LOL How Can Obama Say This Stuff With A Straight Face

[jamesrwright3]

He says the economy for the last 8 years has been horrible as a result of horrible policies..
We have has positive growth every quarter except for the quarter in which 09/11 fell and this one..and the latest one was caused by an external shock and lack of regulation of Freddie/Fannie..which the Dems blocked and both Bush and Republican members of Congress supported. To say the last 8 years were horrible or a result of Republican policies is a boldfaced lie and ducking any Democratic responsibility for the Congress..which even former President Clinton admitted to.

 

[BlessEwe]

I have heard this from the McCain campaign as well, and is one of the big reasons he has tryed to distance himself.

 

[jamesrwright3]

I have heard this from the McCain campaign as well, and is one of the big reasons he has tryed to distance himself.

I mean sure..I think we can say Congress dropped the ball over the last couple of years for failing to deregulate. I don't think we can say it has anything to do with specific Bush policies..this latest downturn was caused by a single issue..failure to regulate Freddie/Fannie and Bush warned against it, but couldn't get anything passed. To say the last 8 years were horrible or to say the latest crisis is a result of Bush policies is ridiculous. If Bush policies had been followed..and Freddie/Fannie been regulated..this may have never happened.

 

[JBJoe]

I mean sure..I think we can say Congress dropped the ball over the last couple of years for failing to deregulate. I don't think we can say it has anything to do with specific Bush policies..this latest downturn was caused by a single issue..failure to regulate Freddie/Fannie and Bush warned against it, but couldn't get anything passed. To say the last 8 years were horrible or to say the latest crisis is a result of Bush policies is ridiculous. If Bush policies had been followed..and Freddie/Fannie been regulated..this may have never happened.

Your naive interpretation is thin and transparent.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight could have stepped in at any time and stopped Fannie and Freddie from buying subprime loans. It didn't take a new act of congress, and the executive branch has control of the office. They sat by because Bush was a believer in the free market's ability to guide itself (i.e. he doesn't believe in regulation). This is what got Freddie and Fannie in trouble.

However Freddie and Fannie really weren't the big problem. Even though they are by far the largest purchaser of mortgages in the secondary market, they needed only a fifth of the bailout.

Your allusion to the Community Reinvestment Act is similarly trite. CRA compliant lenders have a lower rate of default and CRA loans remain less risky in the current market than the scores of non-CRA "no doc" loans made.

The republican government from 2000-2006, when nearly all of these loans were made, is largely to blame for the subprime mess.

 

[Jackinbox78]

The US economy has been on life support for the last 8 years: ridiculously low interest rates, record deficits and negative saving. It was a borrowed economy all along. The housing boom has been created to substain the economy. It was fun for a while but the party is over.

 

[jamesrwright3]

]Your naive interpretation is thin and transparent.

Nope it is not. My interpretation is supported by facts and research.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight could have stepped in at any time and stopped Fannie and Freddie from buying subprime loans.

Evidence?

It didn't take a new act of congress, and the executive branch has control of the office. They sat by because Bush was a believer in the free market's ability to guide itself (i.e. he doesn't believe in regulation). This is what got Freddie and Fannie in trouble.

Sorry not supported by the evidence. Bush warned against the practices going on at Freddie/Fannie and pushed for Congress to reform. There wouldn't have been the need for Congress to pass reforms of Freddie/Fannie if Bush could do it on his own..and if Bush could have done it on his own, he would have. He can only enforce the laws passed by Congress..and he was not able to do anything with the laws on the books.

However Freddie and Fannie really weren't the big problem. Even though they are by far the largest purchaser of mortgages in the secondary market, they needed only a fifth of the bailout.

Yes, but they were the straw that broke the camel's back. Without their participation and their risky behavior..being under capitalized..because they knew they had an implicit guarantee of a bailout..it would have never happened.

made.

The republican government from 2000-2006, when nearly all of these loans were made, is largely to blame for the subprime mess.

LOL what a joke. Even Bill Clinton said the Dems IN CONGRESS hold a lot of the blame for blocking Freddie/Fannie reform. The Executive did not have the power to stop the practices without Congress acting unless you are disagreeing with two Presidents..Bush and Clinton..who may know more about what they can and can't do than you do..

Checkmate. You lose

 

[jamesrwright3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2TT4jrIIak

 

[blueapplepaste]

No, the economy hasn't been that good. It was propped up by the housing market. Wages remain unchanged, while prices have skyrocketed. The rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer. Bush and the Republican Congress' policies were a facade and now we're reaping the consequences of them

 

[BlessEwe]

James I have always enjoyed reading your political views over the years. And I admire the way you continue to stand up for Bush even after so many in his own party have turned their backs on him. We may be on different sides but I see a true supporter till the end.

 

[jamesrwright3]

No, the economy hasn't been that good. It was propped up by the housing market. Wages remain unchanged, while prices have skyrocketed. The rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer. Bush and the Republican Congress' policies were a facade and now we're reaping the consequences of them

It has been good. It has not been horrible. Most of the downward pressure on wages has been because of globalization..not because of any domestic policies. Prices skyrocketed THIS year because of the external supply shock. Neither the downward pressure on wages nor inflation has been caused by any Bush policy.

 

[jamesrwright3]

James I have always enjoyed reading your political views over the years. And I admire the way you continue to stand up for Bush even after so many in his own party have turned their backs on him. We may be on different sides but I see a true supporter till the end.

I am not even saying I am a George Bush fan..I think he spends like a Democrat..but to say the whole economic mess is his fault is really telling a boldfaced lie..but I guess we should be used to that with our politicians.

 

[jamesrwright3]

And I guess Alan Greenspan has no idea what he is talking about when he said CONGRESS imposes greater oversight

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2004-02-24-fannie-freddie_x.htm

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Tuesday that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could pose a threat to the U.S. financial system unless Congress imposes tighter oversight and limits on their growth.

 

[Jackinbox78]

It has been good. It has not been horrible. Most of the downward pressure on wages has been because of globalization..not because of any domestic policies. Prices skyrocketed THIS year because of the external supply shock. Neither the downward pressure on wages nor inflation has been caused by any Bush policy.

You forget the drop of the US dollar encouraged by low interest rates. That's the main cause for the inflation. The rise of the price of oil was in large part cause by the drop of the dollar. Iran (and Irak under Saddam) wanted to sell their oil under another currency from the US dollar for a reason.

Of course you could argue that Bush didn't control the interest rates but we know very well that Greenspan is a republican. Bush was more than happy to have low interest rates to finance its wars and maintain the illusion of prosperity. If wise economic policies had been in place, this period of low interest rates would have been used to bring the economy on track, do massive investment that would have pay back instead of building house and buying plasma TVs. The Fed had to cut the interest rates again today. It's now at another historic low.

 

[Jackinbox78]

And I guess Alan Greenspan has no idea what he is talking about when he said CONGRESS imposes greater oversight

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2004-02-24-fannie-freddie_x.htm

That's the guy that said two weeks ago that he found a flaw in his model of how the world is working. He realized that the invisible hand of capitalism is sometime a bit slow to react and when it does, it can react more than we expected. In other words, the financial system cannot self-regulate. When a CEO earns $40 millions despite putting the institution at risk of collapsing, don't expect some kind of restraint. With low interest rates and lack of regulations, CEO paid themselves a huge party. This party is over and the taxpayers will have to clean the mess.

 

[jamesrwright3]

You forget the drop of the US dollar encouraged by low interest rates. That's the main cause for the inflation. The rise of the price of oil was in large part cause by the drop of the dollar. Iran (and Irak under Saddam) wanted to sell their oil under another currency from the US dollar for a reason.

Of course you could argue that Bush didn't control the interest rates but we know very well that Greenspan is a republican. Bush was more than happy to have low interest rates to finance its wars and maintain the illusion of prosperity. If wise economic policies had been in place, this period of low interest rates would have been used to bring the economy on track, do massive investment that would have pay back instead of building house and buying plasma TVs. The Fed had to cut the interest rates again today. It's now at another historic low.

I agree that low interest rates had a lot to do with it, but that constituted only 30% of the increase. We can debate Greenspan all day, but I think he is non-partisan..Bill Clinton appointed him as well. I agree we have been living beyond our means, but the United States population may need to get used to having some down quarters of GDP so we can get back on a solid growth path instead of consumption based growth. However, I am not sure how possible that will be with today's media..people think this is the worst crisis since the Great Depression..I know it's bad, but we won't hit unemployement rates anywhere near what we had during the early 80's. We gotta stop using hyperbole and scaring people have to death.

 

[Jackinbox78]

I agree that low interest rates had a lot to do with it, but that constituted only 30% of the increase. We can debate Greenspan all day, but I think he is non-partisan..Bill Clinton appointed him as well. I agree we have been living beyond our means, but the United States population may need to get used to having some down quarters of GDP so we can get back on a solid growth path instead of consumption based growth. However, I am not sure how possible that will be with today's media..people think this is the worst crisis since the Great Depression..I know it's bad, but we won't hit unemployement rates anywhere near what we had during the early 80's. We gotta stop using hyperbole and scaring people have to death.

Then we agree on a lot of things about this financial crisis. The Great Depression comparison holds only for the financial market but not for the state of the economy as a whole. I don't think it's a bad thing that people might be scared because they might accept it better if the government take some drastic steps to get the country out of this mess. Of course, I'm a believer in the New Deal so we might disagree on the steps to be taken. A 21 Century New Deal would be different. I would push for huge spending in R&D and Education. Something could be done with the healthcare system too but that would be tricky.

 

[invisible trousers]

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

The situation we're in now is actually worse than the Great Depression. The only difference is that the effects haven't been widely distributed. Yet.

Back in the 1930s, we still had abundant natural resources and an industrial base. Now, in the name of globalization, we allowed our industrial base to be eviscerated, and in the name of free markets and consumption like there's no tomorrow, we've burned through the cheap oil and are now looking at a 9% annual decline in global production starting next year.

The temporary plunge in oil prices has taken the economy off the chopping block for now, but it can't last. I'm seeing the second or third quarter of 2009 as when the wheels begin to seriously come off of the United States economy. Oil prices will begin to surge, and all the bailout money the Fed and Treasury can print without the rest of the world perforating the dollar and putting it on a roll will have been burned through. At that point, we can either go out like Zimbabwe and crank up the printing-presses, or we can have what I call "suckflation": anything oil-based surges in price as trillions of dollars are sucked out the other end of the economy as investments shrivel and jobs vanish in waves.

 

[DZoolander]

Does anyone know of any statistics on what percentage of those that defaulted on their mortgages were owing on their primary residence - versus what percentage were speculators?

For example - I have two guys I know that were impacted by this... Neither one of them purchased the home/homes to be their primary residence though. They had these aspirations of using them as income properties and/or flipping them after doing some HGTV type work on them. Neither one actually panned out the way they thought it would - and eventually they got caught by the increased rates due to the ARM they'd signed up with.

Does anyone know if there are any studies which show the proportion of those types of people relative to those that were innocetly/stupidly buying primary residences they couldn't afford and not understanding the ARMs?