• 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!

Obama to call for middle class tax cut extension

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12032/12-23-fanniefreddie.pdf

The banks have only themselves to blame on the bubble and the poor securities they generated.

All of which did start with Fannie/Freddie. A law was passed in the 1990s to seek out means and to encourage low-income home ownership which authorised Fannie/Freddie to enter the sup-prime lending market in housing. Zero down payment loans and Interest Only loans started as a result of this government sponsored policy. Variable interest loans existed prior to this, but when coupled to the new loan programs, it was catistrophic.
 
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12032/12-23-fanniefreddie.pdf

The banks have only themselves to blame on the bubble and the poor securities they generated.

LOL. Look at where the TARP money REALLY went and then explain why it was a MOSTLY "private" problem, many private banks were acyually FORCED to take TARP money for "appearances". If the banks were "to blame" then why did congress hop to and DEMAND that they take money? Many were quite upset at the accusation and INITIALLY refused to play along. Hmm...

Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

http://www.investorplace.com/2012/05/2008-tarp-funds-where-are-they-now/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/bank-tarp_n_1335006.html
 
Last edited:
All of which did start with Fannie/Freddie. A law was passed in the 1990s to seek out means and to encourage low-income home ownership which authorised Fannie/Freddie to enter the sup-prime lending market in housing. Zero down payment loans and Interest Only loans started as a result of this government sponsored policy. Variable interest loans existed prior to this, but when coupled to the new loan programs, it was catistrophic.
Which "law" was that???

There were strict guidelines on Freddie/Fannie loans, which the banks often failed to follow during the 00's. The problem is the banks tried to get into a section of the market that was strictly government (and should have remained strictly government) and they failed terribly. That coupled with loose government oversight was more than enough to tank an entire industry.



Ed:
And if the investment banks had not been allowed to merge with (what I think of as) the "traditional banks" then I would have said let the damn speculators fry on Wall St.
 
Last edited:
LOL. Look at where the TARP money REALLY went and then explain why it was a MOSTLY "private" problem, many private banks were acyually FORCED to take TARP money for "appearances". If the banks were "to blame" then why did congress hop to and DEMAND that they take money? Many were quite upset at the accusation and INITIALLY refused to play along. Hmm...

Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

2008 TARP Funds -- Where Are They Now? | InvestorPlace

Banks Repaid Fed Bailout With Other Fed Money: Government Report
I am not going to re-hash this whole argument about what happened - I've been through it too many times to count here, elsewhere, and IRL. There are plenty of people in jail, there were plenty of corporate fines paid, and plenty of corporate punishments issued from plea bargaining to show where the main fault lies.
 
I am not going to re-hash this whole argument about what happened - I've been through it too many times to count here, elsewhere, and IRL. There are plenty of people in jail, there were plenty of corporate fines paid, and plenty of corporate punishments issued from plea bargaining to show where the main fault lies.

Ok, I made a mistake. It was all started with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. However it was the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that set specific goals of low-income and underserved housing areas and entered Freddie and Fannie into increased sub-prime lending.

From File:Median and Average Sales Prices of New Homes Sold in United States 1963-2008 annual.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

800px-Median_and_Average_Sales_Prices_of_New_Homes_Sold_in_United_States_1963-2008_annual.jpg

You can see the start of the bubble back in 1992.

From Alan Greenspan News - The New York Times

He pointed out that the Fed had warned about subprime lending and low-down-payment mortgages in 1999, and again in 2001. And he argued that if the Fed had tried to slow the housing market amid a "fairly broad consensus" about encouraging homeownership, "the Congress would have clamped down on us."

Yes, Bush and Republicans did take actions that exacerbated the problem, but they did not start them and considering the popular support for home ownership, could they have taken action to stem the tide and still survived politically? I don't think so, they were riding a train that was already going to crash and couldn't get it onto another rail.
 
Ok, I made a mistake. It was all started with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. However it was the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that set specific goals of low-income and underserved housing areas and entered Freddie and Fannie into increased sub-prime lending.

