Dow over 17,000. thank you again President Obama. [W:1017, 2344]

[mmi]

Yes, I said Afghanistan surge which was wrong

My concern wasn't that you got the term confused — we all make mistakes. But you may agree that when yer in the middle of making a mistake, you really shouldn't say something like:

This my friend is pure ignorance on your part. You don't even know when the Afghanistan surge occurred​

>>but you were wrong in saying that there were no supplemental requests from Obama

No, you are once again wrong. I never said Obama hasn't made supplemental requests. I'm guessing yer thinking of this, which I did say:

Now Bush did deploy additional troops to the country in the early months of 2008, but there were no supplemental expenditures related to that.​

>>and you ignore that supplemental expenses are in addition to the budget not part of the budget.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm disputing it, perhaps dismissing it. As I've said, the budget is not thought of by professionals as being comprised simply of the initial request, but rather includes supplemental requests. Here's the first example I found:

HOW THE BUDGET PROCESS WORKS

Every year, each organization is given the option of submitting a preliminary budget request. This usually occurs during the summer preceding the fiscal year. Preliminary budget requests are not required (though highly recommended) and all organizations are allowed to submit supplemental budget requests during the school year. — Oklahoma City University School of Law​

This isn't worth debating. It's simply a question of definitions.

>>they are included in the deficit thus become part of the debt.

Correct. They're also part the budget, just not part of the initial budget request. Ya can't spend it if it's not budgeted. How else are ya gonna get yer hands on it?

>>supplemental expenses … are part of the deficit but NOT part of the budget.

I won't repeat myself. Not again, at least.

>>You also ignore that Geithner recycled TARP repayments

There was certainly talk of recycling the money, and there was opposition to it in Congress. Can you show that any was recycled?

>>Reducing the 1.1 trillion dollar deficit when Bush left office by 400 billion makes it 700 billion

Where are you getting the $400 billion figure? And where are you getting 1.1? CBO said it would be 1.2 in early Jan 2009.

>>eliminating the Obama supplemental requests would have reduced it another 200 billion dollars

And adding it to 1.2 gets you to the actual 1.4.

>>then reducing it the amount of the Stimulus Obama spent between February and March would have reduced it another 100-200 billion dollar or now 300 billion.

The 200 billion I'm adding is the Obama supplement — the ARRA. These "Obama supplemental requests" you refer to above no doubt include the $83 billion needed for military operations in the second half of the fiscal year. Those should have been in the Bush original request, as I've noted.

>>You want to blame Bush for the spending for 2009 when his spending authority ran out on March 31 when the continuing resolutions ended.

Again, CBO said 1.2 in early Jan 2009. It's not "me blaming Bush."

>>you ignore revenue coming in

Ridiculous.

>>Obama could have reduced spending any time he wanted to the last half of 2009 but didn't

Yeah, and raised the odds of a worldwide depression.

>>and piled on in 2010 and 2011.

No, spending was essentially flat 2010-15.

>>One of these days that light bulb is going ot go off in your head.

One day my brain will stop functioning, but don't anticipate that I'll ever start agreeing with you about much of anything.

>>Hope I am here when you finally admit you are wrong about liberalism.

Did Locke? Paine? Jefferson?

>>Still don't know how to use the quote function for when you do it doesn't repost what I provided you but rather only what you post. That prevents the error message that I have entered too many characters.

If I'm following that, I'd say you need to use Preview Post to get that message about the character limit.

+++++

Wait, I see what yer saying. But isn't it just the opposite? Excerpts from previous posts that are inside a QUOTE box are NOT included in the responder's text box, right? With my method, responders can see what I'm responding to. A better method. ☺

 

[Conservative]

My concern wasn't that you got the term confused — we all make mistakes. But you may agree that when yer in the middle of making a mistake, you really shouldn't say something like:

This my friend is pure ignorance on your part. You don't even know when the Afghanistan surge occurred​

>>but you were wrong in saying that there were no supplemental requests from Obama

No, you are once again wrong. I never said Obama hasn't made supplemental requests. I'm guessing yer thinking of this, which I did say:

Now Bush did deploy additional troops to the country in the early months of 2008, but there were no supplemental expenditures related to that.​

>>and you ignore that supplemental expenses are in addition to the budget not part of the budget.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm disputing it, perhaps dismissing it. As I've said, the budget is not thought of by professionals as being comprised simply of the initial request, but rather includes supplemental requests. Here's the first example I found:

HOW THE BUDGET PROCESS WORKS

Every year, each organization is given the option of submitting a preliminary budget request. This usually occurs during the summer preceding the fiscal year. Preliminary budget requests are not required (though highly recommended) and all organizations are allowed to submit supplemental budget requests during the school year. — Oklahoma City University School of Law​

This isn't worth debating. It's simply a question of definitions.

>>they are included in the deficit thus become part of the debt.

Correct. They're also part the budget, just not part of the initial budget request. Ya can't spend it if it's not budgeted. How else are ya gonna get yer hands on it?

>>supplemental expenses … are part of the deficit but NOT part of the budget.

I won't repeat myself. Not again, at least.

>>You also ignore that Geithner recycled TARP repayments

There was certainly talk of recycling the money, and there was opposition to it in Congress. Can you show that any was recycled?

>>Reducing the 1.1 trillion dollar deficit when Bush left office by 400 billion makes it 700 billion

Where are you getting the $400 billion figure? And where are you getting 1.1? CBO said it would be 1.2 in early Jan 2009.

>>eliminating the Obama supplemental requests would have reduced it another 200 billion dollars

And adding it to 1.2 gets you to the actual 1.4.

>>then reducing it the amount of the Stimulus Obama spent between February and March would have reduced it another 100-200 billion dollar or now 300 billion.

The 200 billion I'm adding is the Obama supplement — the ARRA. These "Obama supplemental requests" you refer to above no doubt include the $83 billion needed for military operations in the second half of the fiscal year. Those should have been in the Bush original request, as I've noted.

>>You want to blame Bush for the spending for 2009 when his spending authority ran out on March 31 when the continuing resolutions ended.

Again, CBO said 1.2 in early Jan 2009. It's not "me blaming Bush."

>>you ignore revenue coming in

Ridiculous.

>>Obama could have reduced spending any time he wanted to the last half of 2009 but didn't

Yeah, and raised the odds of a worldwide depression.

>>and piled on in 2010 and 2011.

No, spending was essentially flat 2010-15.

>>One of these days that light bulb is going ot go off in your head.

One day my brain will stop functioning, but don't anticipate that I'll ever start agreeing with you about much of anything.

>>Hope I am here when you finally admit you are wrong about liberalism.

Did Locke? Paine? Jefferson?

>>Still don't know how to use the quote function for when you do it doesn't repost what I provided you but rather only what you post. That prevents the error message that I have entered too many characters.

If I'm following that, I'd say you need to use Preview Post to get that message about the character limit.

+++++

Wait, I see what yer saying. But isn't it just the opposite? Excerpts from previous posts that are inside a QUOTE box are NOT included in the responder's text box, right? With my method, responders can see what I'm responding to. A better method. ☺

I tried but until you change your format I am done with you. I know what I posted and don't need it repeated. Absolutely stunning how you continue promoting the leftwing narrative and ignore the data. Good luck to you for as you grow older hopefully you will grow wiser

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You believe that 28% of 12 million loans brought down the financial industry?

No, you are creating straw, probably because, as always, you forget what you wanted to see, which was:


"major sub prime loan failures that did not happen".

Let post that graph again:

Nearly 30% subprime failure rate....is "major", by any standard.

 

[Conservative]

No, you are creating straw, probably because, as always, you forget what you wanted to see, which was:


"major sub prime loan failures that did not happen".

Let post that graph again:

Nearly 30% subprime failure rate....is "major", by any standard.

You can post the graph as many times as you want but context is missing, 30% of WHAT? As I read your article it is 12 million so that would be 3.6 million defaults. Then there is this

The financial crisis wasn't caused by subprime lending - Fortune

Seems to me the contention has been that it was Bush policy that caused the crisis and it is relaxing regulations he is blamed for so if the sub primte isn't the cause of the financial crisis then Bush never caused the problem and that destroys the liberal myth

 

[Gimmesometruth]

30% of what?

Of total subprime loans in the US private residential housing market.

You did not believe that there were "major subprime failures", clearly there were. Almost all that defaulted were originated between 2003 to 2007.

You can post the graph as many times as you want

....and you will never understand what it represents.

Seems to me the contention has been that it was Bush policy that caused the crisis and it is relaxing regulations he is blamed for so if the sub primte isn't the cause of the financial crisis then Bush never caused the problem and that destroys the liberal myth

Seems to me you keep on ignoring what MY point is, you wanted to argue that subprimes did not have major default rates, 30% is major by any standard. I have no idea why you thought I argued it was all one thing....I take that back...I do....it is a means to distract from another error of yours.

 

[Conservative]

I never said there weren't failures only that the subprime failures didn't cause the financial collapse. The article I posted states the same thing. You are always going to believe what you want to believe not what is actually factual

 

[mmi]

I tried but until you change your format I am done with you.

Sounds like a surrender to me. I accept.

>>I know what I posted and don't need it repeated.

Jessup: I know what I said. I don't need it read back to me like I'm a damn …​

I, otoh, prefer to know that a member is responding to. That way, I don't need to go read through a entire post I put up to try to figure out what some comment refers to.

>>Absolutely stunning how you continue promoting the leftwing narrative and ignore the data.

Predictable that you have no substantive response, but rather focus on a trivial objection to my posting method. I'm not ignoring any data. I'm asking how you came up with it. You offer no response, so I will continue to dismiss it.

>>as you grow older hopefully you will grow wiser

I would hope that's true for all of us. Some are in more need than others.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I never said there weren't failures

This is a lie:

.....relaxed regulations which obviously would have led to major sub prime loan failures didn't happen....

 

[Conservative]

This is a lie:

That is because that is what you want to believe, that it is a lie. The problem is the 30% number is for the 12 million loans between 2004-2007 and there is no way that brought down the financial sector. Fortune isn't the only source to says it wasn't the sub prime and I have posted those sources as well yet still your BDS takes over and you cannot accept the truth. You want badly to believe it was Bush but logic and common sense along with the facts say you are wrong

 

[Gimmesometruth]

That is because that is what you want to believe, that it is a lie.

no,it is a fact.

The problem is the 30% number is for the 12 million loans between 2004-2007

30% is a major number, in point of fact

not and there is no way that brought down the financial sector.

that wasn't what i argued, but it was a major part of the wealth losses

Fortune isn't the only source to says it wasn't the sub prime and I have posted those sources as well yet still your BDS takes over and you cannot accept the truth. You want badly to believe it was Bush but logic and common sense along with the facts say you are wrong

Your argument is tilting at windmills, it needs its' Sancho.

 

[Conservative]

no,it is a fact.30% is a major number, in point of fact
that wasn't what i argued, but it was a major part of the wealth lossesYour argument is tilting at windmills, it needs its' Sancho.

This is going no where, no matter what evidence is posted you are going to believe what you want to believe but that simply shows how little you know about the financial sector and just how big it was, 4 million sub prime loans defaulting destroyed wealth of who? Why don't you post credible evidence to support your claim that it was the sub prime loans during the Bush years that created the financial crisis. You post charts that tell nothing, you post opinions of others, now post verifiable non partisan data and opinions to prove your point. If not, admit you are wrong and move on.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

there is no way that brought down the financial sector.

Now I understand, you were reading Fenton's posts, who is making that argument...and thought I said that!

Poor dear.

 

[Conservative]

Now I understand, you were reading Fenton's posts, who is making that argument...and thought I said that!

Poor dear.

until you prove differently it is you that looks foolish and your BDS in full display

 

[Gimmesometruth]

This is going no where, no matter what evidence is posted you are going to believe what you want to believe but that simply shows how little you know about the financial sector and just how big it was, 4 million sub prime loans defaulting destroyed wealth of who? Why don't you post credible evidence to support your claim that it was the sub prime loans during the Bush years that created the financial crisis. You post charts that tell nothing, you post opinions of others, now post verifiable non partisan data and opinions to prove your point. If not, admit you are wrong and move on.

Its ok, i understand, you mixed who posted what. someday, it will dawn on you.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

until you prove differently it is you that looks foolish and your BDS in full display

its up to you to show that i said what you claim. you'll go back and find fenton said that...not me. go on, find it and post it. i dare you. i double dog dare you.

 

[Conservative]

Its ok, i understand, you mixed who posted what. someday, it will dawn on you.

And some day you will realize that liberalism has made a fool out of you. Why don't you do some research before it is too late and you are too far gone, totally dependent on liberalism for your own existence.

Another article that will debunk your claim that it was Bush that caused the crisis

Housing Bubbles, Subprime Mortgages and the Financial Crisis Reconsidered - US News

I await your proof that it was the sub prime loans between 2004-2007 that caused the crisis

 

[Conservative]

its up to you to show that i said what you claim. you'll go back and find fenton said that...not me. go on, find it and post it. i dare you. i double dog dare you.

So then, what you are saying is that the sub prime loans made during the Bush years didn't cause the financial crisis thus it wasn't Bush's fault? What exactly are you saying?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So then, what you are saying is that the sub prime loans made during the Bush years didn't cause the financial crisis thus it wasn't Bush's fault? What exactly are you saying?

is that what i said? you still can't find it and quote it? poor poor poor.....

 

[Gimmesometruth]

And some day you will realize that liberalism has made a fool out of you. Why don't you do some research before it is too late and you are too far gone, totally dependent on liberalism for your own existence.

Another article that will debunk your claim that it was Bush that caused the crisis

Housing Bubbles, Subprime Mortgages and the Financial Crisis Reconsidered - US News

I await your proof that it was the sub prime loans between 2004-2007 that caused the crisis

from your article:

On the whole, I think that Wallison makes a good case​

I wonder how long it will be before you understand that Wallison is arguing that subpime is to blame....

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Housing Bubbles, Subprime Mortgages and the Financial Crisis Reconsidered - US News

I await your proof that it was the sub prime loans between 2004-2007 that caused the crisis

These facts, and many more, are laid out in exhaustive detail in “Hidden in Plain Sight,” a book by American Enterprise Institute scholar Peter J. Wallison, scheduled for release next week. Wallison, a former White House counsel and Treasury official who served on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, lays out a startling tale of how the government led the charge into subprime lending and wound up holding the vast majority of the loans.

 

[jbander]

what are you trying to say? you arent making sense

If you want sense your talking to the wrong guy, he a twister, when he's totally proven wrong , he can't admit it so he tries to distract saying you said something else or just goes off the deep end , when he is found out how little he knows , he just attacks you saying how little you know. he simply defends himself on distortions and twisting what you say, he really is a waste of time even talking to him but if your around a while you will find out what many have before , he doesn't have a clue. His "Housing Bubbles, Subprime Mortgages and the Financial Crisis Reconsidered - US News" is such a piece of tripe it would embarrass most people but not our Private conservative,

 

[winston53660]

This is going no where, no matter what evidence is posted you are going to believe what you want to believe but that simply shows how little you know about the financial sector and just how big it was, 4 million sub prime loans defaulting destroyed wealth of who? Why don't you post credible evidence to support your claim that it was the sub prime loans during the Bush years that created the financial crisis. You post charts that tell nothing, you post opinions of others, now post verifiable non partisan data and opinions to prove your point. If not, admit you are wrong and move on.

Hey would you admit that you were wrong about about the PWG being a part adminstration? I seriously doubt it because you are an arrogant little low information know it all bent on an ideological weakness to support your ways of ineptitude.

 

[mmi]

I will not allow myself to again get into this question of whether or not decisions made by the Bush43 administration caused the housing crisis, but we might want to remember that our friends at the Wall Street banks played an important role.

The implications for Goldman Sachs and, indeed, many of the major banks that engaged in unethical and possibly illegal practices within the context of Abacus-like deals could be massive. According to the recently released United States Senate Subcommittee Financial Crisis Report, Goldman Sachs "securitized high risk mortgages" from 2004-2007 for "lucrative fees," "magnified the impact of toxic mortgages on financial markets," "took a short position on the mortgage market." "created a conflict between the firm's proprietary interests and the interests of its clients," did not disclose "taking a short position" in the Abacus deal, and "used Credit Default Swaps … to bet against the mortgage market." — "Corporate Codes of Conduct and Business Principles in Light of the Goldman Sachs Lawsuit Settlement," Review of Business & Finance Case Studies, 2011, p.64​

OK, I take what I said back. Here's some material that's been posted in this forum repeatedly. Looks like some useful stuff to me, and appears to answer this call:

I await your proof that it was the sub prime loans between 2004-2007 that caused the crisis

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007." — The President's Working Group on Financial Markets, Oct 2008



Just more "opinions of others" and "charts that tell nothing," I suppose.

 

[DA60]

Hey would you admit that you were wrong about about the PWG being a part adminstration? I seriously doubt it because you are an arrogant little low information know it all bent on an ideological weakness to support your ways of ineptitude.

What is your problem?

First you call him an 'arrogant prick' and a 'very pitiful person'. And now the above?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...a-w-1017-a-post1065515781.html#post1065515781


Hey pal, this is an online debate forum..not a football game. And considering the amount of put downs Conservative is having to put up with from you and others in this thread, I think he is being very civil.

Chill.


BTW - I have NO RESPECT for people who come on and insult/spread bile about others all while hiding behind their computer screens under an assumed name.

 

[Conservative]

from your article:

On the whole, I think that Wallison makes a good case​

I wonder how long it will be before you understand that Wallison is arguing that subpime is to blame....

So Bush created the sub prime program? My point all along has bee that Bush ALONE did not cause the financial crisis but it seems that some here disagree and believe he alone caused the crisis. If you aren't in that group then you would be right. There were more factors than the sub prime loans that caused the problem and many to blame. Vern and others here ignore that and blame Bush solely.

Attached is one of the better reports and although lengthy page 11-12 gives you the information about blame and you will see a lot of players here NOT JUST BUSH

https://business.cch.com/images/banner/subprime.pdf