• 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's economy vs Bush's economy[W:125]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

OpportunityCost said:
Sure it did, but that was market pressure and demand. The demand was artificial, that doesn't mean it was deliberate or the responsibility of the banks. Now the bundle appraisal values, that's a direct fraud.
Click to expand...

Don't excuse the banks, especially banks like Coutrywide. They KNEW EXACTLY what they were doing. In many cases it was deliberate.

Were all banks in on it? No. But some knew what they were doing, and it was deliberate. The more they drove up the prices, the more their next sale was worth, the higher their commissions were. The higher their mortgage loans were.

Over and over.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Gimmesometruth said:
Your inability to defend your argument that brokers had no effect on house prices is "duly noted", ergo, you have conceded the point.....brokers did have an effect on prices since their willingness to write mortgages for even non-humans and dead humans caused a flood of dollars (demand) into the housing market.
Click to expand...

Ugh, market values were insane, how about you support your comment before I should try to disprove it. Sure there were less than honest brokers, there always are. I'm arguing it was not systemic. The bundling values---that was systemic.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Oh yeah, part of me is still wishing I had put it on the market and sold it in 2006 for $450,000. But I didn't pull the trigger. We talked about it, but decided to sit tight for another couple of years. Well 2 years later was 2008, and then it was too late.

I could have made a very nice profit if I sold it then though. Very, very nice.
Click to expand...

I had a tidy amount that I put into index funds at the bottom of the market. It was easy.

Then I used that money to invest in a couple properties that were still at the bottom of the market.

Now I'm saving to jump in after the next bubble bursts.

Nevertheless, I'd give it all back if it meant no recession.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

BitterPill said:
I had a tidy amount that I put into index funds at the bottom of the market. It was easy.
Click to expand...

Yep, I did the same. Made enough so I could retire early. But yeah, I knew a lot of good, hard working people who lost everything because of the crash and recession. I wish it never happened either.

It really pissed me off seeing good hard working blue collar people lose everything, while WS got away scott free. Bastards on WS should have been perp walked to jail, all of them.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Don't excuse the banks, especially banks like Coutrywide. They KNEW EXACTLY what they were doing. In many cases it was deliberate.

Were all banks in on it? No. But some knew what they were doing, and it was deliberate. The more they drove up the prices, the more their next sale was worth, the higher their commissions were. The higher their mortgage loans were.

Over and over.
Click to expand...

Countrywide was also buying off political support at the same time. They defined the unscrupulous greed of the market. That doesn't mean they all are. Look at WaMu, they had the highest rating adherence to regulation, they went under like a wooden rowboat hit by a whale. The problem was pretty much everywhere but I see a lot of the same mentality in DC, which means it should have all crashed so those morons can get correct all throughout the system.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yep, I did the same. Made enough so I could retire early. But yeah, I knew a lot of good, hard working people who lost everything because of the crash and recession. I wish it never happened either.

It really pissed me off seeing good hard working blue collar people lose everything, while WS got away scott free. Bastards on WS should have been perp walked to jail, all of them.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you did well, and I am also saddened that so many lost so much.

I also agree about the lack of accountability.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

OpportunityCost said:
Ugh, market values were insane, how about you support your comment before I should try to disprove it. Sure there were less than honest brokers, there always are. I'm arguing it was not systemic. The bundling values---that was systemic.
Click to expand...
"systemic"? In CA, AZ, NV, FL....it was "systemic", the FBI reported TO THE BUSH ADMIN THE LEVEL OF FRAUD COMMITTED BY BROKERS YOY FROM 2003 ONWARD. I have previously documented it here, if need be, I'll repost them all over again.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Gimmesometruth said:
"systemic"? In CA, AZ, NV, FL....it was "systemic", the FBI reported TO THE BUSH ADMIN THE LEVEL OF FRAUD COMMITTED BY BROKERS YOY FROM 2003 ONWARD. I have previously documented it here, if need be, I'll repost them all over again.
Click to expand...