From File:Median and Average Sales Prices of New Homes Sold in United States 1963-2008 annual.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

View attachment 67132183

You can see the start of the bubble back in 1992.

From Alan Greenspan News - The New York Times

He pointed out that the Fed had warned about subprime lending and low-down-payment mortgages in 1999, and again in 2001. And he argued that if the Fed had tried to slow the housing market amid a "fairly broad consensus" about encouraging homeownership, "the Congress would have clamped down on us."

Yes, Bush and Republicans did take actions that exacerbated the problem, but they did not start them and considering the popular support for home ownership, could they have taken action to stem the tide and still survived politically? I don't think so, they were riding a train that was already going to crash and couldn't get it onto another rail.
The S&L crisis is the bubble you see on your graph from 1985~~1991. I have no idea what you're going on about in 1992 since the only thing your graph shows for 1992 is a return to the normal growth curve after the S&L crisis. If you delve a little deeper into the 1992 Act you cited I think you'll find nothing in that had any kind of immediate effect. The Congressional hearings called for in that 1992 Act weren't even carried out until 1996.

The latest bubble clearly started in 2003 and may very well have been in anticipation of ...
American Dream Downpayment Initiative - Affordable Housing - CPD - HUD
 
Last edited:
The left's messiah will not be able to bring those jobs back from China. He isn't willing to do what is really necessary to get that done.

We need leaders who are willing to make major changes to our environmental and labor laws. They must resemble the laws of the nations that we are competing against for jobs.
Ah. So we need communism. To be honest, I'm not surprised that this is where the right is ultimately headed (I always thought that the Joe McCarthy types doth protest too much) ;)
 
That had a lot to do with the ENTIRE Clinton "budget" keeping federal spending at 19% of GDP, while Obama is spending at least 24% of GDP, which is about 20% MORE that Bush did, using the SAME "Obama" tax rates.
Bush's last budget -- FY2009 -- was 25.2% of GDP. However, since I already know your reply, I'll save you the effort of posting it: 'But that was Obama's fault!' :boohoo:

Of course, someone familiar with grade school math might look at the metrics your argument and wonder if spending went up, or GDP went down, or possibly both. . . .

SpendingVGDP.jpg


underlying data

The operative part of this homemade chart is difficult to see, but if you look at spending from the 1994 - 2001 (the light blue line) Clinton budgets, you'll see it going up slightly. However, if you look at spending as a percentage of GDP (the orange line) for the same time frame, you'll see it going down slightly -- crossing from just above the spending line to just below the spending line. Why? Because GDP is increasing at a faster rate. The moral of the story is that if someone is touting percentages of GDP, you need to determine what that GDP number is doing as well... lest you be led into an erroneous, or partially erroneous, conclusion, for as we can see when Obama took office he was hit with a falling GDP as well as increased spending, which made his numbers look bad while Bush had been getting by with increasing spending but holding the line on spending vs GDP since GDP was also increasing (which, when he left office, it was no longer doing -- it was decreasing). Therefore the % GDP argument presented by the poster is misleading.
 
Last edited:
Obama just happened to be in the fortunate position to be able to do something in the form of tas cuts for the great majority of the electorate and get re-election traction with the same initiative at the same time. His actions are definitely in the best financial interests of the majority, but Republicans want to throw a bone to the 1%. Just a natural political opportunity and good economics sense at the same time for Obama. The Repubs become obvious as the supporters of the 1%. That is not as many votes and is going to bite them.
 
Ah. So we need communism. To be honest, I'm not surprised that this is where the right is ultimately headed (I always thought that the Joe McCarthy types doth protest too much) ;)

Karl, shame on you! Don't you know that it's not "communism" but actually "libertarianism", but only for the folks with the cash. You got the cash, you get to say and do what you want. NO cash, then you aren't qualified to say or do anything that will affect the happiness of those with the cash.

:lol:

What some on the right seem to be advocating is the creation of a two-part society, one in which money determines just how much freedom one may enjoy. Those without money will be living in an authoritarian nation, those with money will enjoy what they perceive to be the benefits of a libertarian society. Of course those with money will be living in gated and guarded communities, drive well armed and armoured vehicles when outside of their sanctuaries, vacation in idyllic locations where they have well-enforced environmental laws, unlike those places from whence their income emanates, and generally have little physical connection with the 99%
:roll:
 
What some on the right seem to be advocating is the creation of a two-part society, one in which money determines just how much freedom one may enjoy. Those without money will be living in an authoritarian nation, those with money will enjoy what they perceive to be the benefits of a libertarian society. Of course those with money will be living in gated and guarded communities, drive well armed and armoured vehicles when outside of their sanctuaries, vacation in idyllic locations where they have well-enforced environmental laws, unlike those places from whence their income emanates, and generally have little physical connection with the 99%
:roll:
Advocating??? :lol:
 
What some on the right seem to be advocating is the creation of a two-part society, one in which money determines just how much freedom one may enjoy. Those without money will be living in an authoritarian nation, those with money will enjoy what they perceive to be the benefits of a libertarian society. Of course those with money will be living in gated and guarded communities, drive well armed and armoured vehicles when outside of their sanctuaries, vacation in idyllic locations where they have well-enforced environmental laws, unlike those places from whence their income emanates, and generally have little physical connection with the 99%
:roll:

A two part society may not be such a bad idea. Not based upon wealth but on support of a particular economic philosophy. The Liberal/Socialist can have what the want based entirely upon their segment being able to pay for it and the rest of us can live free of their BS. You want to equate not supporting Liberalism/Socialism with support of the "99%", which doesn't hold water since most non-leftist are also not in that "99%".
 
A two part society may not be such a bad idea. Not based upon wealth but on support of a particular economic philosophy. The Liberal/Socialist can have what the want based entirely upon their segment being able to pay for it and the rest of us can live free of their BS. You want to equate not supporting Liberalism/Socialism with support of the "99%", which doesn't hold water since most non-leftist are also not in that "99%".



Fine - then provide your own military, your own police and fire services, your own legal system, your own roads, bridges and transportation setups. And no you don't get to takeover any of those presently in existence. Not sure where you will get your customers or your workers but - go for it.
 
Fine - then provide your own military, your own police and fire services, your own legal system, your own roads, bridges and transportation setups. And no you don't get to takeover any of those presently in existence. Not sure where you will get your customers or your workers but - go for it.

Well, we couldn't very well tear up the existing roads, now can we. As to the military, split the equipment 50/50 and personnel based upon their own beliefs. Law enforcement the same. Heck, you can have your liberal leaning biased legislating justices, we wouldn't want them anyways.

As to where we get the rests, well lets see, Currently approximately 33% are registered Rep (right, probably including the 1% you rile against, leaving 32% not in that 1%), 33% are registered Dems (left) and that leaves approximately 33% unafiliated that could go either direction. Doesn't appear that then non-left would have much of a problem. I would be worried about the left if I was you because guess who gets all the welfare hacks and other non-productive citizens.
 
Well, we couldn't very well tear up the existing roads, now can we. As to the military, split the equipment 50/50 and personnel based upon their own beliefs. Law enforcement the same. Heck, you can have your liberal leaning biased legislating justices, we wouldn't want them anyways.

As to where we get the rests, well lets see, Currently approximately 33% are registered Rep (right, probably including the 1% you rile against, leaving 32% not in that 1%), 33% are registered Dems (left) and that leaves approximately 33% unafiliated that could go either direction. Doesn't appear that then non-left would have much of a problem. I would be worried about the left if I was you because guess who gets all the welfare hacks and other non-productive citizens.

Uh uh. You leave the United States - you get to take nothing. In secession you are renouncing all goods and benefits presently used by citizens of the US, leave with personal possessions and nothing more. Everything else belongs to the nation you wish to destroy. Buh-bye
 
Back
Top Bottom