• 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!

Occupy Wall Street Enters Its Fourth Day, Tensions Rise

If your argument was any good, you would not have to make an absurd analogy with a TV set. Government created the bubble. Everyone tried to make money off it, including a lot of folks who bought, but then did not sell soon enough. They could have rented instead. Regardless of derivatives, the bubble had to pop. That's why they call it a "bubble". Derivatives did not pop the bubble. They did not create the bubble.

Government made the mess. Government interference in basic capitalist markets. But all the libs go "yup yup, dat's it" and blame Wall Street, rich people, and corporate greed. While asking for more free stuff.

bush and the republicans are liberal? :roll:

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.
In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.

The wingnuts want to pretend that the housing bubble occurred under Obama
 
Cite where putting up a fence is identified as out of control spending since border security & citizen safety are both duties of the government and due to the fact that their is no border long fence can you back up the 1 trillion dollar figure as being spent !
Border fencing is a wast of money because it is ineffective - most people walking in are already using tunnels now due to the use of infrared technology to spot groups crossing illegally. It would also do nothing to stop the flow of drugs.
Gary Johnson (R) said:
Imagine you are a drug lord in Mexico, making unfathomable profits sending your illegal product to the United States. What is the headline you fear the most? “U.S. to build bigger fence”? “U.S. to send troops to the border”? “U.S. to deploy tanks in El Paso”? No. None of those would give you much pause. They would simply raise the level of difficulty and perhaps cause you to escalate the violence that already has turned the border region into a war zone. But would they stop you or ultimately hurt your bottom line? Probably not.

But what if that drug lord opened his newspaper and read this: “U.S. to legalize and regulate marijuana”? That would ruin his day, and ruin it in a way that could not be fixed with more and bigger guns, higher prices or more murder.
JOHNSON: Hitting the cartels where it hurts - Washington Times
 
Border fencing is a wast of money because it is ineffective - most people walking in are already using tunnels now due to the use of infrared technology to spot groups crossing illegally. It would also do nothing to stop the flow of drugs.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants in the country just overstayed visas after they expired. A fence doesn't protect against that.
 
The vast majority of illegal immigrants in the country just overstayed visas after they expired. A fence doesn't protect against that.

Vast majority? Please present the percentages, thanks.
 
According to your article, if we add Mexico and Latin America that totals 80%, not all but here perhaps the term vast majority applies.

Umm. Mexico and LA were already included, so you would be double counting.
 
Umm. Mexico and LA were already included, so you would be double counting.
[/I]

If I read the article correctly I think it said 57% came from Mexico and then 27% from other nations in Latin America.
 
bush and the republicans are liberal? :roll:

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership


The wingnuts want to pretend that the housing bubble occurred under Obama

The bubble started in 1997. When HUD sued banks for not making enough bad loans ..... as though bad loans were somehow a good idea. The announced settlement was that the banks would start making tens of billions in bad loans, this bringing buyers into the market that never would have been there. Andrew Cuomo, then HUD Secretary, hailed this as a huge win. What he didn't tell everyone was that the flip side of the deal was that Fannie and Freddie would buy/underwrite every one of these high risk loans. So the bubble was born, with all the newfound buyers and can't- lose profits for bad loans, courtesy gubmit. By 1999 housing inflation was running well ahead of the rest of the normal rate. And it became a feeding frenzy.

Unfortunately, what Bush did was react to a market that had actually begun to nudge Fannie and Freddie out. The bubble was growing so quickly that traditional lenders lowered all standards, as even if the buyer defaulted, the house could still be foreclosed and sold for profit. Anyone could buy a house no money down, except for those now going through such as the FHA, as it was stuck on the old standard, and losing market share. I don't credit Bush one bit, but that was the market reality at the time, a market pumped full of free money by government.

I am reminded of a great line by Reagan: "Its not that our liberal friends are ignorant. They just know so much that isn't so". ;)
 
Last edited:
The bubble started in 1997. When HUD sued banks for not making enough bad loans ..... as though bad loans were somehow a good idea. The announced settlement was that the banks would start making tens of billions in bad loans, this bringing buyers into the market that never would have been there. Andrew Cuomo, then HUD Secretary, hailed this as a huge win. What he didn't tell everyone was that the flip side of the deal was that Fannie and Freddie would buy/underwrite every one of these high risk loans. So the bubble was born, with all the newfound buyers and can't- lose profits for bad loans, courtesy gubmit. By 1999 housing inflation was running well ahead of the rest of the normal rate. And it became a feeding frenzy.

Unfortunately, what Bush did was react to a market that had actually begun to nudge Fannie and Freddie out. The bubble was growing so quickly that traditional lenders lowered all standards, as even if the buyer defaulted, the house could still be foreclosed and sold for profit. Anyone could buy a house no money down, except for those now going through such as the FHA, as it was stuck on the old standard. I don't credit Bush one bit, but that was the market reality at the time, a market pumped full of free money by government.

I am reminded of a great line by Reagan: "Its not that our liberal friends are ignorant. They just know so much that isn't so". ;)

I really do not think you should be criticizing anyone for a lack of knowledge. You have already shown a complete misunderstanding of what a derivative is or how the market works. You said:

"Everyone tried to make money off it, including a lot of folks who bought, but then did not sell soon enough. They could have rented instead."

I really do not think you understand how fundamentally wrong the entire grouping of sentences are. It literally makes no sense. So here is a great line by whysoserious:

"Maybe you should learn what you are talking about before you go around calling people ignorant". ;)

*Edit to add:

Also, way to explain everything everyone already knew. I think we all know what the bubble was and the factors that contributed to it (except you who seems to think it was entirely liberals).
 
Last edited:
The bubble started in 1997. When HUD sued banks for not making enough bad loans ..... as though bad loans were somehow a good idea. The announced settlement was that the banks would start making tens of billions in bad loans, this bringing buyers into the market that never would have been there. Andrew Cuomo, then HUD Secretary, hailed this as a huge win. What he didn't tell everyone was that the flip side of the deal was that Fannie and Freddie would buy/underwrite every one of these high risk loans. So the bubble was born, with all the newfound buyers and can't- lose profits for bad loans, courtesy gubmit. By 1999 housing inflation was running well ahead of the rest of the normal rate. And it became a feeding frenzy.

Unfortunately, what Bush did was react to a market that had actually begun to nudge Fannie and Freddie out. The bubble was growing so quickly that traditional lenders lowered all standards, as even if the buyer defaulted, the house could still be foreclosed and sold for profit. Anyone could buy a house no money down, except for those now going through such as the FHA, as it was stuck on the old standard, and losing market share. I don't credit Bush one bit, but that was the market reality at the time, a market pumped full of free money by government.

I am reminded of a great line by Reagan: "Its not that our liberal friends are ignorant. They just know so much that isn't so". ;)

YOu just made that up

"Maybe you should learn what you are talking about before you go around calling people ignorant". - whysoserious
 
I really do not think you should be criticizing anyone for a lack of knowledge. You have already shown a complete misunderstanding of what a derivative is or how the market works. You said:

"Everyone tried to make money off it, including a lot of folks who bought, but then did not sell soon enough. They could have rented instead."

I really do not think you understand how fundamentally wrong the entire grouping of sentences are. It literally makes no sense. So here is a great line by whysoserious:

"Maybe you should learn what you are talking about before you go around calling people ignorant". ;)

*Edit to add:

Also, way to explain everything everyone already knew. I think we all know what the bubble was and the factors that contributed to it (except you who seems to think it was entirely liberals).

LOL .. Y'all fault derivatives because I guess that makes it easier for you to blame WallStreet. Fact is that many folks have recovered all of their portfolio since 2008, or if they haven't, they are within 20%. What folks have not recovered from is being 30-50% underwater on a home loan for which they owe. If you think that our recession is due to derivatives, you are smoking crack.

Once we found out that we couldn't keep making money by selling property back and forth to each other, we woke up to the fact that we can't run an economy with everyone delivering pizza. Which was about all we still did after being asleep at the wheel for so long.
 
LOL .. Y'all fault derivatives because I guess that makes it easier for you to blame WallStreet. Fact is that many folks have recovered all of their portfolio since 2008, or if they haven't, they are within 20%. What folks have not recovered from is being 30-50% underwater on a home loan for which they owe. If you think that our recession is due to derivatives, you are smoking crack.

Once we found out that we couldn't keep making money by selling property back and forth to each other, we woke up to the fact that we can't run an economy with everyone delivering pizza. Which was about all we still did after being asleep at the wheel for so long.

Really? Wachovia recovered their portfolio? Again, now you are mixing up retirement and personal investment accounts with shady packaged security deals and underhanded derivatives trading. Not the same. Do not forget, many of the banks failed because they had too much stock in these bad securities (the type that Goldman Sachs sold and then bet short on). Because these banks failed, businesses could not get loans. Because businesses could not get loans, they had to fire people. Because businesses had to fire people, less people were in the market. Because less people were in the market, business made even less income causing them to fire even more people.

If you can't see the connection between shady derivatives trading and predatory lending with the state of our economy... you either aren't looking hard enough or you do not know what to look for.

*Edit:

Not to mention, your view on the real estate market is way off. It is not even close to recovered and anyone who is a must sell situation is getting hammered.
 
Last edited:
LOL .. Y'all fault derivatives because I guess that makes it easier for you to blame WallStreet. Fact is that many folks have recovered all of their portfolio since 2008, or if they haven't, they are within 20%. What folks have not recovered from is being 30-50% underwater on a home loan for which they owe. If you think that our recession is due to derivatives, you are smoking crack.

Once we found out that we couldn't keep making money by selling property back and forth to each other, we woke up to the fact that we can't run an economy with everyone delivering pizza. Which was about all we still did after being asleep at the wheel for so long.

They only lost 20%?

Thats AWESOME!!!! :roll:
 
The bubble started in 1997. When HUD sued banks for not making enough bad loans .....

The bubble started after the 90's tech bubble busted and Wall Street had to find a way to create another bubble to keep the money rolling.
 
Really? Wachovia recovered their portfolio? Again, now you are mixing up retirement and personal investment accounts with shady packaged security deals and underhanded derivatives trading. Not the same. Do not forget, many of the banks failed because they had too much stock in these bad securities (the type that Goldman Sachs sold and then bet short on). Because these banks failed, businesses could not get loans. Because businesses could not get loans, they had to fire people. Because businesses had to fire people, less people were in the market. Because less people were in the market, business made even less income causing them to fire even more people.

If you can't see the connection between shady derivatives trading and predatory lending with the state of our economy... you either aren't looking hard enough or you do not know what to look for.

*Edit:

Not to mention, your view on the real estate market is way off. It is not even close to recovered and anyone who is a must sell situation is getting hammered.

This is nonsense. To claim that bank fails are why there are no loans is rubbish. There is plenty of money there to loan. Go check. Do some reading. FYI, as TARP was the bank bailouts, how much of that has NOT been paid back ? I believe that 95% of it is now paid back.

Banks are not making loans because the economy sucks. The money is there though. Lots of it.
 
Last edited:
The bubble started after the 90's tech bubble busted and Wall Street had to find a way to create another bubble to keep the money rolling.

It may be that one bubble got steam when the other was fading, but the housing bubble started its upward climb, that being where it began to eclipse the base inflation rate for other markets, in 1997. Government was the instigator, not Wall Street.
 
It may be that one bubble got steam when the other was fading, but the housing bubble started its upward climb, that being where it began to eclipse the base inflation rate for other markets, in 1997. Government was the instigator, not Wall Street.

Wall street always creates bubbles the rich guys get fabulously richer during bubbles then when it bursts the middleclass and poor get screwed AGAIN.
The housing bubble made tons of money for lots of people...the banks lost but got lots of Free bailout cash and the CEOS still got their bonus
 
You mean the protesters are capitalists? Where are the govt pizzas? Oh, the humanity!!

Another absolutist. :roll: Have you seen anyone at all, anyone in OWS, protesting small business? There may be a few who have protested against capitalism though I haven't heard nor seen it. I understand, American, that you fully back Wall Street and all it's actions. I have no doubt you feel Madoff was wronged. I fully believe that you support maximum profit above all else. If a corporation can get billions from the people through the government and later **** over the American people, you dig it. Right? We got that. But no one that I know of protests a local pizza guy making good money during the protest.
 
This is nonsense. To claim that bank fails are why there are no loans is rubbish. There is plenty of money there to loan. Go check. Do some reading. FYI, as TARP was the bank bailouts, how much of that has NOT been paid back ? I believe that 95% of it is now paid back.

Banks are not making loans because the economy sucks. The money is there though. Lots of it.

...here is a list of all the banks that were acquired due to this crisis:

1
I counted 14 from this country alone. Now, being from Charlotte, I can speak of this, what do you think happens to a city like Charlotte when Wachovia closes?

Think real hard.
 
Back
Top Bottom