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

[Sallow]

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

No they are not.

Reagan booted all the mental patients out of half way houses. In New York? That led to a large spike in the population of Homeless. We began to see homeless towns pop up all over the place. Additionally? Taxes on the poor and middle class began to spike. Reagan stopped SSI payments to the children of parents who died before they collected their checks. That effected me directly. I had to switch from a part time job to a full time job in college.

 

[bugs]

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

No they are not.

Reagan booted all the mental patients out of half way houses. In New York? That led to a large spike in the population of Homeless. We began to see homeless towns pop up all over the place. Additionally? Taxes on the poor and middle class began to spike. Reagan stopped SSI payments to the children of parents who died before they collected their checks. That effected me directly. I had to switch from a part time job to a full time job in college.

so now it's all better?

 

[Andylusion]

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

No they are not.

Reagan booted all the mental patients out of half way houses. In New York? That led to a large spike in the population of Homeless. We began to see homeless towns pop up all over the place. Additionally? Taxes on the poor and middle class began to spike. Reagan stopped SSI payments to the children of parents who died before they collected their checks. That effected me directly. I had to switch from a part time job to a full time job in college.

Oh the horror. Having to actually pay for what you get yourself, with your own work.... how sad... how terrible... how miserable... You couldn't just force other people to pay for your life.... whoa whoa is you.

I worked TWO jobs through college. Poor spoiled brat American. No one should ever have to work during college.... how terrible.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

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.

I don't know what the point of all that other crap you posted was, but I deleted everything that was irrelevant. None of it contradicted anything I said, and was generally not even applicable to the discussion.

Does the fact the government can mint coins... change the fact that the fundamental aspect of the economy is individuals building stuff, selling stuff, and buying stuff? No. So why did you waste your time posting that? If you go and ask a business owner why he started his business, you think he'll say "Oh because of Article 1 of the Constitutional law says...." Moving on....

Federal Reserve legal tender, didn't exist until 1914. Yet by nearly all economic measures, the US grew faster in the 1800s, than the 1900s.

Industrial Revolution and the Standard of Living by Clark Nardinelli The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics Library of Economics and Liberty

Between 1840 and 1920, growth was exceptionally fast, yet there was no government controlled currency. And during that time, the government was not it's biggest customer.

The free-banks of Scotland was a perfect example of a stable, highly trusted currency, completely independent of government.
soundfiledesc

You can read up on that if you like.

There is a confusion between 'regulation' and ensuring property rights.

Yes we need a government to enforce justice and property rights.

People tend to not grow businesses when they are constantly worried about being killed. Equally, people tend to not buy stuff, when someone can just take it. The reason I bought a car, is because I was reasonably assured that the police would enforce the law enough, that it wouldn't be stolen.

If you want to see the opposite of that, look at Haiti. Years after the Earthquake, millions of homes were still not rebuilt, and the reason was, they couldn't determine who actually owned the property, OR they found people squating in the home, and had no legal recourse to remove them.

So I'm all for enforcement of property rights and justice, and yes without those the won't be economic growth. I agree with that. But saying that 'without justice and property rights there won't be growth' equals "government causes growth", is not true. Government protects the rights of the people... which in turn allows the people the ability to grow the economy. But until you find a business owner who says "the police told me to build this company", they are separate things. Related, but not causally.

Now regulation, is two separate things people confuse. Some regulation, is really just enforcing property rights, and that again allows economic growth. Other regulation, just hinders growth.

The FCC for example, regulates radio spectrum. But that's really just enforcing property rights. I run a radio station on 91.5, and no one else is allowed to get on that frequency. It's mine. I own it. (lease it). You can't open a competing station, and over power mine on 91.5, nor can you block 91.5 with static. The FCC prevents you, by enforcing radio spectrum leases. That protection of property rights, allows economic growth.

At the same time the FCC regulates TV broadcast spectrum too. In the 50s, they set aside 48 white spaces for broadcast TV channels. Yet through regulations, they effectively prevented any new station from getting a white space. From the 50s to early 2000, there were only 4 stations. NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox. By regulation they completely hindered economic growth in broadcast TV. That wasn't enforcement of property rights. It was just hindering growth.

