashes during the bubble burst, agreed in 1997, to have Freddie Mac, guarantee, with a AAA rating, CRA loans.

You think that might motivate banks to make bad loans, when the Federal Government is guaranteeing them?

This is what crashed the economy in 2008.

 

[Sallow]

That's an economically illiterate position. If you are so uneducated, that you think the entire economy exists, grows, and dies, with the whims of just the president, or even the entire Federal Government, then you are just flat out ignorant.

The economy is not government. The economy, is not the president. The economy is *US*. We are the economy. It's organic. It's driven from the bottom up.

The economy is people making, buying and selling stuff.

Does government show up at HP, and say "Hey HP, you know you should make Laptops, and sell them!"? No.

Does government show up at Walmart, and say "Hey Walmart, you should get HP laptops, and sell them to consumers!"? No.

Does government show up at your door, and say "Hey citizens, you really want to go to a store and buy a laptop from HP"? Of course not.

Every aspect of the free-market economy exists NATURALLY. No one had to explain to AirBnB, that they should come up with a service people wanted, and sell it. They figured it out, with zero dollars, zero direction, zero regulation from the government. They figured it out on their own.

No one had to tell customers "you should go to AirBnB next time you are going out of town."... The figured out what they wanted on their own.

The point is, the economy would have recovered if the government had done NOTHING. Only in economically illiterate Leftard land, where "without government we'd all die die die!" does it make since to claim that the stock market, GDP, employment, manufacturing and auto sales, are all due to the benevolent divine power of Almighty Obama.

If you are an idiot.... then that makes sense. To the rest of us, who understand the basics of economics... that's retarded, and so is anyone who believes it.

You really should read this thing:

Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

I've just given you a short list of multiple clauses in the United States Constitution that deals directly with economy of this country.

To post that the "Government is not the economy" is incredibly naïve.

To the point where it's laughable.

The government, in this country, regulates the economy and is it's biggest consumer.

No viable or resilient economy in history has existed without a strong government that provides protection, regulation and a trusted currency.

That's a very BASIC economic principle.

 

[Sallow]

Americans net worth is up $20 trillion dollars since 2009.
America will be energy independent by 2030.
Unemployment has dropped from 10.2% to 6.1%
The stock market has more than doubled since the stimulus.
10 million private sector jobs have been created since 2009.
GDP has been growing since 2009.
Auto sales are up. Retail sales are up. Home sales are up.
Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.
Obama has done a very good job.

Obama has done very little to earn credit for our improvement.

That's incorrect.

He didn't stop TARP.
He enacted the Stimulus.
He kept Bernake.
He saved the Auto Industry.
He didn't immediately sunset the Bush tax cuts.
He enacted the ACA.
He rolled out Dodd-Frank.

That's the short list.

LOL. He didn't stop the bank bailouts......... while the left said the bailing out banks was bad.

He enacted the Stimulus that spent us trillions into debt, while not coming close to reversing the unemployment which they said would top out at 6% and recover, which instead topped out at almost 11%, and we're still "recovering".

He kept the guy most responsible for bad policy.

Didn't save the auto industry, but did give billions to rich people.

Allowed taxes to rise, during a recession period.

Enacted the biggest flop in history, which dozens of companies *STILL* have waivers from because otherwise they'd cancel their insurance policies, and has caused millions of workers to have their hours cut.

And rolled out Dodd Frank, which he didn't propose, didn't write, and it doesn't solve anything at all.

That's your short list? Zero, is a short list, I agree.

The results are there for all to see.

Market over 17K.
5 Straight years of solid employment growth.
GDP going up.
Manufacturing coming back to the US.
US Auto industry number one in sales world wide.

If that's "failure" to you..I can't wait to see what you find successful.

If you find a country doing better? Move.

That's an economically illiterate position. If you are so uneducated, that you think the entire economy exists, grows, and dies, with the whims of just the president, or even the entire Federal Government, then you are just flat out ignorant.

The economy is not government. The economy, is not the president. The economy is *US*. We are the economy. It's organic. It's driven from the bottom up.

The economy is people making, buying and selling stuff.

Does government show up at HP, and say "Hey HP, you know you should make Laptops, and sell them!"? No.

Does government show up at Walmart, and say "Hey Walmart, you should get HP laptops, and sell them to consumers!"? No.

Does government show up at your door, and say "Hey citizens, you really want to go to a store and buy a laptop from HP"? Of course not.

Every aspect of the free-market economy exists NATURALLY. No one had to explain to AirBnB, that they should come up with a service people wanted, and sell it. They figured it out, with zero dollars, zero direction, zero regulation from the government. They figured it out on their own.

No one had to tell customers "you should go to AirBnB next time you are going out of town."... The figured out what they wanted on their own.

The point is, the economy would have recovered if the government had done NOTHING. Only in economically illiterate Leftard land, where "without government we'd all die die die!" does it make since to claim that the stock market, GDP, employment, manufacturing and auto sales, are all due to the benevolent divine power of Almighty Obama.

If you are an idiot.... then that makes sense. To the rest of us, who understand the basics of economics... that's retarded, and so is anyone who believes it.

I find it almost adorable how righties blame Obama for the economy when it's bad, but then claim he has little to do with it when good news of the economy comes out.

Almost.

That's because we're right. Government, whether it's Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Obama, Carter, or anyone else, does not cause the economy to grow.

Reagan did not cause the economy to grow. Reagan simply stopped (reduced) stealing money from those who did.... and they caused the economy to grow. Reagan didn't grow Apple Computer. Reagan just didn't take all the money from Steve Jobs, who grew Apple Computer.

Reagan's great policy was not "let's have government grow the economy", Reagan's great policy was "let's get out of the way of the people who grow the economy".

I find it pathetic that lefties, are so ignorant, that they want to give credit to Obama for something he had no control over. Just shows how terrible our socialized education system is.

Wait what?

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich was creating a yawning deficit and not producing the desired outcome. UE was still very high when Reagan went running back to congress to ask for more spending. Then? They created a whole mess of NEW taxes to pay for that spending. Like a tax on unemployment checks. Or a tax on tips. They shifted the burden of revenue from the rich to the poor and middle class. Then Reagan spent like a madman on the military. Low and behold? UE went down.

By the way? Reagan's "economy" needed to be bailed out multiple times.

 

[bugs]

By the way? Reagan's "economy" needed to be bailed out multiple times.[/QUOTE]

yep..Reagan SUCKED.. and those were the Good Old Days compared to NOW! LOL!