Go cry and scream at someone else. What I'm referring to affected all mortgages that went through the system, what you are referring to are examples not system wide problems, the fact they are limited to a few states argues to that point. You want to say the entire system was bad in that area and it wasn't, as long as houses kept selling market values don't drop; until suddenly they do, then its an appraisal problem? One big fake appraisal can skew the rest of a subdivision or neighborhood. That doesn't mean its a system wide problem. That means a sample can taint the pricing set up, which is why the feds and states regulate the industry. Makes you wonder if those states were doing their due diligence or they were part of the problem as well.

Being able to sell those crappy mortgages continuously with the same valuation as AAA was the problem.
 
Re: Obama's economy vs Bush's economy

DrOrange said:
So a good friend a little while ago told me that Obama has had both a healthier economy, and better growth with the economy than Bush had. This contradicted what I thought to be the truth, so I did a little research and this is what I found. Buckle up, because it's long:

TL;DR: The previous claim is false. By the standards of Unemployment, GDP, and Mean household income for both the middle class and the lower class: Bush has had both a better economy and better economic growth.

So, when Obama took office unemployment was at 7.8%, and it raised steadily from there up until February of 2013. In 2013 it looks like Obama’s policy shifted to a more economy-centric focus, and now he’s gotten unemployment down to 5%, but Bush had it as low as 4.4% when he was in office, and it never raised above 6%

Gross Domestic Product when Obama took office was $14,383.9 billion, and is now up to $18,221.1 billion, a 26.6% increase. By contrast, in the last four years of Bush’s presidency, GDP increased by 21.4% from $11,988.4 to $14,549.9 billion. That means Bush has increased GDP by 21.4% per office term and Obama has only increased GDP by 13.9% per office term.

Mean household income for the middle 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $49,534 to $54,041, a 9% increase over 5 years (average of 7.1% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $44,411 to $50,132, a 12.9% increase over 4 years.

Mean household income for the lowest 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $11,552 to $11,676, a 1.1% increase over 5 years (average of 0.8% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $10,244 to $11,656, a 13.8% increase over 4 years.

So by the standards of unemployment, Gross Domestic Product, and Mean household income for both the middle and lower class, Bush has had a healthier economy, and had better growth with the economy than Obama.

Sources:
United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of the Census
Click to expand...

tl;dr

But how about let's compare 8 years of GDP growth for both presidents instead of "the last 4 years of Bush" vs. 7.5 years of Obama.

I don't even know what the number are, but that right off the bat sounds like shady statistical manipulation.

Edit: And it appears that the increase for Bush's first four years was less than $2T, so they both increased GDP by about $4.xT.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama's economy vs Bush's economy

I think George W. was one of the worst Presidents we have ever had. But I do not really blame him for the housing crisis. I doubt he understood half the crap his advisers told him. Which was take the leash off the Fed. Let them do as they please. You see the true criminal in all of this is the Federal Reserve. Obama's Presidency has had a more positive impact on America than Bush's, but Bush isn't to blame for the bubble. The Fed's one job is to protect our economy, he trusted them and shouldn't have.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

OpportunityCost said:
No you want to say Bush was not doing it for the reason of growing home ownership.
Click to expand...

Yer now telling me what I want to do. Interesting.

I've never really considered the question of why Bush43 supported irresponsible deregulation. I always just took it for granted that it was part of his right-wing ideology. So I'd say yer wrong. Home ownership is Fenton's bizarre fetish. It's a statistic I don't look at.

>>You seem to want to paint him as the villain no matter the situation and no matter what anyone else is doing. Its just partisan noise.

You don't pay much attention to what I say, do you? I'd say I have never "painted him as a villain." I've always said that I see him as a nice guy, a man with some character, not surprising when you consider who his parents are.

Otoh, imo he didn't have the judgement to tell satanic creeps like Dickhead Chaingang and Donnie Dumbsfeld to take a hike when they manipulated him and much of the rest of the country into supporting a disastrous invasion and thoroughly mismanaged occupation of Iraq. I think the country would have been a lot better off if he'd never been POTUS. Doesn't mean I see him as some sort of deplorable figure along the lines of, e.g.,

  • Scooter Libby, Chaingang's chief of staff — thirty months on ice and a $250K fine on four felony convictions of making false statements to federal investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice
  • Robert Stein, comptroller and funding officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq — nine years and $3.6 million for bribery and conspiracy to commit money laundering
  • Steven Griles, Deputy Secretary at Interior — ten months in the hoosegow and $30K for obstruction of justice and tax evasion
  • Lester Crawford, FDA Commissioner — three years probation and a $90K fine for filing false documents and failing to report income
  • Brian Doyle, Deputy Press Secretary at DHS — five year prison sentence and ten years probation for attempted solicitation of a child for sex
  • John Korsmo, Chair of the Federal Housing Finance Board — eighteen months probation and a $5K fine for lying to the Senate and an inspector general
  • David (Hossein) Safavian, ran OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy — sentenced to eighteen months on four felony convictions of lying to investigators and perjury. They were overturned on appeal, but he was retried, again convicted of perjury, and sentenced to a year of imprisonment
  • Roger Stilwell, a desk officer at Interior — two years probation and a $1K fine for failing to report gifts he received from his pal Jack Abramoff (mail fraud. tax evasion, conspiracy)
 
Last edited:
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

OpportunityCost said:
Go cry and scream at someone else. What I'm referring to affected all mortgages that went through the system, what you are referring to are examples not system wide problems, the fact they are limited to a few states argues to that point. You want to say the entire system was bad in that area and it wasn't, as long as houses kept selling market values don't drop; until suddenly they do, then its an appraisal problem? One big fake appraisal can skew the rest of a subdivision or neighborhood. That doesn't mean its a system wide problem. That means a sample can taint the pricing set up, which is why the feds and states regulate the industry. Makes you wonder if those states were doing their due diligence or they were part of the problem as well.

Being able to sell those crappy mortgages continuously with the same valuation as AAA was the problem.
Click to expand...
I see, so only if ALL BROKERS were writing fraudulent loans in all states....can it be argued that broker actions WERE an influence on home prices.....even though, the primary source of fraud was happening in the sandland states....where it just so happens that those were the states where prices had the greatest increases and those were the states that had the greatest percentages of defaults. The argument, according to you, can only be made if it is "absolutely systemic".

That is some level of a requir.....er.......denial.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

mmi said:
Yer now telling me what I want to do. Interesting.

I've never really considered the question of why Bush43 supported irresponsible deregulation. I always just took it for granted that it was part of his right-wing ideology. So I'd say yer wrong. Home ownership is Fenton's bizarre fetish. It's a statistic I don't look at.

>>You seem to want to paint him as the villain no matter the situation and no matter what anyone else is doing. Its just partisan noise.

You don't pay much attention to what I say, do you? I'd say I have never "painted him as a villain." I've always said that I see him as a nice guy, a man with some character, not surprising when you consider who his parents are.

Otoh, imo he didn't have the judgement to tell satanic creeps like Dickhead Chaingang and Donnie Dumbsfeld to take a hike when they manipulated him and much of the rest of the country into supporting a disastrous invasion and thoroughly mismanaged occupation of Iraq. I think the country would have been a lot better off if he'd never been POTUS. Doesn't mean I see him as some sort of deplorable figure along the lines of, e.g.,

  • Scooter Libby, Chaingang's chief of staff — thirty months on ice and a $250K fine on four felony convictions of making false statements to federal investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice
  • Robert Stein, comptroller and funding officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq — nine years and $3.6 million for bribery and conspiracy to commit money laundering
  • Steven Griles, Deputy Secretary at Interior — ten months in the hoosegow and $30K for obstruction of justice and tax evasion
  • Lester Crawford, FDA Commissioner — three years probation and a $90K fine for filing false documents and failing to report income
  • Brian Doyle, Deputy Press Secretary at DHS — five year prison sentence and ten years probation for attempted solicitation of a child for sex
  • John Korsmo, Chair of the Federal Housing Finance Board — eighteen months probation and a $5K fine for lying to the Senate and an inspector general
  • David (Hossein) Safavian, ran OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy — sentenced to eighteen months on four felony convictions of lying to investigators and perjury. They were overturned on appeal, but he was retried, again convicted of perjury, and sentenced to a year of imprisonment
  • Roger Stilwell, a desk officer at Interior — two years probation and a $1K fine for failing to report gifts he received from his pal Jack Abramoff (mail fraud. tax evasion, conspiracy)
Click to expand...

You should get that BDS **** looked at, hes been out of office for 7 years. Can you try to stay relevant for S & G's?
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Gimmesometruth said:
I see, so only if ALL BROKERS were writing fraudulent loans in all states....can it be argued that broker actions WERE an influence on home prices.....even though, the primary source of fraud was happening in the sandland states....where it just so happens that those were the states where prices had the greatest increases and those were the states that had the greatest percentages of defaults. The argument, according to you, can only be made if it is "absolutely systemic".

That is some level of a requir.....er.......denial.
Click to expand...

Fake appraisals have a larger impact than they should. What do you want me to say? Real estate gambling has been going on in California, Florida and Nevada for a VERY long time. Maybe the state agencies ought to get their thumbs out of their ass.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

OpportunityCost said:
You should get that BDS **** looked at, hes been out of office for 7 years.
Click to expand...

I've always said that I see him as a nice guy, a man with some character​

I see yer up (or rather down) to yer usual standards of idiocy.

>>S & G's

Dunno what that is. Don't care.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

OpportunityCost said:
Fake appraisals have a larger impact than they should. What do you want me to say?
Click to expand...
it went beyond appraisals.
Real estate gambling has been going on in California, Florida and Nevada for a VERY long time.
Click to expand...
We arent talking about "gambling", non-sequtur, a distraction.
Maybe the state agencies ought to get their thumbs out of their ass.
Click to expand...
The Bush admin was informed by the FBI for years.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Gimmesometruth said:
it went beyond appraisals.We arent talking about "gambling", non-sequtur, a distraction.The Bush admin was informed by the FBI for years.
Click to expand...

Property values in California are the most volatile in the nation. Hence the gambling comment. I bet the state agencies were informed as well.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

mmi said:
I've always said that I see him as a nice guy, a man with some character​

I see yer up (or rather down) to yer usual standards of idiocy.

>>S & G's

Dunno what that is. Don't care.
Click to expand...

Yeah try addressing the topic instead of going on some Bush administration rant that is irrelevant. You know, forget it, you can go back on ignore.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

OpportunityCost said:
Yeah try addressing the topic instead of going on some Bush administration rant that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No rant, just a list of a few of the more prominent criminals from that administration, in response to yer ridiculous statement that I was portraying Bush as "a villain." I've never even suggested that I feel that way. He just didn't have the judgement required to staff his gubmint without the inclusion of an assortment of thieving, lying rats.

Yer the one who deflected by asking what Obummer would have done to avoid the housing crisis, nonsensically arguing that "he was a strong supporter" of the irresponsible deregulation that led to it. And of course Fenton treated us to another short speech about ACORN and the negro-loving liiiiiiiiiibruls. The usual pile of right-wing crap and lies. My favourite part was yer incomprehensible gibberish claiming that I am "simultaneously blaming it all on Bush and also indicating he didn't do it."

>>you can go back on ignore.

Yeah, can't face the facts, so put yer head back where you keep it.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

OpportunityCost said:
Property values in California are the most volatile in the nation. Hence the gambling comment.
Click to expand...
Actually, AZ and NV, specifically PHX and LV, saw the greatest change in prices during the bubble. In 2004, LV saw prices nearly double. The loose money, low standards caused greater risk in an investment market that was known world-wide as one of the safest assets. Investment in your home is not supposed to be a crap shoot, but the Bush admin allowed it to become one, they needed something to make up for the dotcom bust.
I bet the state agencies were informed as well.
Click to expand...
Yer guessing, I'm talking about what was known and that was that the FBI had been informing the WH for a long time on the levels of mortgage fraud, that the majority of the fraud was being committed by originators. State regulators often had no mortgage fraud laws to enforce, nor the resources to investigate complicated wire fraud cases.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Gimmesometruth said:
Actually, AZ and NV, specifically PHX and LV, saw the greatest change in prices during the bubble. In 2004, LV saw prices nearly double. The loose money, low standards caused greater risk in an investment market that was known world-wide as one of the safest assets. Investment in your home is not supposed to be a crap shoot, but the Bush admin allowed it to become one, they needed something to make up for the dotcom bust.Yer guessing, I'm talking about what was known and that was that the FBI had been informing the WH for a long time on the levels of mortgage fraud, that the majority of the fraud was being committed by originators. State regulators often had no mortgage fraud laws to enforce, nor the resources to investigate complicated wire fraud cases.
Click to expand...

Lost of political finger pointing. "Allowed", at the same time it was being encouraged by both sides of aisle. The partisanship is pretty astounding. As I said from the start, the person in power would have made no difference, so long as home ownership was on the rise, nothing was going to be done by either party. But you keep blaming Bush, you're like a Geico commercial, its what you do.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

OpportunityCost said:
As I said from the start, the person in power would have made no difference
Click to expand...

Yeah, you said it. And it's total BS.

>>so long as home ownership was on the rise, nothing was going to be done by either party.

The Bush administration failed in its oversight responsibility. It's just that simple.

"White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire," NYT, Dec 20, 2008

It's true that Clinton wanted credit and down payment requirements lowered, and he did sign a GOP bill that removed the Glass–Steagall barriers between commercial and investment banks ( Gramm-Leach-Bliley), but that legislation passed 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House, way more than enough support to override a veto.

The housing market was in good shape in 2001, with subprime mortgages comprising only about eight percent of the total written. Between 2004 and 2006, that figure increased to around twenty percent nationally, and was considerably higher in some parts of the country.

>>But you keep blaming Bush

Who was in charge of the gubmint 2001-08? Donald Duck?

>>you're like a Geico commercial, its what you do.

Yer like a laxative commercial, it's what you produce.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

mmi said:
Yeah, you said it. And it's total BS.

>>so long as home ownership was on the rise, nothing was going to be done by either party.

The Bush administration failed in its oversight responsibility. It's just that simple.

"White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire," NYT, Dec 20, 2008

It's true that Clinton wanted credit and down payment requirements lowered, and he did sign a GOP bill that removed the Glass–Steagall barriers between commercial and investment banks ( Gramm-Leach-Bliley), but that legislation passed 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House, way more than enough support to override a veto.

The housing market was in good shape in 2001, with subprime mortgages comprising only about eight percent of the total written. Between 2004 and 2006, that figure increased to around twenty percent nationally, and was considerably higher in some parts of the country.

>>But you keep blaming Bush

Who was in charge of the gubmint 2001-08? Donald Duck?

>>you're like a Geico commercial, its what you do.

Yer like a laxative commercial, it's what you produce.
Click to expand...

The Housing market was in good shape before 2001 ? :doh

2000.....
Franklin Raines celebrates Fannie Mae reaching its 1 TRILLION DOLLAR " Affordable Housing Goal " early
Fannie Mae to Meet $1 Trillion Goal Early; CEO Raines Launches Ten-Year $2 Trillion ?American Dream
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

mmi said:
Yeah, you said it. And it's total BS.

>>so long as home ownership was on the rise, nothing was going to be done by either party.

The Bush administration failed in its oversight responsibility. It's just that simple.

"White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire," NYT, Dec 20, 2008

It's true that Clinton wanted credit and down payment requirements lowered, and he did sign a GOP bill that removed the Glass–Steagall barriers between commercial and investment banks ( Gramm-Leach-Bliley), but that legislation passed 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House, way more than enough support to override a veto.

The housing market was in good shape in 2001, with subprime mortgages comprising only about eight percent of the total written. Between 2004 and 2006, that figure increased to around twenty percent nationally, and was considerably higher in some parts of the country.

>>But you keep blaming Bush

Who was in charge of the gubmint 2001-08? Donald Duck?

>>you're like a Geico commercial, its what you do.

Yer like a laxative commercial, it's what you produce.
Click to expand...

Nope, it absolutely isn't. If anything Obama would have pushed the lending practices to be even looser. You know that, you're just too partisan to admit it.
 
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

OpportunityCost said:
Nope, it absolutely isn't. If anything Obama would have pushed the lending practices to be even looser. You know that, you're just too partisan to admit it.
Click to expand...

Not so........Obama supports Dodd-Frank which puts some control over the banks............

In memory we have has 2 banking scandal where the American people lost trillions................Do you know what is common to both.............A Bush was in charge
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom