Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was a LOT more to the crash than just Freddie & Fannie, there was also the general lax oversite of mortgage sales, the tendency for appraisers to be pressured into giving appraisal values that match or exceed the price of the house, and - in my opinion the biggest overall problem - the fact that those who wrote & then sold the mortgages had no "skin in the game" to ensure that the borrower was actually able to afford the mortgage. Those mortgage underwriters simply didn't CARE whether or not the borrower was even qualified because they never intended to hold on to the mortgage to begin with (they were simply going to palm it off on someone else).
A lot of this stems from the whole "let the market" police itself mentality that permeates GOP thinking.
Ken
Ken
The free market includes liability and risk, having the government protect all from liability and risk is the opposite of a free market. Under a true free market system, not one promoted by the left or right, we would have people in jail and losing all of their bonuses due to what happened.
What you are talking about is the crony capitalists system that permeates the Democrats and GOP thinking.
The free market includes liability and risk, having the government protect all from liability and risk is the opposite of a free market. Under a true free market system, not one promoted by the left or right, we would have people in jail and losing all of their bonuses due to what happened.
What you are talking about is the crony capitalists system that permeates the Democrats and GOP thinking.
The housing bubble was fueled by the printing of some $7 trillion world wide in the last 10 years. That money was used to buy US debt with. That money went into the housing bubble. It is what financed the housing bubble. We do need protection from that kind of thing because it is anything but free markets at work.
Except the taxpayers - who would have been on the hook for that insurance, and the shareholders of those banks
Taxpayers were not on the hook for failed banks. The FDIC is a PRIVATE entity, paid for by banks. Only AFTER the federal government loaned out the money did the taxpayers become liabile for potential losses. If you are discussing the mortgage insurance yes.. maybe the better solution would be the government STOP INSURING THINGS THAT YOU CAN LOSE MONEY ON...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
GM & Chrysler couldn't GET the capital. You YOURSELF have admitted in a previous post that the banks couldn't loan out money because no one was buying their assets.
1) Yes they could if they needed to, in the same manner Ford did.
2) Bank financing is a very small method these entities finance debt.. Ever hear of the bond market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Yes, if the GDP goes up and economic activity picks up the economy is RECOVERING (that's the definition of recovery).
No.. an economic recovery is a BUSINESS cycle, which leads up to a growth in GDP.. NOT government groth. Just increasing the GDP is not an indication of economic recovery. GDP growth might end the recession, but ending a recssion does not necessarily mean growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
As for your silly statment about the govery always spending to keep us from ever having a recession? WHO'S suggesting THAT? Certainly not ME. Recessions WILL happen from time to time and it's not necessary for the government to spend our way out of EVERYONE one. This was NOT an average recession however - it was the most severe in the better part of a century. Under those conditions government spending is the right thing to do. The fact that YOU disagree is beside the point.
No. according to YOUR definition, if you want to pretend economic prosperity is taking place simply because the GDP increased, then according to YOUR definition, the government could spend non stop and we would NEVER enter a recession.. This is why your definition is ridiculous and not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The climbing wasn't FAKE. And YES things ARE better NOW than they were THEN. Jobs are now BEING CREATED instead of being LOST. Pumping up the GDP doesn't make things better, the fact that the GDP is UP is a SIGN that things are BETTER. The GDP is a MEASUREMENT.
The climbing was indeed fake.. A recover is BUSINESS growth..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Others were NOT spending back then - that's the REASON the government stepped in to SPEND.
Others COULDNT spend. When government TAKES ALL THE MONEY YOU CANT SPEND..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Oh bull, the New Deal drove unemployment DOWN. It drove the UE rate down 7 points in 4 years. Was it STILL high? Of course - that's because it was so high already when the New Deal was put in place.
Wrong as always.. Unemployment was dropping already before the New Deal was passed in 1933. And after the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional in 1935, the unemployment continued to drop. It had no effect on unemployment rates..
In fact after they passed the New Deal 2 in 1937, unemployment rose.. it was another disaster just like Obamas stimulus bill..
It was World War II responsible for ending the unemployment problem we had.
Wrong as always.. Unemployment was dropping already before the New Deal was passed in 1933. And after the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional in 1935, the unemployment continued to drop. It had no effect on unemployment rates..
In fact after they passed the New Deal 2 in 1937, unemployment rose.. it was another disaster just like Obamas stimulus bill
Yet more ignorance and outright lies from you. The UE rate was NOT falling before the New Deal. In fact, the UE rate PEAKED in 1933 - the year the New Deal was put into place. Over the next 4 years the UE rate dropped roughly 10 points.
The New Deal was NOT declared unconstitutional in 1935 - PART of it was, NOT the entire program. MOST of the program continued.
In regards to the rise in the UE rate in 1937 - you conventiently leave out the fact that in 1936 - under pressure from folks like yourself - the programs were drastically scaled back - THEN the UE rose (NOT before that happened) - and THAT was a short 1-year spike, after which the UE rate continued to drop.
As far as WWII ending the Depression (as your graphic states) - WHAT EXACTLY was it about WWII that "ended the Depression"?
Gee, was it the Government pumping money into the economy by ordering and purchasing war goods - or maybe it was the Government employing people DIRECTLY by drafting them into the military?
If cracks me up when Wingnuts make the claim that "The New Deal didn't do anything" but then turn around and claim that "WWII ended the Depression" - when BOTH the New Deal AND WWII involved pretty much the same thing (ie the government pumping money into the economy with purchases & projects, and the government hiring people directly). The only REAL difference from an economic standpoint between the 2 was the SCALE. The New Deal did that on a much smaller scale & had much smaller results, while WWII did it on a massive scale and so had massive results.
Yet more ignorance and outright lies from you. The UE rate was NOT falling before the New Deal. In fact, the UE rate PEAKED in 1933 - the year the New Deal was put into place. Over the next 4 years the UE rate dropped roughly 10 points.
The New Deal was NOT declared unconstitutional in 1935 - PART of it was, NOT the entire program. MOST of the program continued.
In regards to the rise in the UE rate in 1937 - you conventiently leave out the fact that in 1936 - under pressure from folks like yourself - the programs were drastically scaled back - THEN the UE rose (NOT before that happened) - and THAT was a short 1-year spike, after which the UE rate continued to drop.
As far as WWII ending the Depression (as your graphic states) - WHAT EXACTLY was it about WWII that "ended the Depression"?
Gee, was it the Government pumping money into the economy by ordering and purchasing war goods - or maybe it was the Government employing people DIRECTLY by drafting them into the military?
If cracks me up when Wingnuts make the claim that "The New Deal didn't do anything" but then turn around and claim that "WWII ended the Depression" - when BOTH the New Deal AND WWII involved pretty much the same thing (ie the government pumping money into the economy with purchases & projects, and the government hiring people directly). The only REAL difference from an economic standpoint between the 2 was the SCALE. The New Deal did that on a much smaller scale & had much smaller results, while WWII did it on a massive scale and so had massive results.
Ken
Ask people who lived during WWII, the depression wasn't ended, we didn't have massive economic growth, we had a war machine. Life was not great during the war, it was busy and the average person had very little in the way of goods and services. Sure unemployment dropped because of the number of men in the military but that is not natural growth.
Our economy started to grow in the 50's due to demographics, we had millions of families starting out and families drive the economy. The reverse was true in 1930 we we hit the immigration bust effect from the drop in immigration in starting in 1914, Hoover and FDR just made things worse with their spending programs.
Yet more ignorance and outright lies from you. The UE rate was NOT falling before the New Deal. In fact, the UE rate PEAKED in 1933 - the year the New Deal was put into place. Over the next 4 years the UE rate dropped roughly 10 points.
The Surpeme Court ruled the New Deal unconstitutional in 1935, and yet the unemployment continued to drop. The New Deal had NO EFFECT..
In addition, when the New Deal was then repassed in 1937, unemployment rate ROSE..
I'm sorry, these are the facts.. You can research this yourself for verification..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The New Deal was NOT declared unconstitutional in 1935 - PART of it was, NOT the entire program. MOST of the program continued.
WRONG.. most of the program STOPPED.. thats why they passed a 2nd New Deal.. They gutted so much of the New Deal that Roosevelt went on to attack the Supreme Court for abuse of powers and Roosevelt asked for powers of Congress to add members to the Court
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
In regards to the rise in the UE rate in 1937 - you conventiently leave out the fact that in 1936 - under pressure from folks like yourself - the programs were drastically scaled back - THEN the UE rose (NOT before that happened) - and THAT was a short 1-year spike, after which the UE rate continued to drop.
Wrong again. The 1934 Congressional elections gave Roosevelt very large majorities in Congress which enabled Roosevelt to create the WPA, Social Security, they passed the Wagner Act, the National Labors Act which created unions, they created a federal income tax etc. government spending rose as well as a % GDP
I'm not sure where you are getting your information but its WRONG..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
As far as WWII ending the Depression (as your graphic states) - WHAT EXACTLY was it about WWII that "ended the Depression"?
Gee, was it the Government pumping money into the economy by ordering and purchasing war goods - or maybe it was the Government employing people DIRECTLY by drafting them into the military?
If cracks me up when Wingnuts make the claim that "The New Deal didn't do anything" but then turn around and claim that "WWII ended the Depression" - when BOTH the New Deal AND WWII involved pretty much the same thing (ie the government pumping money into the economy with purchases & projects, and the government hiring people directly). The only REAL difference from an economic standpoint between the 2 was the SCALE. The New Deal did that on a much smaller scale & had much smaller results, while WWII did it on a massive scale and so had massive results.
Ken
WRONG again.. The New Deal and the World War did not both do the same thing.. There is a HUGE difference between paying people to produce, and paying people NOT TO..
Private employers, the backbone of the economy, drove nearly all of the March job gains. They added 230,000 jobs last month, on top of 240,000 in February. It was the first time private hiring topped 200,000 in back-to-back months since 2006 — more than a year before the recession started.
The unemployment rate dipped from 8.9 percent in February to 8.8
percent in March. The rate has fallen a full percentage point over the last four months, the sharpest drop since 1983.
We can only hope more jobs are created, as long as they are not simply new jobs created by the government with taxpayer money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
