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 right wing narrative that the financial crisis was caused by Fannie and Freddy Mac has been discredited many times. It's one of those zombie lies that no matter how many times it's stabbed in the heart, it gets up to be repeated.
Most MBSs are issued by the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), a U.S. government agency, or the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), U.S. government-sponsored enterprises. Ginnie Mae, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, guarantees that investors receive timely payments. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also provide certain guarantees and, while not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, have special authority to borrow from the U.S. Treasury. Some private institutions, such as brokerage firms, banks, and homebuilders, also securitize mortgages, known as "private-label" mortgage securities.
Except that the gov't agencies were a small part of the holders.
Of the securities? Well, of course, they were spread throughout the world. The GSEs were the sole reason that banks were able to make such risky loans and then remove themselves from those risky liabilities. Had those banks (and bankers) had to take the losses on those risky loans, if they defaulted, they would have never made them for fear of bringing their entire companies down. Instead they got to bring down the entire economy and subsequently the world (because they had a vehicle to spread them to the rest of the world with GSEs).
If I had to come up with a plot to cause a world wide crisis so that the government could step in and save the day I couldn't have done a better job.
That is, after all, how we've taken over 2 dozen countries and made them slave states.
How is that logically possible when only 3.9 million jobs were created (that is before 8.8 million were lost) when civilian labor force grew by 10.3 million? It ain't a secret either that the economy was struggling big time to add jobs... it wasn't until late 2003 that we finally saw jobs being added.
Thanks to Bush's two tax cuts, which stimulated the economy.
Quote:
And at a pathetic pace of 47K jobs per month, even when labor force grew at three times the pace. Low UE? For the very same reason that we just saw a drop in UE. That low UE rate was presenting a rosier picture than the reality, just like the half percentage job this month is. Anything else is pure and simple... denial.
That was due to factors other than the Bush economic policies... the 9/11 attacks and the mortgage meltdown.
Quote:
Sure, there was 52 consecutive months of job growth under Bush's 96 months in office, adding 3.9 million in first 84 and losing 4.6 million in last 12. Now we have 21 consecutive months of job growth under Obama's 34 months... if those were great times...
Don't forget the strong GDP growth... over 7% in one quarter of 2004... the largest growth since 1984.
You mean when the dems took over congress in 2007? Funny how that coincided with the start of the recession.
Oh, this IS obama's economy now, HIS Wreckovery - he wanted it, he owns it.
Exactly.
Problem started after he dems took control of the congress. Charts in this thread prove that.
Facts are:
Bush 52 consecutive months of jobs growth.
Obama 34 consecutive months of above 8.0 unemployment ( minus 5 million jobs )
in which he PROMISED it would never go above 8.0 if we allowed him to steal 800 billion dollars. He clearly stole our money and the fake jobs he pushed to hand his bundlers more money to help him get re elected next year.
Obama - record foreclosures and bankruptcies, record welfare, record poverty and the list goes on and on under his watch.
1 year ago he said we were recovering and doing well, last week he said we are still in the recession. He LIED once again and got caught.
If we are in a recession it is HIS RECESSION he caused and he is the only President to have TWO RECESSIONS on his watch that I can think of.
Can anyone name another President other then Obama that had two recessions in their first 3 years in office?
Keep an eye on the crazy libs on this one.
When the rate goes back up to 9.0 they will be again pointing the fingers at someone else but himself.
Problem started after he dems took control of the congress. Charts in this thread prove that.
Facts are:
Bush 52 consecutive months of jobs growth.
Obama 34 consecutive months of above 8.0 unemployment ( minus 5 million jobs )
in which he PROMISED it would never go above 8.0 if we allowed him to steal 800 billion dollars. He clearly stole our money and the fake jobs he pushed to hand his bundlers more money to help him get re elected next year.
Obama - record foreclosures and bankruptcies, record welfare, record poverty and the list goes on and on under his watch.
1 year ago he said we were recovering and doing well, last week he said we are still in the recession. He LIED once again and got caught.
If we are in a recession it is HIS RECESSION he caused and he is the only President to have TWO RECESSIONS on his watch that I can think of.
Can anyone name another President other then Obama that had two recessions in their first 3 years in office?
Keep an eye on the crazy libs on this one.
When the rate goes back up to 9.0 they will be again pointing the fingers at someone else but himself.
It wasn't 52 months of consecutive job growth, you keep lying about that. Bush had the WORST job record of any President since the stats started to be kept.
I don't know what 'experts' you were reading but ADP was predicting +120K a few days ago.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't fudge employment numbers at the request of the White House.
What this shows is that the economy is slowly improving. It still isn't anything near the Clinton employment numbers of an average gain of 250,000 per month but it's sure better than the last year of the Bush years.
Ever think about what you've written before you hit "submit reply"?
When Clinton took office in 1993, the recovery from recession was already well underway and unemployment had been steadily declining for six months.
The United States Unemployment Rate (http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=1992-06&EndYear=2000-12&submit1=Create+Report - broken link)
With unemployment at 7.3% and the economy rebounding, why would the decrease in unemployment not continue?
In fact, the reduction in unemployment continued long after the Republican Revolution of 1994 eventually reaching 3.9% in December of 2000.
With full unemployment in January of 2001, why would it go lower?
The fact that it stayed below 6% for almost all of Bush's presidency speaks volumes about the success of his policies.
The United States Unemployment Rate (http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=2001-01&EndYear=2008-12&submit1=Create+Report - broken link)
It is Obama and his fellow Democrats who have made 9% unemployment and a shrinking workforce the new norm.
The United States Unemployment Rate (http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=2009-01&EndYear=2011-10&submit1=Create+Report - broken link)
Thanks to Bush's two tax cuts, which stimulated the economy.
Look at the charts below, if one's theory is that the tax-cuts stimulated the economy and one didn't know when those cuts went into effect, you'd think it was during the Clinton Administration, who raised taxes. Who in their right mind would describe the Bush economy as vibrant? Even after the tax-cuts growth was slower than under Clinton and growth didn't pick-up until the housing boom started.
Real GDP per capita:
Employment:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
That was due to factors other than the Bush economic policies... the 9/11 attacks and the mortgage meltdown.
Blaming years of unremarkable economic activity on 9/11 is dubious. The housing meltdown happened in Bush's last year. Prior to that, the housing boom contributed to higher GDP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Don't forget the strong GDP growth... over 7% in one quarter of 2004... the largest growth since 1984.
GDP Growth wasn't anything close to the Clinton years.
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.
