Obama announces his Candidacy for 2012.

Sheik Yerbuti said:

None of that discounts that more people still blame Bush for the economy than Obama.

Click to expand...

Not too mention, despite your attempts to distort the results of that poll, it was a poll of "likely voters" and it was put out by Rasmussen, whose polls tend to lean towards Republicans more than most other polls.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

The difference, and it is huge, is that the public sector can be controlled while it is far more difficult to control governments. Let them get out of hand, as is the case in most democracies which have big governments, and the results are quite predictable. I see no areas of the private sector which puts the country at risk unless they get involved with the government. Which specific private sector companies do you feel can't be trusted?

Click to expand...

There are already a great many laws controlling the private sector and all have to eventually have support of the public to continue doing business. The caveat is that they are at arms length from any government.

The Keynesian economic philosophy towards public spending has been debunked so often that we need not go over it here. In theory, like many economic theories, it works best on paper but politicians needing to satisfy an electorate demanding more public programs and spending will eventually ignore these theories, or install only part of them. In the end we can only spend what we have, and no more.

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

As far as specific institutions? Banks, insurance companies, any corporation who avoids paying taxes, etc. I mean, the current economic crisis was caused in huge part by banks handing out loans to people who couldn't afford them. The fact that several presidents continued to deregulate the banking industry shows that not enough regulation by government leads to dangerous practices.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Now what in the world could have led to that happening?

oh yeah....Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks libs.


j-mac

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

In general, I think every member of the private sector can damage the economy and citizens if left unchecked simply because more power and greed leads to irresponsible business practices. In other words, every institution operated by imperfect human beings needs to be checked including government and business.

Click to expand...

Then you might say which businesses you think are suspect. I know that ALL governments are suspect because we know what power can do to a person, be it a crosswalk guard or an elected President. But if you know any company that is corrupt or acting outside the law why not say who it is?

As far as specific institutions? Banks, insurance companies, any corporation who avoids paying taxes, etc. I mean, the current economic crisis was caused in huge part by banks handing out loans to people who couldn't afford them. The fact that several presidents continued to deregulate the banking industry shows that not enough regulation by government leads to dangerous practices.

Click to expand...

Yes, GE would fall into that category but, as we know, they are involved with the government in an obvious way. So were the banking institutions, often much against their will. Banks were forced by ACORN, with Barrack Obama playing a key role, in forcing banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford the loan. This is what led to the collapse of the banking and housing industry and Obama was a large part of that. City Bank was his largest victim.

Sure, there are certainly many laws controlling the private sector and yet they clearly do not protect against irresponsible practices. In the words of Krugman, "Regulation didn't keep up with the system." But I would also add that it's less that the policymakers didn't keep up, it's that they didn't care.

Click to expand...

Banks were doing fine for decades before the politicians became involved and forced them to make unrealistic loans. The same is true with the setting up of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and the natural corruption that followed. And following all of this it is amazing to me that citizens will still allow governments to ignore budgets and expenses but instead insist on giving them more. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

There were actually many acts of deregulation in the government by both parties. It's wrongheaded to blame it all on a single policy, especially one like the Community Reinvestment Act which was passed in 1977. If you were going to blame liberals, you could have a least picked something more recent like Clinton's Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which was passed in 1999.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

Latest polls don't show a lot of positives for Obama as the American people keep waking up

Obama Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports™

Click to expand...

Grant said:

Then you might say which businesses you think are suspect. I know that ALL governments are suspect because we know what power can do to a person, be it a crosswalk guard or an elected President. But if you know any company that is corrupt or acting outside the law why not say who it is?

Click to expand...

Yes, GE would fall into that category but, as we know, they are involved with the government in an obvious way. So were the banking institutions, often much against their will. Banks were forced by ACORN, with Barrack Obama playing a key role, in forcing banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford the loan. This is what led to the collapse of the banking and housing industry and Obama was a large part of that. City Bank was his largest victim.

Click to expand...

Banks were doing fine for decades before the politicians became involved and forced them to make unrealistic loans. The same is true with the setting up of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and the natural corruption that followed. And following all of this it is amazing to me that citizens will still allow governments to ignore budgets and expenses but instead insist on giving them more. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

I see 55% disapprove, but what is going on in the minds of those other 45%? Do they just vote along party lines without looking at the record?

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

There were actually many acts of deregulation in the government by both parties. It's wrongheaded to blame it all on a single policy, especially one like the Community Reinvestment Act which was passed in 1977. If you were going to blame liberals, you could have a least picked something more recent like Clinton's Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which was passed in 1999.

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

Exactly, I know that ALL institutions are suspect because we know what power can do to a person. Government, religion, business, the PTA board, etc. They all have the power to overreach and cause damage - which is why checks and balances need to be in place.

Click to expand...

I actually never said anything about businesses who act outside the law - I talked about businesses who behave irresponsibly (it turns out that in many cases, the law enables them to behave irresponsibly). Examples include anybody who contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis: Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Countrywide Financial (accused of fraud before acquired by Bank of America), Bank of America, Citibank, etc.

Click to expand...

If you want examples of companies that, as you say, have been "corrupt or acted outside of the law", all you have to do is do a Google search...

Click to expand...

Banks weren't forced by the government to be greedy and give out risky loans to poor people and undocumented immigrants. The main role the government played is by letting banks get away with their irresponsible practices.

Click to expand...

Again with the "force" nonsense. Many citizens wanted to buy homes and banks wanted to make money - both groups were greedy.

Click to expand...

The government should have been there to balance the greed and lack of responsibility, but it wasn't. "Force" is a ridiculous thing to claim. Banks are known for taking risks, particularly investment banks; the risks went too far this time.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Why not? It is this policy which was bolstered and strengthened by the Clinton administration, that threatened banks, and regulators into giving these loans that ultimately caused this melt down, watch this:




Raines, Dodd, and Frank should be in JAIL right now.

j-mac

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encourages banks to expand mortgage lending in the communities in which they have branch offices, subject to maintaining overall levels of financial safety and soundness. Some have argued that this regulation forced banks to lower their credit standards and engage in riskier mortgage products in order to extend credit to lower-income individuals, who perhaps should not have received such loans. However, data provided by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reveal that loans covered by the CRA accounted for only a fraction of mortgage lending to lower-income borrowers and neighborhoods. This is especially true of higher-priced, or subprime, mortgages.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

Yes, i understand the generalities bt checks and balances are in place, especially regarding business. But can you tell me which business you feel is corrupt and not behaving according to law? Adding religion and the PTA into the mix does not further the debate.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

I've sent a link showing that Barrack Obama, among others, sued Citi Bank to give loans to customers who otherwise couldn't qualify, and these loans were based upon a person's race, with no other criteria. Please explain how this is Citi Banks fault when BH Obama sued them to issue these loans.

Click to expand...

Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

I just sent the link explaining that's just what happened. How could banks be "greedy" when they were forced to issue loans to people who couldn;t afford them? In fact the banks fought against this happening, as you can see by the court documents.

Click to expand...

Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Grant said:

It is not "greedy" to want to own a home, just as it is not "greedy" to lend money. You have obviously not taken the time to read the court documents, which is a mustery. Dont you want to know what went on?

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

The government didn't threaten the poor, helpless banks into predatory lending. That is a myth that has long been debunked. Even the banks took responsibility for their actions.


Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek



http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/governmentprograms/n08-2_park.pdf

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Nonsense. I could care less what these liberal mouthpieces say, and prefer to see the truth. This push for greater extension of housing loans, even in the Bush era, to the extent that Fannie, and Freddie acted like a quasi government backing institution to enrich Franklin Raines, is criminal. If a firm on Wall St did this the SEC would have put them in jail. Yet Frank, and Dodd are enjoying their freedom because of political crap.

Banks, and Mortgage lenders had it right when they were in control of who to lend to, and did it as a function of the free market, the moment that the government said that they had to lend to those who couldn't afford it, that was the end my friend.


j-mac

Click to expand...

Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

So you just admitted that you're going to close your ears if you don't like it. You can examine the information for yourself. The fact remains, the majority of lenders who handed out subprime mortgages were not subject to the CRA. This conclusion is based on looking at who handed out subprime mortgages. It's not a theory - it's true.

From the federal reserve:

FRB: Speech--Kroszner, The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis--December 3, 2008

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

You know Education is a terrible thing to waste. I suppose when all but one channel of news, network, or cable is leaning to the left, and carrying the water for Obama then that is what you get...No one said we were a nation of geniuses.



Yep, and you cherry picked a tiny part of it to make your incredibly disingenuous talking point pap. I also take note that you are now failing to address what I pointed out about that, and instead are resorting to the usual Allensky type rhetorical garbage....When you get something new, or interesting come on back. :lamo:2wave:


j-mac

Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:

So you just admitted that you're going to close your ears if you don't like it. You can examine the information for yourself. The fact remains, the majority of lenders who handed out subprime mortgages were not subject to the CRA. This conclusion is based on looking at who handed out subprime mortgages. It's not a theory - it's true.

From the federal reserve:

FRB: Speech--Kroszner, The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis--December 3, 2008

Click to expand...

It's official. Home prices have double dipped nationwide, now lower than their March 2009 trough, according to a new report from Clear Capital. Sales of bank-owned (REO) properties hit 34.5 percent of the market, according to the survey, resulting in a national price drop of 4.9 percent quarterly and 5 percent year-over-year. National home prices have fallen 11.5 percent in the past nine months, a rate not seen since 2008. Add short sales, where the bank allows the borrower to sell for less than the value of the mortgage, and prices have nowhere to go but down.

While the usual subprime mortgage suspects, like California, Arizona, Florida and Nevada used to rule the foreclosure roost and still have high volumes of distressed properties, the mid-west is seeing a surge in REOs now, thanks to the plain old recession. 40 percent of the Chicago market is foreclosures, 43 percent in Cleveland and 51 percent in Minneapolis. Home prices fell 8.7 percent in the Mid-West during the past three months compared to the previous quarter.

While the foreclosure crisis is abating on the front end, with fewer loans going newly delinquent, the pipeline of seriously delinquent loans is enormous. Banks are now ramping up the foreclosure process after the "robo-signing" paperwork scandal, but at their current pace it would take about four years to process all the bad loans through foreclosure and even longer to sell those homes out on the open market. While buyer demand is rising, thanks to a slowly improving jobs picture, mortgage availability is still very difficult for the low to middle-income borrower, and falling prices don't help already weak consumer confidence in the housing market. If prices continue to fall further, which they likely will in the short term, the number of so-called "underwater" borrowers, those with negative equity, will rise even higher, which could in turn result in more loan delinquencies.

Nationwide more than a quarter of all homeowners with a mortgage are in a negative equity position, but in some markets, that number is far higher. 46 percent of Massachusetts borrowers are underwater, according to LendingTree.

The last time home prices fell at this rate, three years ago, they were then boosted by government stimulus in the form of a home buyer tax credit. "A note of caution to those looking for a strong end to 2011: The last time no incentives were in place and distressed inventories were this high, home prices fell sharply," warns [clear capital's alex] Villacorta.

Click to expand...

Unexpectedly weak consumer spending hobbled the economy in the first quarter and fresh signs of a slowdown in the labor market pointed to an uphill struggle for the recovery. The economy grew at an annual 1.8 percent rate in the first three months of this year, the Commerce Department said on Thursday, unchanged from an earlier estimate and weaker than most forecasts. A separate report from the Labor Department showed the number of Americans claiming unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by 10,000 to 424,000.

Estimates for second-quarter gross domestic product growth currently range between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent but could be revised down. Recent data, including retail sales and regional manufacturing surveys, all point to soft growth.

The economy expanded at a 3.1 percent rate in the October-December period. Economists had expected the first-quarter pace to be revised up to 2.1 percent.

Despite the economy's seven straight quarters of expansion, growth has been tepid by historical standards, leaving both the Obama administration and opposition Republicans scrambling for ideas to put it on a faster track.

Consumer spending -- which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity -- expanded at a 2.2 percent rate in the first three months of this year, slower than the previously reported 2.7 percent. After rising at a 4 percent clip in the fourth quarter, spending was clipped by high food and gasoline prices, which sent inflation soaring at its fastest pace in 2-1/2 years.

The GDP report also showed after-tax corporate profits fell at a rate of 0.9 percent in the first-quarter after rising at a 3.3 percent pace in the fourth quarter.

Last week marked the seventh straight week in which claims topped the 400,000 level which economists say is normally associated with steady job growth.

Click to expand...

Nearly two years after the economic recovery officially began, job creation continues to stagger at the slowest post-recession rate since the Great Depression.

The nation has 5% fewer jobs today — a loss of 7 million — than it did when the recession began in December 2007. That is by far the worst performance of job generation following any of the dozen recessions since the 1930s.

In the past, the economy recovered lost jobs 13 months on average after a recession. If this were a typical recovery, nearly 10 million more people would be working today than when the recession officially ended in June 2009.

Click to expand...

The Prof said:

tepid by historical standards

usa today, may 20:



Job creation limps along after recession - USATODAY.com

Click to expand...