Trump blames Obama for doubling the debt

[BluesLegend]

If Obama had been able to run again, Trump would not have got into the race.

Obama said his policies and legacy were running in 2016 and he lost. So much for your theory.

That's la la talk, blues. It was Hillary and her personality that beat Trump and his personality in the PV and lost in the EV. It had little to do with policies. Your affirmation, bud, so can you prove it? Nah, don't even try.

Congrats Hillary won California, in other news Obama put his legacy on the line and Trump crushed him.

Nope, that is la la hash talk. And now we see on this Board growing numbers of posters of Trump supporters who are getting pissed with his inability to govern.

This board is a scientific data sample? Are you on the climate change board of data directors? /sarcasm

 

[francoHFW]

If Obama had been able to run again, Trump would not have got into the race.

Obama said his policies and legacy were running in 2016 and he lost. So much for your theory.

That's la la talk, blues. It was Hillary and her personality that beat Trump and his personality in the PV and lost in the EV. It had little to do with policies. Your affirmation, bud, so can you prove it? Nah, don't even try.

Congrats Hillary won California, in other news Obama put his legacy on the line and Trump crushed him.

Due mainly to a gigantic pile of misinformation character assassination and bulshit propaganda... Fox Rush Limbaugh Heritage etc etc are a disgrace poor America. I'm still hoping Trump remembers he's from New York City gets a grip on reality for a change. His policy is based on Fox Rush Limbaugh Infowars absolute crap.

 

[francoHFW]

If Obama had been able to run again, Trump would not have got into the race.

Obama said his policies and legacy were running in 2016 and he lost. So much for your theory.

That's la la talk, blues. It was Hillary and her personality that beat Trump and his personality in the PV and lost in the EV. It had little to do with policies. Your affirmation, bud, so can you prove it? Nah, don't even try.

Congrats Hillary won California, in other news Obama put his legacy on the line and Trump crushed him.

Nope, that is la la hash talk. And now we see on this Board growing numbers of posters of Trump supporters who are getting pissed with his inability to govern.

This board is a scientific data sample? Are you on the climate change board of data directors? /sarcasm

This board is certainly a beautiful thing if you're interested in absolute b*******believed by ignoramuses like you, and unfortunately by the president it appears... Read my book.

 

[BluesLegend]

If Obama had been able to run again, Trump would not have got into the race.

Obama said his policies and legacy were running in 2016 and he lost. So much for your theory.

That's la la talk, blues. It was Hillary and her personality that beat Trump and his personality in the PV and lost in the EV. It had little to do with policies. Your affirmation, bud, so can you prove it? Nah, don't even try.

Congrats Hillary won California, in other news Obama put his legacy on the line and Trump crushed him.

Do mainly to a gigantic pile of misinformation character assassination and bulshit propaganda... Fox Rush Limbaugh Heritage etc etc are a disgrace poor America. I'm still hoping Trump remembers he's from New York City gets a grip on reality for a change. His policy is based on Fox Rush Limbaugh Infowars absolute crap.

Lib please Trump crushed her winning 30 states. Go find a real candidate if you can, I doubt one exists in your party.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama said his policies and legacy were running in 2016 and he lost. So much for your theory.

That's la la talk, blues. It was Hillary and her personality that beat Trump and his personality in the PV and lost in the EV. It had little to do with policies. Your affirmation, bud, so can you prove it? Nah, don't even try.

Congrats Hillary won California, in other news Obama put his legacy on the line and Trump crushed him.

Nope, that is la la hash talk. And now we see on this Board growing numbers of posters of Trump supporters who are getting pissed with his inability to govern.

This board is a scientific data sample? Are you on the climate change board of data directors? /sarcasm

This board is certainly a beautiful thing if you're interested in absolute b*******believed by ignoramuses like you, and unfortunately by the president it appears... Read my book.

Franco was your post garbled in transmission??

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Less regulation of mortgages contributed to the recession. That was driven by Republicans. Making mortgages easier to obtain was driven by Democrats. The biggest driver was the approval of derivative by both parties.

But ultimately it was caused by greedy bankers finding ways to take advantage of the above to make excessive profits and then bailing when they had the excessive losses that came with the risky investments created.
More regulations would have caught the slime buckets.
These simple minded people who want to blame one party on a simplistic interpretation that is false.
Trump supporters want everything to be simpler than it is.

The root cause of the Great Recession is liberal culture which produces lower class people who don't pay their bills and who have bad credit. That is why Clinton lowered the mortgage lending standards.

And then Republican regulators and their corrupt cronies in private lending institutions did away with them all together and would give toxic mortgages to anyone who could sign. You have no clue and you never will get one listening to Fox Rush Limbaugh and all those other bought off scumbags...

Articles: Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession

Your link is to a swamp of b******* propaganda, ignorant brainwashed functional moron. Try journalists. LOL

Yea, try journalists, they never lie.

Most Democrat Voters are dumb fanatical left wing crackpots. They will always refuse to accept reality.
In the end it will be their downfall

 

[whitehall]

Trump blames Obama and Husseiniacs blame Bush. Meanwhile the economy surges and the beat goes on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the trolls right and left roll on

 

[IM2]

If you allow one derivative per mortgage it is a zero sum game. But the law allowed for one mortgage to back multiple derivatives. If the mortgage failed there would not be funds to pay off the many derivatives.

It's still zero sum.
If Goldman insured the same $500,000 mortgage, 5 times and the mortgage fails, Goldman pays out $2,500,000 and the insured parties receive $2,500,000.

It puts a multiplier effect on bad mortgages.

How many mortgages had a CDS written against them even once, let alone multiple times?
Probably a really small number.

That caused many financial institution to default.

How many firms went under because they wrote CDS?
How many went under just because they wrote/held crappy mortgages?

It is not a 0 sum gain. Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000 and they took in mainly $500,000 at most. They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000

And the party that bought the CDS receives 2,500,000

They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Why would Goldman default on a payment of 2,500,000?

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives. The derivatives were traded like stocks. At the end of the day, using your example, you have a $500,000 asset securing $2,500,000 in investments. It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold. There were no regulations.
It is the same as having a piece of property worth $200,000. You can only get one loan you can secure with the property. But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property. If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

You can't explain to the Trump cult members things as complex as derivatives. They think ex lax is a derivative.

Explain how Bush caused derivatives

No. But you can go look to find how Gramm, Leech and Bliley made it possible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Democrats screwed over millions of middle class Americans with their Great Recession

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Less regulation of mortgages contributed to the recession. That was driven by Republicans. Making mortgages easier to obtain was driven by Democrats. The biggest driver was the approval of derivative by both parties.

But ultimately it was caused by greedy bankers finding ways to take advantage of the above to make excessive profits and then bailing when they had the excessive losses that came with the risky investments created.
More regulations would have caught the slime buckets.
These simple minded people who want to blame one party on a simplistic interpretation that is false.
Trump supporters want everything to be simpler than it is.

The root cause of the Great Recession is liberal culture which produces lower class people who don't pay their bills and who have bad credit. That is why Clinton lowered the mortgage lending standards.

And then Republican regulators and their corrupt cronies in private lending institutions did away with them all together and would give toxic mortgages to anyone who could sign. You have no clue and you never will get one listening to Fox Rush Limbaugh and all those other bought off scumbags...

Articles: Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession

Your link is to a swamp of b******* propaganda, ignorant brainwashed functional moron. Try journalists. LOL

Yea, try journalists, they never lie.

 

[IM2]

Democrats screwed over millions of middle class Americans with their Great Recession

To bad that's not how it happened.

 

[ElmerMudd]

If you allow one derivative per mortgage it is a zero sum game. But the law allowed for one mortgage to back multiple derivatives. If the mortgage failed there would not be funds to pay off the many derivatives.

It's still zero sum.
If Goldman insured the same $500,000 mortgage, 5 times and the mortgage fails, Goldman pays out $2,500,000 and the insured parties receive $2,500,000.

It puts a multiplier effect on bad mortgages.

How many mortgages had a CDS written against them even once, let alone multiple times?
Probably a really small number.

That caused many financial institution to default.

How many firms went under because they wrote CDS?
How many went under just because they wrote/held crappy mortgages?

It is not a 0 sum gain. Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000 and they took in mainly $500,000 at most. They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000

And the party that bought the CDS receives 2,500,000

They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Why would Goldman default on a payment of 2,500,000?

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives. The derivatives were traded like stocks. At the end of the day, using your example, you have a $500,000 asset securing $2,500,000 in investments. It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold. There were no regulations.
It is the same as having a piece of property worth $200,000. You can only get one loan you can secure with the property. But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property. If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

You can't explain to the Trump cult members things as complex as derivatives. They think ex lax is a derivative.

Explain how Bush caused derivatives

Bush did not cause derivatives, no one said he did.
I will not answer any more questions unless you pay me for my knowledge.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Democrats screwed over millions of middle class Americans with their Great Recession

Oh my, you are extremely stupid. God help you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bad mortgages. Cost the banks hundreds of billions.
It was in all the papers.

Good on you! That was part of it, along with the derivatives. Keep studying.

That was part of it, along with the derivatives.

Nah.

And mainly Fannie and Freddie share of the market being cut bye 60 seventy percent and

Try again in English?

Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 and Countrywide and other b******* Republican crony institutions took over and sold toxic b******* to anyone who was breathing, super dupe. End of story.

Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003

What does that have to do with the claim that derivatives were the major cause of the crash?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The root cause of the Great Recession is liberal culture which produces lower class people who don't pay their bills and who have bad credit. That is why Clinton lowered the mortgage lending standards.

Derivatives were the main cause. Do you even know what a derivative is? In this case it was an investment that would hedge a mortgage by betting it would default. If you allow one derivative per mortgage it is a zero sum game. But the law allowed for one mortgage to back multiple derivatives. If the mortgage failed there would not be funds to pay off the many derivatives. It puts a multiplier effect on bad mortgages. That caused many financial institution to default.
You are correct that the democrats made mortgages easier to get for low income people but the bigger driver were banks allowing middle and high income individuals to qualify for loans they should not of.

You obviously have very little knowledge of investing and our banking system.

If you allow one derivative per mortgage it is a zero sum game. But the law allowed for one mortgage to back multiple derivatives. If the mortgage failed there would not be funds to pay off the many derivatives.

It's still zero sum.
If Goldman insured the same $500,000 mortgage, 5 times and the mortgage fails, Goldman pays out $2,500,000 and the insured parties receive $2,500,000.

It puts a multiplier effect on bad mortgages.

How many mortgages had a CDS written against them even once, let alone multiple times?
Probably a really small number.

That caused many financial institution to default.

How many firms went under because they wrote CDS?
How many went under just because they wrote/held crappy mortgages?

It is not a 0 sum gain. Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000 and they took in mainly $500,000 at most. They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000

And the party that bought the CDS receives 2,500,000

They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Why would Goldman default on a payment of 2,500,000?

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives. The derivatives were traded like stocks. At the end of the day, using your example, you have a $500,000 asset securing $2,500,000 in investments. It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold. There were no regulations.
It is the same as having a piece of property worth $200,000. You can only get one loan you can secure with the property. But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property. If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives.

Great, so if Goldman didn't default, which derivative selling firms did?

It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold.

So what? Why do you feel that's an issue?

But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property.

A derivative is not a loan.

If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

When people defaulted on their mortgages, money was lost. Nothing to do with a derivative.

 

[francoHFW]

Good on you! That was part of it, along with the derivatives. Keep studying.

That was part of it, along with the derivatives.

Nah.

And mainly Fannie and Freddie share of the market being cut bye 60 seventy percent and

Try again in English?

Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 and Countrywide and other b******* Republican crony institutions took over and sold toxic b******* to anyone who was breathing, super dupe. End of story.

Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003

What does that have to do with the claim that derivatives were the major cause of the crash?

It has to do with the oft-repeated claim that Fannie and Freddie were to blame. Derivatives? All I know is when they are regulated by GOP swamp monsters, things go very very wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
It is not a 0 sum gain. Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000 and they took in mainly $500,000 at most. They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

It's a "zero-sum game", not gain. And you're an idiot.

It can only be a zero sum game if the money is paid out. That was the problem. The investments were defaulted on because there were no hard assets backing them.
There were retirement funds and individuals invested in companies that could not pay out what was owed. Or companies who did not receive what is owed causing major defaults along with the mortgage defaults.

IF IT WAS A 0 SUM GAME THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A FINANCIAL CRISIS AND A RECESSION. YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!

It can only be a zero sum game if the money is paid out.

You're wrong.
If you and I bet $10 on the Cubs game, one of us will win $10, one of us will lose $10.
Adds up to zero.

If I win the bet and you default, I'll get $0 and you'll lose $0.
Still zero sum.

You are comparing betting to our financial markets. Our financial markets are based on assets not chance.
Derivatives were made illegal in the early 20th century because it determined to be gambling not securities.
Some assets are not hard assets but there needs to be assets or it is just gambling.


The term security means it is secured with something.
You may be successful in your business but you do not understand financial markets.

You are comparing betting to our financial markets.

Because a credit default swap is a bet.
One side is betting the loan or firm will default. The other side is betting it won't default.

Derivatives were made illegal in the early 20th century because it determined to be gambling not securities.

Derivatives have been traded on the CBOT since before the Civil War.

 

[Brain357]

If Obama had been able to run again, Trump would not have got into the race.

Obama said his policies and legacy were running in 2016 and he lost. So much for your theory.

That's la la talk, blues. It was Hillary and her personality that beat Trump and his personality in the PV and lost in the EV. It had little to do with policies. Your affirmation, bud, so can you prove it? Nah, don't even try.

Congrats Hillary won California, in other news Obama put his legacy on the line and Trump crushed him.

Obama was so bad repubs haven't passed a thing since he's been out of office. I guess things weren't so bad.