What do liberals want the US to be?

[Steinlight]

What false premises, distortions and lies did I make? List them specifically.

You should care because the point is both parties are inherently corrupt and aren't different at the top. Unless it doesn't bother you and you just like voting for Team D. Some people like politics as a sport, where they vote for their "team". I guess you are one of those people.

Is it not worth a reply because you don't have one. If your position is so right, and I am so off, you should be able to easily explain the benefits of mass immigration and diversity. Come on, enlighten me.

So the Heritage Foundation and Clinton made Clinton sign this bill? How did they do that? This should be an interesting answer.

No, I am not a "bircher". Does standing up for American workers and national sovereignty make one a "bircher" now?

Which false premises, distortionbs or lies? Well Bubba we will start with this post, YOUR posit thatI am in favor or EVER advocated "mass immigration and diversity. "

Weird, you are the typical right winger with better writing but ZERO honesty. Shocking,.

If you support Pat Buchanan, you're a Bircher. Want nothing to do with you or your type, gawwwdman Teap party which is Bircher lite is bad enough!!!

I never said you were, I said the Democrat Party was.

So you oppose mass immigration and diversity? Is this your position?

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

Reagan didn't sign NAFTA, Clinton did, here is the link.
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now are you contending Reagan made Clinton sign it? If so, what is your proof? Are you suggesting Clinton had no agency? This is an absurd argument that Reagan is responsible for Clinton's action.

As to conservative policy. I already responded, you just ignored me. But I will repost my reply.

Your characterization of what "conservative policy" is inaccurate. A left wing caricature more than anything else.

But lets take it issue by issue. My biggest objection out of the one's you mentioned is that WW1 is correct and non-interventionist conservatives were wrong in opposing it.

Why should we have gotten involved in the first place?

How did this war serve American interests?

I think non-interventionist conservatives and anti-war socialists alike who opposed the war were on the right side, and their position was vindicated by the bloody and disastrous result of WW1.

 

[Steinlight]

What false premises, distortions and lies did I make? List them specifically.

You should care because the point is both parties are inherently corrupt and aren't different at the top. Unless it doesn't bother you and you just like voting for Team D. Some people like politics as a sport, where they vote for their "team". I guess you are one of those people.

Is it not worth a reply because you don't have one. If your position is so right, and I am so off, you should be able to easily explain the benefits of mass immigration and diversity. Come on, enlighten me.

So the Heritage Foundation and Clinton made Clinton sign this bill? How did they do that? This should be an interesting answer.

No, I am not a "bircher". Does standing up for American workers and national sovereignty make one a "bircher" now?

Which false premises, distortionbs or lies? Well Bubba we will start with this post, YOUR posit thatI am in favor or EVER advocated "mass immigration and diversity. "

Weird, you are the typical right winger with better writing but ZERO honesty. Shocking,.

If you support Pat Buchanan, you're a Bircher. Want nothing to do with you or your type, gawwwdman Teap party which is Bircher lite is bad enough!!!

I never said you were, I said the Democrat Party was.

So you oppose mass immigration and diversity? Is this your position?

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

I know you hate enforcing immigration laws, but that isn't an argument in of itself. Explain why the enforcing immigration laws are bad thing? Why should we oppose policies that result in illegals self deporting?

 

[Dad2three]

The majority of Democrats and Republicans voted for the bailouts(minus conservative and democratic socialist opposition on the wings of the parties. And Glass Steagall was repealed by Clinton, which was responsible for allowing commercial banks to merge with investment banks and threaten the solvency of regular depositors accounts. To reduce every problem to blaming Bush or the Republicans is dishonest.

Got it, you have NO CLUE about Dubya's financial **** up or how it came about

Glass-Steagal? That GOP bill? Zero to do with Dubya's crash

If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”


As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse




"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

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

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.”

Your analysis is incorrect and narrow sighted. Absolutely lending standards contributed, and both parties supported reduced lending standards, The Comunity Reinvestment Act began in 1977 under Carter, and Both Clinton and Bush supported reduced lending standards to increase "minority home ownership" among other reasons. It isn't and either or thing. The artificially low interest rate policy of the Fed contributed as well, without cheap money, banks wouldn't have been able to give out subprime loans to begin with.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The fact is, with Glass Steagall, this housing crisis would have been mitigated to the housing sector and a couple commercial banks. But since commercial banks merged with investment banks and were allowed to gamble with commercial depositors money, once these phoney derivatives went belly up, a "liquidity crisis" occurred where commercial lending was on the verge of drastically drying up in 2008. It is interesting that you support erasing one of the decent progressive policies of FDR, so you can carry water for neo-liberal hacks(and by extension neo-conservative hacks in the GOP as well) like Obama and Clinton who support bank deregulation. The fact is, you are an idiot who doesn't understand economics, you only know how to blindly defend a corrupt political party.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Of course Obama will defend bank deregulation, his major donors are Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. He is a lackey of finance capital.

JPMorgan Employees Join Goldman Sachs Among Top Obama Donors - Bloomberg

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins , Contributor
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

One example of where this article is completely wrong is the case of AIG. If AIG hadn't been allowed to insure financial derivative products, using the triple A rating of AIG, thorugh ending Glass Steagall, it wouldn't have been in the position where our entire insurance system was at risk where we needed to bail it out to keep it afloat. With Glass Steagall, AIG would have been forced to set up a separate financial corporation that wouldn't have carried the triple A rating their insurance company had, and they wouldn't have been able to insure these products in mass, and these financial products wouldn't have been tied to their regular policies.
7 Reasons To Support Glass-Steagall a List of Those Who Do Too Big Has Failed

GAWD YOU ARE DUMB

SHOW ME HOW G/S RESTRICTED AIG? LOL


YOUR LINKS PREMISE, IS THAT AIG WOULDN'T HAD BEEN TOUCHED, AND THAT'S JUST BULLSHIT. GO TO MY LINK

Listen, I've got MY thread here, I've SHOWN this was a DUBYA REGULATOR FAILURE. You want to argue anything else? Go HERE


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


'WHY did it take OVER 4 years for G/S to start the subprime bubble? lol

 

[Dad2three]

The majority of Democrats and Republicans voted for the bailouts(minus conservative and democratic socialist opposition on the wings of the parties. And Glass Steagall was repealed by Clinton, which was responsible for allowing commercial banks to merge with investment banks and threaten the solvency of regular depositors accounts. To reduce every problem to blaming Bush or the Republicans is dishonest.

Got it, you have NO CLUE about Dubya's financial **** up or how it came about

Glass-Steagal? That GOP bill? Zero to do with Dubya's crash

If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”


As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse




"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

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

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.”

Your analysis is incorrect and narrow sighted. Absolutely lending standards contributed, and both parties supported reduced lending standards, The Comunity Reinvestment Act began in 1977 under Carter, and Both Clinton and Bush supported reduced lending standards to increase "minority home ownership" among other reasons. It isn't and either or thing. The artificially low interest rate policy of the Fed contributed as well, without cheap money, banks wouldn't have been able to give out subprime loans to begin with.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The fact is, with Glass Steagall, this housing crisis would have been mitigated to the housing sector and a couple commercial banks. But since commercial banks merged with investment banks and were allowed to gamble with commercial depositors money, once these phoney derivatives went belly up, a "liquidity crisis" occurred where commercial lending was on the verge of drastically drying up in 2008. It is interesting that you support erasing one of the decent progressive policies of FDR, so you can carry water for neo-liberal hacks(and by extension neo-conservative hacks in the GOP as well) like Obama and Clinton who support bank deregulation. The fact is, you are an idiot who doesn't understand economics, you only know how to blindly defend a corrupt political party.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Of course Obama will defend bank deregulation, his major donors are Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. He is a lackey of finance capital.

JPMorgan Employees Join Goldman Sachs Among Top Obama Donors - Bloomberg

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins , Contributor
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

The majority of Democrats and Republicans voted for the bailouts(minus conservative and democratic socialist opposition on the wings of the parties. And Glass Steagall was repealed by Clinton, which was responsible for allowing commercial banks to merge with investment banks and threaten the solvency of regular depositors accounts. To reduce every problem to blaming Bush or the Republicans is dishonest.

Got it, you have NO CLUE about Dubya's financial **** up or how it came about

Glass-Steagal? That GOP bill? Zero to do with Dubya's crash

If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”


As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse




"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

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

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.”

Your analysis is incorrect and narrow sighted. Absolutely lending standards contributed, and both parties supported reduced lending standards, The Comunity Reinvestment Act began in 1977 under Carter, and Both Clinton and Bush supported reduced lending standards to increase "minority home ownership" among other reasons. It isn't and either or thing. The artificially low interest rate policy of the Fed contributed as well, without cheap money, banks wouldn't have been able to give out subprime loans to begin with.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The fact is, with Glass Steagall, this housing crisis would have been mitigated to the housing sector and a couple commercial banks. But since commercial banks merged with investment banks and were allowed to gamble with commercial depositors money, once these phoney derivatives went belly up, a "liquidity crisis" occurred where commercial lending was on the verge of drastically drying up in 2008. It is interesting that you support erasing one of the decent progressive policies of FDR, so you can carry water for neo-liberal hacks(and by extension neo-conservative hacks in the GOP as well) like Obama and Clinton who support bank deregulation. The fact is, you are an idiot who doesn't understand economics, you only know how to blindly defend a corrupt political party.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Of course Obama will defend bank deregulation, his major donors are Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. He is a lackey of finance capital.

JPMorgan Employees Join Goldman Sachs Among Top Obama Donors - Bloomberg

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins , Contributor
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

They spout tis crap like it is even remotely debatable.

The simple fact is that Urban Renewal was from the onset, the perfect formula for economic catastrophe.

The only sound means to renew urban blight is to remove those who's behavior RESULTED IN THE BLIGHT...

It turns out that SUBSIDIZING THEM: IS A REALLY BAD IDEA!

Yeah, a law from 1977 was the problem *shaking head*

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


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

 

[Steinlight]

progressive statists sure as hell do, and they are part of the modern "liberal" pantheon.

More bullshit on your part. You make up a position for liberals and then attack your phony position

The state has a role in any society. Most functions in our lives are best filled at the individual level but many are more efficiently performed by the state

So tramping over people's rights is a matter of efficiency?

Seig Heil, herr gruppenfuhrer.

Which of your rights have been trampled? Are you free to earn a living? Are you free to obtain property? Are you free to express your grievences?

How are you being repressed?

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

 

[Dad2three]

Which false premises, distortionbs or lies? Well Bubba we will start with this post, YOUR posit thatI am in favor or EVER advocated "mass immigration and diversity. "

Weird, you are the typical right winger with better writing but ZERO honesty. Shocking,.

If you support Pat Buchanan, you're a Bircher. Want nothing to do with you or your type, gawwwdman Teap party which is Bircher lite is bad enough!!!

I never said you were, I said the Democrat Party was.

So you oppose mass immigration and diversity? Is this your position?

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

I know you hate enforcing immigration laws, but that isn't an argument in of itself. Explain why the enforcing immigration laws are bad thing? Why should we oppose policies that result in illegals self deporting?

ONCE again, FALSE premises, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

I'll patiently wait for the ONE policy however!!!

 

[Steinlight]

Got it, you have NO CLUE about Dubya's financial **** up or how it came about

Glass-Steagal? That GOP bill? Zero to do with Dubya's crash

If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”


As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse




"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

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

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.”

Your analysis is incorrect and narrow sighted. Absolutely lending standards contributed, and both parties supported reduced lending standards, The Comunity Reinvestment Act began in 1977 under Carter, and Both Clinton and Bush supported reduced lending standards to increase "minority home ownership" among other reasons. It isn't and either or thing. The artificially low interest rate policy of the Fed contributed as well, without cheap money, banks wouldn't have been able to give out subprime loans to begin with.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The fact is, with Glass Steagall, this housing crisis would have been mitigated to the housing sector and a couple commercial banks. But since commercial banks merged with investment banks and were allowed to gamble with commercial depositors money, once these phoney derivatives went belly up, a "liquidity crisis" occurred where commercial lending was on the verge of drastically drying up in 2008. It is interesting that you support erasing one of the decent progressive policies of FDR, so you can carry water for neo-liberal hacks(and by extension neo-conservative hacks in the GOP as well) like Obama and Clinton who support bank deregulation. The fact is, you are an idiot who doesn't understand economics, you only know how to blindly defend a corrupt political party.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Of course Obama will defend bank deregulation, his major donors are Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. He is a lackey of finance capital.

JPMorgan Employees Join Goldman Sachs Among Top Obama Donors - Bloomberg

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins , Contributor
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

One example of where this article is completely wrong is the case of AIG. If AIG hadn't been allowed to insure financial derivative products, using the triple A rating of AIG, thorugh ending Glass Steagall, it wouldn't have been in the position where our entire insurance system was at risk where we needed to bail it out to keep it afloat. With Glass Steagall, AIG would have been forced to set up a separate financial corporation that wouldn't have carried the triple A rating their insurance company had, and they wouldn't have been able to insure these products in mass, and these financial products wouldn't have been tied to their regular policies.
7 Reasons To Support Glass-Steagall a List of Those Who Do Too Big Has Failed

GAWD YOU ARE DUMB

SHOW ME HOW G/S RESTRICTED AIG? LOL


YOUR LINKS PREMISE, IS THAT AIG WOULDN'T HAD BEEN TOUCHED, AND THAT'S JUST BULLSHIT. GO TO MY LINK

Listen, I've got MY thread here, I've SHOWN this was a DUBYA REGULATOR FAILURE. You want to argue anything else? Go HERE


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


'WHY did it take OVER 4 years for G/S to start the subprime bubble? lol

Wow, what a rebuttal. Just saying my AIG example is bullshit isn't an argument. You need to articulate why it is so. That graphic in no way contradicts my point.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

More bullshit on your part. You make up a position for liberals and then attack your phony position

The state has a role in any society. Most functions in our lives are best filled at the individual level but many are more efficiently performed by the state

So tramping over people's rights is a matter of efficiency?

Seig Heil, herr gruppenfuhrer.

Which of your rights have been trampled? Are you free to earn a living? Are you free to obtain property? Are you free to express your grievences?

How are you being repressed?

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

LOL! Hear HEAR!

Now do the one wherein ya explain that Socialist Policy drove down the skills sets of the available workers, and drove up the cost of doing business and as a result it was SOCIALIST POLICY that 'sent jobs overseas!'.

They love that one...

 

[Steinlight]

I never said you were, I said the Democrat Party was.

So you oppose mass immigration and diversity? Is this your position?

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

I know you hate enforcing immigration laws, but that isn't an argument in of itself. Explain why the enforcing immigration laws are bad thing? Why should we oppose policies that result in illegals self deporting?

ONCE again, FALSE premises, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

I'll patiently wait for the ONE policy however!!!

What are lies and distortions? Are you saying you support Arizona immigration law. When you say Arizona fool is bullshit, what do you mean then?

As to conservative policy. I already responded, you just ignored me. But I will repost my reply.

Your characterization of what "conservative policy" is inaccurate. A left wing caricature more than anything else.

But lets take it issue by issue. My biggest objection out of the one's you mentioned is that WW1 is correct and non-interventionist conservatives were wrong in opposing it.

Why should we have gotten involved in the first place?

How did this war serve American interests?

I think non-interventionist conservatives and anti-war socialists alike who opposed the war were on the right side, and their position was vindicated by the bloody and disastrous result of WW1.

 

[Dad2three]

Which false premises, distortionbs or lies? Well Bubba we will start with this post, YOUR posit thatI am in favor or EVER advocated "mass immigration and diversity. "

Weird, you are the typical right winger with better writing but ZERO honesty. Shocking,.

If you support Pat Buchanan, you're a Bircher. Want nothing to do with you or your type, gawwwdman Teap party which is Bircher lite is bad enough!!!

I never said you were, I said the Democrat Party was.

So you oppose mass immigration and diversity? Is this your position?

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

I know you hate enforcing immigration laws, but that isn't an argument in of itself. Explain why the enforcing immigration laws are bad thing? Why should we oppose policies that result in illegals self deporting?

Which false premises, distortionbs or lies? Well Bubba we will start with this post, YOUR posit thatI am in favor or EVER advocated "mass immigration and diversity. "

Weird, you are the typical right winger with better writing but ZERO honesty. Shocking,.

If you support Pat Buchanan, you're a Bircher. Want nothing to do with you or your type, gawwwdman Teap party which is Bircher lite is bad enough!!!

I never said you were, I said the Democrat Party was.

So you oppose mass immigration and diversity? Is this your position?

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

I know you hate enforcing immigration laws, but that isn't an argument in of itself. Explain why the enforcing immigration laws are bad thing? Why should we oppose policies that result in illegals self deporting?

The majority of Democrats and Republicans voted for the bailouts(minus conservative and democratic socialist opposition on the wings of the parties. And Glass Steagall was repealed by Clinton, which was responsible for allowing commercial banks to merge with investment banks and threaten the solvency of regular depositors accounts. To reduce every problem to blaming Bush or the Republicans is dishonest.

Got it, you have NO CLUE about Dubya's financial **** up or how it came about

Glass-Steagal? That GOP bill? Zero to do with Dubya's crash

If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”


As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse




"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

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

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.”

Your analysis is incorrect and narrow sighted. Absolutely lending standards contributed, and both parties supported reduced lending standards, The Comunity Reinvestment Act began in 1977 under Carter, and Both Clinton and Bush supported reduced lending standards to increase "minority home ownership" among other reasons. It isn't and either or thing. The artificially low interest rate policy of the Fed contributed as well, without cheap money, banks wouldn't have been able to give out subprime loans to begin with.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The fact is, with Glass Steagall, this housing crisis would have been mitigated to the housing sector and a couple commercial banks. But since commercial banks merged with investment banks and were allowed to gamble with commercial depositors money, once these phoney derivatives went belly up, a "liquidity crisis" occurred where commercial lending was on the verge of drastically drying up in 2008. It is interesting that you support erasing one of the decent progressive policies of FDR, so you can carry water for neo-liberal hacks(and by extension neo-conservative hacks in the GOP as well) like Obama and Clinton who support bank deregulation. The fact is, you are an idiot who doesn't understand economics, you only know how to blindly defend a corrupt political party.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Of course Obama will defend bank deregulation, his major donors are Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. He is a lackey of finance capital.

JPMorgan Employees Join Goldman Sachs Among Top Obama Donors - Bloomberg

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins , Contributor
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

The majority of Democrats and Republicans voted for the bailouts(minus conservative and democratic socialist opposition on the wings of the parties. And Glass Steagall was repealed by Clinton, which was responsible for allowing commercial banks to merge with investment banks and threaten the solvency of regular depositors accounts. To reduce every problem to blaming Bush or the Republicans is dishonest.

Got it, you have NO CLUE about Dubya's financial **** up or how it came about

Glass-Steagal? That GOP bill? Zero to do with Dubya's crash

If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”


As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse




"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

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

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.”

Your analysis is incorrect and narrow sighted. Absolutely lending standards contributed, and both parties supported reduced lending standards, The Comunity Reinvestment Act began in 1977 under Carter, and Both Clinton and Bush supported reduced lending standards to increase "minority home ownership" among other reasons. It isn't and either or thing. The artificially low interest rate policy of the Fed contributed as well, without cheap money, banks wouldn't have been able to give out subprime loans to begin with.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The fact is, with Glass Steagall, this housing crisis would have been mitigated to the housing sector and a couple commercial banks. But since commercial banks merged with investment banks and were allowed to gamble with commercial depositors money, once these phoney derivatives went belly up, a "liquidity crisis" occurred where commercial lending was on the verge of drastically drying up in 2008. It is interesting that you support erasing one of the decent progressive policies of FDR, so you can carry water for neo-liberal hacks(and by extension neo-conservative hacks in the GOP as well) like Obama and Clinton who support bank deregulation. The fact is, you are an idiot who doesn't understand economics, you only know how to blindly defend a corrupt political party.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Of course Obama will defend bank deregulation, his major donors are Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. He is a lackey of finance capital.

JPMorgan Employees Join Goldman Sachs Among Top Obama Donors - Bloomberg

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins , Contributor
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

They spout tis crap like it is even remotely debatable.

The simple fact is that Urban Renewal was from the onset, the perfect formula for economic catastrophe.

The only sound means to renew urban blight is to remove those who's behavior RESULTED IN THE BLIGHT...

It turns out that SUBSIDIZING THEM: IS A REALLY BAD IDEA!

Jun 16, 2005 - The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history.

The global housing boom In come the waves The Economist





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

 

[Steinlight]

So tramping over people's rights is a matter of efficiency?

Seig Heil, herr gruppenfuhrer.

Which of your rights have been trampled? Are you free to earn a living? Are you free to obtain property? Are you free to express your grievences?

How are you being repressed?

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

LOL! Hear HEAR!

Now do the one wherein ya explain that Socialist Policy drove down the skills sets of the available workers, and drove up the cost of doing business and as a result it was SOCIALIST POLICY that 'sent jobs overseas!'.

They love that one...

Of course unions stifled competition in the 1980s. Does anyone remember how terrible American cars were back then? Union corruption(only concerned with dues above the sustainability of the company), along with Corporate offshoring through free trade, resulted in America becoming uncompetitive in manufacturing. We are paying the price until this day.

The left is under the delusion that unions are somehow immune to the corruption that any other large scale entity is, whether it be government or corporations. In fact, unions and corporations are working hand in glove at the moment to support Amnesty.

Samuel Gompers would be rolling in his grave if he saw how unions like the SEIU are undermining American workers by supporting the flooding of our country with cheap foreign labor.

People aren't in unions anymore because they recognize organized labor doesn't have their interests at heart anymore and are purely democratic partisan organizations.

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, you have NO CLUE about Dubya's financial **** up or how it came about

Glass-Steagal? That GOP bill? Zero to do with Dubya's crash

If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”


As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse




"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

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

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.”

Your analysis is incorrect and narrow sighted. Absolutely lending standards contributed, and both parties supported reduced lending standards, The Comunity Reinvestment Act began in 1977 under Carter, and Both Clinton and Bush supported reduced lending standards to increase "minority home ownership" among other reasons. It isn't and either or thing. The artificially low interest rate policy of the Fed contributed as well, without cheap money, banks wouldn't have been able to give out subprime loans to begin with.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The fact is, with Glass Steagall, this housing crisis would have been mitigated to the housing sector and a couple commercial banks. But since commercial banks merged with investment banks and were allowed to gamble with commercial depositors money, once these phoney derivatives went belly up, a "liquidity crisis" occurred where commercial lending was on the verge of drastically drying up in 2008. It is interesting that you support erasing one of the decent progressive policies of FDR, so you can carry water for neo-liberal hacks(and by extension neo-conservative hacks in the GOP as well) like Obama and Clinton who support bank deregulation. The fact is, you are an idiot who doesn't understand economics, you only know how to blindly defend a corrupt political party.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Of course Obama will defend bank deregulation, his major donors are Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. He is a lackey of finance capital.

JPMorgan Employees Join Goldman Sachs Among Top Obama Donors - Bloomberg

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins , Contributor
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

Got it, YOU can't refuter THEIR facts that CLEARLY point out that what happened WASN'T do to not enough regulation, BUT REGULATORS ON THE BEAT WAS THE PROBLEM. Dubya (like Reagan did with Mr Grays warning in 1984 with the S&L crisis) ignored regulator warnings as he cheered on the subprime bubble because he had ZERO growth without it!




all outlined here

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


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%



Subprime share of all home loans outstanding:
14%


Subprime share of foreclosure filings in the 12 months ending June 30, 2007: 64%

No one is arguing Bush didn't lower lending standards. But you ignore Clinton did the same and helped contribute to the resulting crisis, and the lowering of standards began under Carter through the CRA. Also, the repeal of Glass Steagall and artificially low interest rates of the Federal Reserve played a role.

You are a partisan hack with no perspective.

Got it, YOU are projecting as aa POS...

WEIRD HOW IT TOOK SO LONG FOR CARTER AND CLINTON TO DO THIS:

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.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

YES, CLINTON HAD A HOMES PUSH, LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ SINCE FDR. WEIRD ONLY RONNIE AND DUBYA IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND HAD MAJOR ISSUES THOUGH???



•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture

PERHAPS ONE TIME YOU'LL ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS??? LOL

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

I know you hate enforcing immigration laws, but that isn't an argument in of itself. Explain why the enforcing immigration laws are bad thing? Why should we oppose policies that result in illegals self deporting?

ONCE again, FALSE premises, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

I'll patiently wait for the ONE policy however!!!

What are lies and distortions? Are you saying you support Arizona immigration law. When you say Arizona fool is bullshit, what do you mean then?

As to conservative policy. I already responded, you just ignored me. But I will repost my reply.

Your characterization of what "conservative policy" is inaccurate. A left wing caricature more than anything else.

But lets take it issue by issue. My biggest objection out of the one's you mentioned is that WW1 is correct and non-interventionist conservatives were wrong in opposing it.

Why should we have gotten involved in the first place?

How did this war serve American interests?

I think non-interventionist conservatives and anti-war socialists alike who opposed the war were on the right side, and their position was vindicated by the bloody and disastrous result of WW1.

Well only if ya count all of the needless bloodshed and that WW1 produced WW2...

As a general policy, it is better to let socialism fail, the nations it rots fade into the ether and let nature take its course.

If ya keep saving socialists, get what ya get more of.

(Go ahead... GUESS!)

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, you have NO CLUE about Dubya's financial **** up or how it came about

Glass-Steagal? That GOP bill? Zero to do with Dubya's crash

If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”


As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse




"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

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

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.”

Your analysis is incorrect and narrow sighted. Absolutely lending standards contributed, and both parties supported reduced lending standards, The Comunity Reinvestment Act began in 1977 under Carter, and Both Clinton and Bush supported reduced lending standards to increase "minority home ownership" among other reasons. It isn't and either or thing. The artificially low interest rate policy of the Fed contributed as well, without cheap money, banks wouldn't have been able to give out subprime loans to begin with.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The fact is, with Glass Steagall, this housing crisis would have been mitigated to the housing sector and a couple commercial banks. But since commercial banks merged with investment banks and were allowed to gamble with commercial depositors money, once these phoney derivatives went belly up, a "liquidity crisis" occurred where commercial lending was on the verge of drastically drying up in 2008. It is interesting that you support erasing one of the decent progressive policies of FDR, so you can carry water for neo-liberal hacks(and by extension neo-conservative hacks in the GOP as well) like Obama and Clinton who support bank deregulation. The fact is, you are an idiot who doesn't understand economics, you only know how to blindly defend a corrupt political party.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Of course Obama will defend bank deregulation, his major donors are Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. He is a lackey of finance capital.

JPMorgan Employees Join Goldman Sachs Among Top Obama Donors - Bloomberg

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins , Contributor
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

Got it, YOU can't refuter THEIR facts that CLEARLY point out that what happened WASN'T do to not enough regulation, BUT REGULATORS ON THE BEAT WAS THE PROBLEM. Dubya (like Reagan did with Mr Grays warning in 1984 with the S&L crisis) ignored regulator warnings as he cheered on the subprime bubble because he had ZERO growth without it!




all outlined here

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


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%



Subprime share of all home loans outstanding:
14%


Subprime share of foreclosure filings in the 12 months ending June 30, 2007: 64%

No one is arguing Bush didn't lower lending standards. But you ignore Clinton did the same and helped contribute to the resulting crisis, and the lowering of standards began under Carter through the CRA. Also, the repeal of Glass Steagall and artificially low interest rates of the Federal Reserve played a role.

You are a partisan hack with no perspective.

CLINTON? LOL



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

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%

Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%



Subprime share of all home loans outstanding:
14%


Subprime share of foreclosure filings in the 12 months ending June 30, 2007: 64%

 

[Dad2three]

Which false premises, distortionbs or lies? Well Bubba we will start with this post, YOUR posit thatI am in favor or EVER advocated "mass immigration and diversity. "

Weird, you are the typical right winger with better writing but ZERO honesty. Shocking,.

If you support Pat Buchanan, you're a Bircher. Want nothing to do with you or your type, gawwwdman Teap party which is Bircher lite is bad enough!!!

I never said you were, I said the Democrat Party was.

So you oppose mass immigration and diversity? Is this your position?

Weird, you complain about ME pigeon holing you as a Rushblo, but you pigeon hole the "Democrat Party" (yeah, NOT the Democratic party) as in favor of "mass immigration"

PLEASE link to them (WHOEVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS) or their policies proving that? lol


You wing nutters are just crazy. Knowing you can't deport 11-14+ million people, recognizing the problem is and ALWAYS has been EMPLOYERS, you want to blame people who are trying to survive or the mythical 'Democrat party'???

I didn't pigeon hole the Democrats, I stated the fact that both parties are in favor of mass immigration and amnesty. Are you hallucinating or something?




I support deportation and e-verify for employers and fines for those who don't comply. It isn't an either or situation. You won't have to physically deport 14 million. Operation ******* for example was successful in deporting over a million illegal immigrants. Once the law would be put into effect. Many would self deport, just look at what happened in Arizona a couple years ago for example after Brewer signed into law a couple years ago.
Co-author of Arizona immigration law says self-deportation working TheHill

Weird how you simply ignore shit thatr was debunked, like Clinton's NAFTA when it was Ronnie's, lol

Sure, that will work *shaking head*

Still waiting on ONE policy you Klowns were EVER correct about?

And I think the Arizona fool is the biggest piece of shit out there!

Reagan didn't sign NAFTA, Clinton did, here is the link.
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now are you contending Reagan made Clinton sign it? If so, what is your proof? Are you suggesting Clinton had no agency? This is an absurd argument that Reagan is responsible for Clinton's action.

As to conservative policy. I already responded, you just ignored me. But I will repost my reply.

Your characterization of what "conservative policy" is inaccurate. A left wing caricature more than anything else.

But lets take it issue by issue. My biggest objection out of the one's you mentioned is that WW1 is correct and non-interventionist conservatives were wrong in opposing it.

Why should we have gotten involved in the first place?

How did this war serve American interests?

I think non-interventionist conservatives and anti-war socialists alike who opposed the war were on the right side, and their position was vindicated by the bloody and disastrous result of WW1.

Got it, Though Heritage Foundation came up with NAFTA, Ronnie announced it the day he ran for Prez in 1979 and Poppy negotiated it and was passed with overwhelming GOP support, it's Clinton's baby *shaking head*

ONCE MORE!!!


The US made the right call by entering WWI. After the Lusitania was sunk, and thousands of American lives were lost, America had no other choice. Then the Germans sent the Zimmer telegram which told Mexico to attack the US. If Germany would of won WWI, and America would't of entered the war, then what would of stopped Germany from invading America?

 

[Dad2three]

More bullshit on your part. You make up a position for liberals and then attack your phony position

The state has a role in any society. Most functions in our lives are best filled at the individual level but many are more efficiently performed by the state

So tramping over people's rights is a matter of efficiency?

Seig Heil, herr gruppenfuhrer.

Which of your rights have been trampled? Are you free to earn a living? Are you free to obtain property? Are you free to express your grievences?

How are you being repressed?

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

Sure they were Bubba, sure, it WASN'T conservatives who were Torrie right? Glad you are for US protectionists policies though!


YOUR LINK

The leader of the Federalist Party was Alexander Hamilton, former Secretary of the Treasury and co-author of The Federalist Papers (1787–1788) which was a series of newspaper tracts designed to influence the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Hamilton was critical of both Jeffersonian classical liberalism and the radical ideas coming out of the French Revolution. He rejected laissez-faire economics and favored a strong central government.


LOL

 

[Dante]

More insight into the Libertarian paradise of kaz

He will refuse a million dollar transplant for his next door neighbor but has no problem spending a million dollars on a cruise missile

Where did he say that?

Post 649

Liar, that didn't say I'm OK with spending the million on a cruise missile.

Now it is getting interesting

So Libertarians are now advocating we zero out our defense budget in addition to letting your neighbor die from lack of a heart

What else do we have to look forward to in your Libertarian utopia?

Strawman

not really, but...

 

[Dad2three]

More bullshit on your part. You make up a position for liberals and then attack your phony position

The state has a role in any society. Most functions in our lives are best filled at the individual level but many are more efficiently performed by the state

So tramping over people's rights is a matter of efficiency?

Seig Heil, herr gruppenfuhrer.

Which of your rights have been trampled? Are you free to earn a living? Are you free to obtain property? Are you free to express your grievences?

How are you being repressed?

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

MORE from your link

Former U.S. President John Adams was probably one of the earliest defenders of a traditional social order in Revolutionary America. In his Defence of the Constitution (1787) Adams attacked the ideas of radicals like Thomas Paine (LIBERAL!!!!), who advocated for a unicameral legislature (Adams deemed it too democratic). His translation of Discourses on Davila (1790), which also contained his own commentary, was an examination of "human motivation in politics". Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.



WEIRD?

Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.

WHAT?
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Steinlight]

Your analysis is incorrect and narrow sighted. Absolutely lending standards contributed, and both parties supported reduced lending standards, The Comunity Reinvestment Act began in 1977 under Carter, and Both Clinton and Bush supported reduced lending standards to increase "minority home ownership" among other reasons. It isn't and either or thing. The artificially low interest rate policy of the Fed contributed as well, without cheap money, banks wouldn't have been able to give out subprime loans to begin with.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator

The fact is, with Glass Steagall, this housing crisis would have been mitigated to the housing sector and a couple commercial banks. But since commercial banks merged with investment banks and were allowed to gamble with commercial depositors money, once these phoney derivatives went belly up, a "liquidity crisis" occurred where commercial lending was on the verge of drastically drying up in 2008. It is interesting that you support erasing one of the decent progressive policies of FDR, so you can carry water for neo-liberal hacks(and by extension neo-conservative hacks in the GOP as well) like Obama and Clinton who support bank deregulation. The fact is, you are an idiot who doesn't understand economics, you only know how to blindly defend a corrupt political party.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis - US News

Of course Obama will defend bank deregulation, his major donors are Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. He is a lackey of finance capital.

JPMorgan Employees Join Goldman Sachs Among Top Obama Donors - Bloomberg

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins , Contributor
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

Got it, YOU can't refuter THEIR facts that CLEARLY point out that what happened WASN'T do to not enough regulation, BUT REGULATORS ON THE BEAT WAS THE PROBLEM. Dubya (like Reagan did with Mr Grays warning in 1984 with the S&L crisis) ignored regulator warnings as he cheered on the subprime bubble because he had ZERO growth without it!




all outlined here

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


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%



Subprime share of all home loans outstanding:
14%


Subprime share of foreclosure filings in the 12 months ending June 30, 2007: 64%

No one is arguing Bush didn't lower lending standards. But you ignore Clinton did the same and helped contribute to the resulting crisis, and the lowering of standards began under Carter through the CRA. Also, the repeal of Glass Steagall and artificially low interest rates of the Federal Reserve played a role.

You are a partisan hack with no perspective.

Got it, YOU are projecting as aa POS...

WEIRD HOW IT TOOK SO LONG FOR CARTER AND CLINTON TO DO THIS:

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.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

YES, CLINTON HAD A HOMES PUSH, LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ SINCE FDR. WEIRD ONLY RONNIE AND DUBYA IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND HAD MAJOR ISSUES THOUGH???



•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture

PERHAPS ONE TIME YOU'LL ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS??? LOL

The reason there weren't subprime mortgages to the degree there were in the 2000s that there were in the 90s is because we were in a tech bubble. Mortgage rates were low, but higher yields existed in these artificially highly valued tech companies. The Housing Bubble was artificially pumped up by the Federal Reserve in response to the bursting of the Dot.Com bubble in the Early 2000s.
Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider
Dubya s Double Dip - New York Times


This idea that Clinton lowering standards didn't add to the crisis, only Bush lowering standards did, is objectively absurd on its face, as is claiming the Fed artificially lowering rates and Glass Steagall repeal played no role is. Just because the bubble burst under Bush, doesn't mean he is exclusively responsible. He helped accelerate lax lending standards that were already in place.

The financial collapse is the responsibility of an entire system of government that has been compromised by wall street donors dictating policy through political contributions and a revolving door between the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and Wall Street.
The ever-revolving door between government and Wall Street

 

[Steinlight]

So tramping over people's rights is a matter of efficiency?

Seig Heil, herr gruppenfuhrer.

Which of your rights have been trampled? Are you free to earn a living? Are you free to obtain property? Are you free to express your grievences?

How are you being repressed?

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

MORE from your link

Former U.S. President John Adams was probably one of the earliest defenders of a traditional social order in Revolutionary America. In his Defence of the Constitution (1787) Adams attacked the ideas of radicals like Thomas Paine (LIBERAL!!!!), who advocated for a unicameral legislature (Adams deemed it too democratic). His translation of Discourses on Davila (1790), which also contained his own commentary, was an examination of "human motivation in politics". Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.



WEIRD?

Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.

WHAT?
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, your point? Conservatives aren't liberals, we don't just support freedom for freedom's sake, we support containing societal excess and don't believe men are angels. We believe there is a role for the government to act in the social and economic sphere to conserve society.