• 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!

Wow, DOW almost at record[W:411,514]

CanadaJohn said:
Only a liberal would believe that the Dow's performance has anything to do with "positive" actions/policies of President Obama. In fact, the actions/policies of President Obama have been so negative that investors see businesses with massive amounts of "cash on hand" and an American dollar being watered down by the fed flooding dollars into the economy that stocks become one of the few safe havens out there.
Click to expand...

How has the Fed flooded the economy with dollars?
 
Fenton said:
"Letting people " ?

Lol.....The lending standards that banks previously used for the last 100 years or so were deemed " discriminatory " and in 1995 Clinton through the adjustment of older CRA standards forced lendinv institutions to lower those standards.

In 1992 HUD was given regulatory control over the GSEs to buy up massive amounts of low quality loans.

It was a quota sysyem that increased to 50 % under Clinton and then 56% under Bush. In 2004 HUD altered the regulations even more to allow the GSEs to purchase even lower quality loans.

Clintom signed the Grahm Leachy Act and the Securities modernization Act that allowed those low quality loans to be securitzed and took oversight off of Credit Default Swaps .

Those people are responsible for the loans they signed. Period.
Click to expand...

I agree Clinton and Gramm reversing The Glass–Steagall Act, which separated commercial banking from investment banking was a mistake that mitigated the crisis. Those people are responsible for their loans as much as those bankers are responsible for making loans to people they knew couldn't keep up with the payments and in many cases approving loans with no credit checks.
 
Kushinator said:
How has the Fed flooded the economy with dollars?
Click to expand...

It hasn't. I think people are looking at long term and maybe even short term inflation.

Its the point of a few posters my self included that this is isolated.

I think we would rather see a bull market based on private sector growth, not pumping.
 
grip said:
I agree Clinton and Gramm reversing The
Glass–Steagall Act, which separated commercial banking from investment banking was a mistake that mitigated the crisis. Those people are responsible for their loans as much as those bankers are responsible for making loans to people they knew couldn't keep up with the payments and in many cases approving loans with no credit checks.
Click to expand...

Prior to 1995 Banks were not making loans like you described.

It would bankrupt them. For lenders like CountryWide to pump as much trash into the market as they did they needed first, mandated lowering of their lending standards and second a GSE that was buying them.

Not only buying them but encouraging them to lend at increasing lower standards so they could meet their quotas.

Sub-prime was because of regulations, not a lack of them.
 
Kushinator said:
How has the Fed flooded the economy with dollars?
Click to expand...

QE1, 2 and 3 which have done nothing to stimulate the economy, unless you count economies that are resource rich like Canada's that have benefitted from the dramatic rise in the price of gold, etc.. It has also driven money into stock markets as interest rates remain artificially low.
 
Fenton said:
Prior to 1995 Banks were not making loans like you described.

It would bankrupt them. For lenders like CountryWide to pump as much trash into the market as they did they needed first, mandated lowering of their lending standards and second a GSE that was buying them.

Not only buying them but encouraging them to lend at increasing lower standards so they could meet their quotas.

Sub-prime was because of regulations, not a lack of them.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an industry debacle more than a public one?
 
Fenton said:
"Letting people " ?

Lol.....The lending standards that banks previously used for the last 100 years or so were deemed " discriminatory " and in 1995 Clinton through the adjustment of older CRA standards forced lending institutions to lower those standards.
Click to expand...


Again, this is not true. Lending standards are left entirely up to banks. They can be extremely loose (as they were between 2003 and 2006) or extremely tight (as they are now). CRA forced banks to take loan applications from borrowers of the communities they were talking deposits.

In 1992 HUD was given regulatory control over the GSEs to buy up massive amounts of low quality loans.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. GSE's purchased AAA rated securities as mandated by their charter.

It was a quota sysyem that increased to 50 % under Clinton and then 56% under Bush. In 2004 HUD altered the regulations even more to allow the GSEs to purchase even lower quality loans.
Click to expand...

Come on now! GSE's had to purchase AAA rated securities. Your issue is with the credit rating agencies of the day.

Clintom signed the Grahm Leachy Act and the Securities modernization Act that allowed those low quality loans to be securitzed and took oversight off of Credit Default Swaps .
Click to expand...

Risky loans were being securitized long before Clinton came into office. The real question becomes, why did Bush appointees to the SEC have a voluntary regulation policy? Which is rhetorical; the economic team during the previous administration had no desire to impose regulations for Wall Street.
 
Fenton said:
It hasn't. I think people are looking at long term and maybe even short term inflation.

Its the point of a few posters my self included that this is isolated.

I think we would rather see a bull market based on private sector growth, not pumping.
Click to expand...

You will not get a bull market based on private growth without monetary intervention when consumers continue to deleverage.
 
CanadaJohn said:
QE1, 2 and 3 which have done nothing to stimulate the economy, unless you count economies that are resource rich like Canada's that have benefitted from the dramatic rise in the price of gold, etc.. It has also driven money into stock markets as interest rates remain artificially low.
Click to expand...

Credit easing does not flood the economy with dollars. Interest rates would operate in a volatile low interest rate band without intervention.
 
Kushinator said:
Credit easing does not flood the economy with dollars. Interest rates would operate in a volatile low interest rate band without intervention.
Click to expand...

It floods the markets with money - the markets are part of the economy.
 
grip said:
Sounds like an industry debacle more than a
public one?
Click to expand...

If your talking about the GSEs then yes. Franklin Rains was as corrupt as they come, falsely reporting GSE income to maintain his and his executives bonus target numbers.

He was fined. So I get the anger for what happened, but the people that usually go after the bankers and investment bankers if their motivated by ideology are willing to let that guy walk with what he took out of the GSEs. Some acxounts are close to 80 million personally.

Cuomo in 2000 committed 2 trillion in the buying up of affordable loans. That's the GSEs buying up affordable loans.

There's 6 trillion of GSE debt on the Treasury's books.

He is probably in the top 3 people that had a personal effect on the Sub-Prime Collapse and he was elected Governer of NY.

It's unbelievable. Look into HUD's mandates from their 1992 Law. It use to be in their archives.

Then look into their 2004 mandate changes for the GSEs.
 
DA60 said:
When Obama took over - unemployment was 7.3%. Today it is 7.9% (and if the participation rate was the same as when he took over - it would be well over 10%).

US Unemployment Rate


.
Click to expand...

You have a strange defintion of "when Obama took over". the average UE was 7.3% in Dec. he didnt take over in Dec. The avg UE was 7.8 % in Jan. It was 8.3 % in Feb. A simple straight line graph with the average UE at the mid point of each month clearly has it higher than 7.8 % in the second half of Jan.

But I could easily use 8.3 % from Feb and it would be more accurate than you using Dec.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

check out the graph, when do you think UE started shooting up like a rocket?

FYI, any conversation with Fenton concerning the Bush Mortgage Bubble is a waste of time. Not only does he back up nothing he posts, he even posts things that already have been disproven.
 
grip said:
That was by letting people buy more stuff on credit than they could afford causing the resulting crash of 2008.
Click to expand...

And what exactly do you think we are doing now?
 
Vern said:
You have a strange defintion of "when Obama took over". the average UE was 7.3% in Dec. he didnt take over in Dec. The avg UE was 7.8 % in Jan. It was 8.3 % in Feb. A simple straight line graph with the average UE at the mid point of each month clearly has it higher than 7.8 % in the second half of Jan.

But I could easily use 8.3 % from Feb and it would be more accurate than you using Dec.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

check out the graph, when do you think UE started shooting up like a rocket?

FYI, any conversation with Fenton concerning the Bush Mortgage Bubble is a waste of time. Not only does he back up nothing he posts, he even posts things that already have been disproven.
Click to expand...

The official unemployment rate is not derived by drawing imaginary lines through graphs

The official rate comes out once a month.

And when Obama was inaugurated the official rate was 7.3%.

Even if you took the January rate, it was still lower then it is now.

And that is not even including the huge drop in the participation rate since there are now so many workers that have given up looking for work.

Spin it anyway you want - the unemployment rate is worse now then when Obama took over.
 
Fenton said:
If your talking about the GSEs then yes. Franklin Rains was as corrupt as they come, falsely reporting GSE income to maintain his and his executives bonus target numbers.

He was fined. So I get the anger for what happened, but the people that usually go after the bankers and investment bankers if their motivated by ideology are willing to let that guy walk with what he took out of the GSEs. Some acxounts are close to 80 million personally.

Cuomo in 2000 committed 2 trillion in the buying up of affordable loans. That's the GSEs buying up affordable loans.

There's 6 trillion of GSE debt on the Treasury's books.

He is probably in the top 3 people that had a personal effect on the Sub-Prime Collapse and he was elected Governer of NY.

It's unbelievable. Look into HUD's mandates from their 1992 Law. It use to be in their archives.

Then look into their 2004 mandate changes for the GSEs.
Click to expand...


That's more work than I'm interested in doing but I know enough to have a grasp of what happened and why. It was greed form the bottom up. Yes, people who took ridiculous loans over reached but the pushers of those loans are more at fault, especially the industry responsible for the investment profit made on all that debt. It was sold as a good thing like all schemes but was in fact a heated up economy built on credit that didn't exist.
 
