• 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!

Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era

PeteEU said:
It is like saying.. low birth rates in the US, is Obamas fault because historically they were higher after WW2.
Click to expand...

You can dig deeper and say feminism has caused declining birth rates. Obama is the feminist candidate, so indirectly, you could say Obama is a contributor. It's strange how liberalism sows the seeds of it's own destruction. Just think, liberal policies could lead to Islam being the dominant world ideology. Unfortunately as liberals plant the seeds of their own destruction, they destroy the rest of the nation along side them.
 
I'm going to be charitable here and ask this question: Is it possible that a slow recovery could decrease the amplitude (think sine wave) of the business cycles, making the next contraction less severe?
 
SDET said:
You can dig deeper and say feminism has caused declining birth rates. Obama is the feminist candidate, so indirectly, you could say Obama is a contributor. It's strange how liberalism sows the seeds of it's own destruction. Just think, liberal policies could lead to Islam being the dominant world ideology. Unfortunately as liberals plant the seeds of their own destruction, they destroy the rest of the nation along side them.
Click to expand...
So just to be clear, "feminism" as a cause of declines in US birth rates, explains the declines from 1920 to 1935?
 
SDET said:
I'm going to be charitable here and ask this question: Is it possible that a slow recovery could decrease the amplitude (think sine wave) of the business cycles, making the next contraction less severe?
Click to expand...
Since "business cycles" are a function of personal debt, no, slow recoveries will not cause less personal debt, in fact a slow recovery often hinders deleveraging.
 
Fledermaus said:
Did Bush or Reagan write and or sign all the laws that led to the debacle. Yes or No>
Click to expand...

Fled, you don't get to pretend it was "laws" that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You've seen Bush's policy of preempting all state laws against predatory lending. And the regulators work for Bush. Not only did they let banks stop checking the borrower's ability to repay the loan, they fought with state regulators who tried to do their job. Also Bush funded the investment banks when he lowered their net capital requirements. Two pillars of the Bush Mortgage Bubble that required no laws. So it was Bush's policies and regulation.

Here's idea Fled, instead of simply whining at my posts, why don't address the facts I post. Just you know you posting "nuh uh" over and over is not addressing them.
 
Vern said:
Fled, you don't get to pretend it was "laws" that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You've seen Bush's policy of preempting all state laws against predatory lending. And the regulators work for Bush. Not only did they let banks stop checking the borrower's ability to repay the loan, they fought with state regulators who tried to do their job. Also Bush funded the investment banks when he lowered their net capital requirements. Two pillars of the Bush Mortgage Bubble that required no laws. So it was Bush's policies and regulation.

Here's idea Fled, instead of simply whining at my posts, why don't address the facts I post. Just you know you posting "nuh uh" over and over is not addressing them.
Click to expand...

I will take that as a NO......

Since you cannot be honest and answer the question.

And since the answer is NO your continued drumbeat about the Bubble being of Reagan/Bush origin is unfounded....

Thanks for playing.

You may continue your partisan rants.
 
Fledermaus said:
I will take that as a NO......

Since you cannot be honest and answer the question.

And since the answer is NO your continued drumbeat about the Bubble being of Reagan/Bush origin is unfounded....

Thanks for playing.

You may continue your partisan rants.
Click to expand...
It wasnt a legitimate question. The biggest factors of the Bush Mortgage Bubble were Bush's policies and regulation not laws. You are already aware of policy that preempted all state laws against predatory lending. He didnt sign any laws when lowered investment banks capital requirements. He didnt sign any laws when reversed the Clinton rule that restricted Freddie and Fannie's purchases of abusive subprime loans. He didnt have to sign any laws when forced Freddie and Fannie to more low income home loans. And no laws were signed when his regulators attacked state regulators doing their job.

And no laws were signed when he attacked the only GSE reform bill to pass the republican congress. Read why he attacked the only GSE reform bill to pass the republican congress

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
 
Vern said:
It wasnt a legitimate question. The biggest factors of the Bush Mortgage Bubble were Bush's policies and regulation not laws. You are already aware of policy that preempted all state laws against predatory lending. He didnt sign any laws when lowered investment banks capital requirements. He didnt sign any laws when reversed the Clinton rule that restricted Freddie and Fannie's purchases of abusive subprime loans. He didnt have to sign any laws when forced Freddie and Fannie to more low income home loans. And no laws were signed when his regulators attacked state regulators doing their job.

And no laws were signed when he attacked the only GSE reform bill to pass the republican congress. Read why he attacked the only GSE reform bill to pass the republican congress

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
Click to expand...

You may continue your partisan rants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom