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.
The post to which I responded was not one of yours. And now that you have, you have not even answered the request posed. This is similar to my earlier request for you re: that never throughout Bush's term were more than 84,000 jobs ever added to the economy. So, I don't get why you feel the need to respond, but please answer the questions posed if you do.
They didn't need to be. Unemployment was at around 6%.
The question, I must repeat, was: Are economic bubble and economic growth mutually exclusive? Mutually exclusiveness would warrant exclusion both ways, you only addressed one. What about the other? Has there been an economic bubble that hasn't affected economic growth?
Quote:
if you dont know that the GSAs were guaranteeing mortgages
So, you believe that there is no concept of leveraging outside of GSE backing?
Quote:
Lehman Brothers didnt fail due to bad mortgages, they fell due to debt owed to MBS investors.
And ultra-lenient leveraging didn't contribute to that effect? How did they end up with such debt? Did they over-leverage? Did they do so because of FM/FM?
Quote:
See here is where you AGAIN, prove your lack of understanding on the issue. This over exposure only became possible because GOVERNMENT backed the mortgages...
I take it that your great understanding of the subject involves absence of leveraging outside of government backed mortgages.
Quote:
0% mortgages by itself, nor subprime mortgages, are all bad. But I note how you want to blanket all mortgages together as the same. Again, without the government guarantees, the banks, and banks alone would have been reviewing the qualities of each application on its standards, rather than the standards of the insurer.
If you dont think people buy things because the government guarantees them, then you need to explain to me why investors take lower then market cap rates for gsa leased investments, and why treasuries sell below market rate, sometimes even at a negative rate of return.
Why am I always playing teacher to you? The 1995 CRA authorized the GSE's to go into the subprime mortgage industry. By 97, the GSE's were offering upwards of 97% LTV's. By 2003 Bush convinced Fannie to raise the collateral committement from 3%, to 10%, which Frank responded “changes could make manufactured housing too expensive for many Americans.”, which helped convince Fannie to lower the requirements to 5% by 2004. Maxine Waters during the Congressional hearings, pushed for 100% loans, Franklin Rains pushed to lower the capital ratios even further, to below 2% because it was "riskless".
You clearly dont have a clue what took place, and got your news from some left wing blogger or just made up your own form of reality..
I did.. you just refuse to watch the videos or listen to facts because they prove you wrong..
You need to be slapping your head more, because the GSE's were insuring upwards of 95% of all mortgages by the mid 2000's.. You want to talk about the 5% of the mortgages, while ignoring the 95% of them
Because Clinton changed the standards to authorize them to insure substandard mortgages.
If you increase the cash on hand required and the liquidity, the result is less mortgages being issued, with higher standards. AGAIN, Democrats though didnt want that, in fact they wanted the opposite.. More mortgages, less standards, less liquidity. You can continue to deny this is true but that doesnt change history. Thankfully, there are very clear records as to who wanted what, and none of them backup your claims.
Why dont you do your own research rather than just making up how you wish things to be. ?
Actually they are made to embarass you, and prove you are wrong, but then again, thats why you wont watch.. You'd rather sit here and pretend facts are differently, and then make a fool of yourself.. Hey, who am I too argue.. Feel free..
Why dont you educate yourself prior to "debating" anyone.. I wont need to continue to embarass you if you knew what the hell you were talking about.
I was looking forward to be educated on the reform you keep talking about, not your usual babble about how great your understanding is while the rest of us lack the knowledge.
So I ask again, since I have not found much detail, if at all, in my search for your claims about the reform, that you provide it here so we can logically discuss it.
They didn't need to be. Unemployment was at around 6%.
How can unemployment rate be only 5-6% while jobs were being lost? For that matter, unemployment rate was a lot lower in 2001 than it was in 1983 and 1984. Does that mean things were great in terms of job growth in 2001 compared to 1984?
The question, I must repeat, was: Are economic bubble and economic growth mutually exclusive? Mutually exclusiveness would warrant exclusion both ways, you only addressed one. What about the other? Has there been an economic bubble that hasn't affected economic growth?
So you dont know what the definition of a bubble is either? I'll add this to the long list of items you dont know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
So, you believe that there is no concept of leveraging outside of GSE backing?
Not at all, why do you continue to not respond to other posters comments, and go off on some lala babble about what the others believe that has nothing at all to do with the posting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
And ultra-lenient leveraging didn't contribute to that effect? How did they end up with such debt? Did they over-leverage? Did they do so because of FM/FM?
There go go again with your lala babble, that doesnt even begin to address what I said. Are you asking questions to learn, or do you have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I take it that your great understanding of the subject involves absence of leveraging outside of government backed mortgages.
Its like talking to my child.. Its A LOT easier to sell AAA credit rated MBS's than it is to sell C- MBS's.. And the government guarantees allowed the C- paper to be rated AAA.. The only way this wouldnt be true is if you believe the government guarantees are worthless..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I was looking forward to be educated on the reform you keep talking about, not your usual babble about how great your understanding is while the rest of us lack the knowledge.
More lala babbling that doesnt even address the points made. Do you have some type of built in filter that filters out facts and allows you to just continue as if they dont exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
So I ask again, since I have not found much detail, if at all, in my search for your claims about the reform, that you provide it here so we can logically discuss it.
Do you get these filters when you register to vote Democratic, or is this something you buy? Your non addressing of the postings is typical. If I didnt get so much humor out of you not responding to me, I'd have you on ignore. I'd get about the same amount of knowledge from reading your postings, that I would if I didnt..
Private sector up 83,000. Seems to be slowing, even the Repubs are starting to realize we must invest in jobs in areas that do not exist right now. May be time to have a WPA type program to rebuild Infrastructure until innovation can create the future jobs. The Country is in trouble and need the Repubs to engage in trying to resolve some problems, rather than perpetuating them.
By following the FDR Trail of Folly?
Bob, you're message is "government programs, government programs, government progr......"
Half of Last Month's New Jobs Came from a Single Employer — McDonald's
Gosh, is sure do remember a few years ago the Left looking with derision and scorn when the numbers were 4+ times the number that came out today.
And they sure did complain a lot about "underemployment" - isn't that what we have here - HALF of the jobs gained in May were the burger-flipping type?
My...how things change in such a short period of time.
While spend 730 billion in a stimulus that went to everyhting but what he said. Where are all the bridge and other infrastructure projects he said creat massive nuber of jobs. The demcocrat special interest consumed it is where the money went.
I don't like Obama and sincerely hope he's a one termer, but this recession would have happenened no matter who is in Washington. Exporting all the jobs and giving trillions of dollars of our and future generation's money to the criminal financial houses is what did it and that has taken several administrations to pull off. Obama is just playing the part he was hired for.
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.