ReformCollege said:
And what exactly do you think we are doing now?
Click to expand...

Same thing but not as much on a lower income level. They think the only way to continue a successful economy is to grow endlessly and that can only happen quickly through credit and debt. Eventually something has to give.
 
Josie said:
But...... I thought the sky was falling with the sequester?
Click to expand...
Common sense should tell you the effects of the sequester will take some time.
 
DA60 said:
And when Obama was inaugurated the official rate was 7.3%.
Click to expand...

mmmm, another classic example of cons preferring a false narrative over the facts. President Obama was inaugurated on Jan 20, 2009. Not December. Is it fair to start counting Jan ?

DA60 said:
Even if you took the January rate, it was still lower then it is now.
.
Click to expand...

Finally, something technically correct if you use Jan. So what are cons trying to do about it? oh yea, they shot down President Obama's jobs bill. Why? They claim they were more concerned about the deficit. But the funny thing is, his jobs bill was mostly tax credits to business for hiring. And pubs have been trying to push through tax cuts inspite of the deficit. Oh wait, they want income tax cuts. so not only were they not concerned about the deficit. they were pushing the least effective 'stimulus': income tax cuts (yea, tax cuts are stimulus)

The CBO reviewed 11 'stimulus' programs in 2010. Tax cuts were the least effective. And the higher the income, the less effective they are.

CBO | Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011

"By contrast, policies that would temporarily increase the aftertax income of people with relatively high income, such as an across-the-board reduction in income taxes or an increase in the exemption amount for the AMT, would have smaller effects because such tax cuts would probably not affect the recipients’ spending significantly."
 
Vern said:
mmmm, another classic example of cons preferring a false narrative over the facts. President Obama was inaugurated on Jan 20, 2009. Not December. Is it fair to start counting Jan ?



Finally, something technically correct if you use Jan. So what are cons trying to do about it? oh yea, they shot down President Obama's jobs bill. Why? They claim they were more concerned about the deficit. But the funny thing is, his jobs bill was mostly tax credits to business for hiring. And pubs have been trying to push through tax cuts inspite of the deficit. Oh wait, they want income tax cuts. so not only were they not concerned about the deficit. they were pushing the least effective 'stimulus': income tax cuts (yea, tax cuts are stimulus)

The CBO reviewed 11 'stimulus' programs in 2010. Tax cuts were the least effective. And the higher the income, the less effective they are.

CBO | Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011

"By contrast, policies that would temporarily increase the aftertax income of people with relatively high income, such as an across-the-board reduction in income taxes or an increase in the exemption amount for the AMT, would have smaller effects because such tax cuts would probably not affect the recipients’ spending significantly."
Click to expand...

What policies did the President implement or propose during his first two years to reduce unemployment or GROW the economy? The stimulus was about 35% tax cuts for everyone, including "the rich", which you refer to as the least effective. Approximately 45% was spent on propping up existing jobs and extended unemployment benefits, and the remainder went to fund temporary projects.

WHAT HAS THE PRESIDENT DONE EXCEPT BLAME REPUBLICANS?
 
Vern said:
mmmm, another classic example of cons preferring a false narrative over the facts. President Obama was inaugurated on Jan 20, 2009. Not December. Is it fair to start counting Jan ?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

The day Obama took over the unemployment rate was 7.3%.

Today it is 7.9%.

Therefore, the official unemployment rate is higher today then when Obama took office.


If you have a problem with the numbers - take it up with BLS.

Because I do not care in the slightest about your rose-colored glass theories or spin doctoring or imaginary line drawing.



Have a nice day.


And btw, I am neither a 'con' nor a 'lib'.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
As I typed - even if you use January - the unemployment rate was still lower when he took over then it is now.

Which was my point in the first place.

What a waste of a few minutes these posts were.

:rolleyes:


And I am neither a 'con' nor a 'lib'.
Click to expand...

:agree BTW, I like and agree with your tag line! I would throw in a few defense stocks, just to be on the safe side. I'll happily take the hit if we break out in worldwide peace :)
 
AlabamaPaul said:
What policies did the President implement or propose during his first two years to reduce unemployment or GROW the economy? The stimulus was about 35% tax cuts for everyone, including "the rich", which you refer to as the least effective. Approximately 45% was spent on propping up existing jobs and extended unemployment benefits, and the remainder went to fund temporary projects.

WHAT HAS THE PRESIDENT DONE EXCEPT BLAME REPUBLICANS?
Click to expand...

mmmm, have you noticed how when I make a point I back it up. And 'backing up' your point wouldnt be as necessary if you stopped saying things just because you wish they were true. the "income tax cut" portion of the stimulus had an income limit. The reason tax cuts are least effective is because the higher the income the less is spent. So the income limit made it more effective than an across the board cut. And the best part was I didnt like the income tax cut portion of the stimulus but they said it was the fastest way to get money to people. So effective was balanced with speed. So I couldnt argue with the logic.

And you answered your own question. the Stimulus. I think preventing the Great Bush Depression and ending the Great Bush Recession was a good thing. Dont you? As I've posted before (with links) job losses shot up to 700 k a month starting Dec 2008 (it was 540 k in Nov) and averaged over 700 k the first 3 months of 2009.

And he bailed out the auto industry inspite of the ridulous lies and objections of republicans and the "conservative entertainment industry". That saved 2 million jobs.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40003.pdf

However, the study also notes that the higher shutdown level is unlikely over the long term and that the practical worst-case scenario would be a restructuring and downsizing, with a 40% production loss. This would be estimated to result in 1.5 million jobs lost in the peak year, and a net average loss of just under one million jobs per year through 2014, against what employment would otherwise be.53

Anderson Economic Group/BBK, an international business advisory firm with customers in the automotive industry, produced a separate set of estimates with a different methodology. AEG/BBK’s worst-case scenario was bankruptcy and eventual liquidation of two of the Detroit 3. In this case, they estimated that more than 1.2 million jobs would be lost in the first year, and nearly 600,000 in the second year. Netting out a small number of persons gaining alternative employment, the AEG/BBK estimate was 1.8 million jobs lost over two years among the OEMs, their suppliers and dealers, and others “indirectly” linked to the industry.54
 
Vern said:
mmmm, have you noticed how when I make a point I back it up. And 'backing up' your point wouldnt be as necessary if you stopped saying things just because you wish they were true. the "income tax cut" portion of the stimulus had an income limit. The reason tax cuts are least effective is because the higher the income the less is spent. So the income limit made it more effective than an across the board cut. And the best part was I didnt like the income tax cut portion of the stimulus but they said it was the fastest way to get money to people. So effective was balanced with speed. So I couldnt argue with the logic.

And you answered your own question. the Stimulus. I think preventing the Great Bush Depression and ending the Great Bush Recession was a good thing. Dont you? As I've posted before (with links) job losses shot up to 700 k a month starting Dec 2008 (it was 540 k in Nov) and averaged over 700 k the first 3 months of 2009.

And he bailed out the auto industry inspite of the ridulous lies and objections of republicans and the "conservative entertainment industry". That saved 2 million jobs.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40003.pdf

However, the study also notes that the higher shutdown level is unlikely over the long term and that the practical worst-case scenario would be a restructuring and downsizing, with a 40% production loss. This would be estimated to result in 1.5 million jobs lost in the peak year, and a net average loss of just under one million jobs per year through 2014, against what employment would otherwise be.53

Anderson Economic Group/BBK, an international business advisory firm with customers in the automotive industry, produced a separate set of estimates with a different methodology. AEG/BBK’s worst-case scenario was bankruptcy and eventual liquidation of two of the Detroit 3. In this case, they estimated that more than 1.2 million jobs would be lost in the first year, and nearly 600,000 in the second year. Netting out a small number of persons gaining alternative employment, the AEG/BBK estimate was 1.8 million jobs lost over two years among the OEMs, their suppliers and dealers, and others “indirectly” linked to the industry.54
Click to expand...

You haven't addressed the main questions. What policies did the President implement or propose during his first two years to reduce unemployment or GROW the economy? WHAT HAS THE PRESIDENT DONE EXCEPT BLAME REPUBLICANS? Please try again...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
WHAT HAS THE PRESIDENT DONE EXCEPT BLAME REPUBLICANS?
Click to expand...

now I have a question (nobody ever answers mine). Why shouldnt he blame republicans? It was Bush's mortgage bubble that destroyed the economy. And all republicans have done is lie about the mortgage bubble. And it was Bush's policy to let Lehman fail. that just threw gasoline on the fire. If you saw the UE graph, UE started shooting up like a rocket mid 2008 precisely because Bush's and republican policies.

So with GDP falling off a cliff at -8.9 % and job losses raging at 700 k a month, republicans then started claiming the deficit was the most important thing and then lying it was only a spending problem. so I blame them for causing it and stopping policies that could help.

And in Jan 2009, the most important thing was stopping the recession. Spending cuts as they claimed we needed would have only made things worse. Look at them now backpeddling and fingering pointing about 85 billion in cuts.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You haven't addressed the main questions. What policies did the President implement or propose during his first two years to reduce unemployment or GROW the economy? WHAT HAS THE PRESIDENT DONE EXCEPT BLAME REPUBLICANS? Please try again...
Click to expand...

I can only answer your questions. I cant make you read the answers. sorry, the help you need I cant give you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom