badlatitude

Obama Tweets, Trump Freaks, The Press Fact-Checks

Recommended Posts

Well, Who did it better?

"On Monday, former president Barack Obama commemorated the 11th anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the $800 billion stimulus, with a tweet, boasting that it paved “the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history.”

 

Obama’s tweet did not sit well with President Trump, who brags constantly about being responsible for the “greatest economy in the history of our country” and has touted economic growth as a main talking point in his bid for reelection.

Trump fired off back-to-back tweets Monday evening, writing, “Did you hear the latest con job? President Obama is now trying to take credit for the Economic Boom taking place under the Trump Administration.”

 

Trump went on to attack Obama for having the “WEAKEST recovery since the Great Depression,” adding, “NOW best jobs numbers ever.” The president concluded his missives with an all-caps declaration: “THE BEST IS YET TO COME. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”

AD
 
 

Monday’s Twitter spat sparked an online frenzy among supporters of Trump and Obama over who should get credit for the current robust economy, which grew 2.3 percent in 2019, according to federal data released last month.

Conservatives, including prominent commentators and at least two Republican lawmakers, backed Trump and echoed his criticisms of Obama. An October 2019 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 44 percent of Americans said the economy had improved under Trump. Within that group, about 4 in 5 said Trump deserves at least a good amount of the credit.

 

“President Trump reversed every single failed Obama-era economic policy, and with it, reversed the floundering Obama/Biden economy," Kayleigh McEnany, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, said in a statement emailed to The Washington Post early Tuesday.

“Obama and [former vice president Joe Biden] orchestrated the worst economic recovery in modern history,” McEnany said, later adding: “It’s no wonder Democrats seek to take credit for the Trump economy after eight years of betraying blue collar workers and inflicting pain upon the middle class as Americans everywhere suffered. But the failed days of Democrat stagnation are over, and the soaring Trump economy is here to stay.”

 

Meanwhile, Democrats rallied behind Obama, praising the Recovery Act and launching the trending hashtag “#ObamaWasBetterAtEverything.”

 

“THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA!” tweeted Scott Dworkin, co-founder of the super PAC Democratic Coalition. “A REAL president.”

 

This isn’t the first time Trump and Obama have taken aim at each other in public over the economy. Trump has repeatedly attacked his predecessor on Twitter and crowed that the economy is now the “best,” “strongest” and “greatest” the United States has ever seen. On the other hand, Obama has argued that Trump inherited the strong economy created by his administration.

“When I walked into office 10 years ago, we were in the middle of the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes,” Obama said during a 2018 campaign rally for Nevada Democrats. “That was the last time that the other party was in charge of things.”

 

“By the time I left office, wages were rising, uninsurance rate was falling, poverty was falling and that’s what I handed off to the next guy,” Obama continued. “So when you hear all of his talk about economic miracles right now, remember who started it.”

 

Among those rising to Obama’s provocation Monday were Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and actor James Woods, a prominent pro-Trump tweeter.

Scalise highlighted a well-known quote by Obama from his 2012 presidential campaign, tweeting, “I believe the saying is: ‘You didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.’ @realDonaldTrump made that happen.”

“The notion that you did anything but destroy this nation’s economy is beyond hilarious,” Woods tweeted, referencing Obama’s post.

 
 

But as conservatives and Trump went after Obama, a handful of journalists fact-checked the president’s tweets.

NBC News senior business correspondent Stephanie Ruhle tweeted that growth of the country’s gross domestic product hit 4 percent four times during the Obama administration and unemployment rates dropped 2.5 percent — accomplishments that have not been matched under Trump.

 
 

In fact, a number of Trump’s flattering assessments of the economy have not been supported by data, despite unemployment rates being at a 50-year low, steady economic growth and high consumer confidence, The Post’s Heather Long reported.

“The broad consensus among economists is that the U.S. economy is doing well, but these are not unprecedented times,” Long wrote, noting that “where Trump goes too far is in touting this economy as the ‘best ever’ and trying to portray the end of the Obama era as dire and himself as the hero flying in on the Trump jet to save the day.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/02/18/trump-obama-economy/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am absolutely shocked that Trump would take credit for someone else's achievements...shocked!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jacksparrow said:

I am absolutely shocked that Trump would take credit for someone else's achievements...shocked!

"All the credit, none of the blame." Trump University, School of Economics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah Obama never thought he was poking a nest with a stick ......much .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy will be along shortly to complain about the Kenyan's arrogance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I book mark this really funny exchange

the facts mean bollick all to the white house

as an old hack these fibbing dissembling fekkers really get my goat

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Where's the @Dog? @chinabald? The rest of the elk?

I think they are out formulating an excuse for when Trump Resorts declares bankruptcy shortly after Trump is out of office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is very unpresidential for the fella with the thought provoking Birth Certificate to use Twitter. Presidents should be above such silliness. It is reprehensible and a disaster. Many people are saying it, this I can tell you. Belief me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I think they are out formulating an excuse for when Trump Resorts declares bankruptcy shortly after Trump is out of office.

He will claim that he has dementia and should not be prosecuted for anything

he is an Adderall adict for sure

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dylan winter said:

He will claim that he has dementia and should not be prosecuted for anything

he is an aderol adict for sure

 

No, that can’t be. That would be a sign of weakness from the Strongest Man in the Republican Party. It is possible that Adderall is addicted to him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dylan winter said:

He will claim that he has dementia and should not be prosecuted for anything

he is an aderol adict for sure

 

He's been an Adderall addict for a long time, the old ticker can't handle that shit at his age. I expect he'll drop before long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

He's been an Adderall addict for a long time, the old ticker can't handle that shit at his age. I expect he'll drop before long.

I’m just over here waiting for a pot of water to boil and drinking a Yoo Hoo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is madder than a badger.

"In an apparently successful attempt to get under the skin of Donald Trump, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has purchased Greenland from Denmark.

In an official statement released on Tuesday, the Prime Minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, would not disclose the price that Bloomberg paid for Greenland but indicated that it was an “all-cash offer.” “Mr. Bloomberg has a lot of money,” Frederiksen added.

News of Bloomberg’s purchase of Greenland reportedly infuriated Trump, who immediately ordered his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to make an offer to buy the Faroe Islands from Denmark. Within minutes, however, Denmark rebuffed Kushner’s bid. “We do not believe Donald Trump is capable of running the Faroe Islands,” Frederiksen said.

As for Bloomberg, his campaign released a brief statement about the historic purchase of the 836,330-square-mile landmass, saying only, “Mike gets it done.”

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/bloomberg-enrages-trump-by-buying-greenland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I’m just over here waiting for a pot of water to boil and drinking a Yoo Hoo. 

Ah, yes, A Yoo Hoo. I better go get a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only one thing to say really.

 

Thanks Obama!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

There's only one thing to say really.

 

Thanks Obama!

A true classic. Jenna Marbles auditions for Foxy News. 
 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The recovery would have been faster and stronger if the Republicans hadn't done everything to block it - without Bush's actions before leaving we would likely still be living in a world of hurt.  That had to do it so they could whine and complain everyday about the weak recovery.  It's still your fathers GOP.

Thanks Obama!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

A true classic. Jenna Marbles auditions for Foxy News. 
 

 

 

I didn't notice her alcohol stash before. Party girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Where's the @Dog? @chinabald? The rest of the elk?

Well since I have always said that Obama did a pretty good job with the economy considering where it was when he took office. What did you expect me to say here? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Well since I have always said that Obama did a pretty good job with the economy considering where it was when he took office. What did you expect me to say here? 

 

Na, na, nanna, na na, Hey  hey JUDE!  Yeah Jude you know you can make it now! Na, na, na, nanna na, yeah! Jude! Come on you know you can make it now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, No, No - Trump deserves all the credit.

Look at this graph - see that big spike when Trumps policies started affecting the economy?

image.thumb.png.492acd85717aed54eb1fefdeed6d2b58.png

But the morons will eat it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Na, na, nanna, na na, Hey  hey JUDE!  Yeah Jude you know you can make it now! Na, na, na, nanna na, yeah! Jude! Come on you know you can make it now!

Wrong country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pun Slinger said:

I have 666 downvotes and almost that many sockpuppets 

42491C10-86DF-4DB4-B9E5-D67E0E01A443.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

No, No, No - Trump deserves all the credit.

Look at this graph - see that big spike when Trumps policies started affecting the economy?

image.thumb.png.492acd85717aed54eb1fefdeed6d2b58.png

But the morons will eat it up.

But... But.... from the graph it appears that the choice of president doesn't matter much to our GDP growth.  How can that POSSIBLY be?  Does that mean that a president's real legacy is his social programs, environmental regulation, and government budget?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, d'ranger said:

The recovery would have been faster and stronger if the Republicans hadn't done everything to block it - without Bush's actions before leaving we would likely still be living in a world of hurt.  That had to do it so they could whine and complain everyday about the weak recovery.  It's still your fathers GOP.

Thanks Obama!

Everything would be great if those guys would just abandon their priorities and let me get what I want.   Gotcha. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Everything would be great if those guys would just abandon their priorities and let me get what I want.   Gotcha. 

When the USA and thus the world's economy is on the precipice? Sure, there are times when one should put the country before the party.  Well, there used to be.

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Everything would be great if those guys would just abandon their priorities and let me get what I want.   Gotcha. 

Do you agree with the priority of "doing everything in our power to ensure Obama is a one-term President" including things that blatantly harm the US nationl interest, as well as things that are detrimental to the majority of citizens?

The Republican Party wanted to stage a hostile take-over of the USA. Trump staged a hostile take-over of the Republican Party and brought in just enough irrational voters to put them over the top, for one cycle. Combined with the already-in-place Republican domination of state houses across the country, that may be enough to declare "game over" and lock in one-party rule... for as long as they can keep the lid on by whatever means necessary

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, atyourcervix said:

ERA7-S-q-U8-AEHun6.jpg

By what metric would you prefer we measure "economy"?  Please be specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Everything would be great if those guys would just abandon their priorities and let me get what I want.   Gotcha. 

Republicans willingly abandoned those principles when Trump took office and are running record deficits. So you know maybe “fiscal responsibility” isn’t something actually believed in.

But I’ll grant you Republicans like making people feel pain, especially if they aren’t in the 1%, and that was the goal. Pointless economic misery so “the betters” can feel even better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Do you agree with the priority of "doing everything in our power to ensure Obama is a one-term President" including things that blatantly harm the US nationl interest, as well as things that are detrimental to the majority of citizens?

The Republican Party wanted to stage a hostile take-over of the USA. Trump staged a hostile take-over of the Republican Party and brought in just enough irrational voters to put them over the top, for one cycle. Combined with the already-in-place Republican domination of state houses across the country, that may be enough to declare "game over" and lock in one-party rule... for as long as they can keep the lid on by whatever means necessary

- DSK

I actually don't have any problem w/the opposition party wanting ANY President to be a 1-term president.   It's no secret that I don't like the ACA, and don't think that something that's that big a part of our national economy should have been rushed and pushed thru in such cruddy form simply for partisan gain.   I don't agree with the R approach of simply NOT governing, rather than working together w/the Ds on the things in which there was agreement, and making Pres Obama a 1-term president because they actually did more for the country than he did.    

That said?   I've not heard anything from anyone besides  Pete Buttigieg on the D side that gives me hope for anything other than "F*ck you - it's OUR turn to drive now".    IMHO, we ought to all be tired of that stupidity, and looking forward instead to something that does work for everyone, and to stop treating our neighbors like they are mortal enemies.   There are enough truly bad people in the world, we don't need to unnecessarily create more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That said?   I've not heard anything from anyone besides  Pete Buttigieg on the D side that gives me hope for anything other than "F*ck you - it's OUR turn to drive now".    IMHO, we ought to all be tired of that stupidity, and looking forward instead to something that does work for everyone, and to stop treating our neighbors like they are mortal enemies.   There are enough truly bad people in the world, we don't need to unnecessarily create more. 

