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.
yeah, the Obama stimulus bill would have been so much greater, had they spent $600B on food stamps, rather than the $300B..
Extreme thinking, but you may have a point that the returns from food stamps would have been more effective than from not-even-noticeable tax cuts.
Quote:
The failing of the economy stopped before one dime of the stimulus bill was spent. Its great though that you can sit here and "believe" things, even if facts show you as wrong..
I don't think you're stupid enough to not be able to comprehend the simple sentences. Your obligatory remarks only serve and are meant to be deflection, to avoid discussing real issues. As, in this case, you didn't dare utter a single word on implications of relaxing leveraging regulation on the banks or on the issue of interest rate cuts as a tool to prop up the economy, what such actions mean to lending versus savings.
I've asked you THREE times now for policy changes, and you keep talking about a speech made.. lets try 4
WHAT POLICY CHANGES WERE MADE? We dont live in pretend land, stop pretending things are true that arent! Bush tried to TIGHTEN regulatory standards.. I even posted links to the Congressional hearings discussing the matter. He even tried to get new regulatory agencies to oversee Fannie/Freddie in 2003 http://sweetness-light.com/archive/b...ousing-finance
Stop repeating the bs you read on a blog, and sight me the changes and back them up with sources!!
Your posts are starting to read like a child's. You aren't making any sense.
Cute. I won't be surprised to find a child who would at least try to respond to a logical post but it appears to be a tall order from people like you. Perhaps you can change that perception of mine. This is the post that got your knickers in a wad, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Overly simplistic way of looking at reality, or perhaps the defense. This wasn't just a mortgage issue, it was a credit lending issue that had mortgage problem all over it. Here's a clue: 1929, 1988, 2007.
In speeches, Bush was found regularly celebrating interest rate cuts, and how it would boost the economy. But trust me, it wasn't speeches that brought the economy down. A major part of the problem was those interest rate cuts to prop up the economy. Never mind the grand idea the administration came up with, allowing some of the largest financial institutions (yes, they all collapsed) to leverage with well over 30:1 ratio. Now tell me, who was supporting it? Is it not insanity to support such ideas? Does it take only a genius to recognize a problem with relaxing such rules to allow banks to lend more than $30 for each dollar they show compared to $10-$12? When you allow banks to do that, what results do you expect?
Did you disagree with any of that? Do you have an opinion on the subject? Or, would you rather sit and cry all day long calling people "childish"? Hey, I even highlighted a few key words in case you don't have the desire to read the post in its entirety before responding to it.
Thats why the government bought the "troubled assets" as well, they were on the hook for the losses anyways.
AIG just didnt have the resources to back them for the period of time needed before the government would reimburse them for their losses. A government guaranteed reinbursement doesnt get reinbursed until after the property is re-sold, and we all know properties were sitting on the market for years. This is also why the government bailed out AIG, and why AIG was a safe investment for them as well, because these "losses" were guaranteed by the government, and by slowing down how many homes hit the market all at once, it minimized governmental losses.
The document you linked to, links to a Fed document but that document is dated Oct. 2009. At that time 95% of the mortgages were held by the government because that's after TARP.
So, what you have is a timeline problem. You claim that the government was on the hook for the mortgages and that caused the crisis but the evidence that you use was after the government assumed liability.
Mike Konczal reminding us about the lies and misinformation on the right that's been promulgated:
Quote:
This zombie argument finally got fully dismembered by Center for American Progress’ David Min in his recent report taking apart Wallison’s FCIC dissent, Faulty Conclusions Based on Shoddy Foundations.
The three-card monte trick is pretty straightforward once you know where to watch.
The fact is that during the peak of the housing bubble, Fannie and Freddie basically stopped providing net lending for home purchases, while private securitizers rushed in. Look at the flow of funds data on mortgage holdings (pdf). You’ll see that securitization is the bulk of the story.
Extreme thinking, but you may have a point that the returns from food stamps would have been more effective than from not-even-noticeable tax cuts.
Evidence of the world you reside in.
Yeah, the world you reside in has food stamps being more effective. I have a proposal then..Lets SELL FOOD STAMPS.. thats right.. If food stamps are such a major economic boost, we should sell them on the open market, and everyone should buy stamps.. Even better.. Why dont we give EVERYONE food stamps.. Think of the economic boom that'll generate.. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, you guys can all do your part to help the country recovery.. Spend those food stamps, that'll generate a much better return then those tens of thousands of people you hire..
Wait, we could just lay EVERYONE OFF, and give everyone in the country food stamps, and even housing vouchers, wow, the nation would be bustling with economic prosperity then. Provide everyone with cars, gas, electricity, free water, even car insurance.. Woo, you might be onto something.. Move over Cuba, North Korea, Einstein figured out a better way!!
I've already asked that you stop providing me with humor, but you continue non stop.. yep.. food stamps, woo hoo hoo.. where do I sign up?
If you want to rely on unemployment numbers, I think it was stupid to even claim anything along the lines, just as it is to make an argument against the claim. But did the stimulus fail? Not in my opinion. Where it failed, IMO, was that it relied a bit too much on tax cuts, a demand of the conservatives met in the congress. In a world where partisanship rules over common sense, the drive for bipartisanship is a stupid idea. That is also where the stimulus (and the health care reform) fails, IMO.
But, did it work better than the stimuli presented under republican congress and Bush administration? No doubt. I also believe that without the stimulus, the economy would have been far worse.
I think it probably was stupid to make a specific claim as well. The argument against the claim is more of a big picture argument than about the specific number - that unemployment went high and has remained high since it was passed.
The stimulus was nothing more than an exxagertation of what was done under the Bush administration. Tax rates didn't really change and we added billions in additional spending on top of what was already too much.
I've asked you THREE times now for policy changes, and you keep talking about a speech made.. lets try 4
WHAT POLICY CHANGES WERE MADE? We dont live in pretend land, stop pretending things are true that arent! Bush tried to TIGHTEN regulatory standards.. I even posted links to the Congressional hearings discussing the matter. He even tried to get new regulatory agencies to oversee Fannie/Freddie in 2003 Bush, McCain Tried To Reform Freddie Mac | Sweetness & Light
Stop repeating the bs you read on a blog, and sight me the changes and back them up with sources!!
You're focusing on speech. I'm focusing on policies (and in case you never read my post before jumping with a response to it, I just re-posted it in my response above). The policies such as interest rate cuts to improve the economy, and relaxing leveraging allowed to banks for lending.
What do you think such actions lead to? Or, would you rather talk about speeches?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Yeah, the world you reside in has food stamps being more effective. I have a proposal then..Lets SELL FOOD STAMPS..
I'm not an economist, but likes of Mark Zandi are. However, that doesn't matter in a world where extremism rules as your argument alludes to. You sire, are all emotions, ZERO logic.
Soft landing and fundamentally solid economy of 2007
========================================
Despite the fact that all evidence thus far indicates the housing market will crash and burn in a spectacular fashion, President Bush has decided to maintain his stance that housing will see a soft landing.
The President shared this view on Wednesday after meeting with top economic advisors. While most presidents do not normally broach discussions of markets during troubled times, Bush reportedly felt the need to reassure Americans that the economy is doing just fine under his reign.
According to Bush, the current market correction should be viewed as 'normal' and is no cause for worry. Bush also reasserted his view that the market would experience a soft landing.'
'The fundamentals of our economy are strong,' Bush said.
President Bush seems to be one of the few who think this is true. Following the speech, Democrats sternly censured the President for claiming the U.S. economy is in sound shape.
But Democrats aren't the only ones disagreeing with Bush; there are also several prominent economists who have a less optimistic view of the housing downturn.
'It still looks pretty gruesome,' said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors. 'The market has truly cratered, and it's not going to turn as quickly as people had hoped.'
I think it probably was stupid to make a specific claim as well. The argument against the claim is more of a big picture argument than about the specific number - that unemployment went high and has remained high since it was passed.
Okay so? What do you trust more, unemployment rate, or logical conclusions based on analysis and trends in job recovery?
Quote:
The stimulus was nothing more than an exxagertation of what was done under the Bush administration. Tax rates didn't really change and we added billions in additional spending on top of what was already too much.
Therein lies the problem. The stimulus is being dismissed by the same folks who think tax cuts are the proper stimulus. But since these cuts happened under Obama, they weren't noticed but it was just a spending spree. How often do you see the conservatives make an argument that tax cuts = spending?
In my earlier post, I mentioned that tax cuts were a stupid idea and went unnoticed anyway. You just proved that point of mine. As far as the overall effect of stimulus goes, what do you think would have happened if nothing were done, beginning with TARP?
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.
