Conservative Conundrum 2014 [W:215]

Aka Con Con 14


I cant help but notice that in their attempt to blame President Obama for everything he inherited, conservatives (and conservative like posters) ignore the collapsed economy with GDP cratering at -8.2%, 700,000 job losses a month, UE shooting up like a rocket, the financial and housing sector in ruins soon to be followed by the automotive industry, a credit freeze that zero rates was unable to fix, trillion dollar deficits because of collapsed revenue, a market that had already collapsed 40% on its way to 50% but a crisis that manifested itself in late 2006 was Clinton’s fault.

Wow, 6 years into Bush’s presidency, the MBS markets collapsed due to "dramatically lower lending standards starting late 2004" and it’s not Bush’s fault. Now to be fair, some cons (and con like posters) say Bush gets “some” blame. How magnanimous of them. Mmmm, I don’t recall such magnanimous gestures when cons (and con like posters) were claiming “bush tried to stop it” or “ its all Barney Frank’s fault" or "CRA CRA CRA." I only recall such gestures after I posted the Bush’s policies that caused it.

So even if we pretend that Clinton had something to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble, by all conservative (and conservative like poster) standards, its all Bush’s fault starting 1/20/2001.

Vern said:

Aka Con Con 14


I cant help but notice that in their attempt to blame President Obama for everything he inherited, conservatives (and conservative like posters) ignore the collapsed economy with GDP cratering at -8.2%, 700,000 job losses a month, UE shooting up like a rocket, the financial and housing sector in ruins soon to be followed by the automotive industry, a credit freeze that zero rates was unable to fix, trillion dollar deficits because of collapsed revenue, a market that had already collapsed 40% on its way to 50% but a crisis that manifested itself in late 2006 was Clinton’s fault.

Wow, 6 years into Bush’s presidency, the MBS markets collapsed due to "dramatically lower lending standards starting late 2004" and it’s not Bush’s fault. Now to be fair, some cons (and con like posters) say Bush gets “some” blame. How magnanimous of them. Mmmm, I don’t recall such magnanimous gestures when cons (and con like posters) were claiming “bush tried to stop it” or “ its all Barney Frank’s fault" or "CRA CRA CRA." I only recall such gestures after I posted the Bush’s policies that caused it.

So even if we pretend that Clinton had something to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble, by all conservative (and conservative like poster) standards, its all Bush’s fault starting 1/20/2001.

Click to expand...

It's Bush's fault!

Till the end, it's Bush's fault...

I suppose that's change, as few other presidents have been so weak. But where is the ****ing hope?

Fearandloathing said:

It's Bush's fault!

Till the end, it's Bush's fault...

I suppose that's change, as few other presidents have been so weak. But where is the ****ing hope?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry FL, this isn't about Bush. Its about conservatives (and conservative like posters) hypocritical standards of accountability. I'm pretty sure my point was clear.

Lets review. By conservative (and conservative like posters) standards:
President Obama is 100% responsible for everything starting 1/20/2009
Bush is responsible for nothing

see, its really that simple.

I blame Obama not for what he inherited, but for his incorrect views on how it happened and incorrect policies for turning it around.

Vern said:

I cant help but notice that in their attempt to blame President Obama for everything he inherited…

·
·
·​

So even if we pretend that Clinton had something to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble, by all conservative (and conservative like poster) standards, its all Bush’s fault starting 1/20/2001.

Click to expand...

Fearandloathing said:

It's Bush's fault!

Till the end, it's Bush's fault...

I suppose that's change, as few other presidents have been so weak. But where is the ****ing hope?

Click to expand...

Vern said:

I'm sorry FL, this isn't about Bush.

Click to expand...

Bob Blaylock said:

View attachment 67177045

Click to expand...

You really can't grasp the point being made? Poor Bob :lol: Consistently lost in the weeds of thought.

a351 said:

You really can't grasp the point being made? Poor Bob :lol: Consistently lost in the weeds of thought.

Click to expand...

You'd be easier to understand if you would decide with which tip of your forked tongue to speak, and stick to just that one.

Vern said:

Aka Con Con 14


I cant help but notice that in their attempt to blame President Obama for everything he inherited, conservatives (and conservative like posters) ignore the collapsed economy with GDP cratering at -8.2%, 700,000 job losses a month, UE shooting up like a rocket, the financial and housing sector in ruins soon to be followed by the automotive industry, a credit freeze that zero rates was unable to fix, trillion dollar deficits because of collapsed revenue, a market that had already collapsed 40% on its way to 50% but a crisis that manifested itself in late 2006 was Clinton’s fault.

Wow, 6 years into Bush’s presidency, the MBS markets collapsed due to "dramatically lower lending standards starting late 2004" and it’s not Bush’s fault. Now to be fair, some cons (and con like posters) say Bush gets “some” blame. How magnanimous of them. Mmmm, I don’t recall such magnanimous gestures when cons (and con like posters) were claiming “bush tried to stop it” or “ its all Barney Frank’s fault" or "CRA CRA CRA." I only recall such gestures after I posted the Bush’s policies that caused it.

So even if we pretend that Clinton had something to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble, by all conservative (and conservative like poster) standards, its all Bush’s fault starting 1/20/2001.

Click to expand...

I blame the trends of the economy on a few factors, the federal reserve, the domestic policies or the restrictions on small business.

What I don't like about Obamas domestic policies is he lessened state and local government jobs but increased federal government jobs. He enacted more restrictions, higher taxes, and because of Obama care he made it harder for small businesses to advance. If he opens the door for more big corporate chains to create jobs by adding more carbon emission restrictions but letting china know that his new policy is to not place any added cost on trade from china in response to their emission it's also destroying small business and competition. But if Walmart can hire 10 more people because of it he's "creating jobs"

Honestly I don't see a difference in Bush or Obama at all, they shouldn't even necessarily have any control over the economy in my opinion. But the best thing I can tell you is watching the growth of the economy and the inflation of the dollar always brings in a worse recession. The trends been happening since the 50s and with the inflation rates it's been getting worse and worse

No president deserves credit or blame for economic changes taking place in the first year of their administrations.

In 1993, James Johnson committed the GSEs to 1 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases.

In 1995 Clinton changed the CRA laws and co-opted the GSEs into the Subprime mortgage markets.

He also allowed them to count Subprime purchases towards their HUD affordable lending quotas which he raised to 42 percent.

In 1998, Janet Reno bragged about the effectiveness of Clintons 1995 CRA changes.

Also in 1998 Clintons Treasury Secretary Larry Summers congratulated Clinton on the effectiveness of his CRA changes in allowing low income borrowers to get home loans.

In 1998, 380 Million dollars in Subprime securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac, and given a AAA rating and sold off to investors.

In 1999 Andrew Cuomo committed the GSEs to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases.

Also in 1999 Clinton signed the Futures Modernization act which DE-REGULATED CDSs.

In 1999 Country Wide and Fannie Mae started a partnership when Country Wide created a loan process specifically tailored for people who were low income and had bad or no credit and low down payments.

It was called the Fast and EZ loan.

In 1999 Franklin Raines admitted that Clintons CRA changes had helped MILLIONS of low income borrowers buy homes.

Homeowner-ship rates under Clinton rose from 63 percent in 1993 to 68 percent in 2000.

Under Bush's presidency they rose another 1 percent.

Clinton also appointed his Democrat buddies to the executive and Chair positions at the GSEs including Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick.

In 2000 Jamie Gorelick lobbied banks publicly to sell the GSEs their Subprime loans.

I guess I could go on.....but why ?

I've embarrassed VERN enough today.

Fenton said:

In 1993, James Johnson committed the GSEs to 1 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases.
.......

Click to expand...

poor fenton. Since you refuse to back up anything you post we'll never know if any of the random blurts you post are true. Thanks to the facts I post, we do know they are irrelevant. in honor of Conservatives newfound love of Fed links:

A substantial increase in lending to nonprime borrowers contributed to the bulge in residential investment in 2004 and 2005, and the tightening of credit conditions for these borrowers likely accounts for some of the continued softening in demand we have seen this year

FRB: Bernanke, Housing, Housing Finance, and Monetary Policy

er uh Fenton did you read the part that once again confirmed the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble: "bulge in residential investment in 2004 and 2005" Oh Fenton you clever con. you got me posting off topic. So what do you think about the massively hypocritical standards cons have that blame President Obama for everything but blame bush for nothing? (I have to consider you an expert on the topic)

Vern said:

poor fenton. Since you refuse to back up anything you post we'll never know if any of the random blurts you post are true. Thanks to the facts I post, we do know they are irrelevant. in honor of Conservatives newfound love of Fed links:

A substantial increase in lending to nonprime borrowers contributed to the bulge in residential investment in 2004 and 2005, and the tightening of credit conditions for these borrowers likely accounts for some of the continued softening in demand we have seen this year

FRB: Bernanke, Housing, Housing Finance, and Monetary Policy

er uh Fenton did you read the part that once again confirmed the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble: "bulge in residential investment in 2004 and 2005" Oh Fenton you clever con. you got me posting off topic. So what do you think about the massively hypocritical standards cons have that blame President Obama for everything but blame bush for nothing? (I have to consider you an expert on the topic)

Click to expand...

Lol !

I have backed everything I said up

Over and over and over.....

You whine about it being too wordy and repeat your Bush nonsense over and over and over. ...

And how was there a " bulge " in Mortgages in only two years with only a 1 percent increase in Homeowner-ship rates

The REAL Bulge was Clinton's 5 percent increase in Homeowner-ship rates all made possible through lower lending standards thanks to his CRA changes.

Fenton said:

Lol !

I have backed everything I said up

Over and over and over.....

Click to expand...

the scary thing is you actually believe that. But fenton, this thread isn’t about the irrelevent blurts of questionable veracity you post over and over to dispute the actual facts that prove Bush responsible for the Bush Mortgage Bubble. It’s about the hypocritical conservative standard that President Obama is 100 % responsible for everything starting Inauguration Day and Bush is not even responsible for things that happened 6 and 7 years into his presidency.

You whine about it being too wordy and repeat your Bush nonsense over and over and over. ...

Click to expand...

And fenton, I do have to laugh because all you do is whine at the facts because its all you can do. Every time I post Bush’s Working Group, you whine at it. You even whine about me posting it. You have to whine because you know it shreds your irrelevant blurts of questionable veracity.

And how was there a " bulge " in Mortgages in only two years with only a 1 percent increase in Homeowner-ship rates

The REAL Bulge was Clinton's 5 percent increase in Homeowner-ship rates all made possible through lower lending standards thanks to his CRA changes.

Click to expand...

thank you for the perfect example of your irrelevent blurts of questionable veracity. I've already proven with the Fed link that the CRA had nothing to do with Bush's "dramatically lower lending standards in late 2004". And the Clinton increasing homeownership rates safely and responsibly doesnt disprove the "substantial increase in lending to nonprime borrowers contributed to the bulge in residential investment in 2004 and 2005".

Conservative said:

Yep, no question about it, deficits and debt mean nothing to people like you who always rely on someone else to pay your bills including debt service which is paid for by actual taxpayers.

Click to expand...

that's just another pathetic lie from yet partisan hack with a severe case of BDS. I've posted about debt and deficits hundreds of times. this thread is about the Best Two-Quarter Stretch in More Than a Decade and how partisan hacks like you predicted the opposite. "partisan hack" is being nice because a lot of you PH types are actually cheering for the economy to collapse.

Tell me exactly what economic policies Obama has implemented to grow the economy like it has grown this past year and then tell me why if the economy is so great why Obama's jar is so low?

Click to expand...

Oh look, you try to "limit" your dishonest deflecting posts to "this past year". I've explained the Obama policies of prudent deficit reduction and GDP growth. You've only used my posts to spew your non-stop ideological rants. Thanks to President Obama's prudent deficit reduction and GDP growth, this year's deficit is below the 40 year average. That's impressive enough but when figure in the mess that Bush left him, its Mount Rushmore impressive. So the debt is below the 40 year average and I don't see one con posting it. For people who claim to only care about debt and deficits, certainly this has to be big news.

Anyhoo Con, here's some the threads I've started about debt and deficits. See Con, I'm not afraid of an intelligent and honest discussion. partisan hacks like you are afraid.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...8-2014-deficit-estimate-down-514-billion.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...boehner-says-there-no-debt-crisis-either.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...timates-2013-deficit-642-billion-w-383-a.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...3-budget-deficit-shrink-year-642-billion.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...013-revenues-expected-set-record-revenue.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...an-warns-paying-off-debt-too-soon-w-32-a.html

Vern said:

poor fenton. Since you refuse to back up anything you post we'll never know if any of the random blurts you post are true. Thanks to the facts I post, we do know they are irrelevant. in honor of Conservatives newfound love of Fed links:

A substantial increase in lending to nonprime borrowers contributed to the bulge in residential investment in 2004 and 2005, and the tightening of credit conditions for these borrowers likely accounts for some of the continued softening in demand we have seen this year

FRB: Bernanke, Housing, Housing Finance, and Monetary Policy

er uh Fenton did you read the part that once again confirmed the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble: "bulge in residential investment in 2004 and 2005" Oh Fenton you clever con. you got me posting off topic. So what do you think about the massively hypocritical standards cons have that blame President Obama for everything but blame bush for nothing? (I have to consider you an expert on the topic)

Click to expand...

Vern.. bush can be blamed and is blamed for a number of things.. like going to war with Iraq based on a lie., not having an exit strategy..

The mortgage bubble?... dude you are so wrong its funny. .and have been proven wrong.. time and time again...

But whatever.. I hope you have a very Liberal Christmas!

jaeger19 said:

Vern.. bush can be blamed and is blamed for a number of things.. like going to war with Iraq based on a lie., not having an exit strategy..

The mortgage bubble?... dude you are so wrong its funny. .and have been proven wrong.. time and time again...

But whatever.. I hope you have a very Liberal Christmas!

Click to expand...

You know jaeger, when you aren't ranting at me, your posts actually seem intelligent. However that quickly ends when the Bush Mortgage Bubble is discussed. I proved every point I made about the Bush Mortgage Bubble so this statement is like a Christmas present to me.

dude you are so wrong its funny. .and have been proven wrong.. time and time again

Click to expand...

I'm sorry jaeger, that's too funny. Cons (and you ) simply whined and whined and whined that what I posted just couldn't be true. that only proved you guys were whiners. Like fenton and eohrn, you posted some hilarious "facts" as you wailed and flailed at the actual facts I posted. here's the perfect example of your ability to delude yourself with your made up "facts"

jaeger19 said:

.. not enough loans defaulted made in 2004 BECAUSE loans generally don't default in 2-3 years. You didn't post any facts that proved otherwise..

Click to expand...

You pretended I was referring to 2004. You thought your opinion about defaults trumped the documented data I posted. I absolutely did post facts that proved everything I said. And here's the best part. You whined and whined at me that what I posted wasn't true but didn't post one single link to dispute my posts. Yes, not one. You simply 'assured' me I was wrong. Thanks for reminding me how deluded and hilarious your posts were. anyhoo, you have happy Christmas too.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...56717-bush-mortgage-bubble-faqs-w-1083-a.html

President Bush's party did not control congress the last two years of his presidency.

President Obama's controlled both houses of congress the first two years of his presidency and the Senate for the first SIX years of his presidency.

So obviously, President Obama had more real ability to change things during the worst of the economic mess than Bush did.

Soon GOPs and GOP-like posters will begin taking credit for whatever good is happening in the economy.
As soon as they get their talking points from their rightist media gurus.

Since the GOP House has been in control for four years, no doubt the two government shutdowns and the credit downgrade will be highlighted.
Along with terminating Simpson/Bowles, sabotaging the SuperCommittee and rejecting their own Sen. Coburn's plan for a grand bargain.

A grand bargain that would have given us a balanced budget by now .

Sen. McConnell is hacking back to his meme from last decade when GOPs obstructed a DEM Senate to gain control.
And then say the Dems can't do the same thing as GOPs did--new decade, same GOP and McConnell.

With one slightly new caveat--a DEM President.
Can't wait to hear the 24/7 GOP messaging war over Obama's first veto, most likely to repeal but not replace ACA.

Then we'll see McConnell move on to reconciliation with the Senate parliamentarian--either on ACA or immigration .

Dayton3 said:

President Bush's party did not control congress the last two years of his presidency.

President Obama's controlled both houses of congress the first two years of his presidency and the Senate for the first SIX years of his presidency.

So obviously, President Obama had more real ability to change things during the worst of the economic mess than Bush did.

Click to expand...

Sorry Dayton, Bush had as much ability to change things during the Great Bush Recession as President Obama. Dems didn’t make it about obstructing the president to the detriment of the country like republicans did. Democrats had no problem with Bush’s stimulus in 2008. And neither did republicans. But with the economy collapsing at -8.2% and losing 700,000 jobs a month strangely then republicans had a problem with stimulus.

And sadly, bush made it worse. here’s the Bush policy that put the Great into the Great Bush Recession.

Lehman's collapse was a seminal event that greatly intensified the 2008 crisis and contributed to the erosion of close to $10 trillion in market capitalization from global equity markets in October 2008, the biggest monthly decline on record at the time.

Case Study: The Collapse of Lehman Brothers

Vern said:

Sorry Dayton, Bush had as much ability to change things during the Great Bush Recession as President Obama. Dems didn’t make it about obstructing the president to the detriment of the country like republicans did.

Click to expand...

Of course the inevitable Democratic lament:

"Republicans were not good to President Obama when he took office"

Why did they have to be? The Democrats controlled BOTH houses of Congress.

Say what you want about the other party being obstructionists, but if you can't get things done when you have solid numerical control over BOTH houses of Congress and the presidency then your president is no damn good.

Vern said:

Aka Con Con 14


I cant help but notice that in their attempt to blame President Obama for everything he inherited, conservatives (and conservative like posters) ignore the collapsed economy with GDP cratering at -8.2%, 700,000 job losses a month, UE shooting up like a rocket, the financial and housing sector in ruins soon to be followed by the automotive industry, a credit freeze that zero rates was unable to fix, trillion dollar deficits because of collapsed revenue, a market that had already collapsed 40% on its way to 50% but a crisis that manifested itself in late 2006 was Clinton’s fault.

Wow, 6 years into Bush’s presidency, the MBS markets collapsed due to "dramatically lower lending standards starting late 2004" and it’s not Bush’s fault. Now to be fair, some cons (and con like posters) say Bush gets “some” blame. How magnanimous of them. Mmmm, I don’t recall such magnanimous gestures when cons (and con like posters) were claiming “bush tried to stop it” or “ its all Barney Frank’s fault" or "CRA CRA CRA." I only recall such gestures after I posted the Bush’s policies that caused it.

So even if we pretend that Clinton had something to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble, by all conservative (and conservative like poster) standards, its all Bush’s fault starting 1/20/2001.

Click to expand...

These kinds of posts are so ridiculous. We have a member who so very much wants to rile people up that he'll raise strawmen, make unsubstantiated claims and then rail upon conservatives for the whole shebang. This thread is right up there with the best from James D. Hill. (but, at least Vern hasn't just done a hit and run like James is wont to do)

But, Vern...I have to ask. Do you REALLY think conservatives should agree there is a conundrum just because YOU say so?

Bob Blaylock said:

View attachment 67177045

Click to expand...

Nice teeth!

Dayton3 said:

Of course the inevitable Democratic lament:

"Republicans were not good to President Obama when he took office"

Why did they have to be? The Democrats controlled BOTH houses of Congress.

Say what you want about the other party being obstructionists, but if you can't get things done when you have solid numerical control over BOTH houses of Congress and the presidency then your president is no damn good.

Click to expand...

Oh Dayton, I'm not lamenting "republicans were mean." I'm lamenting that republicans put their political agenda over that of helping average Americans. Yes dems controlled both houses of congress but while dems were trying to end the Great Bush Recession, republicans were acting like petulant children. Remember how they you told that the stimulus would cause "hyper inflation dollar collapse, market to zero" over and over. When you have a base like conservatives, why would you constantly try to incite fear and anger in them? because it works that's why. Thank goodness democrats put the country first. They didn't scream and pout when bush proposed a stimulus in 2008. And neither did republicans. Most conservatives don't know about the 2008 stimulus because they not were instructed to be angry about it.

anyhoo, I couldn't help but notice you skipped past the facts I posted. I guess you want to argue "rhetorical" issues. I want to discuss the facts. Facts like like the 2008 stimulus, Bush letting lehman fail and its effects on the economy. Hey we can even discuss when republicans threatened to default on the debt or let the Bush tax cuts expire for everybody. I assume you don't want to. Is that why you "misparaphrased" my statements as "republicans were mean to President Obama"?

Vern said:

Oh Dayton, I'm not lamenting "republicans were mean." I'm lamenting that republicans put their political agenda over that of helping average Americans. Yes dems controlled both houses of congress but while dems were trying to end the Great Bush Recession, republicans were acting like petulant children. Remember how they you told that the stimulus would cause "hyper inflation dollar collapse, market to zero" over and over. When you have a base like conservatives, why would you constantly try to incite fear and anger in them? because it works that's why. Thank goodness democrats put the country first. They didn't scream and pout when bush proposed a stimulus in 2008. And neither did republicans. Most conservatives don't know about the 2008 stimulus because they not were instructed to be angry about it.

anyhoo, I couldn't help but notice you skipped past the facts I posted. I guess you want to argue "rhetorical" issues. I want to discuss the facts. Facts like like the 2008 stimulus, Bush letting lehman fail and its effects on the economy. Hey we can even discuss when republicans threatened to default on the debt or let the Bush tax cuts expire for everybody. I assume you don't want to. Is that why you "misparaphrased" my statements as "republicans were mean to President Obama"?

Click to expand...

I simplified things.

And I have no problems with BUsh letting Lehman fail. I'm against the concept of "too big to fail" even if it does cause economic hardship all up and down the line.

An economic downturn is SUPPOSED to hurt people. That is how you learn to avoid problems in the future. Pain is magnificent teacher.