• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

Close. The reference period is the week before the survey (usually) so employed are those who during the reference week, worked at least one hour for pay or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business or farm.

Yes, that was a misstatement on my part. When I said, "reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks," I was thinking of people who report that they did not work during the reference week, and one of the follow-up questions asking if the person did anything to find work in the previous four weeks. Yer of course correct — only the reference week counts in the "did you work" context.

But I can perhaps correct you about something. (Whew!) You mention that "[t]he reference period is the week before the survey (usually)." My understanding is that the reference week is always the week before the survey is conducted. The survey is conducted in most months during the week of the 19th, with the reference period being the week of the 12th. But in most years, the process is moved up a week in November and December because of the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. Is that perhaps where you got the "usually" idea?

>>Ummm what do you mean "adjusting for the decline in public sector employment?" Why would you do that? And using the CPS employment data, 145,669,000 in April 2014 minus 138,013,000 in December 2009 equals 7,656,000. How did you get over 9 million? Exactly what adjustments did you make?

Here I was sloppy once again. I should have noted that the 9.2 million figure is based on the CES results, not those from the CPS.

Looking at the table below, non-farm employment stood at 138.3 million in April, compared to 129.7 million in Dec 2009, a difference of 8.6 million. Again looking at CES numbers, public-sector employment during those months fell from 22.5 million to 21.9 million, a difference of 600K.

total_nonfarm_2004_2014.gif


To calculate the difference in private-sector employment, you subtract the change in public-sector jobs from the change in total non-farm jobs. 8.6 million minus a negative value of 600K yields a total of 9.2 million. I'm hoping that makes sense.

I am not possibly as adept as you might be with the different reports and such, I don't look at them for a living like you

Adept? Uh, … :(
 
But I can perhaps correct you about something. (Whew!) You mention that "[t]he reference period is the week before the survey (usually)." My understanding is that the reference week is always the week before the survey is conducted. The survey is conducted in most months during the week of the 19th, with the reference period being the week of the 12th. But in most years, the process is moved up a week in November and December because of the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. Is that perhaps where you got the "usually" idea?
The questions in the survey are framed as "The week before last/last week." Therefore it is possible for a gap to happen. http://www.census.gov/cps/files/questionnaire/Labor Force.pdf


>Ummm what do you mean "adjusting for the decline in public sector employment?" Why would you do that? And using the CPS employment data, 145,669,000 in April 2014 minus 138,013,000 in December 2009 equals 7,656,000. How did you get over 9 million? Exactly what adjustments did you make?

Here I was sloppy once again. I should have noted that the 9.2 million figure is based on the CES results, not those from the CPS.

Looking at the table below, non-farm employment stood at 138.3 million in April, compared to 129.7 million in Dec 2009, a difference of 8.6 million. Again looking at CES numbers, public-sector employment during those months fell from 22.5 million to 21.9 million, a difference of 600K.

To calculate the difference in private-sector employment, you subtract the change in public-sector jobs from the change in total non-farm jobs. 8.6 million minus a negative value of 600K yields a total of 9.2 million. I'm hoping that makes sense.
Well, it doesn't make sense to do it that way instead of just using the Total Private number. That's why I was wondering why you would have to make a ny adjustments: the number you want is already published.

And your choice of Dec 2009 is odd. CES employment bottomed out in February 2010. So why use Dec 09?
 
Last edited:
The questions in the survey are framed as "The week before last/last week." Therefore it is possible for a gap to happen. http://www.census.gov/cps/files/questionnaire/Labor Force.pdf

Well, I suppose we're just on about a distinction without a difference. As you may know, the reason the question is worded that way is because the survey doesn't wrap up on Saturday; it extends at least until the following Monday. Lately, it often closes around noon on the following Wednesday — depends on how many days it is until the first Friday of the next month when the report is released.

So here in May, if a respondent is interviewed on, say, Tuesday the 27th, the questions are framed as "The week before last, did you …"

>>the Total Private number … is already published.

Indeed it is.

total_private_2004_2014.gif


>>your choice of Dec 2009 is odd. CES employment bottomed out in February 2010. So why use Dec 09?

Because it's a difference of only 18K jobs. The administration wants to use the phrase "XX straight months of job growth," because it's "catchy." My goal, otoh, is to go back as close as I can to the beginning of Obama's term. Otherwise his critics will argue that the lousy jobs market in his early months as president were his fault.

The CES drop in Nov 2009 was very small (15K), but there was another big decline in December (232K). As you may agree, I'd say the underlying reality is that the effects of the recession were playing through the labor market throughout 2009 and arguably into early 2010.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the BLS site with someone that knows his way around it. I didn't start looking at it until earlier this year when I began "political forumming." I just read the monthly reports. All the archived data and presentation tools available on the site are an outstanding value, if ya ask me.
 
See, you can post using the quote function accurately

As I keep saying, I use the same format in every post. In fact, here ya go. Now take it slowly and maybe you won't get confused.

>>In December 2007 when the recession began there were 146 million Americans working and today that number is 145 million working Americans almost 7 years later so where is your 9.2 million increase in employment?

