• 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!

Is obama insane, stupid or malicious?

Is obama insane, stupid or trying to destroy America?

  • insane

    Votes: 3 10.3%

  • stupid

    Votes: 6 20.7%

  • trying to destroy America

    Votes: 20 69.0%
  • Total voters
    29
Gardener said:
Considering the lack of selection in answers, this hack thread DOES rise to the standard of insanely stupid.

I do not believe it is out to destroy America, however.
Click to expand...

So what poll answers would you give? Repeating the sub prime mortgage disaster would make obama.......?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
So what poll answers would you give? Repeating the sub prime mortgage disaster would make obama.......?
Click to expand...

If I were to construct a poll, I would give people a range of potential answers rather than being a completre political hack who is misusing the poll section in order to try to further a narrow political agenda.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if people who were Bush bashers and are now Obama supporters remember what it feels like to be on the attacking side.
 
ecofarm said:
I wonder if people who were Bush bashers and are now Obama supporters remember what it feels like to be on the attacking side.
Click to expand...

I wonder why there are so few who can see both positive and negative qualities to both.

Our political system certainly encourages mindless partisanship, but it is up to the individual as to whether or not buy into it with such ferver that they do become mindless.
 
Gardener said:
If I were to construct a poll, I would give people a range of potential answers rather than being a completre political hack who is misusing the poll section in order to try to further a narrow political agenda.
Click to expand...

So you can't come up with any example poll answerers that validate a reinstatement of the failed sub prime loan fiasco, I couldn't either.
 
shrubnose said:
G.W. Bush and his mis-administration define the GOP.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...
This thread has precisely zero to do with George Bush. That you cling desperately to your hatred of GWB rather than confront the fact that the CURRENT president is incompetent is very telling.
 
VanceMack said:
This thread has precisely zero to do with George Bush. That you cling desperately to your hatred of GWB rather than confront the fact that the CURRENT president is incompetent is very telling.
Click to expand...

It's always so cute when the pots remark on the color of the kettles.
 
Gardener said:
I wonder why there are so few who can see both positive and negative qualities to both.

Our political system certainly encourages mindless partisanship, but it is up to the individual as to whether or not buy into it with such ferver that they do become mindless.
Click to expand...

One would think that when "their guy" is under absurd attack that they might remember back to when they were the orcs screaming nonsense. This should be a benefit of the two-party system.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
So what poll answers would you give? Repeating the sub prime mortgage disaster would make obama.......?
Click to expand...

A time traveler. Nothing Obama is doing would cause a repeat of the Bush Subprime scam. The banks are looking for new ones though. It is what they do.
 
VanceMack said:
This thread has precisely zero to do with George Bush. That you cling desperately to your hatred of GWB rather than confront the fact that the CURRENT president is incompetent is very telling.
Click to expand...

Except that is about repeating his mortgage meltdown. You don't remember that it was on his watch? How convenient.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
So you can't come up with any example poll answerers that validate a reinstatement of the failed sub prime loan fiasco, I couldn't either.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you what I *think* they may be doing. The housing market is just starting to show some signs of life but it'll probably peak early and fall back, unless they can spur it on further and try to ignite it. It's like a junkie going cold turkey, sometimes it's easier to taper or wean off drugs than quit suddenly. After they get the housing market rekindled, which would in turn spur job hiring and economic growth they could raise the lending standards back up? I just wonder if this is their plan or theory?
 
iguanaman said:
A time traveler. Nothing Obama is doing would cause a repeat of the Bush Subprime scam. The banks are looking for new ones though. It is what they do.
Click to expand...

Reinstating the sub prime government backed loans (Fannie- Freddie) is an exact repeat of what was done before that got us into this mess.
 
grip said:
I'll tell you what I *think* they may be doing. The housing market is just starting to show some signs of life but it'll probably peak early and fall back, unless they can spur it on further and try to ignite it. It's like a junkie going cold turkey, sometimes it's easier to taper or wean off drugs than quit suddenly. After they get the housing market rekindled, which would in turn spur job hiring and economic growth they could raise the lending standards back up? I just wonder if this is their plan or theory?
Click to expand...

That would be a very dangerous roll of the dice. Qualifying the unqualified to buy houses AGAIN is a Hail Mary pass and if things are that desperate God help us.
 
grip said:
I'll tell you what I *think* they may be doing. The housing market is just starting to show some signs of life but it'll probably peak early and fall back, unless they can spur it on further and try to ignite it. It's like a junkie going cold turkey, sometimes it's easier to taper or wean off drugs than quit suddenly. After they get the housing market rekindled, which would in turn spur job hiring and economic growth they could raise the lending standards back up? I just wonder if this is their plan or theory?
Click to expand...
I'm sure it is. The housing market needs a nudge, especially now that the upper end is starting to move on it's own.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Reinstating the sub prime government backed loans (Fannie- Freddie) is an exact repeat of what was done before that got us into this mess.
Click to expand...
It wasn't government backed loans that got us into this. It was bank backed loans that screwed us. The banks would have no reason to illegally sell government backed loans because they were government backed and they wouldn't have lost anything if they went bad. No reason to pay rating agencies to fake credit ratings to A1 on government backed loans since they already carry a good rating.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
That would be a very dangerous roll of the dice. Qualifying the unqualified to buy houses AGAIN is a Hail Mary pass and if things are that desperate God help us.
Click to expand...

Where did you see anyone suggesting loans to unqualified buyers? Many qualified buyers are now being turned down because banks don't like the return with the low rates in place now. That's why we need Fannie to step up. Not to mention all the homeowners who can't refinance because their homes are underwater.
 
The derivatives game broke a lot of banks insurance, and lending institutions, resulting from under-collateralized, over priced, and wrongly graded bundles of mortgages turned into securities...then traded in the market place.
 
The current situation can not be compared with the craziness of the 2002-2006 era.

I did feel that Bush failed to acknowledge that the programs were out of control. Lowering lending standards is not necessarily bad, its just a question of how much and at what result. I'll know when the line is crossed and they are a long way from that line (in my area). There's a huge difference between lowering standards and eliminating standards.

Anybody who bought between 2008-2012 has actually done very well for themselves.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It wasn't government backed loans that got us into this. It was bank backed loans that screwed us. The banks would have no reason to illegally sell government backed loans because they were government backed and they wouldn't have lost anything if they went bad. No reason to pay rating agencies to fake credit ratings to A1 on government backed loans since they already carry a good rating.
Click to expand...

Your revisionist history is astounding.

"Fannie and Freddie were government sponsored entities (GSEs). This meant that they had to be competitive, like a private company, and maintain their stock price. On the other hand, the value of the mortgages they re-sold on the secondary market was implicitly guaranteed by the government. This caused them to hold less capital to support their mortgages in case of loss. As a result, Fannie and Freddie were pressured to take on risk to be profitable but knew they wouldn't suffer the consequences if things turned south."

"The government set them up this way to allow them to buy qualified mortgages, insure them and resell them to investors, thus freeing up funds for banks to make new mortgages. In this way, they were traditionally involved in at least half of all new mortgages made each year. By December 2007, when banks began to constrict their lending, Fannie and Freddie were really the only lender still operating, responsible for 90% of all mortgages.

Did Fannie and Freddie Cause Mortgage Crisis

So the banks made "illegal" loans huh.

"The government set them up this way to allow them to buy qualified mortgages, insure them and resell them to investors, thus freeing up funds for banks to make new mortgages

As you see this is "dejavu all over again."
 
iguanaman said:
Where did you see anyone suggesting loans to unqualified buyers? Many qualified buyers are now being turned down because banks don't like the return with the low rates in place now. That's why we need Fannie to step up. Not to mention all the homeowners who can't refinance because their homes are underwater.
Click to expand...

From the link in the OP you obviously did not read.

"The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit". People with weak credit getting qualified for loans is exactly what was done before.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
That would be a very dangerous roll of the dice. Qualifying the unqualified to buy houses AGAIN is a Hail Mary pass and if things are that desperate God help us.
Click to expand...

I don't know to what degree they're encouraging subprime again. It may be at a much higher level and they're probably not allowing all of the swapping that occurred before. That was a big part of the process that caused the market to react so negatively.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Your revisionist history is astounding.

<quotes from link>

Did Fannie and Freddie Cause Mortgage Crisis

So the banks made "illegal" loans huh.

"The government set them up this way to allow them to buy qualified mortgages, insure them and resell them to investors, thus freeing up funds for banks to make new mortgages

As you see this is "dejavu all over again."
Click to expand...
Try taking the time to read some REAL reports about the mortgage meltdown instead of a quick Google search and get back to me in a few days when you've studied them. Somewhere out there is a bipartisan report about 250 pages long that goes into great detail about the possible causes of the Meltdown. Government backed loans isn't one of them.

Or maybe you should just read your own reference:
"Fannie and Freddie Held Fewer Toxic Loans than Most Banks"


You are also showing your continuing problems with reading comprehension. They were illegally selling their loans, not making illegal loans. ((As far as I know there is no such thing as an 'illegal' loan from a bank unless the APR is too high or their reserve deposits aren't big enough.)) They were paying rating agencies like Standards & Poor to over-rate derivatives that contained what the banks and rating agencies knew to be poor investments.

S&P expects U.S. lawsuit over pre-crisis credit ratings | Reuters
 
ecofarm said:
I wonder if people who were Bush bashers and are now Obama supporters remember what it feels like to be on the attacking side.
Click to expand...



Some do, some don't.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Try taking the time to read some REAL reports about the mortgage meltdown instead of a quick Google search and get back to me in a few days when you've studied them. Somewhere out there is a bipartisan report about 250 pages long that goes into great detail about the possible causes of the Meltdown. Government backed loans isn't one of them.

Or maybe you should just read your own reference:
"Fannie and Freddie Held Fewer Toxic Loans than Most Banks"


You are also showing your continuing problems with reading comprehension. They were illegally selling their loans, not making illegal loans. ((As far as I know there is no such thing as an 'illegal' loan from a bank unless the APR is too high or their reserve deposits aren't big enough.)) They were paying rating agencies like Standards & Poor to over-rate derivatives that contained what the banks and rating agencies knew to be poor investments.

S&P expects U.S. lawsuit over pre-crisis credit ratings | Reuters
Click to expand...

What you are not grasping is WHY banks held toxic loans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom