Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation.

[Dad2three]

Got it, as usual with you when your first talking points are DEMOLISHED with credible and logical links, you go in another direction.

Demolished... right.

I think I've got the gist of your clown posts. You agree with Forbes and the banking cabal that eliminating the Glass-Steagall act was inconsequential. You're on the record saying that deficits are not due to spike again after FY 2015. You lay the entire blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Republicans. You think that Obama is one of the most frugal presidents in history. And, you think that spamming threads with bold all caps in 16 font makes your arguments more effective. Wow, you DEMOLISHED everyone.

Moving along...

So NO, you can't refute OR BRING ANYTHING CREDIBLE to show G/S was more than a side note to the Bankster WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, one Dubya cheered on and ignored regulator warnings of it. Got it


Try again Bubba

lol

 

[Kosh]

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

No, your statement is horseshit.

It's not hard to get to 70% when you add up cumulative taxes at the federal, state, and local levels, fines, fees, winnings, then double taxes like corporate taxes.

the chart is federal income taxes, not total of all taxes. read before posting, then you don't look stupid.

Let's recap. You said, "No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes." I said that's not true, and provided an explanation. Then in response you say I look stupid and point to a chart that shows some people paying 70% of their income in federal income taxes as proof of my stupidity. Uhmm... maybe if you learned how to read a chart you would not be making yourself look so stupid.

the chart is on federal income tax rates over time. It does not address the changes to the tax code that eliminated many deductions and exemptions. My original point is valid.

"the chart is on federal income tax rates over time"


lol


NO IT'S NOT. IT'S THE ACTUAL FEDERAL EFFECTIVE RATES DUMMY

THIS IS THE HISTORY OF THE TOP TAX RATE DUMMY

Yes far left propaganda at it's best using far left blog sites such as the NYTimes..

 

[Kosh]

Got it, as usual with you when your first talking points are DEMOLISHED with credible and logical links, you go in another direction.

Demolished... right.

I think I've got the gist of your clown posts. You agree with Forbes and the banking cabal that eliminating the Glass-Steagall act was inconsequential. You're on the record saying that deficits are not due to spike again after FY 2015. You lay the entire blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Republicans. You think that Obama is one of the most frugal presidents in history. And, you think that spamming threads with bold all caps in 16 font makes your arguments more effective. Wow, you DEMOLISHED everyone.

Moving along...

So NO, you can't refute OR BRING ANYTHING CREDIBLE to show G/S was more than a side note to the Bankster WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, one Dubya cheered on and ignored regulator warnings of it. Got it


Try again Bubba

lol

Yes the far left posts propaganda and expects others to prove them wrong!

As you can see the far left does not grow up they just grow old..

 

[Redfish]

Blaming all this on Rs, most of whom are progressives, is absurd.

No doubt income inequality is a problem, but it is a problem because both parties are owned by the elites and as such, do the elite's bidding. To blame conservatives SOLELY for income inequality and deficit spending, fails on so many levels.

You mean the GOP ISN'T conservative? Hasn't gone sooooo fukking right wing the past 20+ years, Goldwater called them nuts???


Yeah, it's the Dems/Liberals who fight tax increases right? lol

Hint that's the number 1 reason for income inequality. In days where they LITERALLY took 70%+ of someones wages in taxes IF they made about $4 million today, kept corps from GIVING the exec's such outrageous salaries, if Gov't would take most of it.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone


DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

No, your statement is horseshit.

It's not hard to get to 70% when you add up cumulative taxes at the federal, state, and local levels, fines, fees, winnings, then double taxes like corporate taxes.

the chart is federal income taxes, not total of all taxes. read before posting, then you don't look stupid.

IF only you weren't an ignorant tool... lol

First you argue the chart was this:

"It's not hard to get to 70% when you add up cumulative taxes at the federal, state, and local levels, fines, fees, winnings, then double taxes like corporate taxes"

NOW you are saying it's ONLY income taxes? When it's CBO numbers on FEDERAL EFFECTIVE TAX RATES (they include income, payroll, gas estimates, cap gains, etc into EFFECTIVE)

lol

the quote in red is not mine. try to keep up

 

[Treeshepherd]

Got it, as usual with you when your first talking points are DEMOLISHED with credible and logical links, you go in another direction.

Demolished... right.

I think I've got the gist of your clown posts. You agree with Forbes and the banking cabal that eliminating the Glass-Steagall act was inconsequential. You're on the record saying that deficits are not due to spike again after FY 2015. You lay the entire blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Republicans. You think that Obama is one of the most frugal presidents in history. And, you think that spamming threads with bold all caps in 16 font makes your arguments more effective. Wow, you DEMOLISHED everyone.

Moving along...

So NO, you can't refute OR BRING ANYTHING CREDIBLE to show G/S was more than a side note to the Bankster WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, one Dubya cheered on and ignored regulator warnings of it. Got it


Try again Bubba

lol

In fact I did link to a strong argument made on US News and World Report;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

This guy makes a strong argument also;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Not a cause but a multiplier - The Washington Post

"With Glass-Steagall, there would not, could not, have been a Citi/Travelers merger, and competitors would not, could not have bulked up the way they did. Major money center banks most likely would have been smaller, more manageable, more easily wound down. Arguably, too big to fail might not have been the rule, and bailouts might not have been necessary"

To lay all the blame at the feet of one party, absolving Clinton, Robert Rubin and all 21st century Dems of their roles leading up to the crisis of our time is not something that I can be expected to take seriously.

And in a general sense, to live in a fantasy world of false dichotomies where a guy getting a hummer from Monica Lewinsky was the great architect of all the myriad of economic factors that created the roaring 90s, and the Shrub was the primary cause of a gigantic speculation bubble in the 00s, is silly. I don't give our spokesmodels in Washington as much credit or blame as most people do.

 

[Dad2three]

You mean the GOP ISN'T conservative? Hasn't gone sooooo fukking right wing the past 20+ years, Goldwater called them nuts???


Yeah, it's the Dems/Liberals who fight tax increases right? lol

Hint that's the number 1 reason for income inequality. In days where they LITERALLY took 70%+ of someones wages in taxes IF they made about $4 million today, kept corps from GIVING the exec's such outrageous salaries, if Gov't would take most of it.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent


"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone


DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today.

No, your statement is horseshit.

It's not hard to get to 70% when you add up cumulative taxes at the federal, state, and local levels, fines, fees, winnings, then double taxes like corporate taxes.

the chart is federal income taxes, not total of all taxes. read before posting, then you don't look stupid.

IF only you weren't an ignorant tool... lol

First you argue the chart was this:

"It's not hard to get to 70% when you add up cumulative taxes at the federal, state, and local levels, fines, fees, winnings, then double taxes like corporate taxes"

NOW you are saying it's ONLY income taxes? When it's CBO numbers on FEDERAL EFFECTIVE TAX RATES (they include income, payroll, gas estimates, cap gains, etc into EFFECTIVE)

lol

the quote in red is not mine. try to keep up

ACTUALLY YOU SAID THIS BUBBA

"total horseshit. No one ever paid 70% of his income in taxes. In those days there were hundreds of exemptions and deductions. The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today."


HERE

Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation. Page 22 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

YOUR WELCOME FOR MY TAKING THE TIME TO PROVE YOUR POSIT, WAS BULLSHIT BUBBA

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, as usual with you when your first talking points are DEMOLISHED with credible and logical links, you go in another direction.

Demolished... right.

I think I've got the gist of your clown posts. You agree with Forbes and the banking cabal that eliminating the Glass-Steagall act was inconsequential. You're on the record saying that deficits are not due to spike again after FY 2015. You lay the entire blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Republicans. You think that Obama is one of the most frugal presidents in history. And, you think that spamming threads with bold all caps in 16 font makes your arguments more effective. Wow, you DEMOLISHED everyone.

Moving along...

So NO, you can't refute OR BRING ANYTHING CREDIBLE to show G/S was more than a side note to the Bankster WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, one Dubya cheered on and ignored regulator warnings of it. Got it


Try again Bubba

lol

In fact I did link to a strong argument made on US News and World Report;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

This guy makes a strong argument also;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Not a cause but a multiplier - The Washington Post

"With Glass-Steagall, there would not, could not, have been a Citi/Travelers merger, and competitors would not, could not have bulked up the way they did. Major money center banks most likely would have been smaller, more manageable, more easily wound down. Arguably, too big to fail might not have been the rule, and bailouts might not have been necessary"

To lay all the blame at the feet of one party, absolving Clinton, Robert Rubin and all 21st century Dems of their roles leading up to the crisis of our time is not something that I can be expected to take seriously.

And in a general sense, to live in a fantasy world of false dichotomies where a guy getting a hummer from Monica Lewinsky was the great architect of all the myriad of economic factors that created the roaring 90s, and the Shrub was the primary cause of a gigantic speculation bubble in the 00s, is silly. I don't give our spokesmodels in Washington as much credit or blame as most people do.

ARGUMENT?? ? LOL

"most likely", "Arguably, too big to fail might not have been the rule", "bailouts might not have been necessary"

LOL

Sure Bubba, SURE


BTW, YOUR SECOND LINK


"Not a cause, but a multiplier"


"The repeal of Glass-Steagall may not have caused the crisis — but its repeal was a factor that made it much worse. And it was a continuum of the radical deregulation movement. This philosophy incorrectly held that banks could regulate themselves, that government had no place in overseeing finance and that the free market works best when left alone."

Repeal of Glass-Steagall Not a cause but a multiplier - The Washington Post

SAME GUY WHO I LINK ALL THE TIME ON THIS:


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

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


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



•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.



AGAIN, IN THE US BUSH REGULATOR (NOT REGULATION) PROBLEM, AS HE CHEERED ON THE BANKTERS

WEIRD IT TOOK ALMOST 5 YEARS FROM THE REPEAL OF G/S FOR THIS TO HAPPEN RIGHT?


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

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


Honesty, try it

 

[Kosh]

Got it, as usual with you when your first talking points are DEMOLISHED with credible and logical links, you go in another direction.

Demolished... right.

I think I've got the gist of your clown posts. You agree with Forbes and the banking cabal that eliminating the Glass-Steagall act was inconsequential. You're on the record saying that deficits are not due to spike again after FY 2015. You lay the entire blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Republicans. You think that Obama is one of the most frugal presidents in history. And, you think that spamming threads with bold all caps in 16 font makes your arguments more effective. Wow, you DEMOLISHED everyone.

Moving along...

So NO, you can't refute OR BRING ANYTHING CREDIBLE to show G/S was more than a side note to the Bankster WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, one Dubya cheered on and ignored regulator warnings of it. Got it


Try again Bubba

lol

In fact I did link to a strong argument made on US News and World Report;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

This guy makes a strong argument also;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Not a cause but a multiplier - The Washington Post

"With Glass-Steagall, there would not, could not, have been a Citi/Travelers merger, and competitors would not, could not have bulked up the way they did. Major money center banks most likely would have been smaller, more manageable, more easily wound down. Arguably, too big to fail might not have been the rule, and bailouts might not have been necessary"

To lay all the blame at the feet of one party, absolving Clinton, Robert Rubin and all 21st century Dems of their roles leading up to the crisis of our time is not something that I can be expected to take seriously.

And in a general sense, to live in a fantasy world of false dichotomies where a guy getting a hummer from Monica Lewinsky was the great architect of all the myriad of economic factors that created the roaring 90s, and the Shrub was the primary cause of a gigantic speculation bubble in the 00s, is silly. I don't give our spokesmodels in Washington as much credit or blame as most people do.

ARGUMENT?? ? LOL

"most likely", "Arguably, too big to fail might not have been the rule", "bailouts might not have been necessary"

LOL

Sure Bubba, SURE


BTW, YOUR SECOND LINK


"Not a cause, but a multiplier"


"The repeal of Glass-Steagall may not have caused the crisis — but its repeal was a factor that made it much worse. And it was a continuum of the radical deregulation movement. This philosophy incorrectly held that banks could regulate themselves, that government had no place in overseeing finance and that the free market works best when left alone."

Repeal of Glass-Steagall Not a cause but a multiplier - The Washington Post

SAME GUY WHO I LINK ALL THE TIME ON THIS:


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

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


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



•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.



AGAIN, IN THE US BUSH REGULATOR (NOT REGULATION) PROBLEM, AS HE CHEERED ON THE BANKTERS

WEIRD IT TOOK ALMOST 5 YEARS FROM THE REPEAL OF G/S FOR THIS TO HAPPEN RIGHT?


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

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


Honesty, try it

The far left will always post their religious propaganda and expect others to prove them wrong!

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, as usual with you when your first talking points are DEMOLISHED with credible and logical links, you go in another direction.

Demolished... right.

I think I've got the gist of your clown posts. You agree with Forbes and the banking cabal that eliminating the Glass-Steagall act was inconsequential. You're on the record saying that deficits are not due to spike again after FY 2015. You lay the entire blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Republicans. You think that Obama is one of the most frugal presidents in history. And, you think that spamming threads with bold all caps in 16 font makes your arguments more effective. Wow, you DEMOLISHED everyone.

Moving along...

So NO, you can't refute OR BRING ANYTHING CREDIBLE to show G/S was more than a side note to the Bankster WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, one Dubya cheered on and ignored regulator warnings of it. Got it


Try again Bubba

lol

In fact I did link to a strong argument made on US News and World Report;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

This guy makes a strong argument also;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Not a cause but a multiplier - The Washington Post

"With Glass-Steagall, there would not, could not, have been a Citi/Travelers merger, and competitors would not, could not have bulked up the way they did. Major money center banks most likely would have been smaller, more manageable, more easily wound down. Arguably, too big to fail might not have been the rule, and bailouts might not have been necessary"

To lay all the blame at the feet of one party, absolving Clinton, Robert Rubin and all 21st century Dems of their roles leading up to the crisis of our time is not something that I can be expected to take seriously.

And in a general sense, to live in a fantasy world of false dichotomies where a guy getting a hummer from Monica Lewinsky was the great architect of all the myriad of economic factors that created the roaring 90s, and the Shrub was the primary cause of a gigantic speculation bubble in the 00s, is silly. I don't give our spokesmodels in Washington as much credit or blame as most people do.

November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market


Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%

WHAT CHANGED BETWEEN 2003 AND 2006 AGAIN???

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, as usual with you when your first talking points are DEMOLISHED with credible and logical links, you go in another direction.

Demolished... right.

I think I've got the gist of your clown posts. You agree with Forbes and the banking cabal that eliminating the Glass-Steagall act was inconsequential. You're on the record saying that deficits are not due to spike again after FY 2015. You lay the entire blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Republicans. You think that Obama is one of the most frugal presidents in history. And, you think that spamming threads with bold all caps in 16 font makes your arguments more effective. Wow, you DEMOLISHED everyone.

Moving along...

So NO, you can't refute OR BRING ANYTHING CREDIBLE to show G/S was more than a side note to the Bankster WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, one Dubya cheered on and ignored regulator warnings of it. Got it


Try again Bubba

lol

In fact I did link to a strong argument made on US News and World Report;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

This guy makes a strong argument also;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Not a cause but a multiplier - The Washington Post

"With Glass-Steagall, there would not, could not, have been a Citi/Travelers merger, and competitors would not, could not have bulked up the way they did. Major money center banks most likely would have been smaller, more manageable, more easily wound down. Arguably, too big to fail might not have been the rule, and bailouts might not have been necessary"

To lay all the blame at the feet of one party, absolving Clinton, Robert Rubin and all 21st century Dems of their roles leading up to the crisis of our time is not something that I can be expected to take seriously.

And in a general sense, to live in a fantasy world of false dichotomies where a guy getting a hummer from Monica Lewinsky was the great architect of all the myriad of economic factors that created the roaring 90s, and the Shrub was the primary cause of a gigantic speculation bubble in the 00s, is silly. I don't give our spokesmodels in Washington as much credit or blame as most people do.

ARGUMENT?? ? LOL

"most likely", "Arguably, too big to fail might not have been the rule", "bailouts might not have been necessary"

LOL

Sure Bubba, SURE


BTW, YOUR SECOND LINK


"Not a cause, but a multiplier"


"The repeal of Glass-Steagall may not have caused the crisis — but its repeal was a factor that made it much worse. And it was a continuum of the radical deregulation movement. This philosophy incorrectly held that banks could regulate themselves, that government had no place in overseeing finance and that the free market works best when left alone."

Repeal of Glass-Steagall Not a cause but a multiplier - The Washington Post

SAME GUY WHO I LINK ALL THE TIME ON THIS:


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

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


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



•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.



AGAIN, IN THE US BUSH REGULATOR (NOT REGULATION) PROBLEM, AS HE CHEERED ON THE BANKTERS

WEIRD IT TOOK ALMOST 5 YEARS FROM THE REPEAL OF G/S FOR THIS TO HAPPEN RIGHT?


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

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


Honesty, try it

The far left will always post their religious propaganda and expect others to prove them wrong!

So as you right wingers NORMALLY do ALL you have are ad homs. Got it

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, as usual with you when your first talking points are DEMOLISHED with credible and logical links, you go in another direction.

Demolished... right.

I think I've got the gist of your clown posts. You agree with Forbes and the banking cabal that eliminating the Glass-Steagall act was inconsequential. You're on the record saying that deficits are not due to spike again after FY 2015. You lay the entire blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Republicans. You think that Obama is one of the most frugal presidents in history. And, you think that spamming threads with bold all caps in 16 font makes your arguments more effective. Wow, you DEMOLISHED everyone.

Moving along...

So NO, you can't refute OR BRING ANYTHING CREDIBLE to show G/S was more than a side note to the Bankster WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, one Dubya cheered on and ignored regulator warnings of it. Got it


Try again Bubba

lol

In fact I did link to a strong argument made on US News and World Report;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

This guy makes a strong argument also;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Not a cause but a multiplier - The Washington Post

"With Glass-Steagall, there would not, could not, have been a Citi/Travelers merger, and competitors would not, could not have bulked up the way they did. Major money center banks most likely would have been smaller, more manageable, more easily wound down. Arguably, too big to fail might not have been the rule, and bailouts might not have been necessary"

To lay all the blame at the feet of one party, absolving Clinton, Robert Rubin and all 21st century Dems of their roles leading up to the crisis of our time is not something that I can be expected to take seriously.

And in a general sense, to live in a fantasy world of false dichotomies where a guy getting a hummer from Monica Lewinsky was the great architect of all the myriad of economic factors that created the roaring 90s, and the Shrub was the primary cause of a gigantic speculation bubble in the 00s, is silly. I don't give our spokesmodels in Washington as much credit or blame as most people do.

" and the Shrub was the primary cause of a gigantic speculation bubble in the 00s"


You mean the guy in charge of regulators? Who, like Ronnie ignoring regulators warnings from Mr Gray beginning in 1984 in the Reagan S&L scandal, didn't 'believe in' Gov't OR it's regulators? Nah, it couldn't be that simple right?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


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


WHO WAS IN CHARGE IN THIS PERIOD? WHO HAD THE SEC, FBI, GSE'S, ETC AS PART OF THEIR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERSIGHT?


"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence." William K. Black Sr. regulator during S&L debacle



“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



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

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


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

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.



"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Government insurance is the biggest problem in the banking industry

Why is the government insuring banks?

 

[Dad2three]

Government insurance is the biggest problem in the banking industry

Why is the government insuring banks?

Because we saw what the 'free market' can do to the economy when Harding/Coolidge's depression hit?

 

[Kosh]

Got it, as usual with you when your first talking points are DEMOLISHED with credible and logical links, you go in another direction.

Demolished... right.

I think I've got the gist of your clown posts. You agree with Forbes and the banking cabal that eliminating the Glass-Steagall act was inconsequential. You're on the record saying that deficits are not due to spike again after FY 2015. You lay the entire blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Republicans. You think that Obama is one of the most frugal presidents in history. And, you think that spamming threads with bold all caps in 16 font makes your arguments more effective. Wow, you DEMOLISHED everyone.

Moving along...

So NO, you can't refute OR BRING ANYTHING CREDIBLE to show G/S was more than a side note to the Bankster WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, one Dubya cheered on and ignored regulator warnings of it. Got it


Try again Bubba

lol

In fact I did link to a strong argument made on US News and World Report;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

This guy makes a strong argument also;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Not a cause but a multiplier - The Washington Post

"With Glass-Steagall, there would not, could not, have been a Citi/Travelers merger, and competitors would not, could not have bulked up the way they did. Major money center banks most likely would have been smaller, more manageable, more easily wound down. Arguably, too big to fail might not have been the rule, and bailouts might not have been necessary"

To lay all the blame at the feet of one party, absolving Clinton, Robert Rubin and all 21st century Dems of their roles leading up to the crisis of our time is not something that I can be expected to take seriously.

And in a general sense, to live in a fantasy world of false dichotomies where a guy getting a hummer from Monica Lewinsky was the great architect of all the myriad of economic factors that created the roaring 90s, and the Shrub was the primary cause of a gigantic speculation bubble in the 00s, is silly. I don't give our spokesmodels in Washington as much credit or blame as most people do.

" and the Shrub was the primary cause of a gigantic speculation bubble in the 00s"


You mean the guy in charge of regulators? Who, like Ronnie ignoring regulators warnings from Mr Gray beginning in 1984 in the Reagan S&L scandal, didn't 'believe in' Gov't OR it's regulators? Nah, it couldn't be that simple right?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


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


WHO WAS IN CHARGE IN THIS PERIOD? WHO HAD THE SEC, FBI, GSE'S, ETC AS PART OF THEIR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERSIGHT?


"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence." William K. Black Sr. regulator during S&L debacle



“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



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

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


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

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.



"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

And the far left propaganda continues without question or hesitation..

 

[Kosh]

Government insurance is the biggest problem in the banking industry

Why is the government insuring banks?

Because we saw what the 'free market' can do to the economy when Harding/Coolidge's depression hit?

See how the far left rewrites history..

 

[Vigilante]

I believe those are the idiot2threes feet....

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, as usual with you when your first talking points are DEMOLISHED with credible and logical links, you go in another direction.

Demolished... right.

I think I've got the gist of your clown posts. You agree with Forbes and the banking cabal that eliminating the Glass-Steagall act was inconsequential. You're on the record saying that deficits are not due to spike again after FY 2015. You lay the entire blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Republicans. You think that Obama is one of the most frugal presidents in history. And, you think that spamming threads with bold all caps in 16 font makes your arguments more effective. Wow, you DEMOLISHED everyone.

Moving along...

So NO, you can't refute OR BRING ANYTHING CREDIBLE to show G/S was more than a side note to the Bankster WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, one Dubya cheered on and ignored regulator warnings of it. Got it


Try again Bubba

lol

In fact I did link to a strong argument made on US News and World Report;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

This guy makes a strong argument also;
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Not a cause but a multiplier - The Washington Post

"With Glass-Steagall, there would not, could not, have been a Citi/Travelers merger, and competitors would not, could not have bulked up the way they did. Major money center banks most likely would have been smaller, more manageable, more easily wound down. Arguably, too big to fail might not have been the rule, and bailouts might not have been necessary"

To lay all the blame at the feet of one party, absolving Clinton, Robert Rubin and all 21st century Dems of their roles leading up to the crisis of our time is not something that I can be expected to take seriously.

And in a general sense, to live in a fantasy world of false dichotomies where a guy getting a hummer from Monica Lewinsky was the great architect of all the myriad of economic factors that created the roaring 90s, and the Shrub was the primary cause of a gigantic speculation bubble in the 00s, is silly. I don't give our spokesmodels in Washington as much credit or blame as most people do.

" and the Shrub was the primary cause of a gigantic speculation bubble in the 00s"


You mean the guy in charge of regulators? Who, like Ronnie ignoring regulators warnings from Mr Gray beginning in 1984 in the Reagan S&L scandal, didn't 'believe in' Gov't OR it's regulators? Nah, it couldn't be that simple right?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


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


WHO WAS IN CHARGE IN THIS PERIOD? WHO HAD THE SEC, FBI, GSE'S, ETC AS PART OF THEIR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERSIGHT?


"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence." William K. Black Sr. regulator during S&L debacle



“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



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

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


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

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.



"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

And the far left propaganda continues without question or hesitation..

 

[Dad2three]

Government insurance is the biggest problem in the banking industry

Why is the government insuring banks?

Because we saw what the 'free market' can do to the economy when Harding/Coolidge's depression hit?

See how the far left rewrites history..

 

[Dad2three]

I believe those are the idiot2threes feet....

 

[Vigilante]

Pointing out the obvious is an ad hominem attack now... you have been attacked...