Oh fuck off with this tired shit. If you haven’t heard it’s because you are lazy, or because you’ll never actually be happy with a Democrat ever. And that’s your fault, and your problem. The Dem field runs from former Republican centrist to self described socialist. That’s a big swathe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I actually don't have any problem w/the opposition party wanting ANY President to be a 1-term president.   It's no secret that I don't like the ACA, and don't think that something that's that big a part of our national economy should have been rushed and pushed thru in such cruddy form simply for partisan gain.   I don't agree with the R approach of simply NOT governing, rather than working together w/the Ds on the things in which there was agreement, and making Pres Obama a 1-term president because they actually did more for the country than he did.    

That said?   I've not heard anything from anyone besides  Pete Buttigieg on the D side that gives me hope for anything other than "F*ck you - it's OUR turn to drive now".    IMHO, we ought to all be tired of that stupidity, and looking forward instead to something that does work for everyone, and to stop treating our neighbors like they are mortal enemies.   There are enough truly bad people in the world, we don't need to unnecessarily create more. 

Sure. That's sort of the purpose of political parties.

To what extent do you go, furthering that goal? Taking money from foreign parties? Taking money from outright enemies? Promising policy favors to enemies in exchange for money and active interference in the election (this is where Trump was in 2016, with the knowledge and approval and cooperation of McConnell)?

The only step down from there, that I see, is seeking military intervention by a foreign power.

One reason you haven't "heard anything" hopeful from any D candidate is that you're listening to rightie-slanted sources. The same ones who told you what a dunce Obama is, and how poor of a speaker he was.

Right now in 2020, we need to exercise democracy if we're going to keep it... it's down to the point where we might not have it any more, anyway.

- DSK

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sure. That's sort of the purpose of political parties.

To what extent do you go, furthering that goal? Taking money from foreign parties? Taking money from outright enemies? Promising policy favors to enemies in exchange for money and active interference in the election (this is where Trump was in 2016, with the knowledge and approval and cooperation of McConnell)?

The only step down from there, that I see, is seeking military intervention by a foreign power.

One reason you haven't "heard anything" hopeful from any D candidate is that you're listening to rightie-slanted sources. The same ones who told you what a dunce Obama is, and how poor of a speaker he was.

Right now in 2020, we need to exercise democracy if we're going to keep it... it's down to the point where we might not have it any more, anyway.

- DSK

Pretty big assumption - and I actually formed most of my opinion listening to the candidates themselves, but, hey - you're still big into the vilification narrative, so you have fun with that.   I will say that nobody was talking about impeaching Obama before he even took office - so the Ds get to own that lovely piece of escalation, and won't have a thing to complain about when that's turned around against the eventual D nominee.  

To the rest?  It seems that Mme Clinton was quite willing to pay for "opposition research" from "outright enemies" - so, yeah, the question of where to draw the line is valid.  If you really want to know where I think it should be, ask - I'll tell ya what I think and why. 

 

Edited to add:  Overlooked the last sentence, apologies. To that?  I think that you're right - I can't see any rational person disagreeing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sure. That's sort of the purpose of political parties.

To what extent do you go, furthering that goal? Taking money from foreign parties? Taking money from outright enemies? Promising policy favors to enemies in exchange for money and active interference in the election (this is where Trump was in 2016, with the knowledge and approval and cooperation of McConnell)?

The only step down from there, that I see, is seeking military intervention by a foreign power.

One reason you haven't "heard anything" hopeful from any D candidate is that you're listening to rightie-slanted sources. The same ones who told you what a dunce Obama is, and how poor of a speaker he was.

Right now in 2020, we need to exercise democracy if we're going to keep it... it's down to the point where we might not have it any more, anyway.

- DSK

He hits 3 hours of right wing radio a day.  We should buy him some books-on-tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
34 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Do you agree with the priority of "doing everything in our power to ensure Obama is a one-term President" including things that blatantly harm the US nationl interest, as well as things that are detrimental to the majority of citizens?

The Republican Party wanted to stage a hostile take-over of the USA. Trump staged a hostile take-over of the Republican Party and brought in just enough irrational voters to put them over the top, for one cycle. Combined with the already-in-place Republican domination of state houses across the country, that may be enough to declare "game over" and lock in one-party rule... for as long as they can keep the lid on by whatever means necessary

- DSK

I actually don't have any problem w/the opposition party wanting ANY President to be a 1-term president.   It's no secret that I don't like the ACA, and don't think that something that's that big a part of our national economy should have been rushed and pushed thru in such cruddy form simply for partisan gain.   I don't agree with the R approach of simply NOT governing, rather than working together w/the Ds on the things in which there was agreement, and making Pres Obama a 1-term president because they actually did more for the country than he did.    

That said?   I've not heard anything from anyone besides  Pete Buttigieg on the D side that gives me hope for anything other than "F*ck you - it's OUR turn to drive now".    IMHO, we ought to all be tired of that stupidity, and looking forward instead to something that does work for everyone, and to stop treating our neighbors like they are mortal enemies.   There are enough truly bad people in the world, we don't need to unnecessarily create more. 

If it were simply an "opposition party wanting ANY President to be a 1-term President", that would be one thing.

In this case, Majority Leader McConnell said "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

No legislation to further the interests of the USA.  No legislation to increase jobs or reduce spending.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.  Nothing but "Get him out!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Pretty big assumption - and I actually formed most of my opinion listening to the candidates themselves, but, hey - you're still big into the vilification narrative, so you have fun with that.   I will say that nobody was talking about impeaching Obama before he even took office - so the Ds get to own that lovely piece of escalation, and won't have a thing to complain about when that's turned around against the eventual D nominee.  

To the rest?  It seems that Mme Clinton was quite willing to pay for "opposition research" from "outright enemies" - so, yeah, the question of where to draw the line is valid.  If you really want to know where I think it should be, ask - I'll tell ya what I think and why. 

No but TeamR! certainly were talking that way about Hillary, when she was expected to win (2016). Perhaps you feel that's right and good, and the way it should be, whereas those goddam fag-libbyrull Dems must stick to a higher standard?

If you're listening to the candidates themselves, that's good. There is a lot of rhetoric about "we must defeat Trump" but none about retribution or sticking it to the Rs!"  that I've heard.

1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

He hits 3 hours of right wing radio a day.  We should buy him some books-on-tape.

IIRC AGITC has said he listens to NPR a lot, which is not what it used to be. IMHO they're producing more and more rightie-slanted 'news' by the week. That's where the money is. I used to jokingly call it "Communist Mouthpiece Snooze" Radio but those days are gone.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

He hits 3 hours of right wing radio a day.  We should buy him some books-on-tape.

Of course, dear.   you've heard me quote so much of that, haven't you?  That your comment is pure fabrication won't stop you from proffering it as "the truth" though, will it?  ( btw - it's 4 + hours in the car ) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Pretty big assumption - and I actually formed most of my opinion listening to the candidates themselves, but, hey - you're still big into the vilification narrative, so you have fun with that.   I will say that nobody was talking about impeaching Obama before he even took office - so the Ds get to own that lovely piece of escalation, and won't have a thing to complain about when that's turned around against the eventual D nominee.  

To the rest?  It seems that Mme Clinton was quite willing to pay for "opposition research" from "outright enemies" - so, yeah, the question of where to draw the line is valid.  If you really want to know where I think it should be, ask - I'll tell ya what I think and why. 

 

Edited to add:  Overlooked the last sentence, apologies. To that?  I think that you're right - I can't see any rational person disagreeing. 

Mme Clinton bought a product from a private party... a product that was commissioned by a Republican opponent of Trump, and then shopped around further... a perfectly good capitalistic deal.

Team Trump, having hired guys who were outright working for the benefit of Putin/Russia, then got on board with major resources of the Russian state being deployed to get him elected.

Is there something other than " B-b-but Hillary!"  that you wanted to say on this topic?

And thank you for the agreement. IMHO we agree on a lot of things except where the facts take us to places you refuse to go because it's just too libby-rull, or something.

- DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course, dear.   you've heard me quote so much of that, haven't you?  That your comment is pure fabrication won't stop you from proffering it as "the truth" though, will it?  ( btw - it's 4 + hours in the car ) 

 

If I was 4 hours in the car daily, I'd be butthurt too. Literally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

If I was 4 hours in the car daily, I'd be butthurt too. Literally. 

I don't like it much, but, I can't fuss too much, it WAS my choice to trade acreage for convenience. I think my wife's ready to be closer than 30 minutes to town once we can recover from the bottom falling out of our local real estate market 12 years ago.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sure. That's sort of the purpose of political parties.

To what extent do you go, furthering that goal? Taking money from foreign parties? Taking money from outright enemies? Promising policy favors to enemies in exchange for money and active interference in the election (this is where Trump was in 2016, with the knowledge and approval and cooperation of McConnell)?

The only step down from there, that I see, is seeking military intervention by a foreign power.

One reason you haven't "heard anything" hopeful from any D candidate is that you're listening to rightie-slanted sources. The same ones who told you what a dunce Obama is, and how poor of a speaker he was.

Right now in 2020, we need to exercise democracy if we're going to keep it... it's down to the point where we might not have it any more, anyway.

- DSK

The US political system was not set to work with a powerful party system.  It structurally has a problem with only two parties that are very tribal and diametrically opposed.  I think there have to be some Constitutional changes such as curtailment of Presidential emergency powers or the forced emergence of a third party before the government will make sense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Bless your heart. 

That expression makes you sound like an old woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Everything would be great if those guys would just abandon their priorities and let me get what I want.   Gotcha. 

That comment is worthy of Wardodo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Everything would be great if those guys would just abandon their priorities and let me get what I want.   Gotcha. 

That comment is worthy of Wardodo.

Show me it's wrong, and I'll listen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Show me it's wrong, and I'll listen.  

Adding to my post 32 - remember the outcry about Government Motors? If the GOP had their way it would have failed taking down the auto industry with it and allowing Japan, Korea and whoever else to scoop up the industry at fire sale prices while millions more jobs would have been lost. As it turned out the Feds made a profit on it - this is just one more example of why stimulus avoids a repeat of 1929. I do give Bush credit for making this possible although twas a bit late.

And since you mentioned the meltdown 12 years ago I should point out that some conditions that caused it - deficit spending and artificially low interest rates were major contributors. Sooner or later we will see another recession since the party doesn't go on forever and the road really does end.  We should be paying down not spending up.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Adding to my post 32 - remember the outcry about Government Motors? If the GOP had their way it would have failed taking down the auto industry with it and allowing Japan, Korea and whoever else to scoop up the industry at fire sale prices while millions more jobs would have been lost. As it turned out the Feds made a profit on it - this is just one more example of why stimulus avoids a repeat of 1929. I do give Bush credit for making this possible although twas a bit late.

 And since you mentioned the meltdown 12 years ago I should point out that some conditions that caused it - deficit spending and artificially low interest rates were major contributors. Sooner or later we will see another recession since the party doesn't go on forever and the road really does end.  We should be paying down not spending up.

Monetizing bad loans that were pushed by the Feds on people who really couldn't afford them resulting in unsustainable housing price inflation had a good bit to do with that too. 

EVERYBODY oughta be doing that 'til we're "paid off".  That's not how folks are told to act by the commercials, though, is it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

bad loans that were pushed by the Feds on people who really couldn't afford them resulting in unsustainable housing price inflation

I"m always amazed at how powerful the "feds" are. Non-creditworthy people in Spain, Italy, Greece, all across Europe, in Indonesia, Australia, etc all took out these bad loans! Crazy!

 

That's the extension of the logic you are pushing. It doesn't hold water. There's not a single data point to support it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Monetizing bad loans that were pushed by the Feds on people who really couldn't afford them resulting in unsustainable housing price inflation had a good bit to do with that too. 

EVERYBODY oughta be doing that 'til we're "paid off".  That's not how folks are told to act by the commercials, though, is it? 

Utter and complete bullshit

Lack of bank regulation was the biggest culprit. Or perhaps you can identify which Federal agency was originating and "pushing" these loans?

- DSK

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

Utter and complete bullshit

Lack of bank regulation was the biggest culprit. Or perhaps you can identify which Federal agency was originating and "pushing" these loans?

- DSK

You say it's utter bullshit?   I say that the push from the federal government, it's lending brokers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, coupled with the voracious appetite for any real-estate collateralized debt, including, as I said previously, the monetization of that debt ( the de-regulation - oh wait, where did THAT come from if not the federal government that allowed that to happen) encouraged sub-prime lending without regard to the individual's ability to satisfy the debt.   

I'll let you read the cites in the Wiki page, and point out anything in there that refutes my assertion. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

"Franklin Raines earned $90 million in salary and bonuses while he was head of Fannie Mae.[270]
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that purchase mortgages, buy and sell mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and guarantee nearly half of the mortgages in the U.S. A variety of political and competitive pressures resulted in the GSEs ramping up their purchase and guarantee of risky mortgages in 2005 and 2006, just as the housing market was peaking.[271][272] Fannie and Freddie were both under political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk affordable housing mortgage types, and under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders.[273]

As early as February 2004, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, Alan Greenspan (chairman of the Federal Reserve) raised serious concerns regarding the systemic financial risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac represented. He implored Congress to take actions to avert a crisis.[274] The GSEs dispute these studies and dismissed Greenspan's testimony."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flash - quote's not working correctly right now, so I'll extend the same invitation to you - if you think my claims are fabricated, then you prove me wrong.  I don't think you can, I think that this is just another instance of your "I hate everything that guy says, so I'll keep flinging shit until I get something to stick". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You say it's utter bullshit?   I say that the push from the federal government, it's lending brokers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, coupled with the voracious appetite for any real-estate collateralized debt, including, as I said previously, the monetization of that debt ( the de-regulation - oh wait, where did THAT come from if not the federal government that allowed that to happen) encouraged sub-prime lending without regard to the individual's ability to satisfy the debt.   

I'll let you read the cites in the Wiki page, and point out anything in there that refutes my assertion. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

"Franklin Raines earned $90 million in salary and bonuses while he was head of Fannie Mae.[270]
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that purchase mortgages, buy and sell mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and guarantee nearly half of the mortgages in the U.S. A variety of political and competitive pressures resulted in the GSEs ramping up their purchase and guarantee of risky mortgages in 2005 and 2006, just as the housing market was peaking.[271][272] Fannie and Freddie were both under political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk affordable housing mortgage types, and under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders.[273]

As early as February 2004, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, Alan Greenspan (chairman of the Federal Reserve) raised serious concerns regarding the systemic financial risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac represented. He implored Congress to take actions to avert a crisis.[274] The GSEs dispute these studies and dismissed Greenspan's testimony."

 

You're initial statement was that these loans were pushed on people.

NOTHING in the quoted text proves or describes any loan being 'pushed' on people.  It just paints the picture of a horribly under-regulated branch of the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You say it's utter bullshit?   I say that the push from the federal government, it's lending brokers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, coupled with the voracious appetite for any real-estate collateralized debt, including, as I said previously, the monetization of that debt ( the de-regulation - oh wait, where did THAT come from if not the federal government that allowed that to happen) encouraged sub-prime lending without regard to the individual's ability to satisfy the debt.   

I'll let you read the cites in the Wiki page, and point out anything in there that refutes my assertion. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

"Franklin Raines earned $90 million in salary and bonuses while he was head of Fannie Mae.[270]
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that purchase mortgages, buy and sell mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and guarantee nearly half of the mortgages in the U.S. A variety of political and competitive pressures resulted in the GSEs ramping up their purchase and guarantee of risky mortgages in 2005 and 2006, just as the housing market was peaking.[271][272] Fannie and Freddie were both under political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk affordable housing mortgage types, and under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders.[273]

As early as February 2004, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, Alan Greenspan (chairman of the Federal Reserve) raised serious concerns regarding the systemic financial risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac represented. He implored Congress to take actions to avert a crisis.[274] The GSEs dispute these studies and dismissed Greenspan's testimony."

 

The refuting part is bolded above... this was a response to political pressure, mostly by guess who.

If you guessed lobbyists of the home mortgage industry, primarily privately owned mortgage originators and brokers (as differentiated from public banks) then you win a cookie.

Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac did not ORIGINATE shit. They started out offering to back up... ie buy up risk... mortgages in order to make it possible fore more Americans to afford to buy their own home. This started up a whole new gravy train, but where it went off the rails is in the should-have-been-regulated mortgage reselling market, and this is a big big part of what Greenspan (that noted leftist) was warning about.

Should Raines have pocketed 90mill$ ?? Fuck no IMHO but that was very small potatoes compared to what the private home equity market was generating.

 FMA and GMA were intended to backstop the home market, and got gamed, then when -that- proved obscenely lucrative, it was gamed even further to take risk public. Specifically, GMA and FMA did not sell the majority or the worst of the 'tranches' of mortgage-backed securities (and NONE of the outright fraudulent ones) that toppled the whole thing. They didn't even invent the idea. They were trying to do what they were supposed to do, which was backstop everyday Americans who want to buy a home.... supposedly the American Dream, remember?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Flash - quote's not working correctly right now, so I'll extend the same invitation to you - if you think my claims are fabricated, then you prove me wrong.  I don't think you can, I think that this is just another instance of your "I hate everything that guy says, so I'll keep flinging shit until I get something to stick". 

 

Sorry, that's not how it works. You make a claim, find some data to support it. Explaining how it was a worldwide crash when the two agencies only impacted the US market would get you extra credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Sorry, that's not how it works. You make a claim, find some data to support it. Explaining how it was a worldwide crash when the two agencies only impacted the US market would get you extra credit.

Imagine that's what I said - 

 

51 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Monetizing bad loans that were pushed by the Feds on people who really couldn't afford them resulting in unsustainable housing price inflation had a good bit to do with that too. 

This is what I said - and the cites I provided back that up.   SO - if you want to conflate world peace in there some way or another?   Go ahead.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

Sooner or later we will see another recession since the party doesn't go on forever and the road really does end.  We should be paying down not spending up.

Deficit spending is the Republican way!  The next recession will hurt simply because there are no tools to combat it.  Taxes were already cut, rates are already low, borrowing is already maxed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Deficit spending is the Republican way!  The next recession will hurt simply because there are no tools to combat it.  Taxes were already cut, rates are already low, borrowing is already maxed out.

Kill the Beast!

It's actually a strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Deficit spending is the Republican way!  The next recession will hurt simply because there are no tools to combat it.  Taxes were already cut, rates are already low, borrowing is already maxed out.

It is the "politician" way it seems.   I would hope this would be a subject of the current presidential debates (taking place in one party only) but it seems to not be important.  What does a bankrupt USA look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bridhb said:

It is the "politician" way it seems.   I would hope this would be a subject of the current presidential debates (taking place in one party only) but it seems to not be important.  What does a bankrupt USA look like?

Look around: crumbling infrastructure, skyrocketing homeless even in high growth times, dropping life expectancies, obesity epidemics, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Monetizing bad loans that were pushed by the Feds on people who really couldn't afford them resulting in unsustainable housing price inflation had a good bit to do with that too. 

EVERYBODY oughta be doing that 'til we're "paid off".  That's not how folks are told to act by the commercials, though, is it? 

Push by the Feds? I'm surprised you didn't bring up the ACORN chestnut. Pushed by your boy W with his Ownership Society malarky.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html

That was the cause of the meltdown.

image.png.c30f589ad5b70fe6da1cf2f156a175c3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Monetizing bad loans that were pushed by the Feds on people who really couldn't afford them resulting in unsustainable housing price inflation had a good bit to do with that too. 

This is what I said - and the cites I provided back that up.   SO - if you want to conflate world peace in there some way or another?   Go ahead.  

No, sorry.

What you're doing is trying to justify... one step removed... the lovely "blame-the-victim" rhetoric spouted by so many lesser righties.

See post #60 above. The Fed didn't push ANYthing. For one thing, GMA and FMA were both private entities not Federal agencies.

Your own post cites Greenspan pleading for more regulation, which is what I said caused the crisis... but hey, when was the last time -I- was right about anything..... :(

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The climb in foreclosures had NOTHING to do with people who couldn't afford the loans they had defaulting on them?   Those same loans that were indeed pushed by the 2 biggest, wait, how were they described - oh yeah, Government Sponsored Entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under POLITICAL PRESSURE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.    You can argue that the Pols were just doing the bidding of their banking/lobbyist masters, but, that supports rather than refutes my point.  

That's not the only cause - but, as I *did* say - it was a large contributor.  If you want to talk about proportionate blame - pull out your stats.  

As to HW Bush's ownership society?   Seems to me that that's something that the majority of you oughta be cheering for - I generally did. 

"

  • More Access and More Choices in Health Care. The President's goal is to ensure that Americans can choose and afford private health care coverage that best fits their individual needs. The U.S. health care system can provide the best care in the world, but rising costs and loss of control to government and health plan bureaucrats threaten to keep patients from getting state-of-the-art care. The President's agenda includes:
    • Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which combine low-cost, high-deductible health insurance with tax-free savings accounts to pay for health care expenses. The President has also proposed to make insurance premiums associated with HSAs tax deductible.
    • Association Health Plans (AHPs) to give America's working families greater access to affordable health insurance. By allowing small businesses to band together and negotiate on behalf of their employees and their families, AHPs would help small businesses and employees obtain health insurance at an affordable price, much like large employers and unions.
    • em>Strengthening Medicare. President Bush signed legislation in 2003 to establish a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Under this plan, private health plans will compete for seniors' business by providing better coverage at affordable prices--helping to control the costs of Medicare by using market-place competition, not government price-setting. And seniors will be able to choose the health care plan that best fits their needs--instead of having that choice made by the government.
  • Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush's initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:
    • American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
    • Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
    • Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
    • Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.
  • The Entrepreneurial Spirit of America: Providing Tax Relief to American Families and Small Businesses. President Bush acted promptly to help America's workers by providing tax relief to put more money in families' pockets and encourage businesses to grow and invest. Tax relief brought substantial savings to families and helped fight back the effects of the recession. America's families and small businesses have more money to spend, save, and invest because of the President's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. This year, 111 million taxpayers will receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,586 and 25 million small business owners will receive $75 billion in total tax relief.
    • The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the tax relief signed into law by the President in 2001, including marriage penalty relief, an increase in the child tax credit, and tax rate reductions for every family that pays income taxes.
    • The President's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts also provided new incentives for businesses, especially small businesses, to invest in plants and equipment and create new jobs.
  • President Bush has called on Congress to extend his tax relief plan set to expire next year. If Congress does not act, American families and businesses would see a tax increase starting next year, thereby hurting economic recovery and future job creation. Unless Congress takes action:
    • In 2006, the small business expensing limit will shrink from $100,000 to just $25,000, increasing the cost of capital investments for America's small businesses;
    • In 2009, the top tax rate on dividends will increase from 15 to 35 percent, while the tax on capital gains will climb from 15 to 20 percent, raising the tax burden on retirees and families investing for their future; and
    • In 2011, the tax rate relief, new 10-percent tax bracket, death tax repeal, marriage penalty relief, small business expensing, and all the remaining tax relief enacted over the past three years will sunset, resulting in tax increases for every individual American man or woman who pays income taxes.
  • Securing America's Retirement Future and Strengthening Social Security: President Bush is committed to ensuring that Social Security benefits are protected for all seniors, and allowing younger workers the option of investing in safe personal retirement accounts. Americans can also help secure their own future by saving, and President Bush has acted on policies that promote and protect saving.
  • Strengthening Social Security: Social Security has to be fixed for our children and grandchildren. Fifty years ago there were fifty workers paying into Social Security for every one person receiving benefits. Today there are 3.3 workers supporting each person on Social Security. By the time today's young workers retire, there will be only two. Young workers need the option to invest in retirement accounts that they will own and control. The President's plan to strengthen retirement security includes:
    • The President has proposed voluntary personal accounts for younger workers that would allow them to build a nest egg for retirement that they would own and control, and could pass on to their families. The President's vision for Social Security includes a permanently strengthened Social Security system, without changing benefits for those now in or near retirement, and without raising payroll taxes on workers. Inheritance rights in personal accounts would especially help widows who depend on Social Security.
    • The President appointed a bipartisan Commission that authored a report of recommendations to permanently fix Social Security according to the President's reform principles. Since the report of the President's Commission, six fully detailed proposals have been introduced in Congress to permanently fix Social Security, many of which adapt elements of the Commission recommendations. The President wants to work with Congress to build a consensus on the best elements of the many proposals that have been put forward. This will require leadership, bipartisanship, and public education.
    • Successfully fixing Social Security means that Americans who retire in 2035 will not have to use a system that was built for the world of 1935, but a system that has been modernized to meet the realities of the 21st Century.
  • Expanding Ownership of Retirement Assets: The tax relief legislation signed into law by the President provided almost $50 billion dollars of tax relief over the next ten years to strengthen retirement security. This landmark legislation raised the contribution limits for IRA and 401(k) accounts, allowed for additional "catch up" contributions for workers aged 50 and over, and speeded up the vesting process for employer contributions to 401(k) accounts.
  • New Savings Opportunities: The President has proposed to expand savings opportunities through the creation of Retirement Savings Accounts (RSAs) and Lifetime Savings Accounts (LSAs). RSAs would provide all Americans with an easy, tax-preferred way to prepare for retirement. LSAs would give all Americans the opportunity to save tax free to pay for job training, college tuition, the down-payment on a first home, a car to drive to work, or their retirement.
  • Ensuring Freedom of Choice: The President's proposal would ensure that workers who have participated in 401(k) plans for three years are given the freedom to choose where to invest their retirement savings. The President has also proposed that choice be a feature of Social Security itself, allowing individuals to voluntarily invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, sorry.

What you're doing is trying to justify... one step removed... the lovely "blame-the-victim" rhetoric spouted by so many lesser righties.

See post #60 above. The Fed didn't push ANYthing. For one thing, GMA and FMA were both private entities not Federal agencies.

 Your own post cites Greenspan pleading for more regulation, which is what I said caused the crisis... but hey, when was the last time -I- was right about anything..... :(

- DSK

Fannie May and Freddie Mac are GSEs - Govenrment Sponsored Entities - and the cites I offered support exactly what I said, and your quibbling to the contrary really doesn't support your assertions.  I've often asked, and ya sometimes do - go read what I wrote, and respond to that, instead of trying to diminish me by assigning meaning to my comments that it's obvious I didn't intend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Fannie May and Freddie Mac are GSEs - Govenrment Sponsored Entities - and the cites I offered support exactly what I said, and your quibbling to the contrary really doesn't support your assertions.  I've often asked, and ya sometimes do - go read what I wrote, and respond to that, instead of trying to diminish me by assigning meaning to my comments that it's obvious I didn't intend. 

You said that Federal agencies.... which is not the same thing as a GSE at all, they are private organizations with connections to federal underwriting... were pushing loans onto people who could not afford them.

If that is not what you're trying to say then this next sentence won't matter to you.

^ That ^  is false.

It's false for many reasons, primarily that those agencies DID NOT ORIGINATE LOANS, but secondarily because they are not Federal agencies; lastly because my point which is that the problem was lack of regulation (which includes enforcement of regulation) is what really caused the problem.

There were couple of contributing causes, primarily the deregulation of mortgage banking such that "lenders"  could originate loans with very sketchy documentation, and sell those mortgages under fraudulent circumstances.

The rate of default on mortgages NEVER reached the 'rational' level in other words many more people tried to keep up payments and keep their homes when it would have been to their benefit to walk away. That indicates to me that it was not poor people looking to take advantage.

Another input is the number of cash-out refis. I know a lot of people who bought boats they probably shouldn't have, because they could refinance their house at a lower rate and walk out with a ton o'  cash.

FWIW the gov't trying to make it easier for Americans to own a good house, "the ownership society" if you want to call it that, is a good idea, IMHO. But it should not be a bail-out for private banks.

-DSK

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You said that Federal agencies.... which is not the same thing as a GSE at all, they are private organizations with connections to federal underwriting... were pushing loans onto people who could not afford them.

If that is not what you're trying to say then this next sentence won't matter to you.

^ That ^  is false.

It's false for many reasons, primarily that those agencies DID NOT ORIGINATE LOANS, but secondarily because they are not Federal agencies; lastly because my point which is that the problem was lack of regulation (which includes enforcement of regulation) is what really caused the problem.

There were couple of contributing causes, primarily the deregulation of mortgage banking such that "lenders"  could originate loans with very sketchy documentation, and sell those mortgages under fraudulent circumstances.

The rate of default on mortgages NEVER reached the 'rational' level in other words many more people tried to keep up payments and keep their homes when it would have been to their benefit to walk away. That indicates to me that it was not poor people looking to take advantage.

Another input is the number of cash-out refis. I know a lot of people who bought boats they probably shouldn't have, because they could refinance their house at a lower rate and walk out with a ton o'  cash.

-DSK

I said "The Feds" - to be specific.   Note I didn't say Clinton/Obama/Bush - I said "The Feds".   That would imply any action taken by anyone in a federal capacity to push for sub-prime loans to be issued. That doesn't negate the impact of the lenders who monetized that mortgage secured debt into transferable instruments and immediately sold off those loans for a quick profit taking, as I said in my original comment.  You'll also note, if you read what I wrote, that I never said it was the only cause - I said it contributed.   Who originated the loans isn't the only part of the picture, or even a big part of it,  if they were encouraged by "The Fed" to make those sub-prime loans.   

I honestly don't understand why you and Flash are taking such exception to my observation, when everything that you're offering as a refutation is making my point.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worked in the industry 90's early 20's Booming was not the word.  It was nutz.  The amount of $$ and the ease of docs changed drastically at that time.  Managers were closing 20-30 loans a month and raking it in.  Never mind that we LO's were selling shit that would make your hair curl nowdays.  Got out when it got incredibly stupid and went into a .com mtg company that was putting borrowers together with lenders.  Not so bad, had an app, (in development) and had a "List"(XXXXX  subprime loans) which management was peddling around trying to sell.  When shit went south the .com went under.   Good times 1 week b4 xmass.  It was a shit show till the end and the basically unregulated loans of the late 90's and early 20's absolutely lead to the ..  bubble bursting.  BTW.  Never ever, in the 10 + yrs i was in the industry, heard a peep from any fed or otherwise fed associated person to sell more subprime and I worked for some of the largest lenders in the nation.  You just simply could not turn the spigot off.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I said "The Feds" - to be specific.   Note I didn't say Clinton/Obama/Bush - I said "The Feds".   That would imply any action taken by anyone in a federal capacity to push for sub-prime loans to be issued. That doesn't negate the impact of the lenders who monetized that mortgage secured debt into transferable instruments and immediately sold off those loans for a quick profit taking, as I said in my original comment.  You'll also note, if you read what I wrote, that I never said it was the only cause - I said it contributed.   Who originated the loans isn't the only part of the picture, or even a big part of it,  if they were encouraged by "The Fed" to make those sub-prime loans.   

I honestly don't understand why you and Flash are taking such exception to my observation, when everything that you're offering as a refutation is making my point.   

I don't understand why you think that private lenders who were breaking what few regulations were in place, initiating mortgages under fraudulent terms because THEY would not have to take the loss, is the same as "Federal agencies pushing loans onto people who couldn't afford them."

At the very worst, you could say that Federal policies enabled loaning to questionable mortgagees; if those mortgages had not been written then were would the problem have come from? Poor loan origination was in fact the initial cause.

Without a big helping of fraud the worst result is that those poor people would have ended up NOT owning their home after all. The home being mortgaged would cover the debt, right?

So how come it didn't happen that way? "Blame the victim" just doesn't work, if your goal is to come to a realistic and rational understanding.

Your own cite says Alan Greenspan pleaded with Congress to increase regulation... in this context, to enforce existing rules as much or more than to generate new ones.

- DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

I don't understand why you think that private lenders who were breaking what few regulations were in place, initiating mortgages under fraudulent terms because THEY would not have to take the loss, is the same as "Federal agencies pushing loans onto people who couldn't afford them."

 At the very worst, you could say that Federal policies enabled loaning to questionable mortgagees; if those mortgages had not been written then were would the problem have come from? Poor loan origination was in fact the initial cause.

Without a big helping of fraud the worst result is that those poor people would have ended up NOT owning their home after all. The home being mortgaged would cover the debt, right?

 So how come it didn't happen that way? "Blame the victim" just doesn't work, if your goal is to come to a realistic and rational understanding.

Your own cite says Alan Greenspan pleaded with Congress to increase regulation... in this context, to enforce existing rules as much or more than to generate new ones.

- DSK

 

Because the lenders were under political pressure FROM THE FED to make the loans - damn son, is that so hard to understand?  Pressure from The Fed is where this started - there's not "victim blaming" in anything I've said.  The poor folks who were talked into accepting loans and terms that were harmful and predatory lost at least twice - I've never expressed anything that could in any way be construed as "blaming the victim".    It's a complicated, multi-faceted problem - and mentioning one portion of that in no way indicates that that portion was the only problem - that's something that You and Flash decided to ascribe to my comments. 

 I've never argued that the industry's monetization and predation were also large contributors, BUT - ignoring the part that political pressure played isn't going to help to come to a realistic and rational understanding, either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Fannie May and Freddie Mac are GSEs - Govenrment Sponsored Entities - and the cites I offered support exactly what I said, and your quibbling to the contrary really doesn't support your assertions.  I've often asked, and ya sometimes do - go read what I wrote, and respond to that, instead of trying to diminish me by assigning meaning to my comments that it's obvious I didn't intend. 

Tell me, how big are Fannie and Freddie marketing budgets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I don't understand why you think that private lenders who were breaking what few regulations were in place, initiating mortgages under fraudulent terms because THEY would not have to take the loss, is the same as "Federal agencies pushing loans onto people who couldn't afford them."

At the very worst, you could say that Federal policies enabled loaning to questionable mortgagees; if those mortgages had not been written then were would the problem have come from? Poor loan origination was in fact the initial cause.

Without a big helping of fraud the worst result is that those poor people would have ended up NOT owning their home after all. The home being mortgaged would cover the debt, right?

So how come it didn't happen that way? "Blame the victim" just doesn't work, if your goal is to come to a realistic and rational understanding.

Your own cite says Alan Greenspan pleaded with Congress to increase regulation... in this context, to enforce existing rules as much or more than to generate new ones.

- DSK

 

The problem is the alternate facts crowd have spun up false narratives to play to the liberal-haters. They’ve had 12 years now to really spin it and it’s almost a cohesive narrative. Of course, it’s all false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

The problem is the alternate facts crowd have spun up false narratives to play to the liberal-haters. They’ve had 12 years now to really spin it and it’s almost a cohesive narrative. Of course, it’s all false.

Are you suggesting that the basis of my comment is "alternate facts?  

Just so you can't suggest that you didn't read what I wrote - hear it is again, princess. 

3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Monetizing bad loans that were pushed by the Feds on people who really couldn't afford them resulting in unsustainable housing price inflation had a good bit to do with that too. 

My support for that opinion was offered a few posts down: 

"Franklin Raines earned $90 million in salary and bonuses while he was head of Fannie Mae.[270]
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that purchase mortgages, buy and sell mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and guarantee nearly half of the mortgages in the U.S. A variety of political and competitive pressures resulted in the GSEs ramping up their purchase and guarantee of risky mortgages in 2005 and 2006, just as the housing market was peaking.[271][272] Fannie and Freddie were both under political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk affordable housing mortgage types, and under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders.[273]

 

I really don't understand why you are taking affront to these observations - unless its just that you can't help but argue with anything I say.  It's really beginning to seem like that - and if so?  I'll be happy to listen to you as much as I do Jiblets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Monetizing bad loans that were pushed by the Feds on people who really couldn't afford them resulting in unsustainable housing price inflation had a good bit to do with that too. 

EVERYBODY oughta be doing that 'til we're "paid off".  That's not how folks are told to act by the commercials, though, is it? 

What really did in Wall Street was taking those bad loans, repacking with some good loans, selling and reselling until they were grade A investments. I am sure the Fed was behind all of that.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites