• 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!

Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

Since your'e a objective "economist" working in "areas" I'm surprised youv'e completely missed the lower lending standards that fueled the sub-prime collapse.
Oh, I'm well aware of those. But they were pushed by the unregulated private brokers who were selling their crap off to Wall Street.

Or are you simply trying to skirt the issue and not answer my question ? You know, since you make me run away or beat "the pants off me". Actually NO liberal young or old has ever successfully beaten the pants off of me in a debate or otherwise. Your typical example of winning a debate is always self exclaimed with you patting your self on the back because you managed to post multiple lies and misdirections and refused to answer pertinant questions. Thats not a WIN, thats desperate.
Sounds like someone might need to take a trip to the POUTER Room.
 
Which misses the essential point. Regulation gave them somewhere to dump those mortgages. They wouldnt accept high risk loans without both government pressure to accept some of them, and a place to dump the risk.

Bankers dont just take on risk for the heck of it--examine the motivation and follow the money.

As for PeteEU, the mortgage market was heating up before Bush and all attempts to regulate it were met harshly by Dems. You cant dump it on one party or the other. Both had their hands all over this particular mess.

I will paraphrase what your correcting stating....in a nutshell

banks did not want to loan money to high risk borrowers, the federal government told banks that if they would loan the money on those high risk loans, ....government would cover the cost for any lost........because government wanted people to own homes.

being that the government was willing to cover any bad debt, the banks willingly loaned out money to people making 50,000 a yr, ......buying 350,000 houses
 
The ordered solution was greater compliance with CRA through greater contact and negotiation with community groups in urban areas where CRA was felt to be needed the most.
There was no order in Buycks-Roberson. There was a consent decree that the court approved. I know...all these confusing legal terms and concepts. Maybe you shouldn't have brought the matter up.

And greater compliance with CRA would have amounted to what exactly -- taking more applications from surrounding communities? CRA didn't require any lender to extend a dollar's worth of credit to anyone. Other and entirely unrelated law of course does forbid overt discrimination by lenders among those who in fact do apply for credit. That was illegal long before CRA came along and even longer before Bill Clinton came along. It is still illegal today (ask Wells Fargo), and it will continue to be.

If banks didnt play ball, they could have their CRA rating torched and even their access to federal rate loans would be in jeapordy.
That's another total right-wing lie, this time a perversion of language in an FRB paper noting that asking for CRA compliance is hardly much of a burden as compared to a quid pro quo that includes a bank charter, FDIC insurance, and access to the discount window. None of those things could have been revoked or in any way altered or limited as the result of an adverse CRA review. Such claims are just more deliberate distortion and fabrication.

You keep implying that there was no teeth and no regulation that enforced CRA, when I have already shown you sources that say they do. I guess we can agree to disagree at this point as have differing sources on what was going on.
Hah! There is no compromise between truth and falsehood. You promote and defend the side of total falsehood. I denounce it and will continue to do so.
 
banks did not want to loan money to high risk borrowers,
It's pretty obvious here that you fundamentally misunderstand the origins of the credit crisis. Borrowers who qualify at prime terms are not high-risk. And that's where the bulk of 1990's CRA lending went. This is why CRA portfolios performed better than industry averages.

The people who eventually caused the problems meanwhile didn't care one whit how risky the borrowers were or how impossible loans were rigged into being to repay. Their concern was for the up-front fees and profits they could realize in writing, selling, and then securitizing paper of any quality at all. Strip off the profit and sell off the risk. I'll be gone, and you'll be gone. It will all be somebody else's problem. That was Wall Street and its network of private-label securitizing shops in league with unscrupulous brokers, crooked appraisers, and befuddeld bond ratings agencies. That's who destroyed the global economy -- fancy-pants rich folks. Not low-and moderate-income Americans.

the federal government told banks that if they would loan the money on those high risk loans, ....government would cover the cost for any lost........because government wanted people to own homes.
Botched again. The GSE's bought loans that met their minimum underwriting standards. Then they packaged those and sold them to institutional investors with an agency guaranty. The original lenders -- the banks and S&L's who wrote the mortgage loans -- already had their money back. They weren't guaranteed anything.

being that the government was willing to cover any bad debt, the banks willingly loaned out money to people making 50,000 a yr, ......buying 350,000 houses
LOL! The P&I on a 30-year fixed at 3.5% would mean a back-end ratio of 38% for a borrower with a $50K annual income. That's about the upper limit, but a borrower with assets sufficient to cover taxes, hazard insurance, any HOA fees, and any outstanding consumer debt would be a reasonable approval.
 
It's pretty obvious here that you fundamentally misunderstand the origins of the credit crisis. Borrowers who qualify at prime terms are not high-risk. And that's where the bulk of 1990's CRA lending went. This is why CRA portfolios performed better than industry averages.

The people who eventually caused the problems meanwhile didn't care one whit how risky the borrowers were or how impossible loans were rigged into being to repay. Their concern was for the up-front fees and profits they could realize in writing, selling, and then securitizing paper of any quality at all. Strip off the profit and sell off the risk. I'll be gone, and you'll be gone. It will all be somebody else's problem. That was Wall Street and its network of private-label securitizing shops in league with unscrupulous brokers, crooked appraisers, and befuddeld bond ratings agencies. That's who destroyed the global economy -- fancy-pants rich folks. Not low-and moderate-income Americans.


Botched again. The GSE's bought loans that met their minimum underwriting standards. Then they packaged those and sold them to institutional investors with an agency guaranty. The original lenders -- the banks and S&L's who wrote the mortgage loans -- already had their money back. They weren't guaranteed anything.


LOL! The P&I on a 30-year fixed at 3.5% would mean a back-end ratio of 38% for a borrower with a $50K annual income. That's about the upper limit, but a borrower with assets sufficient to cover taxes, hazard insurance, any HOA fees, and any outstanding consumer debt would be a reasonable approval.

I went right to the heart of the issue, and I am correct....government pressed for all Americans to own homes.

as to your lol...yes you are funny......there are many cases of people buying homes, more then 5 times there annual income.
 
I went right to the heart of the issue, and I am correct....government pressed for all Americans to own homes.
Absurd. Every administration since the Great Depression has had a policy of working to INCREASE home ownership.

as to your lol...yes you are funny......there are many cases of people buying homes, more then 5 times there annual income.
You of course failed to understand the hypothetical you were creating. Just thought I'd point that out.
 
recovery is still slow and exceptionally delicate. we aren't out of the woods yet.

There is no "job growth."

Look - 385,000 minus 485,000 doesn't equal "growth" it equals a negative number.

It's amazing how the Obama media focuses on the gains and ignores the losses....

Put a republican in office and they get really good on the math and realize the negative numbers.

Doesn't matter anyways because half of these clowns who post have no interest in the truth and only care about political gangbanging. Democrats would rather beg for bread on the street than have anyone other than a republican in office.... Er beg their government to provide for them.

I'm so sick of it...
 
I will paraphrase what your correcting stating....in a nutshell

banks did not want to loan money to high risk borrowers, the federal government told banks that if they would loan the money on those high risk loans, ....government would cover the cost for any lost........because government wanted people to own homes.

being that the government was willing to cover any bad debt, the banks willingly loaned out money to people making 50,000 a yr, ......buying 350,000 houses

Bankers don't give snow away in winter and no one forced them to make those subprime loans. They did need investors/patsies to buy them up after the wrote them though.
They had a friend named GW Bush who sold $440 Billion in subprime garbage to Fannie Mae in 2002. Is that what you meant by the Federal Govt. garanteeing bad loans?
Why do you think the entire housing bubble happened on the GOP's watch? Do you think Dems could have ever gotten away with it? I doubt they could or would.

Fannie and Freddie were just another investor for the banks to swindle. GW Bush himself turned bankers shill and boasted that he got Fannie to commit to 440 Billion $ to buy the new subprimes in his 2002 "Minority Housing Initiative Program." He even evoked 911 and promised that the plan would "turn incredible evil into incredible good," I swear, I'm not making that up. Heres the bit about Fannie in 2002


And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.
HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)

Can you believe he actually said "It's in their charter, it NOW needs to be implemented"? If you know why?, it all will make sense. Anyway there's plenty more, but I fear your brain might explode.
 