The increase is from the depth of the recession's effects on employment. Indeed, only now are we beginning to build the market out from the height it reached at the top of the housing bubble.

As the chart I posted above (with an informed "nudge" from pinqy) indicates, private sector employment in April (116.4 million) now exceeds the previous high from Jan 2008 by 400K. That difference will hopefully continue to grow, so you'd better complain about it being too small while you can. Otoh, perhaps the economy and the jobs market will sag. Then yer campaign to disparage the President's performance would gain traction.

>>Guess you can pick a point in time and come up with whatever you want but the reality is we aren't better off than we were when the recession began it is due to lack of leadership along with economic policies that do not allow the private sector the incentive to grow.

Which point in time do you prefer? And now that we've surpassed the previous high on private-sector jobs, are you gonna say that it's Obama's leadership that's gotten us here? Have his economic policies allowed the private sector the incentive to grow? I guess you could hold on a bit longer (like until June 6th) and use the 600K decline in public-sector employment to say we're still not back to where we were at the top of the bubble.

But those public-sector jobs in law enforcement, fire and EMS, education, healthcare, food and drug standards enforcement, basic R & D, defense industries, transportation, national parks, etc — they don't benefit society. They're just "takers," a drain on the economy. And of course the worst are the environmental regulators and the IRS — stooges and criminals.

>>Decline in deficit as a percent of GDP? LOL, do we pay debt service on the percentage of GDP or the actual debt? Liberal logic is flawed.

Does the money to pay the debt service come from a stagnant GDP? Yeah, somebody's logic is flawed.

>>Again if you drive up the debt enough and Obama has added 6.8 trillion to the debt in 6 years according to the Treasury site which I posted the link to over the weekend

I can't recall the link. Was it in this thread?

That $6.8 trillion dollar figure (more accurately, 6.78) is based on a time frame that begins when Obama was inaugurated in Jan 2009. The FY2009 budget was Bush's, not his. The deficit that year was $1.41 trillion, a disaster.

A fair accounting could attribute $250 billion to Obama for adding his stimulus, the ARRA. That leaves $1.16 trillion as Bush's legacy for the year. Take that off the total you assign to Obama and you get $5.62 trillion.

>>you can get that percentage change and actual debt to whatever you want it to be

Can I? Seems to me the numbers are what they are.

>>TARP was a loan and was paid back with interest so making a profit should have reduced the deficit, where is that payback and interest in the 2009-2010 deficits?

It made the deficits over the years smaller than they would have been otherwise.

>>You buy what you are told and ignore reality because that is what you want to believe.

You can say that every day for the rest of yer life and it will never mean a thing — just boring rhetoric without any foundation.

>>You seem to lack a basic understanding of history and what our Founders created and that was a small limited central govt. with a part time legislature

The Constitution prescribes a much more powerful centralized structure than existed previously. Yes, there are definite limits placed on the federal government. That doesn't mean they're the ones you want them to be. Ironically in this context, those limits were included at the insistence of liberals, not conservatives.

In any event, the Constitution has changed over time. If you haven't noticed, it has repeatedly been amended. Proponents of a relatively strong central government prevailed on the battlefield in a civil war. (You may have heard of that.) As a result, blacks are now citizens. Another important change is that women have suffrage.

>>Facts, logic, and common sense aren't on your side.

Empty words.
 
As I keep saying, I use the same format in every post. In fact, here ya go. Now take it slowly and maybe you won't get confused.

>>In December 2007 when the recession began there were 146 million Americans working and today that number is 145 million working Americans almost 7 years later so where is your 9.2 million increase in employment?

The increase is from the depth of the recession's effects on employment. Indeed, only now are we beginning to build the market out from the height it reached at the top of the housing bubble.

As the chart I posted above (with an informed "nudge" from pinqy) indicates, private sector employment in April (116.4 million) now exceeds the previous high from Jan 2008 by 400K. That difference will hopefully continue to grow, so you'd better complain about it being too small while you can. Otoh, perhaps the economy and the jobs market will sag. Then yer campaign to disparage the President's performance would gain traction.

>>Guess you can pick a point in time and come up with whatever you want but the reality is we aren't better off than we were when the recession began it is due to lack of leadership along with economic policies that do not allow the private sector the incentive to grow.

Which point in time do you prefer? And now that we've surpassed the previous high on private-sector jobs, are you gonna say that it's Obama's leadership that's gotten us here? Have his economic policies allowed the private sector the incentive to grow? I guess you could hold on a bit longer (like until June 6th) and use the 600K decline in public-sector employment to say we're still not back to where we were at the top of the bubble.

But those public-sector jobs in law enforcement, fire and EMS, education, healthcare, food and drug standards enforcement, basic R & D, defense industries, transportation, national parks, etc — they don't benefit society. They're just "takers," a drain on the economy. And of course the worst are the environmental regulators and the IRS — stooges and criminals.

>>Decline in deficit as a percent of GDP? LOL, do we pay debt service on the percentage of GDP or the actual debt? Liberal logic is flawed.

Does the money to pay the debt service come from a stagnant GDP? Yeah, somebody's logic is flawed.

