If you can't tell, I'm freaking out. I'm genuinely scared.
You should be scared of obama being reelected. I guess you like depression era unemployment? I guess you like record setting levels of people below the poverty line? I guess you like record setting numbers of people receiving food stamps?
Was it recklessness that caused the financial collapse or was it introduction of sub prime lending in the nineties and the pressure put on banks to lend to people who had no business borrowing money that caused it?
As usual, the essential causal factors were in fact real things and not things that conservatives made up in their heads.
Note how historically ,turtle like, slow the graphs have moved up. No other recovery in history has been this pathetic. It is very similar to stagnant to slow growth experience under the policies of FDR.
The fact of the matter is that economies usually recover very vigorously if business know what it is dealing with. They didn't know what was going to happen from one day to the next with the FDR administration. Ditto for the obama administration. That uncertainty combined with anti business rhetoric spewing out from this administration on a daily basis is enough to tamp down any vigorous economic recovery. If government gets completely out of the way, an economy naturally grows its GDP at 7% a year. The fact that it doesn't most of the time is a reflection on government retardation effect on it. We should be down to 5 percent REAL unemployment by now, not the FAKE 8.2 percent put out by the bureau of labor statistics. We certainly should not be at the REAL 11.2 % unemployment that we are experiencing now. This figure is what you get when you use the the number of people in the labor force when obama took office. It is the same method that was used during the early part of the reagan administration. There was no monkey business in the jobs numbers then.
i got more if you want EDIT: added stuff par admins orders
Name one thing the conservatives made up in their heads.
As you can see from the videos Romney is constantly making stuff up, the whole republican campaign is based on made up stuff a way better thing to ask would be when have conservatives/republicans not made stuff up and tell them as truth.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : Supplying text as per admins orders
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Re: The Roots of the Subprime Mortgage Mess Have Clinton All Over Them
Bare link - Forum rule violation.
Please bring some text to the forum, even if it's just quotation from the cite.
Adminnemooseus
Side note from Minnemooseus:
I don't think Jazzns or I would really disagree with you. The Clinton era was a significant part of the problem. I suspect that it all goes back to the spirit of Ronald Reagan's administration. Regardless, wasn't much of the damage a Republican and Democratic collaboration?
Everyone loves a good economic bubble. But good times are only a setup for some sort of crash.
By the way, I think a slow recovery may be better than a fast recovery. Better to get it done right slowly, that to get it done worong fast.
Re: The Roots of the Subprime Mortgage Mess Have Clinton All Over Them
Dud do you really believe that banks had a gun held to their head and where forced to lend people money?
Are you really that enclosed in the republican bubble?
They where giving out lones because it was very profitable and risk free to sell them to other investors and all of these lones got AAA and AAA+ ratings, and as it was so easy to get those ratinds the lending standards dropped like a stone.
Not to mention when the fed finds rate came to 1% in 2003 to encourage people to borrow, they saw this as the perfect time to buy some Real Estate, with cheap intrest rates what could go wrong, thing is when the banks had more demmand for mortage packs by investors and an easy way to get those packs AAA+ approval the banks decided lets make some real money and sell these investors some crappy loans.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Name one thing the conservatives made up in their heads.
All of it. The whole thing.
Conservatives like you are misrepresenting both the terms and effect of the Community Reinvestment Act. (That's the name of the law you're referring to, the one that encouraged banks and lenders to make mortgages available to minority borrowers in the inner city.)
Firstly the terms of the CRA don't require any bank to make loans at any terms unjustified by the borrower's credit; they simply say that if a minority borrower with a certain credit history comes in, you have to give them the same loan terms you would give a white person with the same credit history. That's because it wasn't uncommon for banks to charge an extra 2-3% interest on a loan originated to a black family compared to what a white family would get - or to simply deny the loan altogether, a practice called "redlining." Surely you'd agree that it really is racist, and really is a problem, for banks to tell a trustworthy black family they can't own their own home simply because they're black. Or maybe it's just that conservatives don't believe that there's any such thing as a "trustworthy black family."
Secondly, loans originated under the CRA program had a higher repayment rate than the average mortgage given to the same level of credit, contrary to the conservative myth that the CRA was about giving good loans to bad bets. CRA-regulated banks weren't contributors to the subprime loan crisis because CRA loans were not subprime loans.
Thirdly, in 2009 Paul Krugman noted that even 55% of commercial real estate mortgages - mortgages held by businesses for retail properties, real estate investment, and so on - were underwater, ample evidence that the issue had nothing to do with loans originated under the CRA (the CRA, obviously, has nothing to do with loans made to businesses.) A further analysis of the subprime mortgage boom and subsequent failure of the asset derivates proved that it was a primarily suburban/exurban phenomenon - precisely the opposite of the urban, inner-city homes whose mortgages the CRA encouraged.
So, yeah. Conservatives made the entire thing up because they were desperate both to save the notion of "deregulation" from this incredible proof that deregulation harms industry and to find a way to blame this on their favorite scapegoats - the Clintons and poor minorities. Basically racist from the top down, I would say.
Re: The Roots of the Subprime Mortgage Mess Have Clinton All Over Them
Explain what this link claims.
You actually believe the CRA caused the bank meltdown?
The subprime market was not the driver of the bank meltdown. It has become the scapegoat.
Here is an analysis by that socialist organization Bloomberg. As you probably wont go to the link to read the whole piece I will post it all here.
quote:Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.
The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.
Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).
Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.
Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis in this week’s Barron’s.)
There’s plenty more good reading on the CRA and the subprime crisis out in the blogosphere. Ellen Seidman, who headed the Office of Thrift Supervision in the late 90s, has written several fact-filled posts about the CRA controversey, including one just last week. University of Oregon professor and economist Mark Thoma has also defended the CRA on his blog. I also learned something from a post back in April by Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which ends with this ditty:
quote:It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.
You really should look for information from reputable sources that use real facts and figures. It is best to stay away from the rantings of a libertarian nobody, that uses the writings of a conservative think tank as his evidence.
Edited by Theodoric, : punct
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
The problem isn't in the many presidents and congresses that did the deregulation, it is in the fact that our political system is run by the people who pay the bills for campaigns. Campaigns that are now more expensive than ever. Getting elected president "costs" about a billion dollars now. Thats insane.
The elections are OURS and therefore WE should pay for them with robust public financing and strong limits on outside influence.
Re: The Roots of the Subprime Mortgage Mess Have Clinton All Over Them
How much text do you want? I was going to copy and paste the whole thing because I thought it was all informative. I didn't do that because I thought I would get in trouble for that.
{Note: Replied to via Personal Message - Adminnemooseus}
™ Version 4.2
(1)