So back to the point. Government is required in order to have economic growth, in that you must have property rights and justice, to have growth. But that doesn't mean, the government is the economy. That's foolish thinking.

 

[Sallow]

That's an economically illiterate position. .

You cut out all the of the constitution so I cut out all of your incoherent babble.



You really are out of your element.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Even Clinton's administration, Clinton economic advisers back in the 90s, said the economic growth of the 80s and 90s, was due to Reagan's Tax cuts.

Active Duty Military Personnel 1940 2011 Infoplease.com

Active duty military personnel.

1980 - 2.05 Million.
1985 - 2.15 Million.
1990 - 2.04 Million.

On what basis do you claim the decline in employment was not due to economic recovery, but rather military spending? I highly doubt a mere 100,000 troops made all the difference in the unemployment rate.

The share of taxes paid by the rich, increased under Reagan.

The actual amount of money paid in taxes, increase for the top 10% and top 1%, while remaining unchanged for the bottom 90%.

On what basis do you make the claim that Reagan's tax policy shifted the burden to the poor?

Reagan did spend more on the military, and I support that. The military is in fact the specific duty of the Federal Government.

But Reagan also asked congress to cut spending, and the Democrats not only refused to cut spending even thought they said they would, but they also increased spending drastically in the 1980s, over and above every budget Reagan passed.

 

[Andylusion]

That's an economically illiterate position. .

You cut out all the of the constitution so I cut out all of your incoherent babble.



You really are out of your element.

So you can't respond to any of the points I made that were on the topic, and relevant to discussion... all because I cut out something that was not relevant, and not on the topic.

You really are a completely useless person on this discussion. Grow up, or get off the forum. Childish people on the forum today.

 

[Sallow]

That's an economically illiterate position. .

You cut out all the of the constitution so I cut out all of your incoherent babble.



You really are out of your element.

So you can't respond to any of the points I made that were on the topic, and relevant to discussion... all because I cut out something that was not relevant, and not on the topic.

You really are a completely useless person on this discussion. Grow up, or get off the forum. Childish people on the forum today.

Respond to what points?

You want to cut out significant portions of the Constitution and keep those that only favor the extremely wealthy.

Of course you think the only role government should play in society is defending the borders and protecting property rights.

That's the rich man's view.

Heck? Does a "totally free market" protect property rights?

Of course not.

You wanna see a totally "free market"? Visit the open air markets in Bangkok.

There's no copyright protections, no patents, no licenses to operate no nothing.

If you wanna set up shop? Go right ahead.

If you want to sell pirated dvds? Cool. If you want to sell Paul Frank apparel (And call it Paul Flank ) , no worries.

But generally what happens in your top heavy economies is one of two things.

Revolution.
The population up and leaves.

They don't work out very well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

No they are not.

Reagan booted all the mental patients out of half way houses. In New York? That led to a large spike in the population of Homeless. We began to see homeless towns pop up all over the place. Additionally? Taxes on the poor and middle class began to spike. Reagan stopped SSI payments to the children of parents who died before they collected their checks. That effected me directly. I had to switch from a part time job to a full time job in college.

Reagan booted all the mental patients out of half way houses.

I though the liberals were all pushing for deinstitutionalization?

 

[Andylusion]

That's an economically illiterate position. .

You cut out all the of the constitution so I cut out all of your incoherent babble.



You really are out of your element.

So you can't respond to any of the points I made that were on the topic, and relevant to discussion... all because I cut out something that was not relevant, and not on the topic.

You really are a completely useless person on this discussion. Grow up, or get off the forum. Childish people on the forum today.

Respond to what points?

Respond to what points? You haven't said anything at all. Remember, *YOU* just made this your method of debate. Delete everything relevant and claim the other person hasn't made any points.

Until you post something relevant, there's nothing to discuss. Get off the forum you pathetic child. This a forum for adults, and you are not an adult based on your posts. Make sure your parents know you are using their computer.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Yes or no NIMROD Bush was POTUS in 2007 and the democrats were in charge of congress. What makes you think I was talking about pre 2007. The bubble popped while the democrats were in charge of congress ya dumb ass.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Yes or no NIMROD Bush was POTUS in 2007 and the democrats were in charge of congress. What makes you think I was talking about pre 2007. The bubble popped while the democrats were in charge of congress ya dumb ass.

The Bubble didn't pop as a result of the Democrats winning the election. The bubble popped as a result of actions taken by the Bush administration to create the bubble in the first place.

 

[Sallow]

Typically, republicans have tried to detract from the president’s accomplishments. When it comes to the falling unemployment rate, they claim that it is somehow related to large numbers of people just dropping out of the workforce. This would almost be believable if the economy wasn’t creating new jobs at a rate that coincides perfectly with the falling employment rate, but it is. There have been six consecutive months with more than 200,000 new jobs created, with only a slight dip in that number in August. Additionally, there have been 63 straight months of economic expansion and more than two solid years of manufacturing expansion.

In order to satisfy Obama’s conservative critics, Forbes compared the economy under President Obama to that of Ronald Reagan, who the GOP often touts as the best economic president of our times. It’s no surprise to discover that even with many additional obstacles in his path, Forbes concluded that:
“President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories.”
In order to complete the analysis, Forbes interviewed Bob Deitrick, CEO of Polaris Financial Partners. The company’s newsletter is reported to be one of the most reliable authorities on economic performance in the country. Here’s what Deitrick had to say about President Obama’s job creation record, when compared to that of President Reagan.
“President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’
As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.
President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his 6th year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.
We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”
According to Forbes, this is not only the best private sector job growth in modern history:

“This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American History.”
​

8211 It 8217 s Official President Obama Is The Best Economic President In Modern Times​

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Yes or no NIMROD Bush was POTUS in 2007 and the democrats were in charge of congress. What makes you think I was talking about pre 2007. The bubble popped while the democrats were in charge of congress ya dumb ass.

The Bubble didn't pop as a result of the Democrats winning the election. The bubble popped as a result of actions taken by the Bush administration to create the bubble in the first place.

The bubble created BY US initially during the Clinton administration and subsequently continued during the Bush administration, was gonna pop no matter what. That's what bubbles do. Additionally each time Bush tried to do something about it the democrats blocked him because the way it was working benefited democrats. This including the time in 2007 when Frank blocked him, Frank who was Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, the committee in charge of this issue, Frank that guy reporting to congress that the bill pushed by Bush was not necessary because everything was fine. This just months before the crash.

 

[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.

Yes or no NIMROD Bush was POTUS in 2007 and the democrats were in charge of congress. What makes you think I was talking about pre 2007. The bubble popped while the democrats were in charge of congress ya dumb ass.

The Bubble didn't pop as a result of the Democrats winning the election. The bubble popped as a result of actions taken by the Bush administration to create the bubble in the first place.

Again, the Bubble started in 1997. It popped, because they increased the minimum wage.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Yes or no NIMROD Bush was POTUS in 2007 and the democrats were in charge of congress. What makes you think I was talking about pre 2007. The bubble popped while the democrats were in charge of congress ya dumb ass.

The Bubble didn't pop as a result of the Democrats winning the election. The bubble popped as a result of actions taken by the Bush administration to create the bubble in the first place.

The bubble created BY US initially during the Clinton administration and subsequently continued during the Bush administration, was gonna pop no matter what. That's what bubbles do. Additionally each time Bush tried to do something about it the democrats blocked him because the way it was working benefited democrats. This including the time in 2007 when Frank blocked him, Frank who was Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, the committee in charge of this issue, Frank that guy reporting to congress that the bill pushed by Bush was not necessary because everything was fine. This just months before the crash.

The CRA had zero to do with the Bush cataclysm. Neither did minimum wage.

 

[Sallow]

Interesting Article.

The True Story Of How One Man Shut Down American Commerce To Avoid Paying His Workers A Fair Wage ThinkProgress

And yet, for all its beauty, the town was still a mechanism to ensure his dominion over his workers. Though Pullman employees were technically under no obligation to reside in the company town, promotions were often only available to workers residing in company housing, and workers who lived elsewhere were the first to be laid off in difficult economic times. Every square inch of land in Pullman was owned by the company — workers had no option to buy their own homes — and leases permitted the company to evict a resident on just ten days notice. Thus, a worker who displeased their bosses could wind up homeless almost as quickly as they were rendered jobless.
Pullman, Illinois’ layout also reinforced a rigid hierarchy. The residential portion began at Florence Boulevard, named for Pullman’s daughter, where a dozen and a half homes housed corporate executives. Beyond the town’s most expensive residences laid hundreds of two to five family row houses for skilled workers. At the outskirts, Pullman built tenements for unskilled laborers. And overlooking all of this was the Florence Hotel, built at the beginning of Florence Boulevard, where Pullman himself could watch over his domain from a suite built for his use.
It was the closest thing that has ever existed to an American barony, with George Mortimer Pullman ensconced as its lord and master. As Harper’s warned,
the idea of Pullman is un-American. It is a nearer approach than anything the writer has seen to what appears to be the ideal of the great German Chancellor. It is not the American ideal. It is benevolent, well-wishing feudalism, which desires the happiness of the people, but in such way as shall please the authorities. One can not avoid thinking of the late Czar of Russia, Alexander II., to whom the welfare of his subjects was truly a matter of concern. He wanted them to be happy, but desired their happiness to proceed from him, in whom everything should centre.

This is a bedrock of modern conservatism.

 

[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 ... ?

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.

The boost to the housing market in '97, that you're referring to, came from CRA loans after Clinton modified the law. It is well documented that CRA loans comprised just a small percentage of the toxic loans which crashed the real estate market and was not the problem. The problem began in the early 2000's after the federal fund rate was lowered to 2%, and then to 1%, and Bush guaranteed any loans given to folks who now qualified for a loan because of the super low interest rates and the waiving of a down payment. That's why the chart I showed demonstrates at that point, the vast majority of loans were subprime mortgages.

 

[Sallow]

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.

The boost to the housing market in '97, that you're referring to, came from CRA loans after Clinton modified the law. It is well documented that CRA loans comprised just a small percentage of the toxic loans which crashed the real estate market and was not the problem. The problem began in the early 2000's after the federal fund rate was lowered to 2%, and then to 1%, and Bush guaranteed any loans given to folks who now qualified for a loan because of the super low interest rates and the waiving of a down payment. That's why the chart I showed demonstrates at that point, the vast majority of loans were subprime mortgages.

Subprimes weren't even the problem.

The problem, mainly, was mortgage backed securities, which, no one outside the sharpies that put them together, really understood. That, and the same sharpies insured them.

It's funny that no matter how many times you go over it, conservatives will never blame the guys that put this scheme in action.

 

[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 ... ?

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.

The boost to the housing market in '97, that you're referring to, came from CRA loans after Clinton modified the law. It is well documented that CRA loans comprised just a small percentage of the toxic loans which crashed the real estate market and was not the problem. The problem began in the early 2000's after the federal fund rate was lowered to 2%, and then to 1%, and Bush guaranteed any loans given to folks who now qualified for a loan because of the super low interest rates and the waiving of a down payment. That's why the chart I showed demonstrates at that point, the vast majority of loans were subprime mortgages.

Subprimes weren't even the problem.

The problem, mainly, was mortgage backed securities, which, no one outside the sharpies that put them together, really understood. That, and the same sharpies insured them.

It's funny that no matter how many times you go over it, conservatives will never blame the guys that put this scheme in action.

A subprime loan in itself is not necessarily a problem, but the vast majority of the toxic loans were subprime. And we suffered the perfect storm ... 1% adjustable loans ... with no down payment ... and backed by the government with insufficient oversight. Once the rates went up, which was inevitable, droves of folks who had little invested in their home and now struggled to pay the adjusted rates, simply walked away from them.