>>Again if you drive up the debt enough and Obama has added 6.8 trillion to the debt in 6 years according to the Treasury site which I posted the link to over the weekend

I can't recall the link. Was it in this thread?

That $6.8 trillion dollar figure (more accurately, 6.78) is based on a time frame that begins when Obama was inaugurated in Jan 2009. The FY2009 budget was Bush's, not his. The deficit that year was $1.41 trillion, a disaster.

A fair accounting could attribute $250 billion to Obama for adding his stimulus, the ARRA. That leaves $1.16 trillion as Bush's legacy for the year. Take that off the total you assign to Obama and you get $5.62 trillion.

>>you can get that percentage change and actual debt to whatever you want it to be

Can I? Seems to me the numbers are what they are.

>>TARP was a loan and was paid back with interest so making a profit should have reduced the deficit, where is that payback and interest in the 2009-2010 deficits?

It made the deficits over the years smaller than they would have been otherwise.

>>You buy what you are told and ignore reality because that is what you want to believe.

You can say that every day for the rest of yer life and it will never mean a thing — just boring rhetoric without any foundation.

>>You seem to lack a basic understanding of history and what our Founders created and that was a small limited central govt. with a part time legislature

The Constitution prescribes a much more powerful centralized structure than existed previously. Yes, there are definite limits placed on the federal government. That doesn't mean they're the ones you want them to be. Ironically in this context, those limits were included at the insistence of liberals, not conservatives.

In any event, the Constitution has changed over time. If you haven't noticed, it has repeatedly been amended. Proponents of a relatively strong central government prevailed on the battlefield in a civil war. (You may have heard of that.) As a result, blacks are now citizens. Another important change is that women have suffrage.

>>Facts, logic, and common sense aren't on your side.

Empty words.

Sorry, done with you if you don't use the quote function properly which is probably what you want anyway because you are looking foolish and have zero credibility. Please tell me when the Bush budget was passed and who signed it? Guess you missed that one as well. You pick and choose what you want to read and believe.

Treasury data on the deficit and debt by day

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
 
Last edited:
Good morning mmi, let's start here:

In the academic world, mealy-mouthed delivery of even powerful conclusions is the norm, so it's refreshing to see authors Sumit Agarwal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, Amit Seru answer the title's question, "Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?," with the clear, "Yes, it did. ... We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks." The full abstract reads:
Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks’ incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.

Study Says Community Reinvestment Act Induced Banks To Take Bad Risks - Hit & Run : Reason.com

If you don't like Reason, then Investors Business Daily had a good take on it as well....

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."
Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com

We can start there.
 
Sorry, done with you if you don't use the quote function properly which is probably what you want anyway because you are looking foolish and have zero credibility.

Yer a real character, I'll give ya that. A bit of a broken record though.
 
.What's your problem with the word?

My only problem is that it's seems inappropriately applied to me in this context. I keep stumbling around with these BLS tables. I find more and more stuff on their site all the time; it's a fabulous resource. But I'm just learning my way around on it; all these years, I've just read the monthly reports.

I see there's a post below where yer gonna come after me on the CRA. I've got my attorney available in his office if I need 'im. You not gonna swear me in or anything, are ya? :(
 
My only problem is that it's seems inappropriately applied to me in this context. I keep stumbling around with these BLS tables. I find more and more stuff on their site all the time; it's a fabulous resource. But I'm just learning my way around on it; all these years, I've just read the monthly reports.

I see there's a post below where yer gonna come after me on the CRA. I've got my attorney available in his office if I need 'im. You not gonna swear me in or anything, are ya? :(

We're only trying to help you.

To educate you. To give you the advantage of information that hasn't been redacted or mischaracterized.

The NBERs report on the CRAs effect on the Sub-Prime Bubble is just one aspect of how the CRA contributed to the Sub-Prime Collapse.

Clintons 1995 CRA changes allowed what would have been a small and isolated bubble to grow into systemic proportions.

By allowing the two largest GSEs to count their purchase of Sub-Prime loans and securities towards their HUD " affordable lending " goals, Clinton set in motion a deluge of toxic securities that made their way out into the worlds Capital Markets via CDO tranches.

The Banks weren't the first Financial entities to buy and package and securitize Sub-Prime loans.

No, that would be Freddie and Fannie.

Freddie Mac in 1998 Guaranteed 380 Million dollars of Sub-Prime securities.

Those Securities were then distributed out to investment houses and then throughout the worlds Capital markets as "AAA" rated securities.

They were of course worthless.

Banks didn't start creating private Mortgae backed Securities backed by Sub-Prime debt until 2002.

And when they did, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were their primary Consumers.

Fannie Mae was put under SEC investigation in 2004 and eventually fined 400 Million dollars for what amounted to unprecedented Securities fraud.

Freddie Mac AND Fannie Mae were put under investigation again in 2011 for hiding massive amounts of worthless debt from....well everyone.

They manipulated the entire MBS market, manipulated demand of securities backed by Sub-Prime debt and lied their way to insolvency.

And they were defended and run by Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Good morning mmi, let's start here

Whew! Looks like a friendly prosecutor at least.

The first thing I noticed is that this all seems to be from one analysis, the NBER paper. I don't suppose it would help me to point out that these authors sound like foreigners, and I don't mean Swedes or anything. Just kidding.

I absolutely want to give this matter the attention it deserves. At the moment, I'm required to return to my efforts to transfer taxpayer dollars from the Treasury into my checking account. In the meantime, let me say three things.

First, I'm not really looking to argue that the CRA played no role in the crisis. I just think it belongs a ways down on the list, behind:

  • the criminal operations operating as private mortgage lenders that led to convictions, mostly out West
  • the Big Banks that are getting stuck with tens of billions of dollars in fines
  • Mr. Greenspan and associates, who worked to keep interest rates low when they should have been rising
  • politicians like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, and some members of Congress who played important roles in loosening loan standards

Secondly, like you, and apparently unlike some others on this thread, I'm no expert on mortgage lending standards. I know I had no trouble getting a mortgage in Dec 2008, in small part because I had credit scores in the 800s, and in large part because I put $120K down on a $180 property. I waited until I was 52 years old to buy a house and I have never carried a credit card balance. That's about all I know.

Finally, I'm gonna send a couple o' pinch hitters up to the plate for me: Carl Yastrzemski and Stan Musial. I load my bench up with guys like this, hoping to avoid having problems with tough righties. So, somewhat ironically, unless you can get a really nasty lefty on the mound, I'd say you've got yer hands full.

The latest failed effort to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for Accounting Control Fraud, from a fellow that I figure you'll see as a lefty economist in March 2013

Government Policy and the Crisis: The Case of the Community Reinvestment Act, from some Fed economists in Aug 2013


We're only trying to help you. To educate you.

Sorry, but you've described me as a "low-information Obama supporter." This indicates to me that yer a right-wing hack not worth communicating with. Besides, you've made it clear that you find my posting style confusing. I don't want to confuse you.
 
Whew! Looks like a friendly prosecutor at least.

The first thing I noticed is that this all seems to be from one analysis, the NBER paper. I don't suppose it would help me to point out that these authors sound like foreigners, and I don't mean Swedes or anything. Just kidding.

I absolutely want to give this matter the attention it deserves. At the moment, I'm required to return to my efforts to transfer taxpayer dollars from the Treasury into my checking account. In the meantime, let me say three things.

First, I'm not really looking to argue that the CRA played no role in the crisis. I just think it belongs a ways down on the list, behind:

  • the criminal operations operating as private mortgage lenders that led to convictions, mostly out West
  • the Big Banks that are getting stuck with tens of billions of dollars in fines
  • Mr. Greenspan and associates, who worked to keep interest rates low when they should have been rising
  • politicians like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, and some members of Congress who played important roles in loosening loan standards

Secondly, like you, and apparently unlike some others on this thread, I'm no expert on mortgage lending standards. I know I had no trouble getting a mortgage in Dec 2008, in small part because I had credit scores in the 800s, and in large part because I put $120K down on a $180 property. I waited until I was 52 years old to buy a house and I have never carried a credit card balance. That's about all I know.

Finally, I'm gonna send a couple o' pinch hitters up to the plate for me: Carl Yastrzemski and Stan Musial. I load my bench up with guys like this, hoping to avoid having problems with tough righties. So, somewhat ironically, unless you can get a really nasty lefty on the mound, I'd say you've got yer hands full.

The latest failed effort to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for Accounting Control Fraud, from a fellow that I figure you'll see as a lefty economist in March 2013

Government Policy and the Crisis: The Case of the Community Reinvestment Act, from some Fed economists in Aug 2013




Sorry, but you've described me as a "low-information Obama supporter." This indicates to me that yer a right-wing hack not worth communicating with. Besides, you've made it clear that you find my posting style confusing. I don't want to confuse you.

What you are failing to understand is that there are a lot of people to blame and simply focusing on Bush is the problem when in reality there wouldn't have been any sub prime bubble had not Clinton created the sub primes in the early 90's and had not Democrats promoted home ownership just like Bush did. The blame solely on Bush is nothing more than partisan hackery

I would describe you as someone purely partisan who buys what they want to believe and ignores anything that contradicts it. You have way too much time invested in your Bush Derangement Syndrome and really should seek help. There isn't one economic number today better than what Bush had during his term yet you and others want to focus solely on 2008 and not the prior years. You want to blame Bush for the 2009 budget that was never passed by Congress or signed by Bush until Democrats took the WH and filled that budget with items of their own and signed by Obama knowing that people like you would blame Bush.

You really could help yourself a lot by one conforming to the posting standards in this forum and

two doing some independent research on what you are being told.
 
My only problem is that it's seems inappropriately applied to me in this context. I keep stumbling around with these BLS tables. I find more and more stuff on their site all the time; it's a fabulous resource. But I'm just learning my way around on it; all these years, I've just read the monthly reports.

I see there's a post below where yer gonna come after me on the CRA. I've got my attorney available in his office if I need 'im. You not gonna swear me in or anything, are ya? :(


I see, and heh, heh....No oath to be taken here, just friendly conversation. :)
 
Whew! Looks like a friendly prosecutor at least.

The first thing I noticed is that this all seems to be from one analysis, the NBER paper. I don't suppose it would help me to point out that these authors sound like foreigners, and I don't mean Swedes or anything. Just kidding.

I absolutely want to give this matter the attention it deserves. At the moment, I'm required to return to my efforts to transfer taxpayer dollars from the Treasury into my checking account. In the meantime, let me say three things.

First, I'm not really looking to argue that the CRA played no role in the crisis. I just think it belongs a ways down on the list, behind:

  • the criminal operations operating as private mortgage lenders that led to convictions, mostly out West
  • the Big Banks that are getting stuck with tens of billions of dollars in fines
  • Mr. Greenspan and associates, who worked to keep interest rates low when they should have been rising
  • politicians like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, and some members of Congress who played important roles in loosening loan standards

Secondly, like you, and apparently unlike some others on this thread, I'm no expert on mortgage lending standards. I know I had no trouble getting a mortgage in Dec 2008, in small part because I had credit scores in the 800s, and in large part because I put $120K down on a $180 property. I waited until I was 52 years old to buy a house and I have never carried a credit card balance. That's about all I know.

Finally, I'm gonna send a couple o' pinch hitters up to the plate for me: Carl Yastrzemski and Stan Musial. I load my bench up with guys like this, hoping to avoid having problems with tough righties. So, somewhat ironically, unless you can get a really nasty lefty on the mound, I'd say you've got yer hands full.

The latest failed effort to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for Accounting Control Fraud, from a fellow that I figure you'll see as a lefty economist in March 2013

Government Policy and the Crisis: The Case of the Community Reinvestment Act, from some Fed economists in Aug 2013

Hey, no problem, a lot of what "I" think may or may not be spot on, but hey, we are just two people talking right? For what it's worth, I don't blame the CRA totally, nor do I think that the collapse was a direct product of the evil Bush, and Cheney manipulating the astronomical alignment in an evil plot to sink the US. Same goes for the banks...Although I do think that they were pressured to make loans to people that they knew full well would default, and in turn invented a way to insulate themselves from those losses...

I will read your articles, and let you know what I think, if that is fair...Oh, and while your in there tinkering with the Fed money for personal gain, could you transfer a little to me? It would sure help these days.....:mrgreen:
 
Ok mmi, I read, and did a little research on the articles you posted, the first one:

The latest failed effort to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for Accounting Control Fraud - New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives

Seems to be little more than Black trying to attack personally the people that wrote the study I provided, and at the same time shill his own made up theory placing Banks solely at fault through criminal activity....If asked a simple question to Mr. Black, "why if what you pose that the banks are committing "control fraud", did no one go to jail?"

On the second article posted by the Atlanta Fed:

Real Estate Research

They seem to prose more than a few "probably's" and "Likely" terminology in their dismissal that anything to do with forcing banks to make risky loans is speculation...And thus without giving more weight to the truth from either of these sources, I don't think I can consider them at all...

Republicans were screaming about this crap in 2004, while Demo's ran cover for Franklin Raines, and lauded that everything was fine:

 
What you are failing to understand is that there are a lot of people to blame and simply focusing on Bush is the problem when in reality there wouldn't have been any sub prime bubble had not Clinton created the sub primes in the early 90's and had not Democrats promoted home ownership just like Bush did. The blame solely on Bush is nothing more than partisan hackery

This seems to be the way you perceive things:

First, I'm not really looking to argue that the CRA played no role in the crisis. I just think it belongs a ways down on the list, behind:

  • the criminal operations operating as private mortgage lenders that led to convictions, mostly out West
    [*]the Big Banks that are getting stuck with tens of billions of dollars in fines
    [*]Mr. Greenspan and associates, who worked to keep interest rates low when they should have been rising
    [*]politicians like Mr. Clinton,
    Mr. Bush, and some members of Congress who played important roles in loosening loan standards

>>I would describe you as someone purely partisan who buys what they want to believe and ignores anything that contradicts it.

Pretty much what I would say about you.

>>You have way too much time invested in your Bush Derangement Syndrome and really should seek help.

Complete nonsense. What is that idiotic claim based on?

>>There isn't one economic number today better than what Bush had during his term

Private-sector employment up by 400K. And that's up from the top of a bubble that led to a very disruptive near-collapse. We are now poised for a continuation of the stable expansion we've had over the past four years, and at a higher rate.

Let's look at some numbers on international trade. Under Bush, we ran larger trade deficits in his last five years than under any of Obama's, and they were larger in every year in real dollars.

When measured as a percentage of GDP, the large deficits under Bush are even more pronounced.

trade_deficit_to_GDP_1993_2013.jpg

This chart makes the point even more clearly. Well, for me, at least, I like charts.

trade_deficit_to_GDP_2004_2014.jpg

>>You want to blame Bush for the 2009 budget that was never passed by Congress or signed by Bush until Democrats took the WH and filled that budget with items of their own and signed by Obama knowing that people like you would blame Bush.

I'd say it's more complicated than that. As you know, the budget in the first year of a new president's term is traditionally ascribed to the previous administration. Even conservative opinion held to this conventional analysis for '09.

The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. — Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit

FY2009 was a very unusual year. (Let's hope we don't go through another one like it.) A significant amount of the increased spending that took place in that budget was indeed the responsibility of the Democrats. In fact, they had to work very hard to get it included. Only by securing Sen. Specter's vote were they able to avoid ANOTHER irresponsible filibuster. As I said earlier, "[a] fair accounting could attribute $250 billion to Obama for adding his stimulus, the ARRA. That leaves $1.16 trillion as Bush's legacy for the year."

(It looks like you do have trouble reading my posts, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with quote boxes.)

Here's a PolitiFact article that discusses the issue at some length: Lots of heat (and some light) on Obama's spending

In any event, I'd say the stimulus spending (and that's what we're talking about here — there's no point examining the other appropriation bills because the differences in dollars are insignificant, and in fact in some cases, as that article points out, the Democrats reduced outlays in order to free up resources FOR the directed stimulus) was required to keep the economy afloat.

>>You really could help yourself a lot by … doing some independent research on what you are being told.

Like I keep saying, yer often good for a laugh.
 
We're only trying to help you.

To educate you. To give you the advantage of information that hasn't been redacted or mischaracterized.

The NBERs report on the CRAs effect on the Sub-Prime Bubble is just one aspect of how the CRA contributed to the Sub-Prime Collapse.

Clintons 1995 CRA changes allowed what would have been a small and isolated bubble to grow into systemic proportions.

By allowing the two largest GSEs to count their purchase of Sub-Prime loans and securities towards their HUD " affordable lending " goals, Clinton set in motion a deluge of toxic securities that made their way out into the worlds Capital Markets via CDO tranches.

The Banks weren't the first Financial entities to buy and package and securitize Sub-Prime loans.

No, that would be Freddie and Fannie.

Freddie Mac in 1998 Guaranteed 380 Million dollars of Sub-Prime securities.

Those Securities were then distributed out to investment houses and then throughout the worlds Capital markets as "AAA" rated securities.

They were of course worthless.

Banks didn't start creating private Mortgae backed Securities backed by Sub-Prime debt until 2002.

And when they did, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were their primary Consumers.

Fannie Mae was put under SEC investigation in 2004 and eventually fined 400 Million dollars for what amounted to unprecedented Securities fraud.

Freddie Mac AND Fannie Mae were put under investigation again in 2011 for hiding massive amounts of worthless debt from....well everyone.

They manipulated the entire MBS market, manipulated demand of securities backed by Sub-Prime debt and lied their way to insolvency.

And they were defended and run by Democrats.

So you are suggesting that the root cause of a multi-trillion dollar crises that peaked in 2008 was caused by 380 million (not billion but million) worth of sub-prime securities guarantees back in 1998?
 
Seems to be little more than Black trying to attack personally the people that wrote the study I provided, and at the same time shill his own made up theory placing Banks solely at fault through criminal activity

Well, first I have to admit I haven't had time to read either of those articles. And I can't say that my judgements on this matter will necessarily be enhanced much as a result.

You may agree that the kind of academic cat-fighting you describe is fairly common. I'll do what I can to find some neutral assessments. Not that it matters, but this is a busy week in my agency — I'll have time to ponder all this stuff in a few days.

>>a simple question to Mr. Black, "why if what you pose that the banks are committing "control fraud", did no one go to jail?"

Bankers (I mean bankers at Big Banks) going to jail? Seems to me they go one of three places when they leave their institutions: lobbying firms, government regulatory agencies, or retirement. Prison is so … drab.

>>They seem to prose more than a few "probably's" and "Likely" terminology in their dismissal that anything to do with forcing banks to make risky loans is speculation

Hmm. Well, I write that way myself a lot of the time. I'd call it "prudent caution."

>>Republicans were screaming about this crap in 2004

I watched that video. I didn't hear any "screaming" from those committee members.

I will acknowledge that some Republicans were voicing concern about F & F. I'm not at all, at least at this point, convinced that those agencies played a major role in the near-collapse. You saw my list of what I consider the blameworthy. I agree that regulations were inadvisedly, perhaps even dangerously, relaxed. But while you guys wanna focus on the federal guarantees provided to mortgage lenders, isn't it also true that the Republican party, for the past thirty years, has been advocating and, when they've been able, implementing a large pull-back on federal regulation of the financial industry?

In the end, I may be left with the same view I've had all along (although I hope to at least refine it, and I believe I'm open to changing it): the leadership in both parties played a role in creating the awful mess we're discussing here. Private institutions did as well, even more so, imo. They committed the crimes when the police weren't looking.

I will concede that it may be informative to note that the CRA and F & F put the idea of expanded opportunities to obtain mortgages into play, in all areas — financial, regulatory, political, social. But I'm convinced that the superficial, knee-jerk attitude, which I understand you do not share, that the whole thing is attributable to the Democrat party buying votes from blacks and campaign contributions from Wall Street is a very large slice of baloney.

Finally, I think you should view anything put out by naked emperor news with a considerable degree of skepticism. This is the "Not-So-Bright Fart" "Gunk Blech" crowd. They make a good living off lies and deception. They're fairly competent at it, so you need to be careful. The context required to understand an issue is ALWAYS excluded. And that's the best thing I could say about 'em..

Of course, I'm not saying "I'm right and yer wrong." But these people are part of a large industry. I was watching Fùx Noise yesterday and they put up a graphic that said "140K killed in Syria since Obama drew his red line." An outright lie, of course. That total, horrible as it is, goes back to the beginning of the conflict.

I know I'm getting off-topic, but I'm saying that from a non-partisan perspective, and I hope you'll allow that I can have one, these people are liars. Not just partisans; they know what they're doing. They say that Obama's foreign policy "doctrine" is Lead from Behind. In fact, of course, that approach was applied in a single setting: the revolution in Libya. And their argument that it failed? Mr. Stevens, a man they would have dumped all over as a terrorist-sympathizing, anti-Israel, America-hating, pinko … anytime before Sept 11, 2012. How many investigations would there have been if Gaddafi's loyalist troops had reached Benghazi and slaughtered thousands of civilians?

My point: don't even bother eviewing material from these people when yer looking to understand an issue, especially a complex one. They don't deserve yer thoughtful and reasoned attention.
 
This seems to be the way you perceive things:



>>I would describe you as someone purely partisan who buys what they want to believe and ignores anything that contradicts it.

Pretty much what I would say about you.

>>You have way too much time invested in your Bush Derangement Syndrome and really should seek help.

Complete nonsense. What is that idiotic claim based on?

>>There isn't one economic number today better than what Bush had during his term

Private-sector employment up by 400K. And that's up from the top of a bubble that led to a very disruptive near-collapse. We are now poised for a continuation of the stable expansion we've had over the past four years, and at a higher rate.

Let's look at some numbers on international trade. Under Bush, we ran larger trade deficits in his last five years than under any of Obama's, and they were larger in every year in real dollars.

When measured as a percentage of GDP, the large deficits under Bush are even more pronounced.

View attachment 67166873

This chart makes the point even more clearly. Well, for me, at least, I like charts.

View attachment 67166870

>>You want to blame Bush for the 2009 budget that was never passed by Congress or signed by Bush until Democrats took the WH and filled that budget with items of their own and signed by Obama knowing that people like you would blame Bush.

I'd say it's more complicated than that. As you know, the budget in the first year of a new president's term is traditionally ascribed to the previous administration. Even conservative opinion held to this conventional analysis for '09.

The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. — Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit

FY2009 was a very unusual year. (Let's hope we don't go through another one like it.) A significant amount of the increased spending that took place in that budget was indeed the responsibility of the Democrats. In fact, they had to work very hard to get it included. Only by securing Sen. Specter's vote were they able to avoid ANOTHER irresponsible filibuster. As I said earlier, "[a] fair accounting could attribute $250 billion to Obama for adding his stimulus, the ARRA. That leaves $1.16 trillion as Bush's legacy for the year."

(It looks like you do have trouble reading my posts, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with quote boxes.)

Here's a PolitiFact article that discusses the issue at some length: Lots of heat (and some light) on Obama's spending

In any event, I'd say the stimulus spending (and that's what we're talking about here — there's no point examining the other appropriation bills because the differences in dollars are insignificant, and in fact in some cases, as that article points out, the Democrats reduced outlays in order to free up resources FOR the directed stimulus) was required to keep the economy afloat.

>>You really could help yourself a lot by … doing some independent research on what you are being told.

Like I keep saying, yer often good for a laugh.

Apparently you don't understand how ridiculous it is to compare debt to GDP in a mostly private sector economy. My your logic, the 6.8 trillion dollars Obama has added to the economy is much better than the 4.9 trillion Bush added to the economy because the percentage is different. The reality is we pay debt service on the debt, not percentage of GDP and that debt service is higher for 6.7 trillion than 4.9 trillion and that really is what matters.

By the way there are two aspects of deficits revenue and expenses. Maybe when those shovels for those shovel ready jobs created in February 2009 actually get to the intended locations more taxpayers will be created. Those shovels much be going my way of boat around the world because for some reason they have not arrived yet.
 
So you are suggesting that the root cause of a multi-trillion dollar crises that peaked in 2008 was caused by 380 million (not billion but million) worth of sub-prime securities guarantees back in 1998?

No, Freddie Mac's poor decision to guarantee 380 million dollars in Securities backed by Sub Prime loans was just the first substantial guarantee of toxic MBS by the GSE's.

People blame banks, but the GSEs had a 6 year head start on the banks which didn't start creating their own MBSs until 2002. Even then Fannie and Freddie were their primary consumers.

Whats' at the root of the 2008 economic crisis was Clinton's war against " Racist lenders " and his false narrative of " discrimination in lending ".

The Democrats first, decided that the Private Sector standards, used by Banks for decades to keep the Housing markets stable where innately racist.
 
No, Freddie Mac's poor decision to guarantee 380 million dollars in Securities backed by Sub Prime loans was just the first substantial guarantee of toxic MBS by the GSE's.

People blame banks, but the GSEs had a 6 year head start on the banks which didn't start creating their own MBSs until 2002. Even then Fannie and Freddie were their primary consumers.

Whats' at the root of the 2008 economic crisis was Clinton's war against " Racist lenders " and his false narrative of " discrimination in lending ".

The Democrats first, decided that the Private Sector standards, used by Banks for decades to keep the Housing markets stable where innately racist.

All those things were certainly part of the mosaic which caused the systemic financial failure. But they aren't the only things. There are Republican things and even Bush things. Not any single one of them can be blamed for it all.
 
Whats' at the root of the 2008 economic crisis was Clinton's war against " Racist lenders " and his false narrative of " discrimination in lending ".

False narrative? Yeah, redlining never existed. And Reagan's DOJ and HUD didn't look the other way when banks were basically ignoring the anti-discrimination requirements in the CRA. I guess they were all too busy deregulating the savings and loan industry, a move that led to widespread real estate speculation, hundreds of failed institutions, and a massive federal bailout.

>>The Democrats first, decided that the Private Sector standards, used by Banks for decades to keep the Housing markets stable where innately racist.

No, the standards were not racist. Many of the people applying them were. Did I say that? No, I got confused. Racism in America? Hasn't existed for at least a hundred years.

"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro …" "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."​
 
Apparently you don't understand how ridiculous it is to compare debt to GDP in a mostly private sector economy.

Well, at least I'm not alone — a lot of other people don't understand how ridiculous it is.

debt to GDP

>>My your logic, the 6.8 trillion dollars Obama has added to the economy is much better than the 4.9 trillion Bush added to the economy because the percentage is different.

What? Do you mean added to the debt?

>>The reality is we pay debt service on the debt, not percentage of GDP and that debt service is higher for 6.7 trillion than 4.9 trillion and that really is what matters.

And the reality is that the money used to pay the debt service comes out of the (expanded) GDP.

>>Those shovels much be going my way of boat around the world because for some reason they have not arrived yet.

In total, lawmakers appropriated $62 billion in funding for transportation and water infrastructure under that legislation [the ARRA]. The Congressional Budget Office expects that, in nominal terms, federal spending for transportation and water infrastructure under ARRA will total $54 billion through 2013, by which time almost 90 percent of the funds made available for infrastructure through ARRA will have been spent. — "Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure," CBO, Nov 17, 2010​
 
False narrative? Yeah, redlining never existed.

Can you point to the post that asserts redlining never existed? I must have missed that one.

Still, given the choice between some redlining, or at least enforcement of common sense lending standards, and a housing bubble, I think it's an easy choice to make. But even so, the CRA isn't the sole thing, or person, or action that caused the housing bubble in it's entirety. Yes, it did have a part in a larger mosaic, but it's not the entire mosaic. Not by a long shot.

And Reagan's DOJ and HUD didn't look the other way when banks were basically ignoring the anti-discrimination requirements in the CRA. I guess they were all too busy deregulating the savings and loan industry, a move that led to widespread real estate speculation, hundreds of failed institutions, and a massive federal bailout.

>>The Democrats first, decided that the Private Sector standards, used by Banks for decades to keep the Housing markets stable where innately racist.

No, the standards were not racist. Many of the people applying them were. Did I say that? No, I got confused. Racism in America? Hasn't existed for at least a hundred years.

"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro …" "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."​

The rest of your post is just so much noise, not worth responding to.
 
Well, at least I'm not alone — a lot of other people don't understand how ridiculous it is.

debt to GDP

>>My your logic, the 6.8 trillion dollars Obama has added to the economy is much better than the 4.9 trillion Bush added to the economy because the percentage is different.

What? Do you mean added to the debt?

>>The reality is we pay debt service on the debt, not percentage of GDP and that debt service is higher for 6.7 trillion than 4.9 trillion and that really is what matters.

And the reality is that the money used to pay the debt service comes out of the (expanded) GDP.

>>Those shovels much be going my way of boat around the world because for some reason they have not arrived yet.

In total, lawmakers appropriated $62 billion in funding for transportation and water infrastructure under that legislation [the ARRA]. The Congressional Budget Office expects that, in nominal terms, federal spending for transportation and water infrastructure under ARRA will total $54 billion through 2013, by which time almost 90 percent of the funds made available for infrastructure through ARRA will have been spent. — "Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure," CBO, Nov 17, 2010​

Tell me how debt to GDP ratio affects the average American and the budget of the United States? It is a great tool for people who love percentage change or percentage of a higher GDP number to try and make a point but it means nothing. Debt service is what matters and that costs the American taxpayers. you believe that 6.7 trillion added to the debt is good because it is a 60% increase in the debt whereas 1.7 trillion debt is bad because it is triple the debt. Who does that make sense to?

Sorry but we aren't paying much out of the growing GDP because the GDP isn't growing.

Do you realize that you are defending the ARRA and ignoring the projections made when it was implemented? Do you realize what happened with that 842 BILLION Dollars and the impact on the economy? Why is it you have such low standards when it comes to Democrats in the WH and Congress?
 
Back
Top Bottom