I went right to the heart of the issue, and I am correct....government pressed for all Americans to own homes.

as to your lol...yes you are funny......there are many cases of people buying homes, more then 5 times there annual income.

Why do you keep saying "Government" instead of GW Bush? He is the one with the "Minorty Housing Ininiative" where he sold $440 Billion of the banks subprime garbage to Fannie Mae. It was President Bush and a complacent GOP majority in Congress that primed the housing bubble with Govt. money in 2002.
Blaming the CRA program which did not even have subprime loans is nothing but a red herring and a poor one at that..
 
There is no "job growth."

Look - 385,000 minus 485,000 doesn't equal "growth" it equals a negative number.

It's amazing how the Obama media focuses on the gains and ignores the losses....

Put a republican in office and they get really good on the math and realize the negative numbers.
Sure there is.

Right on the money!

That's because the gains outweigh the losses.

Only when the losses outweigh the gains Mr Nick. The concept isn't nearly as convoluted as you suggest.
 
Last edited:
There is no "job growth." Look - 385,000 minus 485,000 doesn't equal "growth" it equals a negative number. It's amazing how the Obama media focuses on the gains and ignores the losses....
Learn the difference between numbers that are reported net and those that are reported gross. Nonfarm payrolls increased by 155K in December. That's net. Employment increased in December by 28K. That's net. If you want to look at a finer grain, the number of Americans who began a new job in November 2012 was 4,319K. The number who left one that month was 4,138K. Those numbers are gross.

Put a republican in office and they get really good on the math and realize the negative numbers.
The media are overwhelmingly right-wing in their viewpoints. They are also overwhelmingly crippled when it comes to actual intelligence and understanding, as well as in maintaining allegiance to anything other than ratings and dollars.

Doesn't matter anyways because half of these clowns who post have no interest in the truth and only care about political gangbanging. Democrats would rather beg for bread on the street than have anyone other than a republican in office.... Er beg their government to provide for them. I'm so sick of it...
Your pain could be alleviated in either moving or getting some sort of education.
 
I welcome any sources you care to provide beyond you snide remarks and snarky crapola. So far, you have not provided anything else.
 
Why do you keep saying "Government" instead of GW Bush? He is the one with the "Minorty Housing Ininiative" where he sold $440 Billion of the banks subprime garbage to Fannie Mae. It was President Bush and a complacent GOP majority in Congress that primed the housing bubble with Govt. money in 2002.
Blaming the CRA program which did not even have subprime loans is nothing but a red herring and a poor one at that..

because one man, cant do everything...that would be like saying everything that is wrong with america is Obama's fault, and that's not true.

trying to blame one party for all the faults that take place in our government, ...means to be...you have not left the partisan side of politics...yet.
 
Why do you keep saying "Government" instead of GW Bush? He is the one with the "Minorty Housing Ininiative" where he sold $440 Billion of the banks subprime garbage to Fannie Mae.
Fannie Mae agreed to a $440 billion commitment (not an actual transaction) to purchase loans made to minorities over an unspecified period of time. This was no great leap on their part as at the time they expected to purchase more than that amount over the next several years. Subprime was THE market in 2002, and the GSE's expected that they would serve and dominate that market just as they did the prime market. They had better than a 70% share of the primary market at the time and weren't expecting anything else in subprime. Things turned out differently of course.

From the Bush point of view, this was all just political bells and whistles as he tried to rehabilitate his image among minority voters prior to the 2004 election. He wasn't happy with the words "affordable housing goals" so he papered them over with the more race-specific term Minority Housing Initiative. Minority home ownership had been rising anyway, and it continued to rise through 2004. Then things got ugly. Interestingly perhaps to some, the one minority subclass where home ownership rates held firm all the way to 2008 was foreign-born immigrants, many of whom of course do not have papers.

Blaming the CRA program which did not even have subprime loans is nothing but a red herring and a poor one at that.
CRA included plenty of subprime loans and those loans included extra points or fees or slightly higher interest rates to balance prospective returns against a rated perception of slightly elevated risk. Such CRA loans however were much less likely to fail than subprime loans written by non-CRA lenders to similar borrowers in similar neighborhoods because CRA lenders were interested in putting borrowers into loans they could afford to service, while private brokers were interested in putting borrowers into loans that generated a lot of up front fees and profits to brokers, and who the hell cared what might happen to the borrower or the eventual noteholder down the road anyway.
 
Last edited:
I welcome any sources you care to provide beyond you snide remarks and snarky crapola. So far, you have not provided anything else.
Taking shelter from the storm, eh? So much easier to type meaningless nothingnesses than to come up with any sort of concrete or tangible response. You posted a stream of lies and errors. You shouldn't have done that if you weren't willing to be called on it. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
 
Last edited:
because one man, cant do everything...that would be like saying everything that is wrong with america is Obama's fault, and that's not true. trying to blame one party for all the faults that take place in our government, ...means to be...you have not left the partisan side of politics...yet.
Nobody means that just George W Bush all by himself wrecked the place. Just as nobody means that it was Lincoln alone who saved the union, or that it was FDR alone who ended the Great Depression. It is customary however even in more expansive arenas than this one to lump the acts taken and prompted and omitted by an administration simply under the name of the man at the top. Of course to hear the right-wing wanker version of things, not only does the buck not stop at the desk of George W Bush, it doesn't even slow down.
 
Nobody means that just George W Bush all by himself wrecked the place. Just as nobody means that it was Lincoln alone who saved the union, or that it was FDR alone who ended the Great Depression. It is customary however even in more expansive arenas than this one to lump the acts taken and prompted and omitted by an administration simply under the name of the man at the top. Of course to hear the right-wing wanker version of things, not only does the buck not stop at the desk of George W Bush, it doesn't even slow down.

i for one have said bush/congress did a lot of damage to this nation, and under his congress, they ran up a lot of debt, violated the constitution.......and the government after bush is doing the same thing.
 
The economy was tanking at the end of the Clinton era already. 9/11 just gave us the pretext to stimulus in the name of freedom.
 
The economy was tanking at the end of the Clinton era already. 9/11 just gave us the pretext to stimulus in the name of freedom.
Right...tanking. GDP growth in 2000 was 4.1%. In 2001, it was 1.1%. It hasn't approached 4.1% since. Unemployment was 4.2% when Bush took over. Fourteen months later, we were on federal emergency extended unemployment benefits and we stayed there for the rest of 2002 and all of 2003. In FY 2000, the budget SURPLUS was $236 billion. In FY 2004, the budget DEFICIT was $413 billion. And by far the worst of Bush was still to come. Bush and the Republicans flat out wrecked the place.
 
Right...tanking. GDP growth in 2000 was 4.1%. In 2001, it was 1.1%. It hasn't approached 4.1% since. Unemployment was 4.2% when Bush took over. Fourteen months later, we were on federal emergency extended unemployment benefits and we stayed there for the rest of 2002 and all of 2003. In FY 2000, the budget SURPLUS was $236 billion. In FY 2004, the budget DEFICIT was $413 billion. And by far the worst of Bush was still to come. Bush and the Republicans flat out wrecked the place.

The economy was starting to trend down by the time Bush took office and the G-S repeal that wrecked the economy was the result of Clinton, and the mass exodus of jobs was because of Clinton policies. But hey, don't let anything jeopardize your campaign for the Presidency of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc school of economics.
 
Fannie Mae agreed to a $440 billion commitment (not an actual transaction) to purchase loans made to minorities over an unspecified period of time. This was no great leap on their part as at the time they expected to purchase more than that amount over the next several years. Subprime was THE market in 2002, and the GSE's expected that they would serve and dominate that market just as they did the prime market. They had better than a 70% share of the primary market at the time and weren't expecting anything else in subprime. Things turned out differently of course.

From the Bush point of view, this was all just political bells and whistles as he tried to rehabilitate his image among minority voters prior to the 2004 election. He wasn't happy with the words "affordable housing goals" so he papered them over with the more race-specific term Minority Housing Initiative. Minority home ownership had been rising anyway, and it continued to rise through 2004. Then things got ugly. Interestingly perhaps to some, the one minority subclass where home ownership rates held firm all the way to 2008 was foreign-born immigrants, many of whom of course do not have papers.


