Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-11-2016, 12:23 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,744,688 times
Reputation: 14125

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
I think the main concern (my concern for sure) is that all the banter about "Added 5 million jobs!" tends to be a popular smoke and mirrors tactic for whichever party is in power.

A.) If you added 5 million jobs but lost 10 million, then politicians and their loyal media outlets will report the 5 million gain without mention of the 10 million lost.
B.) Even if 2.65 million is a net gain, how is that doing compared to population gain? It's not at all unreasonable to assume that the USA added a net of 3 million people to the job force, and if that is the case then the 2.65 million fails to keep pace with population growth.

This is why, properly broken out into ages and demographics, I think Labor Force Participation Rate is a better number to look at. Gains in LFPR for the 16-55 years old age demographic means a higher percentage of the American workforce is actually working. A decrease means less of the American workforce is actually working. It's harder to play games with LFPR.

Whenever somebody says, "We added XXX million jobs over the last X years/months", I tend to keep my grain of salt handy. Dishonesty usually turns up in the numbers when you hear that.
We didn't shed too many jobs in all honesty. That would have jacked up the unemployment rate which generally went down. Well unless they just found part-time work and would like to be full-time or just went into hiding.

As for the whole "well part-time jobs" deal, we have to remember we do see lower wages and more part-time work because we see companies outsourcing and many politicians just don't care about fixing it or the fixes aren't good at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
I stand corrected, you have good numbers backing up what you're saying.

My biggest question is, "Why didn't the LFPR for 24-55 year olds go up??" but I think I know the answer. The over 55 crowd is likely largely absorbing those gains. I'd still like to see strong gains for that prime age workforce before I'm completely sold on America's recovery, but I'm willing to hope.
I would like to hear your theory on this. I couldn't tell you because a number of it are not millennials. Millennials make up from about anyone born between 91 and 81, 10 years. The rest of it is the much smaller age cohort of gen X. That muddies the water in a way.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2016, 12:53 AM
 
Location: Florida
2,232 posts, read 2,102,139 times
Reputation: 1910
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
We didn't shed too many jobs in all honesty. That would have jacked up the unemployment rate which generally went down. Well unless they just found part-time work and would like to be full-time or just went into hiding.

As for the whole "well part-time jobs" deal, we have to remember we do see lower wages and more part-time work because we see companies outsourcing and many politicians just don't care about fixing it or the fixes aren't good at all.



I would like to hear your theory on this. I couldn't tell you because a number of it are not millennials. Millennials make up from about anyone born between 91 and 81, 10 years. The rest of it is the much smaller age cohort of gen X. That muddies the water in a way.
Melinnials are from 1984-2001.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 12:54 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,368,614 times
Reputation: 9616
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
you have yet to back up your argument, as I have demonstrated by showing you that it was republicans who proposed and voted in favor of those bills. Bills you hand picked and used as exampls.

Your other examples were rule changes that never took effect. And before your respond your 3rd article was not about an actual rule change, but a change in business activity.

Last, arguing "No true Scotsman" isnt going to help your case. Trying to say those were "liberal republicans" that voted for all of that isnt going to fly.
and it is you who is being too dense to understand the LIBERAL doesn't mean democrat or republican

there are just as many liberal (globalist) republicans ,as there are liberal (globalist) democrats

and the rule changes DID take effect
William J. Clinton: Remarks on the National Homeownership Strategy

==================

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people ....


============================

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 05:54 AM
 
1,254 posts, read 1,050,095 times
Reputation: 3077
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
and it is you who is being too dense to understand the LIBERAL doesn't mean democrat or republican

there are just as many liberal (globalist) republicans ,as there are liberal (globalist) democrats
I have never heard of any liberal republicans, so please list some of them that are well-known. This should be good.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 06:45 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,388,329 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
the HUD rules are a cabinet level rules( not congress) and it was Clinton who set the housing bubble/bust rolling back in 1995

the housing bubble/bust started in 1995 under Clinton

fannie and Freddie...and their RULES SET by HUD

Clinton chief(s) of HUD did it henry Cisneros and Andrew Cuomo in 1995-2000 causing the housing bubble/bust

Defending Home Turf From Attack; Fannie Mae Is Facing Assault By House Panel and Business Rivals
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: April 22, 2000
Defending Home Turf From Attack - Fannie Mae Is Facing Assault By House Panel and Business Rivals - NYTimes.com

Shareholder owned but federally chartered, it is an odd hybrid that dominates the business of channeling money between lenders and Wall Street by buying mortgages and packaging them into securities. Its chief executive, Franklin D. Raines, is a former White House budget director whose name has been floated by Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign as a possibility for the No. 2 spot on the Democratic ticket, and its executives have close ties to both parties.

Government-sponsored enterprise debt also is counted as safer than traditional corporate debt by regulators when they assess the financial strength of banks. As a result, many banks have made such debt a big part of their capital base, a situation that has left some regulators and members of Congress speculating about the implications for the financial system if Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac were to get into serious financial trouble.
=========================================

125% Loan: Blessing Or Bane?
By JAY ROMANO
Published: July 13, 1997
RESPONDING to the seemingly insatiable demand by borrowers for ever more exotic forms of credit, some aggressive lenders have brought to market a rather unconventional mortgage product: the 125 percent loan.

With such a loan, homeowners -- even those with less-than-pristine credit -- can borrow up to 125 percent of the market value of their homes by pledging collateral that doesn't exist.

Lenders who make such loans say they are effective credit tools that can be used by homeowners to raise cash for unexpected expenditures, get out from under high-interest credit-card debt or pay for home improvements that will in turn increase the owner's equity.

''The underwriting criteria (from the government) are actually more flexible,'' Mr. Levy said. ''They allow more dinks on your credit and a more narrow spread between what you make and what you pay out.''

And that is just what concerns Mr. Bader of Skyscraper Mortgage.

''The person who couldn't qualify for an ordinary home equity loan at 8 percent is now borrowing even more money at 14 percent,'' Mr. Bader said, adding that anyone thinking about taking out such a loan should contemplate the following:

''What happens if you want to sell your property, and you find that what you owe is more than what your property is worth?''
125% Loan - Blessing Or Bane? - NYTimes.com

=========================

U.S. Proposes Rules to Help House Buyers
Published: March 05, 2000

The federal government has proposed new rules that would make it easier for low-income house buyers to qualify for mortgage loans, a move intended to help blacks and other minorities buy houses.

The proposed rules from the Department of Housing and Urban Development would require two of the largest housing finance companies in the country, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to increase the percentages of overall loans that they offer to lower-income families from the current standard of 42 percent to 48 percent in 2000 and to 50 percent in 2001.

The companies would be required over the next 10 years to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages from banks and other lenders to assist the 28 million American families with low and moderate incomes. Many of those families are minorities, housing officials said.

''This rule will greatly expand the supply of affordable housing across the country,'' said Housing Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo.

The companies(fannie/freddie) buy mortgages for homes and apartment buildings from banks, savings and loans and other mortgage lenders, and package and sell the loans to investors. When Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae buy mortgages from lenders, they provide the lenders with cash to issue new mortgages.

Under the higher goals, the companies would buy an additional $488.3 billion in mortgages over the next 10 years for seven million more low- and moderate-income families. The new mortgages would be added to the $1.9 trillion in mortgages for about 21 million families that would have been helped by the current standards.

Mr. Cuomo said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were cooperating with federal regulators on this issue. The Housing Department said it was reviewing fair-lending practices at Fannie Mae. The two companies can do more, Mr. Cuomo said, and that led to the elevated goals.

The requirements for mortgage purchases were last set in 1995. The goals were up for renewal this year, as required by Congress. The housing administration could have lowered the goals or have left them unchanged.
U.S. Proposes Rules to Help House Buyers - NYTimes.com

===========================

this from 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999


.......... the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.


see the words in bold....very telling

============================

Giving Credit Where Credit Was Denied

Published: June 08, 1997
Giving Credit Where Credit Was Denied - NYTimes.com
Mr. Kent received what his lender, GFI Mortgage Bankers, calls its ''no-doc product'' -- as in no documents needed.

''We've created new products for people who have glitches, hairy credit,'' said Abe Eisner, executive vice president of GFI. ''No-doc means all we need is your name, address and Social Security number, depending on your credit history.''

GFI is a barometer for the industry; its subprime lending currently represents about 25 percent of the company's business. Two years ago, it was 10 percent.

--snip-....

One measure of the expanding subprime market is the number of loans that have been packaged and sold as asset-backed securities -- meaning that investors buy shares in those resold loans and then reap the returns as the mortgages are paid off.

--snip--
According to Jay Siegel, a vice president at Moody's Investor Service: ''Subprime loans have exploded from $7 billion in 1992 to $37 billion in 1996 as a sector of the entire securitized conventional loan market.'' That $37 billion, Mr. Siegel said, represents 11 percent of all the conventional loans that were securitized in 1996, up from 1.4 percent in 1992.
--snip--

--snip--

Even quasi-governmental agencies have primed the subprime pump. The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) have recently developed computerized underwriting systems that allow lenders to speedily and reliably evaluate an applicant's credit-worthiness. The loans rejected by the automated system are, by definition, subprime.

''In the past, if a loan was rejected by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, that was it,'' Mr. Hornblass said. ''They weren't touching that business.

''But now both agencies have set up arrangements with lending companies that buy those subprime loans coming through the automated systems. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae take a fee, the loans get funneled to a lending company that's willing to buy them, package them and then sell the securities to investors.''

The agencies have also, for the first time, become guarantors of subprime loans. In fact, on May 21, Freddie Mac agreed to guarantee the securitization of $227.3 million in subprime loans originated by the First Union Home Equity Bank.

Several industry analysts point out that the trend toward subprime lending has been a boon to the nation's affordable housing movement. ''There are more subprime opportunities that dovetail well with C.R.A.-required lending,'' said Mr. Gumbinger

--snip--

C.R.A. is the Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed by Congress in 1977 to combat red-lining -- the systematic policy of banks to avoid making loans in poor communities. The law requires Federally regulated banks and savings and loans, but not mortgage banks, to ''help meet the credit needs of communities in which they are chartered.'' If one of those lenders applies to Federal regulatory agencies for a merger or a new charter, it must demonstrate that it has originated a sufficient number of loans in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

According to data provided by Douglas Duncan, a senior economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, 19.2 percent of the nation's home loans in 1993 went to minority-group members. By 1995, that share had risen to 22.2 percent.

--snip--

see full article.. Giving Credit Where Credit Was Denied - NYTimes.com

=================
Published: June 25, 2000

Lenders are not required to cancel the insurance for loans approved before July 29, 1999, when the Homeowners Protection Act took effect, but most do, if only to remain in the good graces of Fannie Mae and the similar federal agency, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Freddie Mac. Because these two agencies set the standards for the mortgages they will buy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have enormous influence over the mortgage market.
The Mortgage Market - Up, Down and Sideways - NYTimes.com

=======================

Published: October 3, 1999

But it got greater impetus in 1994 when Fannie Mae, the nation's largest purchaser of mortgages from banks and other home-mortgage originators, introduced pilot programs to stimulate the home sales market in New York and Boston. Fannie Mae packages these loans with other mortgages as securities for sale to investors. Creating a market to which mortgage originators can sell their loans encourages them to lend more

There have been 14,000 Partnership home buyers since 1986, and more and more of the newer houses are three-families. Nowadays the loans are normally sold to Fannie Mae, and the underwriting for them follows Fannie Mae's standards.
1999 new york times
Easing the Rules for Mortgage Approval - NYTimes.com


===============
hmmmmmmmm

Keeping Homeowners in Their Homes - NYTimes.com

...In 1995, the Clinton Administration changed the law governing GSEs' mission -- the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) -- to encourage more lending in poor neighborhoods.

Previously, the CRA directed government to monitor banks' lending practices to make sure they did not violate fair lending rules in poor neighborhoods.
--snip--
....With the 1995 change, the government published each bank's lending activity and started giving bank ratings based primarily upon the amount of lending it performed in poor neighborhoods.
--snip--
These changes empowered community organizations, such as ACORN, to pressure banks to increase lending activities in poorer neighborhoods -- which involved reducing mortgage loan standards -- or face backlash from those organizations' private and political associates.
--snip--
For example, if Chase or BOA made 100 mortgages in a poor Chicago district, and Countrywide 150, the government would likely give Chase a lower CRA rating, and community organizers could pressure politicians to make it more difficult for Chase to get licensed to do full ranges of business in new areas of the country. Low CRA ratings could also disadvantage Chase with regard to government lending programs and make it more difficult for Chase to participate in mergers and acquisitions through Fannie Mae, the government controlled banks' mortgage lending activity rates.

Throughout the Congressional debate on GSE regulations in 2003-2005, senior Congressional Democrats repeatedly inferred -- even directly stated on at least one public occasion -- the US federal government would bail Fannie Mae out if required.

