• 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!

U.S. Economy Added 162,000 Jobs in March, Most in 3 Years

no matter whose fault it is, we know who's gonna take the blame in 2012

heck, we know who's gonna take it in november

it's all so UNFAIR

LOL!
 
For those who are interested in gaining insight into the recent financial crisis, two sources that one can reference are:

Chapter 1 of Robert Shiller's The Subprime Crisis

Katalina Bianco's The Subprime Lending Crisis

Be forewarned, credible academic sources do not portray the crisis as primarily a matter of partisan politics.
 
No, Bush encouraged banks to make risky loans.

So did the CRA, so did the low income housing credits to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Are you honestly sitting here and telling me that the Democrats were opposed to subprime loans for low income households? Spare me. This is the Democrats economy now and has been since at least TARP.
 
So did the CRA, so did the low income housing credits to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Are you honestly sitting here and telling me that the Democrats were opposed to subprime loans for low income households? Spare me. This is the Democrats economy now and has been since at least TARP.

"In my judgment, the origination of subprime mortgages -- as opposed to the rise in global demand for securitized subprime-mortgage interests -- was not a significant cause of the financial crisis,"
Allan Greenspan 2008

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/greenspan-housing-bubble-was-not-created-by-fed-2010-04-07
 
credible academic sources do not portray the crisis as primarily a matter of partisan politics

and GOOD for them!

neither do cnn, the boston globe, bloomberg, business week, the ny times, the la times, the financial times of london, the associated press, politico, cbs, gmatv, reuters, cahealthonline.org, abc and the washington post
 
"In my judgment, the origination of subprime mortgages -- as opposed to the rise in global demand for securitized subprime-mortgage interests -- was not a significant cause of the financial crisis,"
Allan Greenspan 2008

Greenspan: Subprime loans did not cause crisis - MarketWatch

So you've gone from asserting that the Subprime loans led to the housing crash due to Bush's actions to asserting that they played no roll at all. So are you now asserting that it was Greenspan lowering the interest rate to 1% that alone caused the housing crisis? Well then guess what, if that's your assertion, the reason why the interest rates were dropped was due to the Clinton recession which began in his last year.
 
So you've gone from asserting that the Subprime loans led to the housing crash due to Bush's actions to asserting that they played no roll at all. So are you now asserting that it was Greenspan lowering the interest rate to 1% that alone caused the housing crisis? Well then guess what, if that's your assertion, the reason why the interest rates were dropped was due to the Clinton recession which began in his last year.

The recession did not begin in Clintons last year it began in Bush's term

Not that the conditions for that recession were formed during the Bush admin of course
 
So you've gone from asserting that the Subprime loans led to the housing crash due to Bush's actions to asserting that they played no roll at all. So are you now asserting that it was Greenspan lowering the interest rate to 1% that alone caused the housing crisis? Well then guess what, if that's your assertion, the reason why the interest rates were dropped was due to the Clinton recession which began in his last year.

The housing boom could not have happened without low interest rates and Bush pushing homes for everyone. Were you awake the last decade? Didn't you notice all the houses being built and everyone you knew buying a house? It was a feeding frenzy. Everyone wanted to get into a home before interest rates went up.
As your boy Greenspan said subprime did not cause the collapse of the housing sector.
"In my judgment, the origination of subprime mortgages -- as opposed to the rise in global demand for securitized subprime-mortgage interests -- was not a significant cause of the financial crisis,"
Allan Greenspan 2008

The recession began half way through 2001, not during Clinton's term. You guys really do make up your own history, don't you. I suppose 9/11 occurred during Clinton's term, too.

Greenspan and Bush tried to use the housing sector to pull us out of the recession and it had disasterous results. We may never recover.
 
historically, the argument is open to dispute---what caused this

POLITICALLY, there is none---who FAILED to fix it

history is for academics

politics, on the other hand, is IN THE GUT
 
historically, the argument is open to dispute---what caused this

POLITICALLY, there is none---who FAILED to fix it

history is for academics

politics, on the other hand, is IN THE GUT

So you blame the guy that's trying to fix it more than the guy that caused it?

Typical.
 
not me, i don't signify (except to you)

POLITICS

POLITICS blames the guy who can't fix it, hello

quit whining

whiniest admin america's ever had to dry her tears
 
historically, the argument is open to dispute---what caused this

POLITICALLY, there is none---who FAILED to fix it

history is for academics

politics, on the other hand, is IN THE GUT

That's a big part of the problem, isn't it? Politics is about managing our resources, about where to draw lines on a map, about rational things.

Why would you let your gut do your head's job?
 
because should be and is are completely different things

in the adult world, that is
 
That's a big part of the problem, isn't it? Politics is about managing our resources, about where to draw lines on a map, about rational things.

Why would you let your gut do your head's job?

He actually seems proud that he thinks with parts other than his brain.
 
Wasn't calling you dumb. But a HUGE number of Obama supporters are entirely clueless about anything on this planet, the least of which is governmental policy, economics, or the implications of one on the other.

Which is pretty much the same for Obama detractors. What is amusing is the Bush defenders who have turned on the most recent incarnation of Bush. Oh God, it's a Democrat! Ignore he's doing many of the same crackpot policies that Bush did, the person we defended! :2wave:
 
Ok so we can't blame Obama when he fails to fix our economy (pretty far out of his control as an individual) but we can blame bush for individual citizens taking out loans they couldn't afford? Ok, I got it now. I just needed to clarify that. :roll:

So can every person who was ever shot blame our founding fathers for the second amendment? After all, we can't possibly blame the guy doing the shooting, right? Oh wait, you mean you can't blame someone for someone else's actions simply because a 3rd party they gave them the ability to? That's what I thought. Grow some balls and admit Obama failed and failed because of his own damn decisions and stop blaming bush. That's horrendously childish behavior. Obama continues to be the do-no-wrong president. God for heaven people grow up. :doh

If the economy became bushs puppy on Jan 20th 2001 and Clinton can't be blamed for anything that happens past that date then this economy became obamas on jan 20 2009 and bush can't be blamed for anything happening past that date. Anything different and you're a worthless political hack who's opinion isn't worth the bandwidth on the forum, no matter which way you lean.
 
Last edited:
Ok so we can't blame Obama when he fails to fix our economy (pretty far out of his control as an individual) but we can blame bush for individual citizens taking out loans they couldn't afford? .

Actually most could afford the loans until they lost their jobs.
 
Actually most could afford the loans until they lost their jobs.
Nope. Most could afford the loans until the interest rates went up and they couldn't refinance.
 
they were counting on houses continuing to appreciate so they could refi before the adjustables and balloon payments WHICH THEY KNEW WERE COMING came due

when housing depreciated, instead...

POP!
 
Nope. Most could afford the loans until the interest rates went up and they couldn't refinance.

So they could afford the home when they purchased it. The number one reason for foreclosure is loss of job or change in employment. That's what got the foreclosure ball rolling.

"Countrywide Financial, the largest mortgage company in the country, also cites economic performance as a cause of foreclosures. Countrywide released its findings on the main reasons for foreclosure, which was reported in about 80 percent of the cases. Countrywide attributed "curtailment of income" as the primary factor 58 percent of the time. This far exceeds some of the other reasons:

* Illness or medical reasons made up 13 percent of foreclosures.
* Divorce came in at 8 percent.
* An inability to sell the house clocked in at 6 percent."
 
Last edited:
So they could afford the home when they purchased it. The number one reason for foreclosure is loss of job or change in employment. That's what got the foreclosure ball rolling.

Incorrect. As someone mentioned before, it was that housing prices stopped going up. Many people were buying homes as a speculation, rather than as a long term place to live. They got caught and it is easier to blame wall street fat cats rather than greedy voters, many middle income or lower that made a bet that went wrong.
 
Incorrect. As someone mentioned before, it was that housing prices stopped going up. Many people were buying homes as a speculation, rather than as a long term place to live. They got caught and it is easier to blame wall street fat cats rather than greedy voters, many middle income or lower that made a bet that went wrong.

No, first time buyers were buying houses because they could buy one for about the same amount of money they were paying for rent thanks to low interest rates.. Building equity instead of throwing money away on rent. Sounded like a smart move at the time. Now it doesn't seem so smart. They were not greedy and it wasn't speculating. They were reaching for the American dream....Home ownership. People that already owned homes were buying bigger and better homes, their dream homes, because the low interest rates let them move up with almost the same payment. Then the economy went sour, outsourcing became the norm and people lost their high paying jobs. Remember when the DOTcom bubble burst? Most foreclosures were due to loss of a job or change in the employment situation. Expect a lot more, for the more jobs that are lost the more foreclosures are in our future.
 
Last edited:
what's subprime mean?
 
what's subprime mean?

The riskiest loans.
According to Greenspan subprimes did not cause the financial collapse:
http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=178588&type=financial

"In my judgment, the origination of subprime mortgages -- as opposed to the rise in global demand for securitized subprime-mortgage interests -- was not a significant cause of the financial crisis," Greenspan told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which is conducting a series of hearings and investigations into what brought the economy to the brink in September 2008.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom