quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, thats gonna be a real pisscutter there chief, since those money issues must be legislated in the currently republican controlled house (its in your paper, your little cliff notes that have been hanging out since the late 1780os).  And since the speaker, majority leader and all commitees are managed by teabaggers and neo-cons, I think you have misspelt something. 

Lets apply this logic equally. During the last 2 years of Bush and the first 2 years of the Obummer administration, both the Congress and the Senate were controlled by the Democratic Party. By your own logic, we can then blame the Democratic Party directly for the recession, the contined QE failures, the housing bubble, and everything else that the Failure in Chief inherited from his own party, but continues to blame on the Bush administration.

-SD-

Nope, there is no logic that you are applying there.  And by your own logic you say but where the fuck do you get that from?  The reason there was a housing bubble is because folks in the middle class were hauling down big bucks from the war industries, government was spending (much bigger than anyone realized) because it was all off book (appropriations bills not in the budget and of unknown final cost to run the war), then the regime change there and the dems forced a great deal of it to run on book.  They were fucked by the admin and the erstwhile leaders from before in that they were always lowballed, and then still had to send emergency appropriations in there.

When people looked around they found out the future was not so bright, here we were stuck in a war about ideology that was unwinnable, and they imagined that their 800K house was really only worth 40K (which is what it was worth) and the republican administration and their republican dismantling of oversight (something they are doing today, like fcc and ratpoison bills called jobs bills) and their corporate appeasment and tax cuts and borrowing and spending came home to roost, and when you dont make your full payments interest piles up.  And you rob peter to pay paul, and it keeps piling up.....and unless you shorthanded that factual logic, you fraudulently are acting as if history re-writes are factual.

Now, not to say that the dems did a bang up job of fiscal housekeeping, but for anyone from the right to come here and speak of fiscal responsibility or that they know how to correct the country destroying policies they made but that are 'democratic' in origin is fuckin laughable and droolingly imbecilic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, thats gonna be a real pisscutter there chief, since those money issues must be legislated in the currently republican controlled house (its in your paper, your little cliff notes that have been hanging out since the late 1780os).  And since the speaker, majority leader and all commitees are managed by teabaggers and neo-cons, I think you have misspelt something. 

Lets apply this logic equally. During the last 2 years of Bush and the first 2 years of the Obummer administration, both the Congress and the Senate were controlled by the Democratic Party. By your own logic, we can then blame the Democratic Party directly for the recession, the contined QE failures, the housing bubble, and everything else that the Failure in Chief inherited from his own party, but continues to blame on the Bush administration.

-SD-

Nope, there is no logic that you are applying there.  And by your own logic you say but where the fuck do you get that from?  The reason there was a housing bubble is because folks in the middle class were hauling down big bucks from the war industries, government was spending (much bigger than anyone realized) because it was all off book (appropriations bills not in the budget and of unknown final cost to run the war), then the regime change there and the dems forced a great deal of it to run on book.  They were fucked by the admin and the erstwhile leaders from before in that they were always lowballed, and then still had to send emergency appropriations in there.

When people looked around they found out the future was not so bright, here we were stuck in a war about ideology that was unwinnable, and they imagined that their 800K house was really only worth 40K (which is what it was worth) and the republican administration and their republican dismantling of oversight (something they are doing today, like fcc and ratpoison bills called jobs bills) and their corporate appeasment and tax cuts and borrowing and spending came home to roost, and when you dont make your full payments interest piles up.  And you rob peter to pay paul, and it keeps piling up.....and unless you shorthanded that factual logic, you fraudulently are acting as if history re-writes are factual.

Now, not to say that the dems did a bang up job of fiscal housekeeping, but for anyone from the right to come here and speak of fiscal responsibility or that they know how to correct the country destroying policies they made but that are 'democratic' in origin is fuckin laughable and droolingly imbecilic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
Reagan didn't dwell about the debaucle he inherited from Carter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
The housing bubble has a single origin and once it was started it took on its own life fueled by greed but the origin was Barney Frank, Democrat. This article sums this up nicely.

http://www.arkvalwebworks.com/real-estate/architect-of-the-housing-bubble-barney-frank-bows-out.html

quote:

The housing bubble has a single origin and once it was started it took on its own life fueled by greed but the origin was Barney Frank, Democrat. This article sums this up nicely.

http://www.arkvalwebworks.com/real-estate/architect-of-the-housing-bubble-barney-frank-bows-out.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

The housing bubble has a single origin and once it was started it took on its own life fueled by greed but the origin was Barney Frank, Democrat. This article sums this up nicely.

http://www.arkvalwebworks.com/real-estate/architect-of-the-housing-bubble-barney-frank-bows-out.html

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29, 2008

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis in this week’s Barron’s.)

There’s plenty more good reading on the CRA and the subprime crisis out in the blogosphere. Ellen Seidman, who headed the Office of Thrift Supervision in the late 90s, has written several fact-filled posts about the CRA controversey, including one just last week. University of Oregon professor and economist Mark Thoma has also defended the CRA on his blog. I also learned something from a post back in April by Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which ends with this ditty:


It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

quote:

Wordy, very wordy.

quote:

My information comes from watching what happened as it happened. Yours comes from "Media Matters", it even mentions Acorn in a positive light. Enough said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

My information comes from watching what happened as it happened. Yours comes from "Media Matters", it even mentions Acorn in a positive light. Enough said.

Media Matters lists sources. WTF is arkvalwebworks anyway?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/how-politics-damaged-obamas-recovery-chart.php?ref=fpb

Last week we brought you this chart, demonstrating that the unemployment rate under President Obama is coming down fairly quickly — though not as quickly as it did under President Reagan in the months before he won a landslide re-election in 1984.



Here’s a major reason why.

Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis illustrates a key difference between Reagan’s first term and Obama’s: the pliancy of the Congresses they had to work with. Despite the fact that it was controlled by Democrats, Reagan’s Congress was ultimately accommodative, and the result was significant fiscal expansion, which likely helped bring down the unemployment rate.



Despite presiding over a Democratic Congress, Obama enjoyed no such co-operation. Serial GOP filibusters limited the extent to which he could use deficit spending and temporary tax cuts to hasten economic recovery. Republicans bucked historically bipartisan policies to thwart the president. And when they took over the House in 2011, Republicans pursued an austerity agenda, and, separately, spooked credit markets by taking the government to the brink of default. All of these factors, combined with contraction at the state and local levels, offset the stimulative policies Obama secured at the beginning of his term. And that prefigured a significantly slower labor market recovery than Reagan enjoyed.

That’s not purely a function of GOP obstructionism. Obama and Reagan pursued different policies, and Reagan’s were politically more difficult for Congress to thwart. But today’s GOP, unlike yesterday’s Democratic Party, pursued a purposeful and unprecedented strategy of blanket obstruction designed to damage the president. And these are the results.