CRA included plenty of subprime loans and those loans included extra points or fees or slightly higher interest rates to balance prospective returns against a rated perception of slightly elevated risk. Such CRA loans however were much less likely to fail than subprime loans written by non-CRA lenders to similar borrowers in similar neighborhoods because CRA lenders were interested in putting borrowers into loans they could afford to service, while private brokers were interested in putting borrowers into loans that generated a lot of up front fees and profits to brokers, and who the hell cared what might happen to the borrower or the eventual noteholder down the road anyway.

Just how many of those no money down loans that Bush sold to Fannie Mae were actually sold to minorities and how many resulted in them actually owning a home today?
The subprime housing bubble caused a huge market in home "flipping" that resulted in many subprime loans being sold to mid and higher income buyers, many of them who were "caught" when the music stopped.
I doubt very much the Bush would have pushed those loans if the bankers did not push him to do so. Reselling those bad loans immediately was an important part of their scheme. I think you are being too generous, I have seen no evidence that Bush was worried about the level of minorities that owned homes before OR after the program.
In fact he claimed he wanted to "rein in" Fannie Mae just one year later.
 
The economy was starting to trend down by the time Bush took office and the G-S repeal that wrecked the economy was the result of Clinton, and the mass exodus of jobs was because of Clinton policies. But hey, don't let anything jeopardize your campaign for the Presidency of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc school of economics.

Don't try and rewrite history. Deregulation was a long standing policy of Republicans. They prided themselves on never seeing a regulation they did not want to end. John McCain's middle name was "Mr. Deregulator" Republicans in congress wrote and introduced the bills that deregulated the banks and then cajoled Clinton and the Dems in Congress to go along. Clinton signed the last banking bill as a lame duck after Bush was declared his successor. Refusing to sign that bill would have not only broken with tradition but would have been futile as it would have been simply reintroduced and signed by Bush anyway. But you are rightabout one thing, Clinton's biggest mistakes were when he went along with the Republican majority in Congress.
 
President Bush pushing his "ownership society"






Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
By Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton
Published: Sunday, December 21, 2008


WASHINGTON — "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, "scared the hell out of everybody."

It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.

The president listened as Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.

Then his Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr., told him that to stave off disaster, he would have to sign off on the biggest government bailout in history. Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.

"How," he wondered aloud, "did we get here?"

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

As early as 2006, top advisers to Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn. As recently as February, for example, Bush was still calling it a "rough patch."

The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.

...​



Morals of the story. Not everyone is meant to own a home, and the government usually screws things up.
 
Taking shelter from the storm, eh? So much easier to type meaningless nothingnesses than to come up with any sort of concrete or tangible response. You posted a stream of lies and errors. You shouldn't have done that if you weren't willing to be called on it. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Right. We have your opinion. No source data whatsoever. Your statement could just as easily be turned on you as me. You have gone so far as to say the actual stautes dont say what they say. Spinning bull**** doesnt make it anything more bull****.

Arrogance about being correct doesnt make you correct, source your crap or quit talking it.
 
The economy was starting to trend down by the time Bush took office and the G-S repeal that wrecked the economy was the result of Clinton, and the mass exodus of jobs was because of Clinton policies. But hey, don't let anything jeopardize your campaign for the Presidency of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc school of economics.
Just the usual recycled nonsense. There is always a period of business caution prior to a Presidential election, particularly when a change in administration is coming either way. This pause was evidenced as expected in a softening in gross private domestic investment over the second half of 2000. But things started to ramp up to a level beyond caution as the radical economic proposals of this legacy candidate from Texas started to become more clear. He was basically threatening to overturn the whole apple cart that had served so many so well for so long. And then the bumpkin actually got elected -- sort of -- and started acting out his campaign fantasies. Welcome to the First Bush Recession. It was essentially an escalating crisis of confidence in a man who was so unsuited to be at the top. It would take 9/11 to shake us out of that and give us all something more important to think about for a while.
 
Back
Top Bottom