• 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, 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.

You just are not correct on a lot of levels. First, it was not only the rash of first time home buyers who defaulted. Next the housing market collapsed then the economy went into the tank. Next most foreclosures are on houses where the mortgages are underwater. Therefore for people with no ethics it is better to walk away from their mistake then continue paying for a house that they paid too much for. The rest of us do not get to walk away from the risks we take that do not work out.

People put no money down on houses. I remember seeing someone on TV, he made something like $40K and bought a house that cost $800K. There was no way a person like that could afford that house. I don't believe anyone he was so stupid as to think he could. He said he thought he would own the house for a year or two then move to a cheaper state. This on a show blaming the banks!

Nothing good can come out of an entitlement society that allows this kind of crap and then blame the " system". No wonder other nations are eating our lunch economically.
 
greenspan---LOL!

subprime may not have caused the financial collapse (LOL!), but it certainly didn't help the real estate market

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis]Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


IT ALL STARTED WITH HOUSING
 
Last edited:
You just are not correct on a lot of levels. First, it was not only the rash of first time home buyers who defaulted. Next the housing market collapsed then the economy went into the tank. Next most foreclosures are on houses where the mortgages are underwater. Therefore for people with no ethics it is better to walk away from their mistake then continue paying for a house that they paid too much for. The rest of us do not get to walk away from the risks we take that do not work out.

People put no money down on houses. I remember seeing someone on TV, he made something like $40K and bought a house that cost $800K. There was no way a person like that could afford that house. I don't believe anyone he was so stupid as to think he could. He said he thought he would own the house for a year or two then move to a cheaper state. This on a show blaming the banks!

Nothing good can come out of an entitlement society that allows this kind of crap and then blame the " system". No wonder other nations are eating our lunch economically.

absolutely

no down, low down, negative down, no qual, low qual, weak fico's, balloons, adjustables, negative amortizations...

subprime---a far-flung, steadfast effort to front folks in flats they frankly can't afford
 
Last edited:
absolutely

just how do you think the mortgage became UPSIDE DOWN?

cuz the "homeowner" LOST HIS JOB?

LOL!
 
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

lol so it's your assertion that it was GWB telling people to buy homes in speeches rather than the low-no interest no down payment subprime mortgage loans, that was the catalyst for more people buying homes? Seriously?


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.

Try again sport, the unemployment rate bottomed out at 3.8% in 2000 and started dropping from there, and according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, GDP growth plummeted in the 3rd quarter of 2000 to 1.3% and the revised data says it actually plummeted to an astounding negative .5%.

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.

They had to drop the interest rate in an emergency move brought on by the steep reduction in sales and production during the Clinton administration.
 
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

No unemployment started increasing and the GDP growth rate started decreasing during Clinton's last year in office.
 
Not convenient for partisans, but maybe the economy is complex enough that its mechanisms, successes, and declines are not altogether reducible to presidential terms.
 
Last edited:
they're not, economically

they are, politically
 
they're not, economically

they are, politically

A self-willed delusion. Those are what are killing our politics.

The strategies of political and market entities are carried out over both short time frames (days, weeks, months, years) and long time frames. The cognitive and emotional responses and intentions of actors within these systems are not always simple, either. Politician C may have wished for a different foundation than he received from Politicians A and B over the last twenty years, but his obligation is to deal with reality.
 
Last edited:
No unemployment started increasing and the GDP growth rate started decreasing during Clinton's last year in office.



Using either the NBER or the commonly accepted 2 quarter of negative GDP growth (inflation adjusted) the recession did not start untill March 2001.
 
his obligation is to deal with reality

deal with reality, barry

housing is thru the floor

4.5 million MORE foreclosures coming

they're up THIRTY FIVE PERCENT in the last quarter

half you've hamped have redefaulted

commercial real estate's next

jobless claims are still rising

consumer confidence is near an all time low

our biggest states are belly up

personal income is down 3.2%

public pensions are popping

EIGHTY SIX PERCENT of americans call it a CRISIS

and instead of dealing, the dolt doubles down...

dire days, indeed
 
Last edited:
Not convenient for partisans, but maybe the economy is complex enough that its mechanisms, successes, and declines are not altogether reducible to presidential terms.

That is generally true. First off, economies have natural cycles and recession is generally a part of the cycle. President's however can be blamed for the severity of a recession, particularly "bubbles" that happen near the end of their watch.

Clinton gets some blame for delivering Bush a soft economy; and Bush gets a ton of blame for delivering Obama an economy that was on the precipice of a calamity. I draw the distinction only because of the severity of the problem. Clinton could have done more to slow down the Internet exuberance; and Bush could have actually appointed regulators (as in a strong SEC and FED) that was actually paying attention.
 
Incorrect. As someone mentioned before, it was that housing prices stopped going up.
Not only that... housing prices went down and walking away from a loan became a much easier pill to swallow when people had negative equity.
 
Not convenient for partisans, but maybe the economy is complex enough that its mechanisms, successes, and declines are not altogether reducible to presidential terms.

Very true. The government, in the short term can only impact around the margins. A problem that this administration has is that it put so much blame on the previous administration that it raised hopes that a different regime would have the opposite impact. So they raised expectations beyond what they can accomplish and are paying the price.
 
he couldn't have won any other way

once more, the nature of the BEAST---politics
 
You just are not correct on a lot of levels. First, it was not only the rash of first time home buyers who defaulted. Next the housing market collapsed then the economy went into the tank. Next most foreclosures are on houses where the mortgages are underwater. Therefore for people with no ethics it is better to walk away from their mistake then continue paying for a house that they paid too much for. The rest of us do not get to walk away from the risks we take that do not work out.

People put no money down on houses. I remember seeing someone on TV, he made something like $40K and bought a house that cost $800K. There was no way a person like that could afford that house. I don't believe anyone he was so stupid as to think he could. He said he thought he would own the house for a year or two then move to a cheaper state. This on a show blaming the banks!

Nothing good can come out of an entitlement society that allows this kind of crap and then blame the " system". No wonder other nations are eating our lunch economically.

A bank lent 800K to a guy that made 40k? This was not the norm and total speculation. The guy obviously never intended to keep the home and was trying to make a quick few hundred grand. The bank thought they too could make a bunch of cash and gave him the money. Hell, it wasn't their money. Both parties were equally to blame in this case, but this is not how most home purchases happened. This was an exception bordering on fraud.
The majority of first time buyers bought their homes to be part of the American dream and build equity instead of paying rent. Low interest rates allowed them to do it. They intended to live in those homes and they were not speculating. Most foreclosures were the result of losing a job. Especially for those that traded up.

Walking away from a home that is worth half of what you owe on it is good business. Corporations do things like this all the time. They take the loss and move on. Why is it unethical for the average guy, but not for corporate America?
 
how did the mortgage become upside down?

cuz the "owner" lost his job?

LOL!
 
Guys, I think the causes of this crisis was irresponsible behavior on the part of BOTH lenders and borrowers (and speculators, etc). Let's not try to blame it all on either one.
 
deal with reality, barry

housing is thru the floor

4.5 million MORE foreclosures coming

they're up THIRTY FIVE PERCENT in the last quarter

half you've hamped have redefaulted

commercial real estate's next

jobless claims are still rising

consumer confidence is near an all time low

our biggest states are belly up

personal income is down 3.2%

public pensions are popping

EIGHTY SIX PERCENT of americans call it a CRISIS

and instead of dealing, the dolt doubles down...

dire days, indeed

Did I miss it when you were crying prophecy before the economy broke under Bush? No, I think I missed that....your doom and gloom seems to work only for Democrats.
 
your memory (LOL!) is flawed

it's ok, we're all getting up there...
 
how did the mortgage become upside down?

cuz the "owner" lost his job?

LOL!

The massive foreclosures began before mortgages became upside down. That came later. The huge number of foreclosures and homes on the market pushed prices down. Most foreclosures were not due to being upside down. The number one cause of foreclosures was loss of job or change of income. More recently people started walking away because they were upside down. It wasn't that way in the beginning.
 
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis]Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
fix this economy, barry

deal with reality

and hurry up!
 
Back
Top Bottom