More people blame Bush than Obama for economic mess

[Mr. Shaman]

This is exactly why conservatives loath liberals. Here's an asshat spending his whole life on the fcukking USMessageBoard while me and others work our asses off and end up supporting his lazy leech ass.

Try gettin' self-employed.

​

 

[Charles_Main]

Being tired fo hearing Bush blamed has nothing to do with if he deserves the blame.

He will get every ounce of the blame he deserves no matter how tired your little heart gets of it.

I have to agree. Bush had his own party in control of the Congress and he led them into becoming free spending Liberals fiscally.

That free spending was enough to wound the economy.

The Big 0 observed this and determined that if a little free spending was enough to wound, maybe quintupling that spending would actually cripple the economy.

Turns out he was right.

Most accurate thing said on this post bar none.

 

[kyzr]

I have to agree. Bush had his own party in control of the Congress and he led them into becoming free spending Liberals fiscally. That free spending was enough to wound the economy.

The Big O observed this and determined that if a little free spending was enough to wound, maybe quintupling that spending would actually cripple the economy. Turns out he was right.

Most accurate thing said on this thread bar none.

True post and True post. I'm going to be an "independent" until there is a party worth voting for. Neither party has a clue how to create jobs w/o telling Wall Street to stop moving factories and hi-tech jobs overseas. i.e. the "service economy" is a hoax. Hint: service economies don't create wealth. Hint-2:Who do we borrow money from????

 

[mudwhistle]

The republican party ranks much lower than the dems or Obama guys.

How is you turn that into thinking the people will turn to Rs to solve their problems?

Only in your mind

Errr.. time to validate your assumptions .....

I posted a link that does.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This is exactly why conservatives loath liberals. Here's an asshat spending his whole life on the fcukking USMessageBoard while me and others work our asses off and end up supporting his lazy leech ass.

Try gettin' self-employed.

​

I did, it's awesome.

 

[MIPS]

Only in your mind

Errr.. time to validate your assumptions .....

I posted a link that does.

Er... "your mind" excludes that possibility that the subject has exclusive ownership which in this case might not be a valid assumption.

 

[Toro]

To close ones eyes on how the huge deficit spending began, will teach us nothing....one HAS TO INCLUDE the near decade of deficit spending, and the decade of using up social security surplus funds to mask the deficits and the near decade of tax cuts for the wealthiest by using the poorest among us money, the social security surplus monies for them and one has to include the wars not being in the President's budget, and one has to include the FAKE good economy driven by the housing bubble, and one has to include the bubble burst and recession that began in 2007, and the banking bubble burst that happened in 2008.....

the only way to improve, is to learn from the mistakes that were made and to learn from the truth of it all...

anyone that takes a graph and picks a date, saying that dems got congress in 2007 and put all the blame on them as if they are in a vacuum is not only fooling themselves, but are downright deceitful....and are being plain stupid, imho.

Spot on.

 

[Toro]

Once Congress was in the hands of the Democrats Jan of 07' they started monkeying with banking regulations.

Which banking regulations are those, Mud?

Here is a graph of home prices up until 2006 - which was perhaps the greatest asset bubble in the history of this nation.

What, pray tell, did the Democrats do in 2007 to retroactively cause this enormously dangerous bubble in 2006?

 

[mudwhistle]

Once Congress was in the hands of the Democrats Jan of 07' they started monkeying with banking regulations.

Which banking regulations are those, Mud?

Here is a graph of home prices up until 2006 - which was perhaps the greatest asset bubble in the history of this nation.

What, pray tell, did the Democrats do in 2007 to retroactively cause this enormously dangerous bubble in 2006?

Using race-baiting they bullied the opposition into relaxing lending practices which came to a head in 2007 when the Dems changed lending requirements. It caused a shock to the system at the wrong time causing an acceleration in defaults.

Rep. Barney Frank (D) proclaimed there was no danger in 2003.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.
Barney Frank on CNBC on July 14, 2008.[53]

In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal, in response to accounting scandals, for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal, supported by the head of Fannie Mae, reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[54] In 2003, Frank also stated what has been called his "famous dice roll":[55] "I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing."[56]

"'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

The subprime mortgage crisis is an ongoing real estate crisis and financial crisis triggered by a dramatic rise in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures in the United States, with major adverse consequences for banks and financial markets around the globe.

Approximately 80% of U.S. mortgages issued in recent years to subprime borrowers were adjustable-rate mortgages.[1] After U.S. house prices peaked in mid-2006 and began their steep decline thereafter, refinancing became more difficult. As adjustable-rate mortgages began to reset at higher rates, mortgage delinquencies soared. Securities backed with subprime mortgages, widely held by financial firms, lost most of their value. The result has been a large decline in the capital of many banks and U.S. government sponsored enterprises, tightening credit around the world.

The immediate cause or trigger of the crisis was the bursting of the United States housing bubble which peaked in approximately 2005–2006.[2][3] High default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), began to increase quickly thereafter. An increase in loan incentives such as easy initial terms and a long-term trend of rising housing prices had encouraged borrowers to assume difficult mortgages in the belief they would be able to quickly refinance at more favorable terms. However, once interest rates began to rise and housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults and foreclosure activity increased dramatically as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest rates reset higher. Falling prices also resulted in homes worth less than the mortgage loan, providing a financial incentive for borrowers to enter foreclosure. The ongoing foreclosure epidemic that began in late 2006 in the U.S. continues to be a key factor in the global economic crisis, because it drains wealth from consumers and erodes the financial strength of banking institutions.

In the years leading up to the crisis, significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds combined with low U.S. interest rates from 2002-2004 contributed to easy credit conditions, which fueled both housing and credit bubbles. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[4][5] As part of the housing and credit booms, the amount of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which derive their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, major global financial institutions that had borrowed and invested heavily in subprime MBS reported significant losses. Defaults and losses on other loan types also increased significantly as the crisis expanded from the housing market to other parts of the economy. Total losses are estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars globally.[6]

Because of the housing boom people were allowed to borrow more on their property then it was worth.

It was anticipated that values would rise so loans above the value of the property was allowed....due to relaxed regulations. Stated income became a norm where all you needed was to show that you had money in the bank.

The mortgage qualification guidelines began to change. At first, the stated income, verified assets (SIVA) loans came out. Proof of income was no longer needed. Borrowers just needed to "state" it and show that they had money in the bank. Then, the no income, verified assets (NIVA) loans came out. The lender no longer required proof of employment. Borrowers just needed to show proof of money in their bank accounts. The qualification guidelines kept getting looser in order to produce more mortgages and more securities. This led to the creation of NINA. NINA is an abbreviation of No Income No Assets (sometimes referred to as Ninja loans). Basically, NINA loans are official loan products and let you borrow money without having to prove or even state any owned assets. All that was required for a mortgage was a credit score. [6]

* The housing debt to income ratio or debt-service ratio is the ratio of mortgage payments to disposable income. When the ratio gets too high, households become increasingly dependent on rising property values to service their debt. A variant of this indicator measures total home ownership costs, including mortgage payments, utilities and property taxes, as a percentage of a typical household's monthly pre-tax income; for example see RBC Economics' reports for the Canadian markets.[15]

* The housing debt to equity ratio (not to be confused with the corporate debt to equity ratio), also called loan to value, is the ratio of the mortgage debt to the value of the underlying property; it measures financial leverage. This ratio increases when homeowners refinance and tap into their home equity through a second mortgage or home equity loan. A ratio of 1 means 100% leverage; higher than 1 means negative equity.
ousing ownership and rent measures

* The ownership ratio is the proportion of households who own their homes as opposed to renting. It tends to rise steadily with incomes. Also, governments often enact measures such as tax cuts or subsidized financing to encourage and facilitate home ownership. If a rise in ownership is not supported by a rise in incomes, it can mean either that buyers are taking advantage of low interest rates (which must eventually rise again as the economy heats up) or that home loans are awarded more liberally, to borrowers with poor credit. Therefore a high ownership ratio combined with an increased rate of subprime lending may signal higher debt levels associated with bubbles.