--snip-

In written law, the US government only 100% guarantees Ginnie Mae. The other major two GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, exist in more of a grey area. Nothing explicitly states the federal government is 100% behind them, but it has always been implied. That is why statements of top government officials in the run up to the bubble are so very important, as are actions like the US President personally appointing Fannie's CEO and directors.

From 1993-1999, the Clinton Administration replaced many of Fannie Mae's key executives, including the CEO, the CEO's number two, and nearly half the board of directiors. As a government sponsored enterprise (GSE), the President had the authority to make those appointments. The board, which increasingly consisted of Presidential appointments, incentivize them to reach higher mortgage targets. More specifically, the board promised senior executive millions in bonuses each year as long as Fannie reported certain earnings figures.

Just a quick reminder... Fannie's ability to reach earnings targets is directly related to the number of mortgages it buys, as long as those mortgages do not default or as long as Fannie executives do not recognize negative changes in the payment flow.

In fact, according to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, 14.9 percent -- or 2.1 million -- of all mortgages originated in the United States in 1999 went to subprime borrowers. ''Over 90 percent of subprime loans have been made in the last six years,'' Ms. Bayer said, ''and the subprime market has grown roughly 30 percent each year over the previous year during that time.''

=========================



the CRA/ fannie/ freddie/ HUD/ and the FED(interest rates) had a FULL effect on ALL mortgages

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market(subprime).

directly from the new york times in 1999.




all links directly from liberal new York times...all before GS...all before bush, all show the culpability of fannie/Freddie/hud...and nothing to do with congress(no matter which party controlled it)

reality is harsh

Congress went Republican in 1994 and remained so until 2006.

The harsh reality is they're the ones making most fiscal policy.

They did a heckuva job.

Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 12:22 PM
 
4,231 posts, read 3,532,364 times
Reputation: 2207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Tax cuts and trickle-down were pure GOP baloney. The Great Recession is its crowning glory.

And it's still their "policy."

I love this meme man

Though i couldn't find the source image and these people.

I believe young Larry Summers is back there.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 12:27 PM
 
34,620 posts, read 21,459,003 times
Reputation: 22231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie the heartbreaker View Post
I have never heard of any liberal republicans, so please list some of them that are well-known. This should be good.
According to MotherJones, you could start your list with Romney.

Why Liberals Should Embrace Romney the Progressive Champion | Mother Jones
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,388,329 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Thomas View Post
I love this meme man

Though i couldn't find the source image and these people.

I believe young Larry Summers is back there.
I could name most of them, but I'm not sure about Summers. It's certainly possible he's part of that mob. Must have been around 1982.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,465 posts, read 16,321,715 times
Reputation: 5939
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
This was the biggest reason for the 2008 economic meltdown:

"When America’s housing market turned, a chain reaction exposed fragilities in the financial system. Pooling and other clever financial engineering did not provide investors with the promised protection. Mortgage-backed securities slumped in value, if they could be valued at all. Supposedly safe CDOs turned out to be worthless, despite the ratings agencies’ seal of approval. It became difficult to sell suspect assets at almost any price, or to use them as collateral for the short-term funding that so many banks relied on. Fire-sale prices, in turn, instantly dented banks’ capital thanks to “mark-to-market” accounting rules, which required them to revalue their assets at current prices and thus acknowledge losses on paper that might never actually be incurred. Trust, the ultimate glue of all financial systems, began to dissolve in 2007—a year before Lehman’s bankruptcy—as banks started questioning the viability of their counterparties. They and other sources of wholesale funding began to withhold short-term credit, causing those most reliant on it to founder. Northern Rock, a British mortgage lender, was an early casualty in the autumn of 2007".
Crash course | The Economist

And the CFMA (HR 4541) which got overwhelming support from Congress set the stage for derivative trading.
"Congress" isnt liberal, which is his point, and as I said before.


Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 or as you put it, HR 4541, was overwhelmingly supported by the right wing.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,465 posts, read 16,321,715 times
Reputation: 5939
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
and it is you who is being too dense to understand the LIBERAL doesn't mean democrat or republican

there are just as many liberal (globalist) republicans ,as there are liberal (globalist) democrats

and the rule changes DID take effect
William J. Clinton: Remarks on the National Homeownership Strategy

==================

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people ....


============================

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek
Actually, you are simply trying to redefine liberal as anything you dont like and that is not how definitions work.

That being said, thank you for clarifying that you post was actually about Republicans, since as I said, the majority of what you posted were policies that Republicans supported.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top