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mudwhistle]

Let's not forget that Congress wasn't in the hands of the GOP completely except for 2004-2006. The Dems controlled the Senate up until 04' and won it back in 07'.

By 04' the housing bubble had already started.

U.S. house prices peaked in mid-2006 and began their steep decline thereafter, refinancing became more difficult......

# In 2004, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relaxed the net capital rule, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages. The SEC has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis.[65][66]
# Financial institutions in the shadow banking system are not subject to the same regulation as depository banks, allowing them to assume additional debt obligations relative to their financial cushion or capital base.[67] This was the case despite the Long-Term Capital Management debacle in 1998, where a highly-leveraged shadow institution failed with systemic implications.

Case in point....the Dems started the slide. Since the GOP didn't take over until Jan 05' it was done during Democrat control just before the switch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2010

Sub-prime lending
U.S. subprime lending expanded dramatically 2004-2006

The term subprime refers to the credit quality of particular borrowers, who have weakened credit histories and a greater risk of loan default than prime borrowers.[41] The value of U.S. subprime mortgages was estimated at $1.3 trillion as of March 2007,[42] with over 7.5 million first-lien subprime mortgages outstanding.[43]

In addition to easy credit conditions, there is evidence that both government and competitive pressures contributed to an increase in the amount of subprime lending during the years preceding the crisis. Major U.S. investment banks and government sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae played an important role in the expansion of higher-risk lending.[44][45]

Subprime mortgages remained below 10% of all mortgage originations until 2004, when they spiked to nearly 20% and remained there through the 2005-2006 peak of the United States housing bubble.[46] A proximate event to this increase was the April 2004 decision by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to relax the net capital rule, which permitted the largest five investment banks to dramatically increase their financial leverage and aggressively expand their issuance of mortgage-backed securities. This applied additional competitive pressure to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which further expanded their riskier lending.[47] Subprime mortgage payment delinquency rates remained in the 10-15% range from 1998 to 2006,[48] then began to increase rapidly, rising to 25% by early 2008.[49][50]

 

[mudwhistle]

But the crisis began years earlier:

Some, like American Enterprise Institute fellow Peter J. Wallison,[51] believe the roots of the crisis can be traced directly to sub-prime lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are government sponsored entities. On 30 September 1999, The New York Times reported that the Clinton Administration pushed for sub-prime lending:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people... In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.[52]

A 2000 United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends for 305 cities from 1993 to 1998 showed that $467 billion of mortgage credit poured out of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)-covered lenders into low and mid level income borrowers and neighborhoods.[53] Nevertheless, only 25% of all sub-prime lending occurred at CRA-covered institutions, and a full 50% of sub-prime loans originated at institutions exempt from CRA.[54] While the number of CRA sub-prime loans originated were less than non-CRA sub-prime loans originated, it is important to note that the CRA sub-prime loans were the more "vulnerable during the downturn, to the detriment of both borrowers and lenders. For example, lending done under Community Reinvestment Act criteria, according to a quarterly report in October of 2008, constituted only 7 percent of the total mortgage lending by the Bank of America, but constituted 29 percent of its losses on mortgages."[55]

Others have pointed out that there were not enough of these loans made to cause a crisis of this magnitude. In an article in Portfolio Magazine, Michael Lewis spoke with one trader who noted that "There weren’t enough Americans with [bad] credit taking out [bad loans] to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product." Essentially, investment banks and hedge funds used financial innovation to enable large wagers to be made, far beyond the actual value of the underlying mortgage loans, using derivatives called credit default swaps and synthetic CDO. As long as derivative buyers could be matched with sellers, the theoretical amount that could be wagered was infinite. "They were creating [synthetic loans] out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans."[56]

Economist Paul Krugman argued in January 2010 that the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial real estate pricing bubbles undermines the case made by those who argue that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, CRA or predatory lending were primary causes of the crisis. In other words, bubbles in both markets developed even though only the residential market was affected by these potential causes.[57]

Financial crisis of 2007?2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EriktheRed]

Let's not forget that Congress wasn't in the hands of the GOP completely except for 2004-2006. The Dems controlled the Senate up until 04' and won it back in 07'.

The Dems did NOT control the Senate 2003-04.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Americans Blame Bush, Not Obama, for Deficit, Jobs, Afghan War - BusinessWeek

Maybe the Dems should run against Bush again in 2010.

Not that either could do much anyways.

What it took Bush 8 years to do, obama has tripled in ONE and A HALF YEARS. Now thats a record.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's not forget that Congress wasn't in the hands of the GOP completely except for 2004-2006. The Dems controlled the Senate up until 04' and won it back in 07'.

The Dems did NOT control the Senate 2003-04.

However the democrats did control the senate from 2001 until 2003

 

[EriktheRed]

Let's not forget that Congress wasn't in the hands of the GOP completely except for 2004-2006. The Dems controlled the Senate up until 04' and won it back in 07'.

The Dems did NOT control the Senate 2003-04.

However the democrats did control the senate from 2001 until 2003

They did indeed, stupid.

Now why don't you read the post I partially quoted to see why that's significant.

 

[rightwinger]

Americans Blame Bush, Not Obama, for Deficit, Jobs, Afghan War - BusinessWeek

Maybe the Dems should run against Bush again in 2010.

Not that either could do much anyways.

What it took Bush 8 years to do, obama has tripled in ONE and A HALF YEARS. Now thats a record.

Math wasn't your best subject was it?

Bush added $5 trillion to the deficit

Obama has added $2 trillion

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Americans Blame Bush, Not Obama, for Deficit, Jobs, Afghan War - BusinessWeek

Maybe the Dems should run against Bush again in 2010.

Not that either could do much anyways.

What it took Bush 8 years to do, obama has tripled in ONE and A HALF YEARS. Now thats a record.

Math wasn't your best subject was it?

Bush added $5 trillion to the deficit

Obama has added $2 trillion

Really? and where did you get those numbers? From obama or was it nancy polsei?

 

[rdean]

Americans Blame Bush, Not Obama, for Deficit, Jobs, Afghan War - BusinessWeek

Maybe the Dems should run against Bush again in 2010.

Not that either could do much anyways.

Crazy as it sounds I'd rather have George W. Bush in the Oval Office right now than the socialist @sshole we have right now ........ something I'd never thought I'd say but Obama-Biden is worse than Bush-Cheney OMG how is that possible ?

It's not possible. Have you considered you may be a lemming?

 

[rightwinger]

What it took Bush 8 years to do, obama has tripled in ONE and A HALF YEARS. Now thats a record.

Math wasn't your best subject was it?

Bush added $5 trillion to the deficit

Obama has added $2 trillion

Really? and where did you get those numbers? From obama or was it nancy polsei?

Like Casey Stengle used to say "You can look it up"

Bush entered with a budget surplus and a $5 trillion deficit

He left with a collapsed economy and an $11 trillion deficit

Current deficit is $13 trillion

Now,,,,show me how that equates to tripled?

 

[rdean]

What it took Bush 8 years to do, obama has tripled in ONE and A HALF YEARS. Now thats a record.

Math wasn't your best subject was it?

Bush added $5 trillion to the deficit

Obama has added $2 trillion

Really? and where did you get those numbers? From obama or was it nancy polsei?

What is wrong with you people? You have the Internet. Go look things up.

The CBO says the cost of both wars was 3 trillion dollars. Bush never included the cost of those wars in his budgets. How was he able to do that? That is your first assignment. Learn how to use the Internet and find out how Bush was able to keep the cost of both wars out of the budget.

The CBO says the 2.4 trillion dollar tax cuts will actually cost 3 trillion. For every dollar in tax cut, the country realizes $0.32 in real spending that helps the economy. For every dollar spent on unemployment, the country sees $1.61 in real spending that helps the economy.

That's six trillion right there. All from the Republicans.

This stuff is out in the open. It's not a conspiracy. Facts aren't hidden. They come from respected and no partisan sources. Unless you think the CBO is partisan.

Conspiracy is all the right wing Obama rhetoric. Spend some time learning the "truth". It calms you down and helps you to think.